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
As directed by the preliminary amendment received on August 15, 2025, claims 1-13 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-13 are currently pending in this application. An action on the merits follows.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the United Kingdom on April 4, 2023. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB202304974 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because each of Figs. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 17, and 18 appears to either improperly show multiple views within a single view and/or show an improper exploded view. The exploded views should include lead lines or a bracket or line to show the relationship or order of assembly of various parts. Multiple views should be separated into individual figures as required (i.e., Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, Fig. 2C). The specification including the brief description of the drawings should similarly be amended to reflect any changes to the drawings.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
“an interior honeycomb structure” as recited in claim 4
“flaps” of the second part as recited in claim 5
“An item of footwear” as recited in claim 11
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “46” at [076].
The drawings are further objected to because of the following informalities:
In Fig. 1A, reference character “16” does not have an associated lead line
Multiple figures are labeled “Figure 19b” on sheet number 19/22 of the drawings. It is suggested that the first figure on the sheet instead be labeled “Figure 19a” to agree with the written description of the specification at [103] and the brief description of the drawings.
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 – Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 1, “The present invention relates to” is implied phraseology and should be removed from the abstract
At each of lines 2 and 3, the word “comprising” is legal phraseology and should instead read “including”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification – Disclosure
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [076], it appears that “(2, 46)” should instead read “(2, 4, 6)”
At [100], “Figures 14 – 22” should instead read “Figures 14a – 22b”
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Velcro”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application at least at [088]. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. For example, the term should instead read “VELCRO®”.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 1, “A device for impact protection in sport activities comprising;” should read “A device for impact protection in sport activities, the device comprising:”
At line 3, “an second part” should read “a second part”
At line 6, “second part” should read “the second part”
Claim 6 is objected to because at line 2, “the respective first part or intermediate part” should read “the first part and the intermediate part, respectively”.
Claim 7 is objected to because at line 1, “where” should read “wherein”.
Claim 8 is objected to because at line 1, “where” should read “wherein”.
Claim 9 is objected to because at lines 1-2, “means of attaching” should read “means for attaching”.
Claims 10-13 are each objected to because at line 1 of each claim “at least one device” should instead read “the device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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, or 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. 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (i.e., “means”) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a fixing means” as recited at lines 6-7 of claim 1
“means of attaching” as recited at lines 1-2 of claim 9
“the fixing means” as recited at line 2 of claim 13
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a magnet” at line 5. As Applicant already introduced “a magnet” at line 2, it is unclear if the limitation is attempting to refer back to the same magnet or attempting to vaguely introduce a second magnet. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a first magnet” and “a second magnet” at lines 2 and 5, respectively. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the position” at line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a position”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the two magnets” at lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the first magnet and the second magnet” in line with Examiner’s previous suggested language. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the exterior” at line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “an exterior”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the magnets” at line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the first magnet and the second magnet” in line with Examiner’s previous suggested language. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a major surface of said part” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “said part” in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a major surface of the at least one of the first part, the intermediate part, or the second part”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the magnets” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the first magnet and the second magnet” in line with Examiner’s previous suggested language. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the magnets” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the first magnet and the second magnet” in line with Examiner’s previous suggested language. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “arranged in a specific pattern” at line 2. It is unclear what type of pattern would be considered “specific” as opposed to not specific. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “arranged in a pattern”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 10-13 recite the limitations “An item of clothing comprising […]”, “An item of footwear comprising […]”, “A helmet comprising […]”, and “A neck brace comprising […]”, respectively. It is unclear if Applicant intends for each of these claims to be independent claims, as each claim is directed to a different invention (i.e., clothing, footwear, helmet, neck brace), while using the phrase “according to claim 1” as shorthand for those limitations, or if Applicant is instead attempting to recite dependent claims depending from claim 1. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Applicant should clearly state whether these claims are meant to be independent or dependent claims for fee purposes. For the purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as best can be understood wherein the claims are dependent claims wherein the device of the independent claim 1 is capable of being present or applied therein when applying prior art.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the fixing means is an additional part” at line 2. It is unclear what is meant by an “additional” part, as the fixing means were already introduced in claim 1. It is unclear if the additional part is meant to refer to some previously unrecited part. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. As best can be understood, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “wherein the fixing means is a part”. In order to overcome this rejection, Applicant should clearly recite and explain the claim limitation meaning intended by Applicant or remove the claim limitation in response to this rejection. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 12-13, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0143054 to Yoon et al. (hereinafter, “Yoon”).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon teaches a device for impact protection in sports activities (See Yoon, Figs. 16-18B; segmented sport equipment (100) capable of impact protection; [0146]) comprising; a first part having a cavity housing a magnet (See annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon below; lower part of shell (104) having cavity housing magnet (120); Examiner notes that the term "part" is very broad and merely means "a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); an second part comprising a through hole (See annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon below; upper part of shell (104) having opening (116) into recess (112)); an intermediate part comprising an elongate section on one end and a cavity housing a magnet on an obverse end (See annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon below; panel (106) having and elongate section extending up from flange (108) at one end, and magnet (110) on the opposite end; Examiner notes that the term "section" is very broad and merely means "one of several components; a piece" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein, in use, the position of the first part in relation to second part is fixed by a fixing means (See Yoon Figs. 18A-18B and annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon below; when in a deployed position, a position of first and second parts is fixed by flange (108) engaging lip (114) of opening (116)) and the intermediate part is slideably positioned between the first part and the second part due to the position of the elongate section in the through hole (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B and annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon below; panel (106) is slideably positioned between first and second parts due to elongate section positioned in opening (116)), and the two magnets face each other and are of a same polarity, such that application of an impact force to the exterior of the device causes the intermediate part to slide towards the first part until a repellent magnetic force of the magnets overcomes the impact force exerted on the intermediate part (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B and annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon below; magnets (110, 120) face one another and are capable of having a repelling force therebetween such that application of a hypothetical impact force to an exterior causes panel (106) to slide towards first part of shell (104) until the hypothetical impact force is overcome by the repelling force of the magnets; abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
333
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon
Regarding claim 2, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches a padding layer which is attached to the first part (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B and annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon above; padding (134) attached to first part of shell (104)).
Regarding claim 3, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein sidewalls of at least one of the first part, the intermediate part or the second part are inclined at an angle to a major surface of said part (See annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon above; at least internal sidewalls of first part of shell (104) defining cavity for magnet (120) are inclined at an angle to an upper surface of the first part defining the bottom of cavity (112)).
Regarding claim 5, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the second part comprises flaps (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B and annotated portion of Fig. 18B of Yoon above; lips (114) formed on second part of shell (104) around opening (116); [0151]).
Regarding claim 6, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the magnets are attached to the respective first part or intermediate part through means of an adhesive, a screw, an interference fit or a brace (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B; magnets (110, 120) attached at least via adhesive; [0097], [0156]).
Regarding claim 7, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches where the magnets comprise a plurality of magnets which are arranged in a specific pattern (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B; magnets (110, 120) arranged in stacked pattern aligned with one another).
Regarding claim 8, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches where the device is curved in order to conform to contours of a body part (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B; device is curved and capable of conforming to the hypothetical contours of a hypothetical body part of a hypothetical user).
Regarding claim 10, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches an item of clothing comprising at least one device according to claim 1 (See Yoon, Figs. 16-17; segmented sport equipment (100) incorporated the device of Yoon may be an item of clothing; [0146]).
Regarding claim 12, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches a helmet comprising at least one device according to claim 1 (See Yoon, Figs. 16-17; segmented sport equipment (100) incorporated the device of Yoon may be a helmet; [0146]).
Regarding claim 13, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches a neck brace comprising at least one device according to claim 1 (See Yoon, Figs. 16-17; segmented sport equipment (100) incorporated the device of Yoon may be neck protector; [0146]) and wherein the fixing means is an additional part (See Yoon, Figs. 18A-18B; fixing means flange (108) is a part as best can be understood; Examiner again notes that the term "part" is very broad and merely means "a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); See rejection under 112(b) above for additional discussion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPN 6,247,186 to Huang (hereinafter, “Huang”).
Regarding claim 4, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein at least one of the first part, the intermediate part or the second part comprise an interior honeycomb structure.
However, Huang, in a related impact protective device art, is directed to a helmet having a ventilation arrangement in an impact resistant layer (See Huang, Figs. 1-4; abstract). More specifically, Huang teaches wherein at least one of the first part, the intermediate part or the second part comprise an interior honeycomb structure (See Huang, Figs. 1-4; interior paths (24) on form a honeycomb shape on inner surface; Col. 2, lines 24-28).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the honeycomb shaped, mesh-like paths on the interior surface of the first part of the protective device of Yoon in order to promote ventilation on an interior of the protective device (See Huang, Col. 2, lines 18-35; abstract).
Claim 9, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to a means of attaching the device to a body part.
However, Yoon, in other embodiments, discusses the use of straps in the segmented sport equipment. More specifically, Yoon also teaches a means of attaching the device to a body part (See Yoon, Figs. 6-7; inner strap system capable of attaching a device to a hypothetical body part of a hypothetical user; [0099]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the inner strap system disclosed by the other embodiments of Yoon in the segmented sport equipment of Yoon as discussed above for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, adjustably attaching or securing the segmented sport equipment to another surface such as a user either directly or indirectly via an intervening protective structure.
Claim 11, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0277158 to Hyde et al. (hereinafter, “Hyde”).
Regarding claim 11, although Yoon discusses the device generally as well as a plurality of varying articles into which the device can be incorporated (See Yoon, [0146]), Yoon (as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to an item of footwear comprising at least one device according to claim 1.
However, Hyde, in a related impact protective device art, is directed to a system for protecting the body that can be incorporated into various wearable articles (See Hyde, Figs. 13A-23; abstract). More specifically, Hyde teaches an item of footwear comprising at least one device according to claim 1 (See Hyde, Fig. 22; protective modules (2204, 2206) are incorporated into footgear (2202); [0299]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the impact protective device of Yoon into an item of footwear as disclosed by Hyde for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, protecting the toes of a user from impacting object (See Hyde, [0299]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. US 2015/02838124 to Buckman; US 2016/0040743 to Staton; US 2015/0052669 to Yoon et al.; US 2020/0085128 to Coyle et al.; US 2019/0366961 to Chan et al.; and US 2010/0275347 to Baldackin et al. are each directed to impact protection devices and/or impact protection devices having magnetic elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM 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 T 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732