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 .
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) 1-9, 11-12, 21. and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jurga et al. (5,953,761).
Regarding claim 1, Jurga discloses a protective headgear (figs 1-6) comprising: an external head-protecting shell (member 11) having a first end portion and a second end portion, each of the first and second end portions located on a rear side of the shell, and the second end portion being moveable relative to the first end portion (members 16-17, col 2, lines 58-61 and col 3, lines 40-47);
a tightener (members 100) attached to the shell, the tightener being constructed and arranged to move the second end portion toward the first end portion to tighten the shell (col 4, lines 10-35); and
a bridge component (member 83) attached at a rear of the shell to at least partially stabilize the headgear on a wearer's head prior to tightening of the shell; wherein, when the tightener tightens the shell, the tightener tightens the shell around the wearer's head and at least a portion of the bridge component overlaps with at least a portion of the first end portion and/or the second end portion (fig 2).
Regarding claim 2, Jurga discloses the tightener comprises a connector attached to the second end portion, the connector being constructed and arranged to removably attach to the first end portion,
wherein when the connector is attached to the first end portion, attachment of the connector to the first end portion tightens the shell around the wearer's head and at least the portion of the bridge component overlaps with at least the portion of the first end portion and/or the second end portion, and wherein when the connector is detached from the first end portion, the second end portion can be moved away from the first end portion to form a separation distance between the first and second end portions (fig 2, members 104-105).
Regarding claim 3, Jurga discloses the connector comprises a first strap (fig 2, member 91).
Regarding claim 4, Jurga discloses when the tightener is loosened, the second end portion can be moved away from the first end portion to form a separation distance between the first and second end portions (fig 5).
Regarding claim 5, Jurga discloses the first end portion comprises a first rear flap and the second end portion comprises a second rear flap (fig 3).
Regarding claim 6, Jurga discloses the bridge component is attached to the first end portion via a second strap (member 100 in the left), the second strap comprising a resilient material (i.e. elastic, col 4, lines 10-30).
Regarding claim 7, Jurga discloses the bridge component is attached to the second end portion via a third strap (member 100 n the right), the third strap comprising a resilient material (i.e. elastic, col 4, lines 10-30).
Regarding claim 8, Jurga discloses the connector comprises a resilient material that returns to a set length after being stretched (col 4, lines 10-30).
Regarding claim 9, Jurga discloses the bridge component is attached to inwardly-facing surfaces of the first and second end portions (fig 2).
Regarding claim 11, Jurga discloses the protective headgear is for a women's lacrosse player.
It is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this instant case, Jurga teaches an apparatus, as presently claimed, that would be capable of reducing the density of the resin fiber. Also, Jurga has the same apparatus structure with comprising all of the units as claimed, therefore it would come up with the same produce as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Jurga discloses a face mask (member 61) attached to the headgear without a strap.
Regarding claim 21, Jurga discloses the first and second end portions comprise a flexible material (i.e. soft absorbent cushioning material or foam, col 4, lines 39-47).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Jurga discloses the first end portion comprises a first rear flap and the second end portion comprises a second rear flap, and wherein the first and second rear flaps define a rearmost portion of the shell (fig 3 annotated above).
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurga et al. (5,953,761) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phillips (2004/0168246).
Regarding claim 22, Jurga teaches all limitations except the first and second end portions of the shell have a hardness of between or equal to 25 Shore D and 70 Shore D.
Phillips teaches a headgear having an outer shell comprising first and second portions have a hardness of between or equal to 25 Shore D and 70 Shore D (para 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the outer shell of Jurga by using the shore hardiness of Phillips in order to provide protection against injury.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 07-21-2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C §112(b) have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments, date 07-21-2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C §102 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive because applicant argues that the prior art does not teach “the side portions 16, 17 are not movable relative to one another. Instead, in Jurga, the front shell 11 and rear shell 12 move relative to one another to adjust the sizing for a wearer's head”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees because since the side portion is made of a thin layer of material (col 2, lines 55-61); therefore, it is capable of bending (i.e. moving relative to each other). In addition, the side portions also make of soft absorbent cushioning material or foam (col 3, lines 39-47), it is also capable of moving relative to each other.
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 BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm.
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, KHOA D. HUYNH can be reached at (571)272-4888. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights