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 .
A power of attorney is of record for this application, filed 4/24/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s response to the requirement of 7/1/2026 indicated Species I, corresponding to FIGS 1-8 and 11, is elected without traverse. However, the response was incomplete as it didn’t indicate which claims are considered to correspond to Species I. In order to advance prosecution of the application, the Examiner contacted Paige Murphy, attorney of record, on 8/28/26, and she indicated claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 27, and 29 read on the elected Species.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, and 27-29 are pending and claim 28 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/1/2026.
This Office Action acknowledges the specification amendment of 4/24/2025 providing Cross Reference to Related Applications.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 24, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preambles of claims 22, 24, and 27 should recite “The protective apparatus” for consistency with claim 21 and the bodies of claims 22, 24, and 27 should recite “protective apparatus”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “6” of Figures 1 and 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 patch of low friction layer substantially surrounds the first part of the connecting means in the lateral direction, optionally wherein the patch of low friction layer comprises an aperture surrounding the first part of the connecting means in the lateral direction (claim 4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference number “3” denotes “energy absorbing layer” and “second part”, reference number “4” denotes “first part” and “interface layer” and “second part” (pg.25), reference number “22” denotes “attachment part” and “connecting means”. Please revise for consistent terminology throughout the specification for each reference number.
Also, page 25 includes “second layer 220” and “second layer 420”. Please correct.
Page 28 of the specification discloses “As shown in Fig.21 the connecting portions 20…”- please revise this paragraph because there is no Figure 21 submitted. The drawings include Figures 1-18.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 27, and 29 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. For claim 1, the limitation to the patch of low friction layer arranged adjacent to the first part of the connecting means in a lateral direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of connection between the first and second part of the apparatus is unclear because the claim doesn’t recite the first part as connected to the second part. The claim recites a first part for attaching to a second part of the apparatus. Therefore, a direction of connection between the first and second parts of the apparatus is unclear and indefinite as there is no direction of connection since the first and second parts of the apparatus are not set forth as positively connected. The scope of “substantially perpendicular” is unclear. To what degree must the patch of friction layer be perpendicular relative to a direction of connection between the first and second parts of the apparatus in order to be considered as “substantially” perpendicular?
For claim 2, the scope of “substantially smaller” is unclear. It’s unclear how much smaller the patch of low friction layer than the first and second parts of the apparatus of the prior art must be in order to be considered as “substantially smaller”?
Claims 4, 13, 19, 22, 24, and 29 recite limitations preceded by “optionally”. It’s unclear whether these limitations following “optionally” are intended to be positively recited. Further to claim 13, it’s unclear whether the limitations following each recitation of “and/or” are intended as part of the claim, as they follow “optionally”.
For claim 21, it’s unclear what “at least one respective second part of the connecting means is referencing, as claim 1 previously functionally recites the connecting means as having a second part. Also, claim 21 should be revised such that “a second part” recites “the second part”, as claim 1 previously recites a second part. A suggested revision for claim 21: A protective apparatus comprising the first part of claim 1 and the second part of the connecting means attached to the second part of the apparatus.
For claim 29, it’s unclear how the claim further limits claim 1 as the patch of low friction layer is previously set forth in claim 1 and the claim recites limitations following “optionally” such that they may or may not be considered within the scope of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 29 depends from claim 1 which previously recites a patch of low friction layer as part of the part of a protective apparatus. The body of the claim recites limitations following “optionally”. Therefore, claim 29 doesn’t further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, fori acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. E.g. connecting means in claim 1, 4, 6, 7, and 21. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-13, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (U.S. 8,615,817) in view of Pomering (WO 2020/058446 A1). Phillips discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Phillips teaches a part of a protective apparatus (headgear/helmet, Figs. 9a-c), said part being a first part 26 for attaching to a second part 28 of the protective apparatus such that the first part and the second part of the apparatus can move relative to each other under an impact, the first part 26 of the protective apparatus comprising: an attachment part 32 configured to be attached to the second part of the apparatus, the attachment part comprising a first part of a connecting means (adhesive bands) configured to be detachably attached to a second part of the connecting means (see other part of 32 as in Figures 9b,c) provided to the second part 28 of the apparatus. Phillips teaches a low friction layer provided between first and second parts 26,28 (col.11, lines 35-37 disclose “..the relative movement may be assisted by the interposition of a low friction surface or other lubricating layer between outer layer 28 and shell 26.”). Phillips further teaches in col.12, lines 44-48 “In all of the above embodiments, the inwardly facing surface of outer layer 28 and the outwardly facing surface of shell 26 may incorporate a lubricant or friction reducing material to dispense with the need for an intermediary layer such as a lubricant gel or friction reducing layer.” Based on the teaching of the friction reducing material on the surfaces of parts 26,28, one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the placement of the friction reducing layer as adjacent to the first part of the connecting means to provide a path of relative movement next to connecting means 32 as surfaces of 26 and 28 engage upon breakage of the connecting means and subsequent lateral sliding of parts 26,28. However, Phillips doesn’t teach the low friction layer is a patch of low friction layer. Pomering teaches a helmet with sliding facilitators provided as patches of low friction material to allow for slidability between respective helmet layers- the energy absorbing layer 3 and the attachment device 13. Phillips’ modified helmet with the low friction layer provided as a patch of low friction material on opposing surfaces of parts 26,28 meets the wherein clause: wherein, when the first part of the connecting means is attached to the second part of the connecting means, the first part of the connecting means is configured to detach from the second part as of the connecting means as in Figures 9b and 9c, as the connector is displaced in a lateral direction relative to the second part of the connecting means such that the patch of low friction layer moves towards the second part of the connecting means, and the patch of low friction layer is configured to slide against the second connecting means as the first part of the connecting means detaches therefrom since the patch of low friction layer is oriented on the surface of the first part and/or second part. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Phillips’ low friction layer to form as a patch of low friction layer as taught by Pomering, to facilitate sliding at the specific locations of placement between the first and second part.
For claim 2, as best understood, Phillips’ modified part includes the patch of low friction layer having a dimension in the lateral direction. However, Phillips doesn’t teach the patch of low friction layer is substantially smaller in the lateral direction than the first and second parts of the apparatus. The dimension of the patch is considered as a results effective variable as the size of the patch determines the sliding path and the relative movement of the first and second parts under impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Phillips’ patch of low friction layer such that it’s substantially smaller in the lateral direction than the first and second parts of the apparatus in order to reduce material costs and provide a targeted interface for relative movement of the first and second parts and impact force distribution.
For claim 3, Phillips’ modified part includes the patch of low friction layer having a dimension in the lateral direction. However, Phillips doesn’t teach the maximum dimension in the lateral direction doesn’t exceed 50 mm. The maximum dimension of the patch of low friction layer in the lateral direction is considered as a results effective variable as the size of the patch determines the sliding path and the relative movement of the first and second parts under impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Phillips’ patch of low friction layer to have a maximum dimension in the lateral direction that doesn’t exceed 50 mm, as the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the sliding path and relative movement of the first and second parts for impact management.
For claim 4, Phillips’ modified part including the patch of low friction layer doesn’t explicitly teach the patch substantially surrounds the first part of the connecting means in the lateral direction. However, the patch of low friction layer is arranged adjacent to the first part of the connecting means in a lateral direction substantially perpendicular to a direction of connection between the first and second parts 26,28 and placement of the patch to substantially surround the first part of the connecting means in the lateral direction is expected to facilitate sliding movement between parts 26,28 when portions of the first part of the connecting means 32 contact the second part subsequent to disengagement of the first and second parts of the connecting means under impact.
For claim 6, Phillips’ modified part including the patch of low friction layer is configured to facilitate detachment of the first part of the connecting means from the second part of the connecting means as the patch is on the same surface as the first or second part of the connecting means and facilitates sliding of the respective first and parts such that the lateral movement of each part is expected to contribute to and facilitate detachment of the first part from the second part of the connecting means.
For claim 11, Phillips’ modified part includes the patch of low friction layer but doesn’t specific the shape of the layer as substantially circular, rectangular, or rounded-rectangular shape. It’s noted that the specification doesn’t provide criticality for employing one shape over another and one of ordinary skill could have arrived at any of the claimed shapes through routine experimentation and based on a desired sliding pattern or path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Phillips’ patch of low friction layer to have a substantially circular, rectangular, or rounded-rectangular shape, as each shape is expected to facilitate sliding and therefore, the shape appears to be an aesthetic feature.
For claims 12 and 13, Phillips doesn’t teach the connecting means is a hook and loop connecting means, wherein one of the first part of the connecting means and the second part of the connecting means is a hook part, and the other of the first part of the connecting means and the second part of the connecting means is a loop part. Pomering teaches a part of a protective apparatus, said part being a first part 3 for attaching to a second part 2 of the protective apparatus such that the first part and the second part of the apparatus can move relative to each other under an impact, the first part 3 of the protective apparatus comprising: an attachment part configured to be attached to the second part of the apparatus, the attachment part comprising a first part of a connecting means 5 configured to be detachably attached to a second part of the connecting means provided to the second part 2 of the apparatus. “The connecting members may be detachably connected to intermediate layer 4 by a hook and loop detachable connecting means (pg.15, lines 14-15).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Phillips’ connecting means such that the first part and second part are hook and loop as taught by Pomering, as a substitution of one releasable connection means for another, with the hook and loop capable of releasing under force to allow the first and second part to move relative to each other under an impact.
For claim 17, Phillips’ modified part comprises a plurality of attachment parts 30,32 and Pomering teaches a plurality of corresponding patches of low friction layer.
For claim 18, Phillips’ modified part includes the patch of low friction layer comprising an adhesive layer configured to attach the patch of low friction layer to the rest of the part of the protective apparatus as Phillips teaches adhesive bands (col.11, lines 14+).
For claim 19, Phillips’ modified part includes the first part 26 of the protective apparatus is an interface layer configured to interface with an object or person to be protected, as the first part 26 includes layer 24 capable of interfacing with an object or person to be protected.
For claim 21, Phillips’ modified part includes a protective apparatus (helmet) comprising a first part 26 according to claim 1, a second part 28 and at least one respective second part of the connecting means attached to the second part 28 of the apparatus as shown in Figures 9a-c.
For claim 22, as best understood, Phillips’ apparatus includes the first and second parts 26,28 configured to move relative to each other in the lateral direction.
For claim 24, as best understood, Phillips’ apparatus includes at least one of the first part 26 and the second part 28 of the apparatus comprises a protective layer 40 configured to protect against impact to the apparatus (intermediary band 40 disclosed as a separate part attachable to the second part/outer layer 28 and undergoes elastic deformation under impact to permit relative movement of outer layer 28 with respect to first part/shell 26).
For claim 27, Phillips’ apparatus is a helmet.
For claim 29, as best understood, Phillips’ part includes the patch of low friction layer for use in the part of the protective apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips ‘817 in view of Pomering ‘446 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lowe (U.S. 10,721,987). Phillips discloses the invention substantially as claimed, with the modified part including the patch of low friction layer inherently having a thickness. However, Phillips doesn’t teach the patch is no more than 1 mm thick. Lowe teaches a helmet with a low friction layer 30 coupled to the inner surface of the protective shell 10 for , the low friction layer having a thickness of 0-3mm, or less than 1 mm. to allow relative movement between inner helmet layers (col.5, lines 17-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Phillips’ patch of low friction layer such that the patch is no more than 1 mm thick, as Lowe teaches the claimed low friction layer thickness is known in the helmet art as suitable for allowing relative movement between layers for rotational energy management upon receipt of an impact to the helmet shell.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips ‘817 in view of Pomering ‘446 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Halldin et al. (Halldin, U.S. 10,271,602). Phillips discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Phillips doesn’t teach the patch of low friction layer is substantially stiff and/or wherein the patch is formed from plastic. Halldin teaches a helmet with a patch of low friction layer disclosed as a sliding facilitator between first and second part 2,3 and the layer is formed from plastic (PVC). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Phillips’ patch of low friction layer such that it’s formed from plastic, as Halldin teaches an analagous helmet with the plastic patch of low friction layer is suitable for functioning in the same manner, as a sliding facilitator. Further, it has been held that when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the provision of a specific material recognized in the art as being suitable for the intended use of the claimed component a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights