DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 15-24 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15-19 are amended. Claims 5, 8, 13, and 14 are cancelled.
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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on April 22, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15-19 have been amended, claims 5, 8, 13, and 14 have been cancelled, and 21-24 have been added. Thus, claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, and 15-24 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome some of the 35 USC §112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has not overcome the 35 USC §102(a)(2) rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 22, 2022 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sicking does not disclose PU material that intersects at an angle between the inner and outer surface. The examiner disagrees. Sicking explicitly includes columns that includes a “kink” that facilitates buckling (see para. 0047, Fig. 4) which includes an angle between the different portions.
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 6, 7, 9, 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 6 recites that the array is “customized” to a shape of a head of a wearer. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. Further, it appears to be writing the claim as a method claim. The claim is an apparatus claim, and how it came to be, whether it was “customized” or not does not affect the structure as claimed. That is, how would someone with a potentially infringing product know whether it was “customized”?
Claim 7 recites that the array is “customized” to allow a variable offset. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. Further, it appears to be writing the claim as a method claim. The claim is an apparatus claim, and how it came to be, whether it was “customized” or not, does not affect the structure as claimed. That is, how would someone with a potentially infringing product know whether it was “customized”?
Claim 9 recites that the array “can be customized” to increase fit. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. Further, it appears to be writing the claim as a method claim. The claim is an apparatus claim, and how it came to be, whether it was “customized” or not, does not affect the structure as claimed. That is, how would someone with a potentially infringing product know whether it was “customized”? Further, the claim recites “can be” and thus it is not a requirement of the claim.
Claim 19 recites “customized to a shape of the head of the wearer”. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. It is also unclear if the claim requires the head of a wearer. Further, it appears that the claim is attempting to recite a method step. That is, how would someone with a potentially infringing product know whether it was “customized”?
The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 15-20, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sicking et al. (US 20170303623).
Regarding claim 1, Sicking describes a football helmet (helmet 10) comprising:
an outer shell (shell 12) having an inner surface (inner surface 18);
an impact absorbing layer (energy absorber 50) including a plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays (pads 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34, removable, para. 0034) positioned inside the outer shell (12), wherein at least a portion of the outer shell is flexible (see para. 0079 describing the shell as deforming, and thus is flexible) to transmit an impact force to a localized section of the impact absorbing layer positioned inside the outer shell,
wherein each modular impact absorbing array of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays includes a concentric outer surface (outer layer 54) proximate the inner surface of the outer shell (12), a concentric inner surface (inner layer 52), and one or more impact absorbing structures (columns 56) between the concentric outer surface (64) and the concentric inner surface of the respective modular impact absorbing array,
wherein the one or more impact absorbing structures include an intersection between portions of polyurethane material (see annotated Fig. 4, columns may be polyurethane, para. 0049) wherein respective ends of the portions of the polyurethane material are respectively secured to the concentric outer surface (74, 54) and the concentric inner surface (72, 52), wherein the intersection comprises the portions of the polyurethane material intersecting at an angle (are at an angle) between the portions of the polyurethane material; and
a foam layer (inner cushion 42, see para. 0041, Figs. 1, 8A, 8B, para. 0040, foam) adjacent to the impact absorbing layer (50), wherein the foam layer comprises one or more foam pads (includes multiple pads 42).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 1, wherein a respective foam pad of the one or more foam pads is disposed between the concentric inner surface (52) of a respective modular impact absorbing array of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays and a head of a wearer (located between the surface and the user’s head).
Regarding claim 3, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 1, wherein the foam layer (42) is configured to contact a head of a wearer (is configured to contact the head of a wearer).
Regarding claim 4, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 1, wherein the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays includes: a front modular impact absorbing array (32); a crown modular impact absorbing array (24); a rear modular impact absorbing array (34); and side modular impact absorbing arrays (26, 28).
Regarding claim 6, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 1, wherein a respective thickness of the respective impact absorbing array of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays is customized to a shape of a head of a wearer to increase fit (are curved for the head of a wearer, are “customized” inasmuch as claimed, this appears to attempt to recite how the shape came to be, rather than the shape itself).
Regarding claim 7, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 1, wherein a respective thickness of the respective modular impact absorbing array of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays is customized to allow a variable offset associated with the impact absorbing layer (see Fig. 2B depicting different heights within the array, are “customized” inasmuch as claimed, this appears to attempt to recite how the shape came to be, rather than the shape itself, thickness is tailored to the user, para. 0045).
Regarding claim 9, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 1, wherein the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays comprise modularly replaceable arrays of different sizes or thicknesses for wearer comfort, the arrays 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34 are different sizes and are removable) wherein a respective size of thickness of each modularly replaceable array can be customized to increase fit (are customized inasmuch has claimed).
Regarding claim 10, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 1, wherein each modular impact absorbing array (24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34) of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays is sized and configured to fit within the available space between the outer shell and a head of a wearer (are each designed to fit in the helmet).
Regarding claim 11, Sicking describes a football helmet (helmet 10) comprising:
an outer shell (shell 12) having an inner surface (inner surface 18);
an impact absorbing layer (energy absorber 50) including a plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays (pads 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34, removable, para. 0034) positioned inside the outer shell (12), wherein at least a portion of the outer shell is flexible (see para. 0079 describing the shell as deforming, and thus is flexible) to transmit an impact force to a localized section of the impact absorbing layer positioned inside the outer shell,
wherein each modular impact absorbing array of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays includes a concentric outer surface (outer layer 54) proximate the inner surface of the outer shell (12), a concentric inner surface (inner layer 52), and one or more impact absorbing structures (columns 56) between the concentric outer surface (64) and the concentric inner surface of the respective modular impact absorbing array
wherein first impact absorbing structures of a first modular impact absorbing array of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays positioned inside a first region of the outer shell (front pad 32) are tuned to respond differently to the impact force to the first region of the outer shell (larger diameter columns to react differently, para. 0045) than second impact absorbing structures (other pads in liner 14, para. 0045) of a second modular impact absorbing array of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays positioned inside a second region (regions that are not the front pad) of the outer shell to customize the first modular impact absorbing array to the localized section comprising the first modular impact absorbing array in the first region of the outer shell, wherein the first impact absorbing structures comprise intersecting portions of material (see annotated Fig. 4) secured between the concentric outer surface (74, 54) and the concentric inner surface (72, 52) of the first modular impact absorbing array that intersect at an angle (are at an angle) between the concentric outer surface and the concentric inner surface of the first modular impact absorbing array, and
a foam layer (inner cushion 42, see para. 0041, Figs. 1, 8A, 8B, para. 0040, foam) adjacent to the impact absorbing layer (50), wherein the foam layer comprises one or more foam pads (includes multiple pads 42).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 11, wherein the first modular impact absorbing array (of pad 32) comprises a front modular impact absorbing array (front) or a rear modular impact absorbing array (para. 0045 describes first array as the front pad).
Regarding claim 15, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 1, wherein: a respective foam (42) pad of the one or more foam pads is secured to the concentric inner surface (52) of the respective modular impact absorbing array.
Regarding claim 16, Sicking describes a football helmet comprising:
an outer shell (shell 12) having an inner surface (inner surface 18);
an impact absorbing layer (energy absorber 50) positioned inside the outer shell,
wherein at least a portion of the outer shell is flexible (see para. 0079 describing the shell as deforming, and thus is flexible) to transmit an impact force to a localized section of the impact absorbing layer positioned inside the outer shell,
wherein the impact absorbing layer comprises a plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays (pads 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34, removable, para. 0034), the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays including:
a front modular impact absorbing array (32);
a crown modular impact absorbing array (24);
a rear modular impact absorbing array (34); and
side modular impact absorbing arrays (26, 28); and
a foam layer (inner cushions 42, see para. 0041, Figs. 1, 8A, 8B, para. 0040, foam) adjacent to the impact absorbing layer (50), wherein the foam layer comprises a respective foam pad (one of pads 42) of a plurality of foam pads disposed between a respective modular impact absorbing array of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays and a head of a wearer (see, e.g., Fig. 1),
wherein each modular impact absorbing array of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays comprises: a concentric outer surface (outer layer 54) proximate the inner surface of the outer shell (12); a concentric inner surface (inner layer 52) proximate the foam layer; and
an impact absorbing structure (columns 56) comprising portions of polyurethane material (columns may be polyurethane, para. 0049) secured between the concentric outer surface and the concentric inner surface of the respective modular impact absorbing array that intersect at an angle (see annotated Fig. 4) between the concentric outer surface (74, 54) and the concentric inner surface (72, 52) of the respective modular impact absorbing array.
PNG
media_image1.png
342
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 16, wherein the impact absorbing structure of at least one modular impact absorbing array of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays is positioned inside a first region of the outer shell (front region at front pad 32 location) customized to a respective impact zone in the first region of the outer shell corresponding to the localized section of the impact absorbing layer including the at least one modular impact absorbing array (larger diameter columns react differently, para. 0045).
Regarding claim 18, Sicking describe the football helmet of claim 17, wherein the impact absorbing structure of the at least one modular impact absorbing array is different from impact absorbing structures of one or more other modular impact absorbing arrays of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays (larger diameter columns to react differently, para. 0045) to respond differently to the impact force to the localized section comprising the at least one modular impact absorbing array (other pads in liner 14, para. 0045).
Regarding claim 19, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 16, wherein at least some modular impact absorbing arrays of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays have different thicknesses relative to one another, wherein the different thicknesses are customized to a shape of the head of the wearer (larger columns, para. 0045).
Regarding claim 20, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 16, wherein at least some modular impact absorbing arrays of the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays are sized and configured to fit within the available space between the outer shell and the head of the wearer (all fit within the space of the helmet).
Regarding claim 22, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 1, wherein the intersection comprises a point (there is a point of intersection) between the concentric outer surface and the concentric inner surface of the respective modular impact absorbing array (the intersection is between the two surfaces).
Regarding claim 23, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of modular impact absorbing arrays comprise:
a first modular impact absorbing array positioned inside a first region of the outer shell (front pad 32); and
a second modular impact absorbing array (other pads in liner, para. 0045) positioned inside a second region of the outer shell (are not in the same region); and
a first configuration of the one or more impact absorbing structures of the first modular impact absorbing array (larger diameter columns to react differently, para. 0045) is different from a second configuration of the one or more impact absorbing structures of the second modular impact absorbing array.
Regarding claim 24, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 11, wherein at least one of a number of the first impact absorbing structures, a size of the first impact absorbing structures (larger diameter columns to react differently, para. 0045) and an arrangement of the first impact absorbing structures is different from the second impact absorbing structures of the second modular impact absorbing array.
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 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicking et al. (US 20170303623) in view of Browd et al. (WO 2015069800) as evidenced by Ferrara (US 20160302496).
Regarding claim 21, Sicking describes the football helmet of claim 1, but does not explicitly describe wherein the angle is between 30° and 120°.
In related art, Browd describes that filaments may be located at an angle of 30 degrees and 150 degrees, and that the filaments may intersect with one another. An intersection between filaments at these particular angles would result in intersection angles of 30 to 120 degrees depending on the reference point for the angle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the angle of the intersection as such a feature is a result effective variable. As described in Ferrara, the angles of the struts are utilized to control, predict, design combine and vary force magnitudes, energy absorption, and directional concentrations of force for different applications (para. 0080). Thus, arranging the intersection to be at a particular angle is utilized to achieve a desired compression.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Clint Ostrup can be reached on 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.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights