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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 2-7 and 9-21 are currently pending in the application.
Applicant, in the amendment filed on 09/04/2026, has amended the preambles of claims 12-16 to "article of apparel", which have changed the scope of the claims directed to the non-elected Invention II. Accordingly, claims 12-16 have been withdrawn from further consideration based on the Restriction/Election requirement mailed 11/07/2025. Claims 2-7, 9-11 and 17-21 are being treated on merits.
Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 09/04/2026.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claim 11, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "a second flow restrictor arranged in parallel with the first flow restrictor with respect to fluid flow between the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber".
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 2-7, 9-11 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being which renders the claim 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "after the impact force diminishes, fluid returns from the second fluid chamber to the first fluid chamber through the flow restrictor to reduce oscillation or rebound", which renders the claim indefinite. First, the claim does not set forth an impact force having applied to any claimed structure; and it is unclear what is being referred to by "after the impact force diminishes". Second, the claim does not set forth fluid having flowed from the first fluid chamber to the second fluid chamber; and it is unclear what is being referred to by "fluid returns from the second fluid chamber to the first fluid chamber". Third, it is unclear what subject is being referred to as to "oscillation" or "rebound". It is also unclear where the "oscillation" or "rebound" occurs. As no reasonable interpretation can be made, no prior art has been attempted to apply to this limitation.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a second flow restrictor arranged in parallel with the first flow restrictor with respect to fluid flow between the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber". As the second flow restrictor being arranged in parallel with the first flow restrictor, the relative positions of the second and first flow restrictors have been determined. It is unclear what is being referred to by "with respect to fluid flow between the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "a second flow restrictor arranged in parallel with the first flow restrictor".
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
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.
Claims 2-7, 9-11 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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);
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); and
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
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, position and orientation of passageway 212 shown in fig. 16A which favor a liquid flow from chamber 96A to chamber 96B due to difference of potential energy and difference of resistance encountered when passing the passageway 212; 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).
PNG
media_image2.png
774
1106
media_image2.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 wherein the flow restrictor is a first flow restrictor (see annotated fig. 6), and the fluid-filled damper system further comprises a second flow restrictor (see annotated fig. 6) arranged in parallel with the first flow restrictor, each of the first flow restrictor and the second flow restrictor providing a respective fluid pathway between the first fluid chamber and the second fluid chamber (see annotated fig. 6), wherein the first flow restrictor and the second flow restrictor have different flow resistance characteristics relative to each other (see the passageways 212 in annotated fig. 6; col. 11, ll. 5-34).
Donzis does not explicitly disclose wherein the second flow restrictor arranged in parallel with the first flow restrictor. However, Donzis does disclose wherein the second flow restrictor is arranged substantially in parallel with the first flow restrictor (see fig. 16B and annotated fig. 6; col. 11, ll. 5-34), and the first and second flow restrictors are created with a suitable configuration to provide a desired restrictive flow pattern by a flexible adaptive sealing technique (col. 12, ll. 30-42). In addition, Applicant, in the original disclosure, does not set forth any criticality for the the second flow restrictor arranged substantially in parallel with the first flow restrictor. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the first and second flow restrictors as disclosed by Donzis, with wherein the second flow restrictor arranged in parallel with the first flow restrictor, in order to use a suitable restrictive flow pattern between adjacent flow chambers (Donzis; col. 12, ll. 30-42). Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Donzis does not explicitly disclose wherein the first flow restrictor and the second flow restrictor have different flow resistance characteristics relative to each other. However, Donzis does disclose wherein the first flow restrictor and the second flow restrictor may have different shape and/or size as created by a flexible adaptive sealing technique (unsealed regions may be formed in different locations at passageways 212 with different shape and/or with different size, and the unsealed regions at first and second flow restrictors appear to have different size and shape in fig. 6; see figs. 15, 16A and annotated fig. 6; col. 12, ll. 30-42), therefore provide different flow resistance characteristics. 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 first and second flow restrictors as disclosed by Donzis, with wherein the first flow restrictor and the second flow restrictor have unsealed regions in different locations and/or with different shape and/or with different size, therefore provide different flow resistance characteristics relative to each other, in order to use a suitable restrictive flow pattern between adjacent flow chambers (Donzis; col. 12, ll. 30-42).
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).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied as necessitated by the amendment. Further, Applicant's arguments filed on 09/04/2026 have been fully considered and addressed as follows.
Applicant's remarks: with respect to claim 17, Applicant asserts that Fig. 16A of Donzis supplies no dimensions, taper, one-way valve orientation, or flow data demonstrating that passageway 212 presents different intrinsic resistance when the pressure differential is reversed, and neither FIG. 16A nor the cited text identifies a structural feature shown to produce unequal forward and reverse flow rates through the same restrictor under equivalent pressure differentials.
Examiner's response: It is noted that claim 17 does not require passageway 212 presents different intrinsic resistance "when the pressure differential is reversed". Instead, claim 17 requires "under equivalent pressure differentials". Donzis, in Fig. 16A, clearly depicts the structure, the position, and the orientation of passageway 212, where the entrance (Entrance A; see annotated fig 16A) of liquid from chamber 96A to passageway 212 is at a higher position than the entrance (Entrance B; see annotated fig 16A) of liquid from chamber 96B to passageway 212. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that under equivalent pressure differentials, a rate of liquid transfer from chamber 96A to chamber 96B differs from a rate of liquid transfer from chamber 96B to chamber 96A because liquid at Entrance A having higher potential energy. In addition, the unsealed portion (see annotated fig 16A) of passageway 212 forms a liquid reservoir at a higher position than Entrance B, which also favors a higher flow rate from Chamber A to Chamber B due to the effect of potential energy difference. Further, the unsealed portion (see annotated fig 16A) of passageway 212 is closer to chamber 96A; therefore, liquid flow from Entrance A to the unsealed portion of passageway 212 encounters less resistance than liquid flow from Entrance B, which further facilitates liquid flow from from chamber 96A to chamber 96B, not the opposite. For the above reasons, Applicant's arguments are not found persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
PNG
media_image3.png
243
541
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 16A from US 4,370,754 A
Conclusion
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 AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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.
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.
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