DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed March 16, 2026 in which claims 1-3, 5-7, and 14-16 are presented for examination and claims 4 and 8-13 are canceled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s First Argument: Objection to claim 1 for informalities should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to claim 1.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed. The objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Second Argument: Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 14-16 should not be subject to rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as detailed in the prior office action mailed September 16, 2025.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed. The bases of rejection under 35 USC 112(b) detailed in the prior office action mailed September 16, 2025 have been obviated by current amendments to the claims. In particular, it is noted that current amendments to claims 1 and 5 make clear that claims 1-3 and 14-16 are directed to a subcombination, an impact absorbing element, with a helmet recited only functionally in claims 1-3 and 14-16, while claims 5-7 are drawn to a combination, a helmet with the impact absorbing element according to claim 1, the helmet in claims 5-7 being recited positively rather than merely functionally. Newly presented claim 16 is however rejected under 35 USC 112(b) (see rejection under 35 USC 112(b), below).
Applicant’s Third Argument: Rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 USC 112(d) should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Fourth Argument: The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 USC 102 over US Pub No. 2016/0073723 Halldin et al. detailed in the prior office action mailed September 16, 2025 should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments are moot as US Pub No. 2016/0073723 Halldin et al. is not relied upon to reject any claims in the instant office action.
Applicant’s Fifth Argument: The rejection of claims 8-13 under 35 USC 102 over US Pub No. 2012/0198604 Weber et al. detailed in the prior office action mailed September 16, 2025 should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the cancelation of claims 8-13. It is respectfully noted for clarity however that an embodiment of the invention of US Pub No. 2012/0198604 Weber et al. that was not relied upon in the prior office action mailed September 16, 2025 is now relied upon to reject claims in the instant office action (see rejection under 35 USC 102 over US Pub No. 2012/0198604 Weber et al., detailed below).
Applicant’s Sixth Argument: Rejections of the claims for nonstatutory double patenting over three (3) cited references should be withdrawn in view of the three (3) Terminal Disclaimers filed March 16, 2026.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed. The rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the anchor formation is clipped into a recess defined in the first liner.” However, for further clarity, at least because the first liner is only functionally recited in claim 14, it is respectfully suggested that the claim be amended to recite, for example “wherein the anchor formation is clippable into a recess defined in the first liner” or “wherein the anchor formation is configured to be clipped into a recess defined in the first liner.”
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.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites the limitation “wherein the impact absorbing element is a unitary injection moulding” (lines 1-2). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because claim 16 depends from claim 1, which now recites the limitation “wherein the impact absorbing element is a unitary molding” (claim 1, lines 18-19). Taken together, these limitations render claim 16 indefinite because it is unclear whether the distinction in spelling between “moulding” and “molding” is intended to imply a structural difference in the recited elements or is merely the result of a minor typographical error. For purposes of examination, the distinction in spelling will be interpreted as the result of a minor typographical error and the limitations in both of claims 1 and 16 will be interpreted as reciting “moulding,” consistent with the spelling in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-7, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub No. 2012/0198604 Weber et al.
To claim 1, Weber discloses an impact absorbing element (200) (see Figures 7-9, reproduced below for convenience; paras. 0052-0058) for use with a helmet having a first liner (204) connected in a load transferring manner to an outer shell (106) to receive loads from an external source; and a second liner (202) disposed inside the first liner (see Figure 9; para. 0052), said second liner being configured to move relative to the first liner in a tangential direction, wherein said second liner defines at least one receiving formation (210) (see Figures 7-9; paras. 0052-0058; it is respectfully noted that the limitation “for use with a helmet having a first liner connected in a load transferring manner to an outer shell to receive loads from an external source; and a second liner disposed inside the first liner, said second liner being configured to move relative to the first liner in a tangential direction, wherein said second liner defines at least one receiving formation” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function; as Weber discloses the structure of the impact absorbing element as claimed, there would be a reasonable expectation for impact absorbing element 200 of Weber to perform the recited function), said impact absorbing element comprising:
a central body (216) in the form of a hub that is connectable to the first liner of the helmet (see Figures 7-9; paras. 0052-0053);
a flexible element (208) extending outwardly from the hub, said flexible element being configured to be deflected relative to the hub under a force in the tangential direction, to thereby transfer force to the second liner (see Figures 7-9; paras. 0052-0058); and
a pin-like anchor formation (212) extending from the hub and being configured to be connected to the first liner by extending at least in part, into the first liner (see Figures 7-9; paras. 0052-0054);
wherein the impact absorbing element is a unitary moulding and the anchor formation is integrally formed with the impact absorbing element (see Figures 7-9; paras. 0052-0058, 0061-0062).
PNG
media_image1.png
895
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
900
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
900
713
media_image3.png
Greyscale
To claim 2, Weber further discloses an impact absorbing element wherein the flexible element comprises a plurality of deformable elements (as depicted in Figures 7-9, the upper and lower portions of element 216 of impact absorbing element 200 can each be considered an individual deformable element, thereby constituting a plurality of deformable elements; it is further respectfully noted that it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04).
To claim 3, Weber further discloses an impact absorbing element wherein the anchor formation is releasably connectable to the first liner in a clipping manner (as depicted in Figure 9, anchor element 212 is configured to be clipped into aperture/recess 214 of first liner 204; para. 0052).
To claim 5, Weber discloses a helmet with the impact absorbing element of claim 1, wherein said impact absorbing element is disposed between:
the first liner (204) disposed inside the outer shell (106) of the helmet and connected in a load-transferring manner to the outer shell to receive loads from the outer shell (see Figures 7-9; paras. 0052-0058); and
the second liner (202) disposed inside the first liner, said second liner being configured to be move in a tangential direction relative to the first liner (see Figures 7-9; paras. 0052-0058); and
wherein the anchor formation is connected to the first liner (see Figures 7-9; paras. 0052-0058).
To claim 6, Weber further discloses a helmet wherein the second liner defines at least one receiving formation (210) in which the flexible element of the impact absorbing element is at least partly receivable (see Figure 9; paras. 0052-0054).
To claim 7, Weber further discloses a helmet wherein the receiving formation is a recess defined in the second liner (see Figure 9; paras. 0052-0054).
To claim 14, Weber further discloses an impact absorbing element wherein the anchor formation is configured to be clipped into a recess (214) defined in the first liner (as depicted in Figure 9, anchor element 212 is configured to be clipped into aperture/recess 214 of first liner 204; para. 0052).
To claim 15, Weber further discloses an impact absorbing element wherein the impact absorbing element is disc-shaped and the anchor formation protrudes in an axial direction from the hub (see Figures 7-9; paras. 0052-0058).
To claim 16, Weber further discloses an impact absorbing element wherein the impact absorbing element is a unitary injection moulding (see Figures 7-9; paras. 0052-0058, 0061-0062; to the limitation that the unitary moulding is a unitary “injection” moulding, it is respectfully noted that claim 16 is being treated as a product-by-process claim; product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps, see MPEP 2113).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Additional helmets and impact absorbing elements analogous to the invention of the instant application (see form PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”).
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 GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/F Griffin Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights