DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed June 9, 2025 and claims filed August 20, 2025 in which claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-15, 18, 21-23, and 25-29 are presented for examination and claims 3-4, 6, 10, 16-17, 19-20, 24, and 30-55 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "30" and "50" have both been used to designate “EIAS” (see at least paragraph 0083 of the specification).
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “52, 55, 58, 61” have been used to designate both “impact absorbing components” and “holes” (see at least paragraph 0094 of the specification).
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because reference numeral 50 appears to designate different elements in Figures 5 and 6.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 depends from claim 3, which is canceled. For purposes of examination, claim 5 will be treated as depending from claim 1.
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.
Claims 11, 18, 21-23, 25-27, and 28 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 11 recites the limitation “wherein the non-rigid layer is configured to provide at least one of cushioning head of a wearer…” The meaning of this limitation is not understood and upon information and belief includes drafting error(s).
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the plurality of impact absorbing elements.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited “plurality of impact absorbing components” (claim 1, lines 5-6) or some other plurality of impact absorbing parts. For purposes of examination, the “plurality of impact absorbing elements” in claim 18 will be interpreted as referring to the “plurality of impact absorbing components” as recited in claim 1. Clarification is required.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the plurality of impact absorbing elements.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited “plurality of impact absorbing components” (claim 1, lines 5-6) or some other plurality of impact absorbing parts. For purposes of examination, the “plurality of impact absorbing elements” in claim 22 will be interpreted as referring to the “plurality of impact absorbing components” as recited in claim 1. Clarification is required.
Claim 23 recites the limitations “the plurality of impact absorbing elements” and “an impact absorbing element.” These limitations render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether they refer to the previously-recited “plurality of impact absorbing components” (claim 1, lines 5-6) or some other plurality of impact absorbing parts. For purposes of examination, the “plurality of impact absorbing elements” and “impact absorbing element” in claim 23 will be interpreted as referring to the “plurality of impact absorbing components” as recited in claim 1. Clarification is required.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the plurality of impact absorbing elements.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited “plurality of impact absorbing components” (claim 1, lines 5-6) or some other plurality of impact absorbing parts. For purposes of examination, the “plurality of impact absorbing elements” in claim 27 will be interpreted as referring to the “plurality of impact absorbing components” as recited in claim 1. Clarification is required.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the plurality of impact absorbing elements.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited “plurality of impact absorbing components” (claim 1, lines 5-6) or some other plurality of impact absorbing parts. For purposes of examination, the “plurality of impact absorbing elements” in claim 28 will be interpreted as referring to the “plurality of impact absorbing components” as recited in claim 1. Clarification is required.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, 18, 21-23, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 7,802,320 Morgan (Morgan 320).
To claim 1, Morgan 320 discloses a protective headgear (1) (see Figures 1-5; col. 4, line 33 – col. 5, line 28) comprising:
a core (3) (see Figures 1, 2A, and 5; col. 4, lines 33-38); and
a plurality of impact absorbing layers (10) disposed on the core and configured to absorb impact incident on the protective headgear (see Figures 1-5; col. 4, line 33 – col. 5, line 16);
wherein at least one impact absorbing layer comprises a plurality of impact absorbing components (21) (see Figures 1-5; col. 4, line 33 – col. 5, line 16).
To claim 2, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein the core comprises a rigid material (col. 4, lines 33-38).
To claim 7, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein the plurality of impact absorbing layers comprises an outer layer (11) configured to contact a head of a wearer of the protective headgear, the outer layer being configured to conform to the head of the wearer and reduce any gaps between the outer layer and the head of the wearer (see especially Figures 1-2; col. 4, lines 40-51).
To claim 8, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein the plurality of impact absorbing layers comprises at least one of a rigid layer (15) and a non-rigid layer (13) (see especially Figures 1-2; col. 4, lines 33-38; “relatively high density foam layer 15” will be more rigid than “relatively low density foam layer 13;” it is respectfully noted that absent further distinguishing characteristics in the claim regarding parameters such as flexural rigidity and/or modulus of elasticity or specific materials, Morgan 320 meets the claim).
To claim 11, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein the non-rigid layer is configured to provide at least one of cushioning head of a wearer of the protective headgear against the impact, absorption of the impact, and regulation of temperature of the head of the wearer (see Figures 1-5; col. 4, line 33 – col. 5, line 16).
To claim 12, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein the plurality of impact absorbing layers comprises at least one barrier layer (11) configured to reduce flow of environmental elements on the protective headgear (see especially Figures 1-2; col. 4, lines 33-51).
To claim 13, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein the barrier layer is configured to be at least one of air permeable, partially-permeable, and semi-permeable (see especially Figures 1-2; col. 4, lines 33-51).
To claim 18, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein the plurality of impact absorbing components/elements comprises at least one of fluid-filled bladders, gas-filled bladders, liquid-filled bladders, semifluid-filled bladders, semisolid bladders, vinyl encased impact absorbing members, and mechanical shock absorbing components, or wherein the plurality of impact absorbing elements comprise one or more layers of foam (see Figures 1-5; col. 4, line 33 – col. 5, line 16; foam).
To claim 21, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein the one or more layers of foam comprises at least one of a viscoelastic foam, a hard firmness foam, a medium firmness foam, a soft firmness foam, a soft to medium lightweight viscoelastic layer of foam, a gel like foam, a viscoelastic foam, and a soft dough-like consistency foam (col. 4, lines 33-51; foams of varying firmness).
To claim 22, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein the plurality of impact absorbing components/elements comprise at least one of one or more cylindrical-shaped impact absorbing components, one or more modified cylindrical-shaped impact absorbing components, one or more conical-shaped impact absorbing components, and one or more generally conical-shaped impact absorbing components (see Figures 1-5; col. 4, line 33 – col. 5, line 16; conical).
To claim 23, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein at least one of the plurality of impact absorbing elements comprises at least one hole (29), and wherein the at least one hole comprises at least one of a cylindrical hole, a cylindrical hole oriented along a longitudinal axis of an impact absorbing element, an axial hole, a through hole, a countersunk hole, and a hole positioned centrally within an impact absorbing element (see especially Figure 5; col. 4, lines 51-55).
To claim 25, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein the at least one impact absorbing layer comprises at least one of one or more conical-shaped impact absorbing components and one or more generally conical-shaped impact absorbing components in one or more areas of the protective headgear corresponding to portions of a head of a wearer of protective headgear that are expected to be exposed to increased levels of impact (see Figures 1-5; col. 4, line 33 – col. 5, line 16).
To claim 26, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein at least one conical-shaped impact absorbing component or at least one generally conical-shaped impact absorbing component comprises a first end coupled to core and a second end disposed on an opposite side of the first end (see Figures 1-5; col. 4, line 33 – col. 5, line 16).
To claim 27, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein at least two of the plurality of impact absorbing components/elements are disposed adjacent to and in contact with one another (see Figures 1-5; col. 4, line 33 – col. 5, line 16).
To claim 28, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein the plurality of impact absorbing components/elements are configured to be at least one of air permeable, partially-permeable, and semi-permeable (col. 4, lines 33-38).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan 320 (as applied to claim 1, above) in view of USPN 8,117,679 Pierce.
To claim 5, Morgan 320 discloses a protective headgear as recited in claim 1, above.
Morgan 320 does not explicitly disclose a protective headgear wherein the core comprises at least one of a layer of carbon fiber reinforced polymer and a layer of Kevlar® reinforced polymer.
However, Pierce teaches a protective headgear comprising a core comprising at least one of a layer of carbon fiber reinforced polymer and a layer of Kevlar® reinforced polymer (col. 1, lines 17-32).
Morgan 320 and Pierce teach analogous inventions in the field of protective headgear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the core of the protective headgear of Morgan 320 in at least one of a layer of carbon fiber reinforced polymer and a layer of Kevlar® reinforced polymer as taught by Pierce because Pierce teaches that this configuration is known in the art and serves to help prevent penetration of the helmet by a pointed object that might otherwise puncture the skull (col. 1, lines 17-32). It is further respectfully noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan 320 (as applied to claim 1, above) in view of USPN 10,806,201 Morgan (Morgan 201).
To claim 9, Morgan 320 discloses a protective headgear wherein the non-rigid layer comprises a foam (col. 4, lines 33-38).
Morgan 320 does not explicitly disclose a protective headgear wherein the non-rigid layer comprises a viscoelastic material.
However, Morgan 201 teaches a protective headgear comprising a non-rigid layer that comprises a viscoelastic material (col. 6, lines 27-34).
Morgan 320 and Morgan 201 teach analogous inventions in the field of protective headgear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the non-rigid layer of Morgan 320 in a viscoelastic material as taught by Morgan 201 because Morgan 201 teaches that this configuration is known in the art and is a suitable material for an impact absorbing layer of a protective headgear. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan 320 (as applied to claim 1, above) in view of US Pub No. 2010/0000009 Morgan (Morgan 009).
To claim 14, Morgan 320 further discloses a protective headgear wherein the plurality of impact absorbing layers comprises a liner (11) coupled to an interior of the protective headgear (see especially Figures 1-2; col. 4, lines 40-51).
Morgan 320 does not explicitly disclose liner (11) being removably and replaceably coupled to an interior of the protective headgear.
However, Morgan 009 teaches a protective headgear comprising a liner that is removably and replaceably coupled to an interior of the protective headgear (para. 0015).
Morgan 320 and Morgan 009 teach analogous inventions in the field of protective headgear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure liner (11) of Morgan 320 to be removable and replaceable as taught by Morgan 009 because Morgan 009 teaches that this configuration is known in the art. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a removable liner would allow for the liner to be replaced in the event that it becomes soiled.
To claim 15, the modified invention of Morgan 320 (i.e., Morgan 320 in view of Morgan 009, as detailed above) further teaches a protective headgear wherein the liner comprises at least one of a material providing a wicking effect, a material providing an anti-bacterial effect, a material providing an anti-microbial effect, and a material configured to function as a moisture barrier (especially Figures 1-2 and col. 4, lines 40-51 of Morgan 320).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan 320 (as applied to claim 1, above) in view of USPN 5,025,504 Benston et al.
To claim 29, Morgan 320 discloses a protective headgear as recited in claim 1, above.
Benston teaches a protective headgear comprising at least one of: a forehead pad (10) configured to be disposed at a portion of the protective headgear where a forehead of a wearer of the protective headgear is expected to abut the protective headgear (see Figures 1-5; col. 3, line 16 – col. 6, line 28), one or more elongate strips configured to be disposed at a portion of the protective headgear where a side of the wearer's head is expected to abut the protective headgear, and one or more ear strips configured to be disposed at a portion of the protective headgear where an ear of the wearer is expected to abut the protective headgear, wherein at least one of the forehead pad, the one or more elongate strips, and the one or more ear strips comprises at least one impact absorbing component (18,20,22) (see Figures 1-5; col. 3, line 16 – col. 6, line 28).
Morgan 320 and Benston teach analogous inventions in the field of protective headgear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the protective headgear of Morgan 320 to include a forehead pad as taught by Benston because Benston teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for use in situations when the wearer may perspire heavily (col. 3, lines 16-42).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-15, 18, 21-23, and 25-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,473.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they each recite protective headgear comprising substantially the same elements including a core and a plurality of impact absorbing layers disposed on the core and configured to absorb impact incident on the protective headgear, wherein at least one impact absorbing layer comprises a plurality of impact absorbing components.
INSTANT APPLICATION
USPN 12,324,473
CLAIMS
1
1
2
1
5
3-4
7
5
8
1
9
9
11
5
12
1
13
1
14
6
15
7
18
8-9
21
9
22
1,10
23
1,10
25
1,10
26
1,10
27
1
28
1
29
11
Conclusion
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