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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response of 2/25/2026 is received and reviewed. Claims 1-3 and 5 are amended and claims 6-9 are new. Claims 1-9 are pending. A specification amendment was also submitted as well as replacement drawing sheet (Fig.3).
Claim Objections
Claims 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preambles of claims 7-9 are incorrect and should be revised so that the preambles are the same as in claims 1-6, e.g. Claim 7 should recite “Protective equipment according to claim 5, said helmet comprising polyurethane.” Note that claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 112b and the revisions of claims 7-9 (all depend from claim 5) should include proper terminology of headgear or helmet based upon any future amendments to claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/25/2026 These drawings are not accepted as they illustrate equipment having the form of shoulder pads, gloves, and shin pads(?) as well as an additional pad next to the shoulder pads. The originally filed specification broadly discloses protective equipment including “protection for the body, arms, legs, back and torso”.
Specification
The amendment filed 2/25/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Figure 3 is a drawing of headgear (a helmet and face mask) and protective equipment for the body, arms, legs, back and torso with the structures of the equipment considered as new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 lacks antecedent basis for “said helmet”. It appears this limitation should be “said headgear”. Claims 6-9 depend from claim 5 and are therefore also rejected.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-5, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Morgan (U.S. 2011/0004968). Morgan discloses the invention as claimed. Morgan teaches protective equipment comprising headgear (par.69) and equipment protecting arms, legs, back, torso and other parts of the body (equipment includes a vest, shoulder protectors, neck collar, etc. and disclosed as a body armor system) said protective equipment comprising a polyurethane foam comprising at least one of aramid fiber and aramid pulp (disclosed as UHMWPE fibers).
For claim 3, Morgan teaches the protective equipment according to claim 1 wherein the foam comprises polyurethane (par.21).
For claim 4, Morgan teaches the protective equipment according to claim 1 comprising a pad (disclosed as soft armor panels) consisting of foam and aramid fiber (pars.20 and 45).
For claim 5, Morgan teaches the protective equipment according to claim 4 with said helmet selected from helmets and face masks (Morgan teaches a helmet as in par.69).
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Vito (U.S. 2003/0228819). Vito discloses the invention as claimed. Vito teaches protective equipment comprising headgear (helmets as in par.25) and equipment for protecting arms, legs, back, and torso (par.25 discloses protective athletic gear for mitt, face protection devices, helmets, gloves, pads, hip pads, shoulder pads, chest protectors or the like). The protective equipment comprising a foam comprising at least one of aramid fiber and aramid pulp as in paragraph 26 “The elastomer layer 12,12A,12B may include…a plurality of particles 15 (further described below)..” and paragraph 39 teaches “Particles 15 can be located in either an elastomer layer 12, 12A,12B…The particles 15 can be formed of …chopped aramid..”.
For claim 4, Vito teaches the protective equipment of claim 1 comprising a pad consisting of foam and aramid fiber.
For claim 5, Vito teaches the protective equipment of claim 4 with said helmet selected from helmets and face masks (par.25 discloses helmets).
For claim 9, Vito teaches the helmet according to claim 5 wherein the helmet comprises a mixture including aramid fiber as the chopped aramid is located in the elastomer/foam layer.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vito ‘819. Vito discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn't teach the foam contains between about 0.1 to 10.0 parts of at least one aramid selected from aramid fiber and aramid pulp. Vito teaches foam including aramid fiber particles to form a material adapted to regulate vibration by distributing and partially dissipating vibration exerted thereon as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Applicant's specification doesn't provide disclosure of specific or unexpected results of the protective equipment with the foam containing between about .1 to 10.0 parts of the aramid fiber or aramid pulp as the table of drop test results doesn’t indicate the ratio of foam to aramid in the composition of the “Hero Foam”. The proportion of aramid to foam is considered as a results effective variable as a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to optimize the aramid fiber to foam ratio to provide a desired degree of rigidity in order to regulate vibration forces received by the protective equipment and reduce potential injuries to the wearer’s body, as well as reduce potentially distracting vibrations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Vito’s foam to contain between 0.1 to 10.0 parts of at least one aramid selected from aramid fiber and aramid pulp, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a results effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed ratio is critical and provides unexpected results.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vito ‘819 in view of Culley et al. (Culley, U.S. 8,001,622). Vito discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Vito doesn’t teach protective equipment according to claim 1 wherein the foam comprises polyurethane as in claim 3, the helmet according to claim 5 comprising polyurethane as in claim 7 and the helmet according to claim 5 comprising a urethane based foam. Culley teaches that it’s known in the art to provide an analagous sports helmet with commercially available polyurethane and urethane based foam as part of a pad layer that is shock absorbing and moisture-resistant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Vito’s protective equipment and helmet to comprise polyurethane and urethane based foam as taught by Culley, as Culley teaches that polyurethane and urethane based foam are known to provide adequate shock absorbing head protection when employed in helmets/protective equipment.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vito ‘819 in view of Horstemeyer (U.S. 2018/0077991). Vito discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including an athletic helmet. However, Vito doesn’t teach protective equipment according to claim 5 wherein the protective equipment comprises face masks. Horstemeyer teaches a helmet that may take the form of lacrosse helmet, racing helmet, military helmet and in the form of the football helmet 100 includes a facemask 106 for protecting the wearer’s face. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Vito’s athletic helmet to comprise face masks as taught by Horstemeyer, as a known helmet structure for protecting the wearer’s face.
Response to Arguments
For claim 1, Applicant submits Morgan doesn’t teach the protective equipment formed from modified foams/the claimed mixture of foam and aramid fiber and/or pulp. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s remarks as far as the scope of claim 1 and submits that Morgan’s claim 1 doesn’t recite a mixture of foam and at least one of aramid fiber and/or pulp. The claim more broadly recites protective equipment comprising headgear and equipment for protecting arms, legs, back and torso, “comprising a foam comprising at least one of aramid fiber and aramid pulp.”
For claim 2, Applicant relies on supposed deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights