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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species IX, fig.37(A-B) in the reply filed on 04/15/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claims 253-264.
Claims 253-264 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 253-261. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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.
Claims 253-264 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 251, recites “the plurality of padding components comprises at least one padding component according to claim 245,” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is the “at least one padding component according to claim 245”, since claim 245 has no “at least one padding component”. For the purpose of examination and as best understood the limitation is interpreted to “disposed within the outer shell of the helmet”.
Claim 253 recites “wherein the at least one padding component according to claim 245 comprises a plurality of padding components according to claim 245”, it is so confusing; claim 253 including two of claim 245 or just a single or a plurality of padding components? and what are a plurality of padding component of a single component? Since claim 245 has just the padding component.
Claims 252-264 are depend of claim 251 and are likewise indefinite. Notes claims 252-264, interpreted as best as understood.
Claims 254-260 are depend of claim 253 and are likewise indefinite.
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) 245-250 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achten et al. (2018/0070736—hereinafter, Achten) in view of Reinhall et al. (2021/0187897—hereinafter, Reinhall).
Regarding claim 245, Achten discloses a padding component (fig.1, par [0058]) of an impact absorbing inner liner, the padding component comprising: a three-dimensional (3D formed by a porous body 10 including struts 100, void spaces 300, node points 200 joined to one another by struts 100 and truncated node points 201, par [0061-0064]) structure configured to deform when the helmet is impacted, the three-dimensional structure comprising: an inner head facing surface; an outer shell facing surface; and a plurality of channels extending through the 3D structure of the padding component from the inner head facing surface to the outer shell facing surface of the padding component, wherein: each channel of the plurality of channels comprises an inner peripheral surface extending between a first respective opening in the head facing surface of the padding component to a second respective opening in the shell facing surface of the padding component; and the inner peripheral surface of each channel of the plurality of channels comprises an open surface that provides multiple openings therethrough (fig.1-2 and discloses a 3D structure having a porous body 10 including struts 100, void spaces 300, node points 200 joined to one another by struts 100 and truncated node points 201, par [0061-0064]). But Achten does not disclose a functional limitation that the padding component is configured to be disposed withing an outer shell of a helmet. However, Reinhall teaches a helmet fig.15 having an outer shell 1902, 3D porous structure 1904 and 2300, fig.19B, 23B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to disposed the padding of Achten within the outer shell of the helmet as taught by Reinhall in order to prevent head of human of being injured when is being impacted by external forces.
Regarding claims 246-250, Achten further discloses wherein each channel of the plurality of channels extends through the 3D structure of the padding component in a direction that is generally radial to a wearer's head when the helmet is worn (fig.1-2); wherein at least one channel of the plurality of channels has a cross-sectional area that is greater than a cross-sectional area of any one of the openings through the open surface of the inner peripheral surface of the channel (fig.1-2 the 3D porous having a void space); wherein at least one channel of the plurality of channels is cylindrical or column-shaped (fig.1-2); wherein the 3D structure of the padding component further comprises at least one outer peripheral surface extending between the head facing surface and the outer shell facing surface, the at least one outer peripheral surface comprising an open surface that provides multiple openings therethrough (fig.1-2); wherein the padding component has a 3D lattice structure (fig.1-2).
Claim(s) 251-264 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinhall et al. (2021/0187897—hereinafter, Reinhall) in view of Achten et al. (2018/0070736—hereinafter, Achten).
Regarding claim 251, Reinhall discloses a helmet (fig.25A) comprising: an outer shell (2502); and an impact absorbing inner liner (2504) disposed within the outer shell, the impact absorbing inner liner comprising a plurality of padding components (2300, fig.23B). But Reinhall does not disclose wherein the plurality of padding components comprises at least one padding component according to claim 245. However, Achten teaches another 3D padding structure fig.1-2 formed by a porous body 10 including struts 100, void spaces 300, node points 200 joined to one another by struts 100 and truncated node points 201, in order to prevent head of human of being injured when is being impacted by external forces, par [0061-0064]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the padding components of Achen disposed within the outer shell of helmet of Reinhall in order to prevent head of human of being injured when is being impacted by external forces.
Regarding claim 252, Reinhall discloses the helmet of claim 251, each padding component of the plurality of padding components defines a separate padding forming part of the impact absorbing inner liner (fig.19A of Reinhall).
Regarding claim 253, Reinhall discloses the helmet of claim 251, wherein the at least one padding component according to claim 245 comprises a plurality of padding components according to claim 245 (see the rejection of claim 245 above).
Regarding claim 254, Reinhall discloses the helmet of claim 253, wherein the plurality of padding components according to claim 245 (see the rejection of claim 245 above) are disposed within the outer shell at selected locations around a wearer's head when the helmet is worn (fig.19A of Reinhall).
Regarding claim 255, Reinhall discloses the helmet of claim 253, wherein the plurality of padding components according to claim 245 comprises at least one padding component according to claim 245 disposed within the outer shell in a front region of the helmet and at least one padding component according to claim 245 disposed within the outer shell in a rear region of the helmet (see the rejection of claim 245 above and fig.19A of Reinhall) .
Regarding claim 256, Reinhall discloses the helmet of claim 253, wherein the outer shell (fig.26 shows the layer 2610 having a plurality of 3D structures separating from one another) comprises a first shell member and a second shell member movable relative to one another to adjust the helmet to fit a wearer's head when the helmet is worn.
Regarding claim 257, Reinhall discloses wherein the plurality of padding components according to claim 245 (see the rejection of claim 245 above) comprises: a padding component according to claim 245 disposed within the first shell member (see fig.1 of Achten); and a padding component according to claim 245 disposed within the second shell member (see the combination of fig.1 of Achten and fig.26 of Reinhall).
Regarding claim 258, Reinhall discloses the helmet of claim 257, wherein the padding component according to claim 245 (see the rejection of claim 245 above) disposed within the first shell member and the padding component according to claim 245 disposed within the second shell member are movable relative to one another when the first and second shell members are moved (par [0007, 0051, 0117] of Reinhall) relative to one another to adjust the helmet to fit a wearer's head when the helmet is worn.
Regarding claim 259, Reinhall does not disclose the helmet of claim 257, wherein the first shell member is a front shell member and the second shell member is a rear shell member, the first shell member and the second shell member being slidably engaged such that movement of the front shell member and the rear shell member relative to each other adjusts at least a longitudinal size of a head-receiving cavity defined by the outer shell. Reinhall further discloses (par [001, 0051, 0117] wherein the padding structure are can be rearrange within the helmet shell). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to perform as the claimed invention, such modification would be considered a mere rearrange the known parts involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 260, Reinhall does not disclose the helmet of claim 259, further comprising an adjustment system operable to adjust the fit of the helmet on a wearer's head by moving the first and second shell members relative to one another. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to perform as the claimed invention, such modification would be considered a mere rearrange the known parts involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 261, Reinhall discloses the helmet of claim 251, wherein the plurality of padding components comprises at least one other padding component in addition to the at least one padding component according to claim 245 (see the combination of Reinhall and Achten).
Regarding claim 262, Reinhall discloses the helmet of claim 261, wherein the at least one other padding component comprises a 3D lattice structure formed of a plurality of unit cells and a liner skin integrally formed with the 3D lattice structure, the liner skin defining part of a head facing surface of the at least one other padding component, the liner skin adapted to contact a wearer's head when the helmet is worn, the liner skin comprising: at least one solid skin along the head facing surface of the at least one other padding component; and at least one open lattice skin along the head facing surface of the at least one other padding component to define at least one exposed region of the 3D lattice structure free of the solid skin (fig.1-2 of Achten having a 3D structure having a plurality of 3D structure layers and fig.22, 23A of Reinhall having a porous structure 2306, and solid layer structure 2308) .
Regarding claim 263, Reinhall discloses the helmet of claim 262, wherein a majority of a surface area of the head facing surface of the at least one other padding component is occupied by the at least one open-lattice skin (see the combination of Reinhall and Achten).
Regarding claim 264, Reinhall discloses the helmet of claim 263, wherein each open-lattice skin of the at least one other padding component occupies a surface area of the head facing surface of the at least one other padding component that exposes multiple unit cells of the 3D lattice structure of the at least one other padding component (see fig.22-23A of Reinhall and fig.1-2 of Achten).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY K TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)270-3495. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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.
/Timothy K Trieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights