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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on January 17/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending, claims 12-13 and 15-20 have been withdrawn based on the election/restriction mailed August 22, 2025. Therefore claims 1-12 and 14 have been examined below. Claims 12-13 and 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected Species and or Sub-Species.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 6, drawn to neck protector (300) as illustrated in Figures 18 and 19A-19B, species (i) with hook and loop connector to chin strap connection material, and species (a) for helmet connection material in the reply filed August 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant argues in the traversal is on the ground(s) that Under MPEP §803, restriction is proper only if (A) the inventions are independent or distinct as claimed, and (B) there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. In establishing such reasons, MPEP §808. 02 requires an explanation showing, for example, "separate classification", "separate status in the art", or "a different field of search". Accordingly, Applicant respectfully traverses the election of species requirement for the following reasons. First, the claims are directed to a device for protecting a neck, which comprises the device's body and a helmet connection configured to removably couple the body to a helmet.
Examiner notes that an election of species has been required and not a Restriction as noted above in the Applicant’s argument regarding MPEP §808. 02.
Examiner notes that there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: 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). While the searches of the identified species may overlap, the overall search would be seriously burdensome because Examiner would need to search for each distinct invention or variation. Furthermore, the search is only part of the examination process, and MPEP § 803 states "[i]f the search and examination of all the claims in an application can be made without serious burden". The examination of the application would also be burdensome because Examiner would be required to apply art and rejections to claims (presently presented or added in future prosecution) directed towards each distinct and different species of invention.
Applicant further argues “The helmet itself is not claimed. Rather, the device is claimed as a neck protector with its structure and its one or more configurations. Nothing in the present claim set requires examination of a separate helmet to determine patentability of this device. Accordingly, species 1, 3, 5, and 7-9 are improperly defined.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument “The helmet itself is not claimed. Rather, the device is claimed as a neck protector with its structure and its one or more configurations. Nothing in the present claim set requires examination of a separate helmet to determine patentability of this device. Accordingly, species 1, 3, 5, and 7-9 are improperly defined.”. The following claims are drawn to a helmet, claims 15-20 (and the claims that depend therefrom).
Claim 15. A system for protecting a neck of a user from laceration, the system comprising: a helmet; and a neck protector configured to couple to the helmet, the neck protector comprising a helmet connection configured to removably couple the neck protector to the helmet, wherein the neck protector is configured to cover a portion of the neck surrounding a carotid artery to protect the carotid artery from injury.
Claim 19. A method for protecting a neck of a user from injury, the method comprising: providing a neck protector having a helmet connection comprising a first side helmet connection, and a second side helmet connection; coupling the first side helmet connection to a first side of a helmet; and coupling the second side helmet connection to a second side of the helmet, wherein, after coupling the first side helmet connection and the second side helmet connection, the neck protector covers the neck of the user to protect the neck from injury.
Applicant further argues “Second, the asserted species share the same core feature, i.e., the neck-protecting body and the claimed helmet connection functionality. As such, those common elements render the asserted Species 2 generic to all species as defined.” Examiner respectfully disagrees that the asserted species share the same core feature, i.e., the neck-protecting body and the claimed helmet connection functionality.
Examiner has shown that 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).
Finally Applicant has argued “Further, the Examiner has not identified any "separate classification", "separate status in the art", or "different field of search" that would necessitate multiple non-overlapping searches. See MPEP § 803 (serious search and/or examination burden required) and § 808.02 (how such burden must be shown; "Where, however, the classification is the same and the field of search is the same and there is no clear indication of separate future classification and field of search, no reasons exist for dividing among independent or related inventions.").
Examiner notes that the arguments are not found to be persuasive as stated above. This is not found persuasive because Applicant has argued a restriction requirement and a species election has been required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-13 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species 1,3,5,7, 8 or 9 all requiring a helmet.
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/25/2025.
Applicant’s claim 12 and 13 are drawn to Figure 14 in Species 5, requiring a/the helmet chin strap (chin strap 16 found in figure 14 of applicants disclosure and paragraph 0059-0062”).
Therefore claims 12-13 and 15-20 are withdrawn at this time.
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 “claim 7 the flap further comprises a first flap on the first side and a second flap on the second side” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim 7. No new matter should be entered.
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1,3-6 and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. US 2018/0110656 A1 Josefin Ambring, (herein after "Ambring").
As to Claim 1, Ambring discloses a device (neck guard 140; Ambring); for protecting a neck of a user from injury (Figures 1 & 4; Ambring), the device (neck guard 140; Ambring) comprising: a body (predetermined contour 150; Ambring) and a helmet connection (180; Ambring) configured to removably couple the body (predetermined contour 150; Ambring) to a helmet (Figure 4; Ambring teaching wherein the helmet connection is configured to removably couple the body to a helmet. Ambring teaching wherein (180) is removably coupled to (185)), wherein the body (predetermined contour 150; Ambring) is configured to cover the neck of the user to protect the neck from injury (Paragraph 0002; Ambring ~ regarding neck protection from injury)(Figures 3 & 4; Ambring).
As to Claim 3, Ambring discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the body (predetermined contour 150; Ambring) comprises a first side and a second side (Annotated Figure 3; Ambring), and wherein the helmet connection (180; Ambring) comprises a first side helmet connection (180; Ambring) on the first side and a second side helmet connection (180; Ambring) on the second side (Annotated Figures 3 & 4; Ambring).
PNG
media_image1.png
802
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
748
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 4, Ambring discloses the device of claim 3, wherein one or both of the first side helmet connection or the second side helmet connection (Annotated Figures 3 & 4; Ambring) comprises: a flap (lip 155; Ambring) extending from the body (predetermined contour 150; Ambring) (Annotated Figures 3 & 4; Ambring).
As to Claim 5, Ambring discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the flap (lip 155; Ambring) is configured to extend over a helmet side strap (Ambring suggest a flap that would be capable of extending over a helmet side strap).
As to Claim 6, Ambring discloses the device of claim 4, wherein one or both of the first side helmet connection or the second side helmet connection further comprises one of: i) a snap connection, the snap connection comprising: a first portion on the flap; and a second portion on the body (predetermined contour 150; Ambring); or ii) a hook and loop connection, the hook and loop connection comprising: one of a hook layer or a loop layer on the flap; and the other of the hook layer or the loop layer on the body (predetermined contour 150; Ambring); or iii) an opening through the flap (lip 155; Ambring), the opening configured to extend over a helmet strap (Figures 3 & 4; Ambring ~ regarding having openings between helmet connections (180; Ambring) and capable of extending over a helmet strap) (Paragraph 0027-0028 with apertures 180 Ambring).
As to Claim 11, Ambring discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the body (predetermined contour 150; Ambring) comprises a first side, a second side, and a middle portion extending between the first side and the second side, (see Annotated Figure 4; Ambring) and wherein the first side and the second side are configured to cover and protect sides of the neck and the middle portion is configured to cover and protect a front of the neck (see Annotated Figure 4 and Figure 3; Ambring).
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0110656 A1 Josefin Ambring, (herein after "Ambring") in view of United States Patent No. US 9,913,501 B1 Brian Charles Flug, (herein after "Flug”).
As to Claim 2, Ambring discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the body (predetermined contour 150; Ambring) extends from a first end to a second end (Annotated Figures 3 & 4; Ambring), the device (neck guard 140; Ambring) but fails to disclose further comprises an end connection configured to removably couple the first end to the second end.
Flug teaches neck and collarbone protector and discloses further comprising an end connection (foam layer 24 with adjustable strap 31 and 32) configured to removably couple the first end (first terminating end 51; Flug) to the second end (second terminating end 52; Flug)(Figure 2; Flug).
Therefore, based on Flug’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ambring’s first end and second end to include an end connection configured to removably couple the first end to the second end, as doing so would provide secure attachment for an adjustable fit to each individual wearer (Col. 5 and Lines 31-41; Flug).
Claims 7-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0110656 A1 Josefin Ambring, (herein after "Ambring"), as to claim 4 above and in view of United States Patent No. US 2018/0058818 A1 Jason Beck, (herein after "Beck”) Jason Beck, and further in view of United States Patent No. US 5,095,550 to Jon A. Perlinger, (herein after "Perlinger”).
As to Claim 7, Ambring discloses the device of claim 4, the flap (lip 155; Ambring) but fails to disclose further comprises a first flap on the first side and a second flap on the second side, and a reinforcing material extending along a top edge of the device between the first flap and the second flap.
Beck teaches ballistic collars and discloses further comprising a first flap (120 strap connector; Beck) on the first side and a second flap (120 strap connector; Beck) on the second side, (Figure 20; Beck).
Therefore, based on Beck’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ambring’s flap to include further comprising a first flap on the first side and a second flap on the second side, as doing so would provide additional coverage and protection for the wearer.
Perlinger teaches helmet closure and discloses a reinforcing material extending (strip reinforcement 26; Perlinger) along a top edge of the device (Figure 1; Perlinger).
Therefore, based on Perlinger’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ambring’s flap to include a reinforcing material extending along a top edge of the device, as doing so would provide additional rigidity to the upper edge of the closure for increased ease of use for the wearer.
Therefore, the modified device of Ambring/Beck/Perlinger would disclose a reinforcing material (strip reinforcement 26; Perlinger) along extending along a top edge of the device (neck guard 140; Ambring) between the first flap (120 strap connector; Beck) and the second flap (120 strap connector; Beck).
As to Claim 8, Ambring/Beck/Perlinger disclose the device of claim 7, wherein, the reinforcing material (strip reinforcement 26; Perlinger) is disposed inside an outer cover of the body (Col. 7 and Lines 40-45; Perlinger teaching that an additional layer being the loop fastener strip can be sewn to the reinforcing material. Thereby teaching wherein, the reinforcing material is disposed inside an outer cover of the body (predetermined contour 150; Ambring ~ regarding the body).
As to Claim 9, Ambring/Beck/Perlinger disclose the device of claim 7, wherein the reinforcing material (strip reinforcement 26; Perlinger) is disposed outside an outer cover of the body (Col. 4 and Lines 1-7; Perlinger ~ regarding the reinforcing material being disposed outside and outer cover of the body “…a strip reinforcement 26, is sewn to the entire outer edges of the side panels…”) (predetermined contour 150; Ambring ~ regarding the body).
As to Claim 10, Ambring/Beck/Perlinger disclose the device of claim 7, wherein the reinforcing material (strip reinforcement 26; Perlinger) is configured to provide a rigid support of a chin area of the user (Figure 4 and Col. 6 and Lines 25-31; Perlinger suggesting that the reinforcing material would be capable of providing a rigid support of a chin area of the user. Col 4 and Lines 1-5; Perlinger teaching that the strip reinforcement is sewn to the entire outer edge of the side panel including the chin area.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0110656 A1 Josefin Ambring, (herein after "Ambring"), as to claim 1 above and in view of United States Patent No. US 2018/0058818 A1 Jason Beck, (herein after "Beck”) Jason Beck.
As to Claim 14, Ambring discloses the device of claim 1, the body (predetermined contour 150; Ambring) but fails to disclose further comprising pockets configured to receive a cooling system or cooling material and/or a communication system coupled thereto or embedded therein.
Beck teaches ballistic collars and discloses further comprising pockets configured to receive a cooling system or cooling material and/or a communication system coupled thereto or embedded therein (paragraph 0038; Beck ~ regarding pockets that would be capable to receive a cooling system or cooling material and/or a communication system coupled thereto or embedded therein.)
Therefore, based on Beck’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ambring’s flap to include further comprising pockets, as doing so would provide additional coverage and protection for the wearer.
Beck discloses the claimed invention except for multiple pockets. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disclose more than one pocket in order to provide additional coverage and protection for the wearer, since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and can be found in PTO-892 for submitted herewith. The cited
prior art reference to Luigi (US 4,697,289) is of particular relevance to the
claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKWOKWO REDHEAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday7:00 AM to 4:00pm EST.
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.
/AKWOKWO OLABISI REDHEAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732