DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II, the structure of claims 2-17 in the reply filed on 26 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 26 May 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species F shown in FIGS 20-21 in the reply filed on 26 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 2 is generic to a number of different embodiments and the Examiner has not established there is a serious search and/ or examination burden to examine all the embodiments. This is not found persuasive because the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries) on the basis of their divergent structures and/ or functions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant indicates claims 2, 3, and 14-17 are drawn to Species F.
However, upon a review of the disclosure, Examiner finds that claims 3 and 17 do not correspond to Species F.
Claim 3 recites a compressed configuration where a leaf spring in a first orientation interlaces with a leaf spring in a second orientation. Although FIGS 20-21 are drawn to leaf spring sets in alternating orientation (para. 0134), the compressed configuration with interlacing leaf springs is a feature of the Species K FIGS 35-50 embodiment (see paras. 0081-0090 and 0135-0137). There is no disclosure of the FIGS 20-21 embodiment having a compressed state where the leaf springs interlace. Therefore, claim 3 is withdrawn for being drawn to a nonelected embodiment.
Claim 17 recites the shock absorbing structure has a stiffness differential between a first and second end. According to paras. 0125 and 0160, this is a feature of the polygonal ribbons 120 that may be hexagonal ribbons that are shown in FIGS 14-19 and is not a disclosed feature of the FIG 20-21 embodiment. Therefore, claim 17 is withdrawn for being drawn to a nonelected embodiment.
Claims 3-13 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 26 May 2026.
Status of Claims
Withdrawn
1, 3-13 and 17-20
Pending
1-20
Presented for Examination
2 and 14-16
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suddaby (US 20150143617 A1).
As to claim 2, Suddaby discloses an energy absorbing, dissipating, and/or deflecting structure (helmet, title, and particularly the embodiment shown in FIGS 10A-10B) comprising:
a first wall (24), a second wall (12), and at least one shock absorbing element in between the first wall and the second wall (41).
As to claim 14, Suddaby discloses the energy absorbing, dissipating, and deflecting structure of claim 2 wherein:
said at least one shock absorbing structure is in an original position prior to impact to the structure (FIG 10A, para. 0094 discloses a neutral state), then compressed into a compressed position upon impact to the structure (FIG 10B, para. 0094 discloses the arms of the leaf spring spreading under force), then returns to the original position after impact to the structure (FIG 10A, para. 0094 discloses after force is exhausted, the helmet returns to the neutral state).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suddaby (US 20150143617 A1).
As to claim 15, Suddaby does not disclose the energy absorbing, dissipating, and deflecting structure of claim 14 wherein the rate the shock absorbing structure compresses from the original position to the compressed position is greater than the rate the shock absorbing structure decompresses from the compressed position back to the original position.
Regarding claims 15-16, Suddaby is silent as to the rate of compressing relative to the rate of decompressing. One of ordinary skill would recognize that there are only three options – the compressing rate is greater than, less than, or equal to the decompressing rate. With there being only three options, one of ordinary skill would recognize any of these as being within the scope of the invention, and would choose the relative rate depending on the intended end helmet and whether for the intended end use it is more desirable for the helmet to absorb force faster or recover faster. Furthermore, claims 15-16 give two of the options as equal alternatives, so Applicant’s disclosure lacks criticality for one rate over another rate.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the rate the shock absorbing structure compresses from the original position to the compressed position is greater than the rate the shock absorbing structure decompresses from the compressed position back to the original position, in order to provide a helmet that absorbs force faster than it recovers to the original configuration.
As to claim 16, Suddaby does not disclose the energy absorbing, dissipating, and deflecting structure of claim 14 wherein the rate the shock absorbing structure compresses from the original position to the compressed position is less than the rate the shock absorbing structure decompresses from the compressed position back to the original position.
Regarding claims 15-16, Suddaby is silent as to the rate of compressing relative to the rate of decompressing. One of ordinary skill would recognize that there are only three options – the compressing rate is greater than, less than, or equal to the decompressing rate. With there being only three options, one of ordinary skill would recognize any of these as being within the scope of the invention, and would choose the relative rate depending on the intended end helmet and whether for the intended end use it is more desirable for the helmet to absorb force faster or recover faster. Furthermore, claims 15-16 give two of the options as equal alternatives, so Applicant’s disclosure lacks criticality for one rate over another rate.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the rate the shock absorbing structure compresses from the original position to the compressed position is less than the rate the shock absorbing structure decompresses from the compressed position back to the original position, in order to provide a helmet that recovers to the original configuration faster than it absorbs force.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights