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 Group III, claims 17-21 in the reply filed on 04/20/2026 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)).
In addition, Applicant elects Species 1 (Figures 1-4) in the reply filed on 04/20/2026. Applicant timely traversed the election requirement in the reply filed on 04/20/2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species 1-4 are not patentably distinct because: 1) Species 1 and Species 2 depict alternative structural configurations (i.e., geometric configuration) of the same flow restrictor element defined in the claims; and 2) Species 3 and Species 4 depict different exemplary environments (a compression sleeve vs. a protective pad) for utilizing the same underlying damper system. This is not found persuasive because: 1) Species 1 and Species 2 depict fluid-filled damper systems with geometric configurations that constitute distinct structures (i.e., a necked transition zone versus elongated channel passages with varying cross-sectional areas and labyrinth paths) which are crucial aspects to a fluid-filled damper system; and 2) Species 3 and Species 4 respectively depict a compression sleeve and a protective pad which are distinct items. Although Species 1-4 would likely to include some common feature, each species requires a mutually exclusive characteristic not required for the other species and the species are not obvious variants of each other therefore being distinct inventions, and examining the distinct inventions is a serious burden to the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2-21 are being treated on the merits.
Drawings
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 claimed feature "(the protective pad) further comprising a plurality of flow restrictors providing multiple fluid pathways between the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber" in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that claim 11 depends from claim 17, and claim 17 has already set forth a flow restrictor. 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:
In para. 0028, "mor laminar fluid transfer" appears to read "more laminar fluid transfer".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the protective pad "further comprising a plurality of flow restrictors providing multiple fluid pathways between the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber, wherein individual flow restrictors of the plurality of flow restrictors have different flow resistance characteristics relative to each other". However, the written disclosure fails to provide any detail how the plurality of flow restrictors and multiple fluid pathways are configured between the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber. There is a lack of written description for this limitation.
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 12-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The preamble of claim 12 is "protective pad", and the claim body recites "wherein the protective pad is integrated into a garment structure configured to be worn on a portion of a human body, the garment structure comprising athletic apparel selected from the group consisting of protective sportswear, compression wear, and technical performance clothing", which renders the claim indefinite. The preamble is directed to a subcombination and the claim body is directed to a combination. The claimed garment structure is beyond the scope of a protective pad. In addition, claim 12 depends from claim 17, the preamble of claim 17 recites "protective pad for athletic equipment", while claim 12 recites the protective pad being integrated into a garment structure. An athletic equipment generally does not include garment. The claim appears to be self-conflicting. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claims 13-14 and 16 each depend from claim 12 and further define integration configurations of the protective pad in the garment feature, which render the claims indefinite due to a similar reason as discussed for claim 12.
Claim 15 depends from the rejected claim 12 and is likewise rejected.
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 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 2-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donzis (US 4,370,754 A).
Regarding claim 17, Donzis discloses a protective pad (rib pads 20; fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 18-24; col. 10, ll. 7-14; claim 30) for athletic equipment (fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 18-24) comprising:
a protective outer shell (shield 110; fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 53-55) configured to receive an impact force during athletic activity (as made of a polycarbonate material; fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 53-55);
a comfort layer (undergarment 82; fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 18-24) configured to contact a wearer's body (fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 18-24); and
a fluid-filled damper system (a portion of pad 84; see annotated fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 18-24) positioned between the protective outer shell and the comfort layer (see annotated fig. 6), the fluid-filled damper system comprising:
a flexible bladder (three adjacent air chambers 96; see annotated fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 19-24; col. 11, ll. 5-17) defining a first fluid chamber (a first air chamber 96; see annotated fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 30-35; col. 11, ll. 5-17) positioned adjacent to the protective outer shell (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 6) and a second fluid chamber (a second air chamber 96; see annotated fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 30-35; col. 11, ll. 5-17) positioned adjacent to the comfort layer (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 6);
a flow restrictor (a peripheral fluid passageway 212; see figs. 15, 16A-16B and annotated fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 30-37; col. 11, ll. 5-17) providing fluidic communication between the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber (see figs. 16A-16B and annotated fig. 6; col. 11, ll. 5-17), the flow restrictor configured to limit a rate of fluid transfer between the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber (see figs. 16A-16B and annotated fig. 6; col. 11, ll. 21-27; col. 12, 4-13); and
a fluid (air or liquid; col. 4, ll. 67-68; col. 9, ll. 40-48) contained within the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber (col. 4, ll. 67-68; col. 9, ll. 40-45); wherein compression of the first fluid chamber by the impact force causes a portion of the fluid to flow through the flow restrictor into the second fluid chamber (see figs. 16A-16B and annotated fig. 6; col. 12, 4-17), creating a resistance force that increases with increasing rate of the impact force (see figs. 16A-16B and annotated fig. 6; col. 12, 4-17).
PNG
media_image1.png
774
1106
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 6 from US 4,370,754 A
Regarding claim 2, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the flow restrictor comprises a necked transition zone (formed by the peripheral fluid passageway 212; see figs. 16A-16B and annotated fig. 6) extending between the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber (see figs. 16A-16B and annotated fig. 6), the necked transition zone having a cross-sectional area smaller than cross-sectional areas of both the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber (see figs. 16A-16B and annotated fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the necked transition zone has a cross-sectional area that is approximately 2% to 50% of the cross-sectional areas of the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber (see fig. 16B).
Regarding claim 4, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the flexible bladder is constructed from a flexible, resilient material selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU). polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and elastomeric polymers (impregnated or coated with elastomeric material; col. 14, ll. 9-13; claim 21).
Regarding claim 5, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the flexible bladder comprises at least one impermeable barrier layer (a fluid-impervious fabric; col. 9, ll. 42-46) integrated into walls of the flexible bladder (col. 9, ll. 42-46), the at least one impermeable barrier layer configured to restrict diffusion of the fluid through the walls of the flexible bladder (as being fluid-impervious; col. 9, ll. 42-46).
Regarding claim 6, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the fluid comprises a gaseous medium selected from the group consisting of air, nitrogen, helium, and combinations thereof (col. 4, ll. 67-68; col. 9, ll. 40-45).
Regarding claim 7, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the fluid comprises an incompressible or partially compressible liquid (col. 4, ll. 67-68; col. 9, ll. 40-45).
Regarding claim 9, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber have different internal volumes (see annotated fig. 6), creating a progressive damping response during compression and recovery cycles (see annotated fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the first fluid chamber has an internal volume that is 1.0 to 3 times larger than the second fluid chamber (see annotated fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 17, and further discloses the protective pad further comprising a plurality of flow restrictors (between every two adjacent air chambers 96; see annotated fig. 6; col. 11, ll. 5-17) providing multiple fluid pathways (see annotated fig. 6) between the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber (see annotated fig. 6), wherein individual flow restrictors of the plurality of flow restrictors have different flow resistance characteristics relative to each other (upon an impact at a specific location and from a specific direction; see annotated fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 17. As to the limitation "wherein the protective pad is integrated into a garment structure configured to be worn on a portion of a human body, the garment structure comprising athletic apparel selected from the group consisting of protective sportswear, compression wear, and technical performance clothing", the limitation does not provide additional structure to the protective pad, and the protective pad is capable of being integrated into a garment structure as claimed (figs. 1, 6).
Regarding claim 13, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 12. As to the limitation "wherein the protective pad is positioned within a protective region of the garment structure selected from the group consisting of an impact zone, a pressure point region, and a joint protection area", the limitation does not provide additional structure to the protective pad, and the protective pad of Donzis is capable of being positioned within a protective region of the garment structure as claimed (figs. 1, 6).
Regarding claim 14, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 12, and further discloses wherein the flexible bladder is configured to conform to a contour of the portion of the human body when the garment structure is worn (figs. 1, 6).
Regarding claim 15, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 12, and further discloses wherein the flow restrictor is configured to provide progressive resistance that increases proportional to increasing rate of impact forces applied to the fluid-filled damper system (as the passageway 212 is formed from a non-elastic material; see figs. 16A-16B and annotated fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 43-48; col. 12, 4-17), thereby providing greater damping during high-velocity impacts than during low-velocity impacts (see figs. 16A-16B and annotated fig. 6; col. 12, 4-17).
Regarding claim 16, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 12, and further discloses the protective pad further comprising a plurality of fluid-filled damper systems (the rib pads comprising two pads 84, each pad 84 comprising at least six fluid-filled damper systems; see annotated fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 19-24). As to the limitation the plurality of fluid-filled damper systems "integrated into different regions of the garment structure, wherein individual fluid-filled damper systems are configured with different damping characteristics appropriate for protection requirements of their respective regions", the plurality of fluid-filled damper systems of Donzis are capable of integrated into different regions of the garment structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the protective pad is configured to protect a body region selected from the group consisting of a shoulder, an elbow, a hip (the rib pad 20s capable of protecting a user's hip when a small-sized person wearing a large-sized protective pad; see fig. 6), a knee, a shin, and a thigh during athletic activity.
Regarding claim 19, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the protective outer shell comprises a semi-rigid material (a polycarbonate material; fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 53-55) configured to distribute impact forces across a surface area of the first fluid chamber (fig. 6; col. 9, ll. 53-55).
Regarding claim 20, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the flow restrictor is configured such that rapid compression of the first fluid chamber creates greater resistance to fluid transfer than gradual compression of the first fluid chamber (as the passageway 212 is narrower than the first fluid chamber; see figs. 16A-16B), providing enhanced protection during sudden impacts compared to sustained pressure (see figs. 16A-16B).
Regarding claim 21, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the flow restrictor (passageway 212; figs. 16A-16B) comprises an elongated channel passage (figs. 16A-16B) having a cross-sectional area smaller than cross-sectional areas of both the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber (figs. 16A-16B), the elongated channel passage configured to create controlled energy dissipation during fluid transfer between the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber (figs. 16A-16B).
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 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donzis (US 4,370,754 A).
Regarding claim 8, Donzis discloses the protective pad of claim 17. Donzis does not explicitly disclose wherein the flow restrictor is configured to provide directionally-dependent flow resistance such that a rate of fluid transfer from the first fluid chamber to the second fluid chamber differs from a rate of fluid transfer from the second fluid chamber to the first fluid chamber under equivalent pressure differentials. However, Donzis does disclose that the flow restrictor is located and sized to restrict flow from one preferred location to another (see the structure and orientation of passageway 212 shown in fig. 16A which favors fluid flow from chamber 96A to 96B, especially when the fluid is liquid; col. 4, ll. 67-68; col. 9, ll. 40-48; col. 12, ll. 43-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the flow restrictor as disclosed by Donzis, with wherein the flow restrictor is configured to provide directionally-dependent flow resistance such that a rate of fluid transfer from the first fluid chamber to the second fluid chamber differs from a rate of fluid transfer from the second fluid chamber to the first fluid chamber under equivalent pressure differentials, in order to provide effective protection against forces from specific directions placed upon the protective pad when being worn (Donzis; col. 12, ll. 43-47).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references cited on attached PTO-892 form(s) can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. Bothwell (GB 1503483 A), Morgan (US 3,866,243 A), Donzis (US 4,453,271 A) and Adams (US 5,007,111 A) each can be another 102 reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights