DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Application filed on November 30, 2025 in which claims 1-21, 24 and 31 are presented for examination. Claims 22-23, 25-30 and 32-33 have been cancelled.
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.
Claim 1 and dependent claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 27, 28, 29 and dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,458,096. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 and dependent claims are anticipated by the conflicting patented claims 1, 27, 28, 29 and dependent claims as shown in the table below. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Present Application
Patent No. 12,458,096
1. A helmet comprising an impact mitigating structure, the impact mitigating structure comprising:
a first inner layer;
a second outer layer; and
a reactive layer positioned between the first inner layer and the second outer layer,
the reactive layer comprising a plurality of elements held between the first inner layer and second outer layer in a fixed arrangement,
wherein the plurality of elements are configured to be released when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact; and;
wherein the reactive layer is arranged such that, when the second layer is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements of the reactive layer are configured to roll after they have been released to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and the second outer layer with respect to each other.
6. wherein the second outer layer is attached to remainder of the impact mitigating structure such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the second outer layer is configured to detach from the remainder of the impact mitigating structure.
1. A helmet comprising an impact mitigating structure, the impact mitigating structure comprising:
a first inner layer;
a second outer layer; and
a reactive layer positioned between the first inner layer and the second outer layer,
the reactive layer comprising a plurality of elements held between the first inner layer and second outer layer;
wherein the reactive layer is arranged such that, when the second layer is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements of the reactive layer are configured to roll to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and the second outer layer with respect to each other, and
wherein the second outer layer is attached to a remainder of the impact mitigating structure such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the second outer layer is configured to detach from the remainder of the impact mitigating structure.
2. wherein the reactive layer, the first inner layer and/or the second outer layer are configured to move substantially freely relative to each other, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact.
2. wherein the reactive layer, the first inner layer and/or the second outer layer are configured to move substantially freely relative to each other, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact.
3. wherein the first inner layer, the second outer layer and/or the reactive layer are configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the majority of the rotational energy of the impact is transferred to the reactive layer.
3. wherein the first inner layer, the second outer layer and/or the reactive layer are configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the majority of the rotational energy of the impact is transferred to the reactive layer.
4. wherein the first inner layer, the second outer layer and/or the reactive layer are configured to substantially decouple and/or isolate the first inner layer from the second outer layer
4. wherein the first inner layer, the second outer layer and/or the reactive layer are configured to substantially decouple and/or isolate the first inner layer from the second outer layer.
5. wherein the first inner layer and the second outer layer are arranged to separate when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact.
5. wherein the first inner layer and the second outer layer are arranged to completely separate when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact.
7. wherein the reactive layer is arranged to allow the plurality of elements to roll when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact having at least a particular force.
7. wherein the reactive layer is arranged to allow the plurality of elements to roll when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact having at least a predetermined threshold force.
8. wherein the reactive layer is configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements are substantially not constrained and are able to move freely.
8. wherein the reactive layer is configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements are substantially not constrained and are able to move freely.
9. wherein the reactive layer is configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements have substantially random and disordered free motion.
9. wherein the reactive layer is configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements have substantially random and disordered free motion.
10. wherein the reactive layer is configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements are free to move in three dimensions when the plurality of elements are freed by the impact.
10. wherein the reactive layer is configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements are free to move in three dimensions when the plurality of elements are freed by the impact.
11. wherein the reactive layer is configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements substantially prevent geometric locking of the inner and/or outer layers.
11. wherein the reactive layer is configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements substantially prevent geometric locking of the inner and/or outer layers.
12. wherein the reactive layer is configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements are released from the reactive layer with a maximum speed of 200 ms1 and/or an average speed of 80 ms1.
12. wherein the reactive layer is configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements are released with a maximum speed of 200 ms.sup.−1 and/or an average speed of 80 ms.sup.−1.
13. wherein the particular force is between 10 and 100 N, e.g. between 30 N and 70 N, e.g. approximately 50 N.
7. wherein the predetermined threshold force is one of: between 10 and 100 N, between 30 N and 70 N, 50 N.
14. wherein the plurality of elements are held in a particular arrangement between the first inner layer and second outer layer; wherein at least some of the plurality of elements are released from the particular arrangement when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact; and wherein the released elements are configured to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and second outer layer with respect to each other.
13. wherein the plurality of elements are held in a particular arrangement between the first inner layer and second outer layer; wherein at least some of the plurality of elements are released from the arrangement when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact; and wherein the released elements are configured to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and second outer layer with respect to each other.
15. wherein the reactive layer, the first inner layer and/or the second outer layer are configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the second outer layer detaches from the remainder of the impact mitigating structure after less than 50 ms, e.g. after less than 20 ms, e.g. after less than 10 ms, e.g. after less than 5 ms.
14. wherein the reactive layer, the first inner layer and/or the second outer layer are configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the second outer layer detaches from the remainder of the impact mitigating structure after one of: less than 50 ms, less than 20 ms, less than 10 ms, less than 5 ms.
16. wherein the number of elements of the plurality of elements is between 5 and 100,000, e.g. between 50 and 10,000, e.g. between 100 and 1,000.
15. wherein the number of elements of the plurality of elements is between one of: 5 and 100,000, 50 and 10,000, 100 and 1,000.
17. wherein the ratio of the surface area of the reactive layer over which the plurality of elements are provided to the surface area of the reactive layer is between 0.05 and 0.5, e.g. between 0.1 and 0.4, e.g. approximately 0.25.
16. wherein the ratio of the surface area of the reactive layer over which the plurality of elements are provided to the surface area of the reactive layer is one of: between 0.05 and 0.5, between 0.1 and 0.4, 0.25.
18. wherein the plurality of elements have a size that is greater than a quarter of the thickness of the reactive layer.
17. wherein the plurality of elements have a size that is greater than a quarter of the thickness of the reactive layer.
19. wherein the plurality of elements are formed from a material having a Shore A hardness of greater than 50, e.g. greater than 100.
18. wherein the plurality of elements are formed from a material having a Shore A hardness of one of: greater than 50, greater than 100.
20. wherein one or more of the plurality of elements, the first layer and the second layer comprise a high friction material and/or coating such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements are configured to contact one or both first inner layer and the second outer layer, such that the high friction material causes the plurality of elements to roll to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and the second outer layer with respect to each other.
19. wherein one or more of the plurality of elements, the first layer and the second layer comprise a high friction material and/or coating such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements are configured to contact one or both first inner layer and the second outer layer, such that the high friction material causes the plurality of elements to roll to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and the second outer layer with respect to each other.
21. wherein the hardness of the plurality elements is greater than the hardness of the first layer and/or the second layer.
20. wherein the hardness of the plurality elements is greater than the hardness of the first layer and/or the second layer.
23. wherein the surfaces of the first layer and/or the second layer, between which the reactive layer is positioned, comprise a hard coating or layer.
22. wherein the surfaces of the first layer and/or the second layer, between which the reactive layer is positioned, comprise a hard coating or layer.
31. wherein the first and second layers are attached to each other by one or more struts and/or one or more spacers that extend between the first and second layers.
25. wherein the first and second layers are attached to each other by one or more struts and/or one or more spacers that extend between the first and second layers, wherein the one or more struts and/or the one or more spacers are compressible and are configured to be compressed when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact.
1. A helmet comprising an impact mitigating structure, the impact mitigating structure comprising:
a first inner layer;
a second outer layer; and
a reactive layer positioned between the first inner layer and the second outer layer,
the reactive layer comprising a plurality of elements held between the first inner layer and second outer layer in a fixed arrangement,
wherein the plurality of elements are configured to be released when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact; and;
wherein the reactive layer is arranged such that, when the second layer is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements of the reactive layer are configured to roll after they have been released to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and the second outer layer with respect to each other.
12. wherein the reactive layer is configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements are released from the reactive layer with a maximum speed of 200 ms1 and/or an average speed of 80 ms1.
15. wherein the reactive layer, the first inner layer and/or the second outer layer are configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the second outer layer detaches from the remainder of the impact mitigating structure after less than 50 ms, e.g. after less than 20 ms, e.g. after less than 10 ms, e.g. after less than 5 ms.
27. A helmet comprising an impact mitigating structure, the impact mitigating structure comprising:
a first inner layer;
a second outer layer; and
a reactive layer positioned between the first inner layer and the second outer layer,
the reactive layer comprising a plurality of elements held between the first inner layer and second outer layer; wherein the reactive layer is arranged such that, when the second layer is subject to an impact,
the plurality of elements of the reactive layer are configured to roll to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and the second outer layer with respect to each other, and
wherein the reactive layer is configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements are released with a maximum speed of 200 ms.sup.−1 and/or an average speed of 80 ms.sup.−1;
and/or the reactive layer, the first inner layer and/or the second outer layer are configured such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the second outer layer detaches from the remainder of the impact mitigating structure after one of: less than 50 ms, less than 20 ms, less than 10 ms, less than 5 ms.
1. A helmet comprising an impact mitigating structure, the impact mitigating structure comprising:
a first inner layer;
a second outer layer; and
a reactive layer positioned between the first inner layer and the second outer layer,
the reactive layer comprising a plurality of elements held between the first inner layer and second outer layer in a fixed arrangement,
wherein the plurality of elements are configured to be released when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact; and;
wherein the reactive layer is arranged such that, when the second layer is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements of the reactive layer are configured to roll after they have been released to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and the second outer layer with respect to each other.
14. wherein the plurality of elements are held in a particular arrangement between the first inner layer and second outer layer; wherein at least some of the plurality of elements are released from the particular arrangement when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact; and wherein the released elements are configured to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and second outer layer with respect to each other.
28. A helmet comprising an impact mitigating structure, the impact mitigating structure comprising:
a first inner layer;
a second outer layer; and
a reactive layer positioned between the first inner layer and the second outer layer, the reactive layer comprising a plurality of elements held between the first inner layer and second outer layer;
wherein the reactive layer is arranged such that, when the second layer is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements of the reactive layer are configured to roll to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and the second outer layer with respect to each other, and
wherein the plurality of elements are held in an arrangement between the first and second layers, wherein the arrangement of the plurality of elements of the reactive layer is configured to be disrupted when the second layer is subject to an impact to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and the second outer layer with respect to each other,
wherein the impact mitigating structure comprises a support structure arranged to hold the plurality of elements in the arrangement and to release the plurality of elements when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact.
1. A helmet comprising an impact mitigating structure, the impact mitigating structure comprising:
a first inner layer;
a second outer layer; and
a reactive layer positioned between the first inner layer and the second outer layer,
the reactive layer comprising a plurality of elements held between the first inner layer and second outer layer in a fixed arrangement,
wherein the plurality of elements are configured to be released when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact; and;
wherein the reactive layer is arranged such that, when the second layer is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements of the reactive layer are configured to roll after they have been released to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and the second outer layer with respect to each other.
29. A helmet comprising an impact mitigating structure, the impact mitigating structure comprising:
a first inner layer;
a second outer layer; and
a reactive layer positioned between the first inner layer and the second outer layer,
the reactive layer comprising a plurality of elements held between the first inner layer and second outer layer;
wherein the reactive layer is arranged such that, when the second layer is subject to an impact, the plurality of elements of the reactive layer are configured to roll to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and the second outer layer with respect to each other, and
wherein the reactive layer comprises one or more hinge lines extending across at least part of the reactive layer, wherein the reactive layer is arranged to bend at at least some of the one or more hinge lines, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact.
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 5-7, 13-17 and 19 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the first inner layer and the second outer layer are arranged to separate when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact”, which is indefinite since it is unclear as to the claimed structure of the first inner layer, the second outer layer and the reactive layer. Here, claim 1 recites that the reactive layer is positioned between the first inner layer and the second outer layer, in which it appears that the first inner layer and the second outer layer are separated by the reactive layer, making it unclear as to how the first and second layers are arranged to separate upon impact, since the first and second layers are already separated by the reactive layer. Based on Applicant’s specification, “The first layer and the second layer (e.g., and/or, outer shell) may be arranged to (e.g. completely) separate when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact (e.g. having a force that is greater than or equal to the particular force), e.g. to allow continued movement of the layers relative to each other.” , if applicant intends for the claim to read as the first inner layer and the second outer layer are arranged to completely separate to an impact, as disclosed, examiner suggests amending the claim as such.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the second outer layer is attached to remainder of the impact mitigating structure such that, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the second outer layer is configured to detach from the remainder of the impact mitigating structure”, which is indefinite since it is unclear as to the structure of the “remainder of the impact mitigating structure”. As recited in claim 1, the second outer layer is part of the impact mitigating structure, and claim 6 the claim recites that the second outer layer is attached to remainder of the impact mitigating structure making it unclear as to what structure is claimed as being “remainder of the impact mitigating structure”. Clarification is needed.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the reactive layer is arranged to allow the plurality of elements to roll when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact having at least a particular force”, which is indefinite since it is unclear as to the meets and bounds of what constitutes “a particular force”.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the particular force is between 10 and 100 N, e.g. between 30 N and 70 N, e.g. approximately 50 N.”, which is indefinite since it is unclear as to what “e.g” is referring to, e.g is used as shorthand for example based on Applicant’s Specification. Therefore, it is unclear as to the meets and bounds of what constitutes “between 10 and 100 N, e.g. between 30 N and 70 N, e.g. approximately 50 N”.
Claim 13 recites "wherein the particular force is between 10 and 100 N, e.g. between 30 N and 70 N, e.g. approximately 50 N.", a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, "between 10 and 100 N" recites the broad recitation, and the claim also recites "between 30 N and 70 N, e.g. approximately 50 N" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 recites “a particular arrangement” and “the particular arrangement”, which is indefinite since it is unclear as to the meets and bounds of what constitutes “a particular arrangement”.
Claim 15 recites “the second outer layer detaches from the remainder of the impact mitigating structure after less than 50 ms, e.g. after less than 20 ms, e.g. after less than 10 ms, e.g. after less than 5 ms.”, which is indefinite since it is unclear as to what “e.g” is referring to, e.g is used as shorthand for example based on Applicant’s Specification. Therefore, it is unclear as to the meets and bounds of what constitutes “after less than 50 ms, e.g. after less than 20 ms, e.g. after less than 10 ms, e.g. after less than 5 ms.”.
Claim 15 recites "detaches from the remainder of the impact mitigating structure after less than 50 ms, e.g. after less than 20 ms, e.g. after less than 10 ms, e.g. after less than 5 ms", a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, "after less than 50 ms" recites the broad recitation, and the claim also recites " after less than 20 ms, e.g. after less than 10 ms, e.g. after less than 5 ms" which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the number of elements of the plurality of elements is between 5 and 100,000, e.g. between 50 and 10,000, e.g. between 100 and 1,000.”, which is indefinite since it is unclear as to what “e.g” is referring to, e.g is used as shorthand for example based on Applicant’s Specification. Therefore, it is unclear as to the meets and bounds of what constitutes “between 5 and 100,000, e.g. between 50 and 10,000, e.g. between 100 and 1,000”.
Claim 16 recites "wherein the number of elements of the plurality of elements is between 5 and 100,000, e.g. between 50 and 10,000, e.g. between 100 and 1,000.", a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, "between 5 and 100,000" recites the broad recitation, and the claim also recites "between 50 and 10,000, e.g. between 100 and 1,000" which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the ratio of the surface area of the reactive layer over which the plurality of elements are provided to the surface area of the reactive layer is between 0.05 and 0.5, e.g. between 0.1 and 0.4, e.g. approximately 0.25.”, which is indefinite since it is unclear as to what “e.g” is referring to, e.g is used as shorthand for example based on Applicant’s Specification. Therefore, it is unclear as to the meets and bounds of what constitutes “between 0.05 and 0.5, e.g. between 0.1 and 0.4, e.g. approximately 0.25”.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the ratio of the surface area of the reactive layer over which the plurality of elements are provided to the surface area of the reactive layer is between 0.05 and 0.5, e.g. between 0.1 and 0.4, e.g. approximately 0.25.”, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, “0.05 and 0.5” recites the broad recitation, and the claim also recites “e.g. between 0.1 and 0.4, e.g. approximately 0.25” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the plurality of elements are formed from a material having a Shore A hardness of greater than 50, e.g. greater than 100.”, which is indefinite since it is unclear as to what “e.g” is referring to, e.g is used as shorthand for example based on Applicant’s Specification. Therefore, it is unclear as to the meets and bounds of what constitutes “greater than 50, e.g. greater than 100”.
All dependent claims are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
2020/0329802 by Kleiven discloses an impact structure having a first and second inner layer and a reactive layer.
2020/0237044 by Walterspiel discloses a helmet with a first inner layer and second outer layer, with a reactive layer configured to roll to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and second outer layer.
2021/0045487 by Weber discloses a helmet with a first inner layer and second outer layer, with a reactive layer configured to roll to facilitate movement of the first inner layer and second outer layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JILLIAN PIERORAZIO whose telephone number is (571)270-0553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/Jillian K Pierorazio/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
