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
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 5/20/2026, claims 1, 3-13, 16-21 are amended. Claims 2, 15, 22 are canceled. Claim 23 is new. Claims 6, 8-11, 16-21 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12-13 and 23 are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome some of the previously presented objections to the drawings.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented objections to the abstract.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented objections to the claims.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome some of the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant requests rejoinder of claims 16-21 because they have been amended to be dependent on independent claim 1. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant that rejoinder is only considered when all claims that are drawn to the elected invention are in condition for allowance (MPEP 821.04: “The propriety of a restriction requirement should be reconsidered when all the claims directed to the elected invention are in condition for allowance, and the nonelected invention(s) should be considered for rejoinder. […] In order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim.” Regarding specifically rejoinder in Unity of Invention requirements, MPEP 1893.03(d): “If an examiner (1) determines that the claims do not meet the unity of invention requirement and (2) requires election of a single invention, when all of the claims drawn to the elected invention are allowable (i.e., meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112 ), the nonelected invention(s) should be considered for rejoinder.”). Withdrawn claims may be amended during prosecution, but rejoinder will only be considered when all claims to the elected invention are in condition for allowance. In the instant case, claim 1 (and dependent claims 3-5, 7, 12-13) is not in condition for allowance, as described in the rejections and arguments below. The withdrawn claims 6, 8-11, and 16-21 therefore remain withdrawn from consideration.
Regarding the rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 112(a), Applicant argues that “the specification provides adequate written description support for the claimed sliding interface within a connector” and states simply, “a sliding interface may be incorporated within a connector in various configurations” (Remarks, page 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not cited any particular sections of the specification to support the assertion that there is adequate written description support for the claimed limitation. The rejection clearly laid out why the written description of this claim limitation was lacking, and why one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably conclude that the inventor/joint inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Applicant has not addressed these issues in the response. Examiner therefore maintains that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding the rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant submits that the amendments have overcome the rejections. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that the amendment has also introduced other issues under 35 USC 112(b) as described in the rejections below.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 over Kirshon, Applicant argues that “the ‘first region’ and ‘second region’ of Kirshon as identified on Office Action page 15, are not distinct regions” (Remarks, page 17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant also has not adequately explained why the regions as defined in the rejection are “not distinct”. The term "distinct" is broad and has a definition of "not alike; different" (Defn. No. 1 (adjective) of "Webster's New World College Dictionary, 5th Digital Edition" entry via CollinsDictionary.com). As shown in the annotated figures provided with the rejection, the first region and second region are different, therefore they are considered “distinct” insofar as defined by the claim.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the first and second areas are not “evenly distributed” and do not meet the newly added limitation regarding a “representative sample” (Remarks, pages 17-18). Firstly, Examiner notes that both the “evenly distributed” and “representative sample” limitations are indefinite, as described in the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of this claim below. Applicant has included an annotated figure 2 of Kirshon showing alleged “representative samples” that have “different distribution of the first and second areas” on page 18 of the Remarks. In response, Examiner notes that only a single “sample” is required in the claim, and a sample in which the first and second areas take up “largely consistent” proportions can be drawn, as shown in the annotated figure 2 of Kirshon provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of this claim below. The claim also states that the sample can be “taken anywhere in the first region” so the location of the sample is not limited to the spot(s) that the Applicant pointed to in the Remarks. Examiner maintains that Kirshon reads on the claim as written.
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from claim 1; however, as described in the arguments above and rejections below, claim 1 is not allowable. The dependent claims remain rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first and second components are provided in a connector that connects the first and second shells together, and the connector comprises the sliding interface, such that the connector permits movement of the first shell relative to the second shell by sliding at the sliding interface within the connector” (claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are further objected to for the following informalities:
Figure 11 is simply a series of unconnected lines and it is unclear how these lines are intended to be connected or implemented into a wider structure. How is the “first component” line connected to the “first surface” line? Is the first surface a surface of the first component? Similar questions arise for the “second component” and “second surface”. The amendment to add a number “60” does not resolve the issues described above.
Figure 12 is also a series of unconnected shapes, and it is unclear how these shapes are intended to be connected or implemented into a wider structure. Additionally, the reference numbers “52” appear to be pointing to nothing. Examiner acknowledges that Applicant stated that the arrows for reference number 52 “are pointing to the space between the distinct first areas 51” (Remarks, page 13); however, that does not resolve the issue that the arrows are pointing to nothing. There is no structure or surface depicted in the empty space, so the reference number does not indicate any actual structure in the drawings as currently presented.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8-11, 16-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims have the incorrect status identifier. The claims should have the status identifier: (withdrawn- currently amended). See MPEP 714(II)(C)(A).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “first and second components are provided in a connector that connects the first and second shells together, and the connector comprises the sliding interface, such that the connector permits movement of the first shell relative to the second shell by sliding at the sliding interface within the connector”. This limitation includes subject matter failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Although the specification includes a broad statement that the sliding interfaces “may be applied to sliding interfaces provided within connectors” on page 19, it is not clear how the sliding interface, which is only described in detail in regard to being located between two shells of a helmet, would function if put “within a connector” as claimed. The connectors are described on pages 10-11 as follows: “Typically, a connector 5 comprises first and second attachment parts respectively configured to attach to first and second parts of the helmet and a deformable part between the first and second attachment parts that enables the first and second attachment parts to move relative to each other to enable movement between the first and second parts of the helmet of the helmet. Connectors 5 may absorb some impact energy by deforming.” Thus, it is unclear how the connectors would be able to perform their described function of connecting two layers of the helmet and deforming to enable movement and absorb some impact energy while also having a sliding interface somehow included within them. The specification does not describe how the connectors would function with a sliding interface “within” them (Do the connectors still deform? Do they deform and slide? Do they only slide and no longer deform? Do the connectors need to be split into two parts to have the sliding interface provided somewhere in the middle or would the sliding interface be provided at one of the ends? How do the connectors actually secure two parts of a helmet together if they contain a sliding interface that is supposed to allow sliding movement?) and the drawings also do not provide any insight or clarification because they do not show what the connectors would look like with a sliding interface within them, therefore the written description of this feature is lacking. Due to the lack of clarity in the claim (as described in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim below) and the lack of written description, this claim has not been rejected over prior art.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12-13, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “a sliding interface provided between the first and second components; wherein the sliding interface is provided between first and second surfaces that oppose each other”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what the first and second surfaces are. Are they surfaces on the first and second components? Other surfaces? Are there additional components between the first and second components and the first and second surfaces? This limitation is also unclear because it is unclear what the sliding interface is. It appears based on the disclosure that the sliding interface is referring to a general space between the first and second components, and the first and second surfaces “of the sliding interface” are actually the surfaces of the first and second components that slide against each other; however, the claim as written would appear to require an actual additional structure (i.e., the “sliding interface” is its own layer) to be present between the first and second components that includes first and second surfaces SEPARATELY from the surfaces of the first and second components. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “sliding interface” has been interpreted as referring to the interface between a first surface of the first component and a second surface of the second component.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the first and second areas of the first region are evenly distributed across the first region, such that, in a representative sample of the first surface taken anywhere in the first region, the proportion of the sample that is the first and/or second area is largely consistent”. This limitation is unclear because firstly, it is unclear what it means for the first and second areas to be “evenly distributed”. Evenly distributed in what way? In number? In size? In shape? Any/all of the above? Also, is the “even distribution” intended to be a collective distribution (i.e., the first areas and second areas taken together are collectively and evenly distributed in the first region) or is the distribution of the first areas and the second areas considered separately (i.e., the first areas have one distribution, and the second areas have a different distribution, but both individually are evenly distributed in the first region)? The limitation is further unclear because it is unclear whether multiple first areas and multiple second areas are required. The claim currently only requires “at least first and second areas” which only requires one first area and one second area, so it is unclear whether an “even distribution” can be present if there is only one area and one second area or if multiple first areas and second areas are now required. Moreover, it is unclear what a “representative sample” is. No examples of any such samples are provided in the specification as originally filed. How big is the sample? What shape is the sample? It is also unclear if the disclosure as originally filed supports the statement in the claim “in a representative sample of the first surface taken anywhere in the first region, the proportion of the sample that is the first and/or second area is largely consistent”. For example, even if the first and second areas were distributed in a regular checkerboard pattern, a sample that was taken only on the first area would not have an even proportion/ratio of first area to second area. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “largely consistent”. How close to consistent does it have to be in order to be “largely” consistent? Also, what does “consistent” mean in this context? Consistency requires a comparison of some sort, but only one sample appears to be required. If only one sample is taken, how can it be “consistent”?
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “the first area of the first region comprises a plurality of distinct first areas”. This limitation is unclear because the “first area” as previously introduced was singular, and it is unclear how that singular limitation can now be “a plurality of distinct first areas” as it is unclear whether the “first areas” recited in the “plurality of distinct first areas” is supposed to be referring back to the previously recited singular “first area” (which would not make sense given that the first area as previously defined was a singular area) or if this is defining a new subgroup of “first areas” within the previously defined “first area”. The repetition of terms makes the claim confusing. The “plurality of first areas” is being interpreted as a subgroup of multiple areas within the previously defined first area for the purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “the first and second components are provided in a connector that connects the first and second shells together, and the connector comprises the sliding interface, such that the connector permits movement of the first shell relative to the second shell by sliding at the sliding interface within the connector”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what structure could satisfy the claimed “connector”. The claim as written requires some form of a connector between two shells of a helmet, but the connector itself is supposed to somehow contain the sliding interface from claim 1 which is described as connecting two components that move/slide relative to each other (i.e., are not secured together). It is therefore unclear what structure could simultaneously both maintain a connection between the two shells AND have all the functionality of the claimed sliding interface. As described in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of this claim above, the specification does not describe how the connectors would function with a sliding interface “within” them and the drawings also do not provide any insight or clarification because they do not show what the connectors would look like with a sliding interface within them, so it is unclear what structure could possibly satisfy the claim language, even when reviewing the entire disclosure. Due to the lack of clarity in the claim and the written description (as described in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of this claim above), this claim has not been rejected over prior art.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites the limitation “a sliding interface provided between the first and second components; wherein the sliding interface is provided between first and second surfaces that oppose each other”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what the first and second surfaces are. Are they surfaces on the first and second components? Other surfaces? Are there additional components between the first and second components and the first and second surfaces? This limitation is also unclear because it is unclear what the sliding interface is. It appears based on the disclosure that the sliding interface is referring to a general space between the first and second components, and the first and second surfaces “of the sliding interface” are actually the surfaces of the first and second components that slide against each other; however, the claim as written would appear to require an actual additional structure (i.e., the “sliding interface” is its own layer) to be present between the first and second components that includes first and second surfaces SEPARATELY from the surfaces of the first and second components. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “sliding interface” has been interpreted as referring to the interface between a first surface of the first component and a second surface of the second component.
Further regarding claim 23, the claim recites the limitation “the first area of the first region comprises a plurality of distinct first areas”. This limitation is unclear because the “first area” as previously introduced was singular, and it is unclear how that singular limitation can now be “a plurality of distinct first areas” as it is unclear whether the “first areas” recited in the “plurality of distinct first areas” is supposed to be referring back to the previously recited singular “first area” (which would not make sense given that the first area as previously defined was a singular area) or if this is defining a new subgroup of “first areas” within the previously defined “first area”. The repetition of terms makes the claim confusing. The “plurality of first areas” is being interpreted as a subgroup of multiple areas within the previously defined first area for the purposes of examination.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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) 1, 3-4, 12, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirshon (US 2021/0378342).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood by Examiner, Kirshon discloses: An item of protective apparel comprising: first (headgear liner 14) and second components (helmet shell 12) that are configured to move relative to one another (“upon impact of a load on the helmet shell in the vicinity of the at least one interface element, allowing the helmet shell to move relative to the headgear liner and/or interface element” paragraph 29); and a sliding interface provided between the first and second components (the sliding interface is considered to be the interface between the first and second components, as described in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above); wherein the sliding interface comprises first (20 and 22) and second surfaces (18) that oppose one another and are configured to slide relative to each other (“a plurality of interface elements or “pads” 22 may be provided to surface 20 to provide at least some reduction in friction between internal surface 18 of helmet shell 12 and the external surface of headgear liner 16” paragraph 80); the first surface has at least a first region which is divided into at least first and second areas that are configured such that at least one of the static coefficient of friction and the dynamic coefficient of friction for the first area against the second surface is different from the second area against the second surface (see annotated figure 2 annotated below; the interface element 22 has a reduced friction as described in paragraph 80); the first surface has a second region configured such that the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction of the first surface against the second surface is different in the first region from the second region (see annotated figure 2 annotated below; the interface element 22 has a reduced friction as described in paragraph 80; given that the second region includes a greater surface area of the interface element 22 than the first region, the second region’s overall static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction would be different from the overall static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction of the first region); the second region is divided into at least first and second areas that are configured such that at least one of the static coefficient of friction and the dynamic coefficient of friction for the first area against the second surface is different from the second area against the second surface (see annotated figure 2 annotated below; the interface element 22 has a reduced friction as described in paragraph 80); and the arrangement of the first and second areas in the first region is different from the arrangement of the first and second areas in the second region (see annotated figure 2 annotated below, as shown in the figure, the arrangement of the first and second areas in the first region is clearly different from the arrangement of the first and second areas in the second region), and the first and second areas are evenly distributed across the first region (see annotated figure 2 below showing the first region; the first and second areas are evenly distributed insofar as can be understood because they exhibit mirror symmetry about the dashed line in the annotated figure), such that, in a representative sample of the first surface taken anywhere in the first region, the proportion of the sample that is in the first and/or second area is largely consistent (a representative sample can be taken on the first surface in the first region where the proportion of the first area/second area is largely consistent, as shown in annotated figure 2 below; Examiner notes that this limitation is indefinite, as described in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above, and “largely consistent” is broad and includes some degree of variation between the proportion of the first area and second area).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2 of Kirshon showing the first region and its first and second areas; since the first area is on the interface element, while the second area is not on the interface element, their coefficient of frictions are different; the representative sample shows has a proportion of the first area/second area that is “largely consistent” insofar as claimed or described because about half of it is in the second area and about half of it is in the first area
PNG
media_image2.png
339
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2 of Kirshon showing the second region and its first and second areas; since the first area is on the interface element, while the second area is not on the interface element, their coefficient of frictions are different
ALTERNATIVELY, should Applicant disagree that the first region and second region as defined in the annotated figures above are “distinct”, Examiner notes that the second region could alternatively be defined on a different one of the interface elements than the first region, as shown in the annotated figure 2 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
461
661
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3 as best understood by Examiner, Kirshon discloses: An item of protective apparel according to claim 1, wherein the first area of the first region comprises a plurality of distinct first areas, with the second area of the first region comprising a space between the distinct first areas, and the first and second areas are provided in a repeating pattern across the first region (see annotated figure 2 of Kirshon provided below showing the plurality of distinct first areas and the space as claimed, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above describing how the plurality of distinct first areas are interpreted as distinct areas within the first area; Examiner also notes that the term "between" is very broad and has a definition of "among" (Defn. No. 5 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd." entry via TheFreeDictionary.com) and the space as shown below can be considered “between” the distinct first areas at least in the vertical direction; see annotated figure 2 of Kirshon provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing the first and second areas as previously defined in claim 1 are provided in a repeating pattern as can be understood because they exhibit mirror symmetry about the dashed line in the annotated figure).
PNG
media_image4.png
235
623
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kirshon discloses: The item of protective apparel according to claim 1, wherein the area-weighted average of the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction of the first surface against the second surface in the first region is dependent on the ratio of a size of the first area to a size of the second area (Examiner notes that this claim appears to be merely reciting a factual statement regarding how to obtain an area-weighted average and has not added any further structural limitations; the area-weighted average of the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction of the first surface against the second surface in the first region is dependent on the ratio of a size of the first area to a size of the second area in Kirshon).
Regarding claim 12, Kirshon discloses: The item of protective apparel according to claim 1, wherein the item is a helmet (10); and the first and second components are first (12) and second shells (14), respectively, configured such that in response to an oblique impact on the helmet the first shell can move relative to the second shell by sliding at the sliding interface (“a plurality of interface elements or “pads” 22 may be provided to surface 20 to provide at least some reduction in friction between internal surface 18 of helmet shell 12 and the external surface of headgear liner 16” paragraph 80; “upon impact of a load on the helmet shell in the vicinity of the at least one interface element, allowing the helmet shell to move relative to the headgear liner and/or interface element” paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood by Examiner, Kirshon discloses: An item of protective apparel comprising: first (headgear liner 14) and second components (helmet shell 12) that are configured to move relative to one another (“upon impact of a load on the helmet shell in the vicinity of the at least one interface element, allowing the helmet shell to move relative to the headgear liner and/or interface element” paragraph 29); and a sliding interface provided between the first and second components (the sliding interface is considered to be the interface between the first and second components, as described in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above); wherein the sliding interface comprises first (20 and 22) and second surfaces (18) that oppose one another and are configured to slide relative to each other (“a plurality of interface elements or “pads” 22 may be provided to surface 20 to provide at least some reduction in friction between internal surface 18 of helmet shell 12 and the external surface of headgear liner 16” paragraph 80); the first surface has at least a first region which is divided into at least first and second areas that are configured such that at least one of the static coefficient of friction and the dynamic coefficient of friction for the first area against the second surface is different from the second area against the second surface (see annotated figure 2 annotated below; the interface element 22 has a reduced friction as described in paragraph 80); the first surface has a second region configured such that the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction of the first surface against the second surface is different in the first region from the second region (see annotated figure 2 annotated below; the interface element 22 has a reduced friction as described in paragraph 80; given that the second region includes a greater surface area of the interface element 22 than the first region, the second region’s overall static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction would be different from the overall static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction of the first region); the second region is divided into at least first and second areas that are configured such that at least one of the static coefficient of friction and the dynamic coefficient of friction for the first area against the second surface is different from the second area against the second surface (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above; the interface element 22 has a reduced friction as described in paragraph 80); and the arrangement of the first and second areas in the first region is different from the arrangement of the first and second areas in the second region (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above, as shown in the figure, the arrangement of the first and second areas in the first region is clearly different from the arrangement of the first and second areas in the second region), and the first area of the first region comprises a plurality of distinct first areas, with the second area of the first region comprising a space between the distinct first areas, and the first and second areas are provided in a repeating pattern across the first region (see annotated figure 2 of Kirshon provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 3 above showing the plurality of distinct first areas and the space as claimed, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above describing how the plurality of distinct first areas are interpreted as distinct areas within the first area; Examiner also notes that the term "between" is very broad and has a definition of "among" (Defn. No. 5 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd." entry via TheFreeDictionary.com) and the space as shown below can be considered “between” the distinct first areas at least in the vertical direction; see annotated figure 2 of Kirshon provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing the first and second areas as previously defined in claim 1 are provided in a repeating pattern as can be understood because they exhibit mirror symmetry about the dashed line in the annotated figure).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirshon as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Pradeep (US 2019/0159540).
Regarding claim 5, Kirshon does not explicitly disclose: The item of protective apparel according to claim 1, wherein, in one of the first and second areas of a region of the first surface, a coating is provided that provides a different the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction against the second surface in comparison to the first surface without a coating.
However, Pradeep teaches a helmet with a sliding interface provided by either a piece of material or a low friction coating (“the padding layer 702 can be coated, impregnated with a substance or treated in some manner to form the interface layer 704 and change the properties of the padding layer 702 at the outer shell layer interface, such as to reduce friction. In yet another embodiment, the interface layer 704 can be formed from a separate material, which is coupled to the padding layer in some manner, such as adhesively bonded or mechanically attached” paragraph 80).
Pradeep teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of helmets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the interface elements of Kirshon a coating of low friction material on the liner because, as taught by Pradeep, it would be the simple substitution of known equivalent structures for reducing friction that would yield only the predictable result of reducing friction between the helmet shell and the liner.
Regarding claim 7, Kirshon as modified discloses: The item of protective apparel according to claim 5, wherein the coating is configured to provide a smaller static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction against the second surface in comparison to the first surface without a coating (as modified, the coating is a low-friction coating and therefore provides a smaller coefficient of friction compared to the first surface without a coating).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights