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 Amendments
The amendments filed with the written response received on 12 September 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claim(s) 1-4, 9-13, and 15-23 has/have been amended, claim(s) 6-8 is/are canceled, and claim(s) 13-17 and 22 has/have been withdrawn. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-5 and 9-23 is/are pending in this application with an action on the merits to follow regarding claim(s) 1-4, 9-12, 18-21, and 23.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed 23 July 2025, are hereby withdrawn:
Objections to the Drawings
Objections to the Specification
Objections to the Claims
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West US 5530966.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, West discloses an apparatus for modified tackling in a game of football (Figs. 9-15; Abstract), comprising: a pair of football shoulder pads (Figs. 9-15 #146/150) configured to be worn by a user during the game of football and configured to protect the user from injury to the shoulders and chest of the user upon being hit or tackled (Abstract; Col. 2:11-58); and at least one handle coupled to and projecting outwardly from the pair of football shoulder pads (Figs. 9-15 #138) so as to provide the at least one handle with a portion thereof spaced apart from the pair of football shoulder pads (Fig. 11 shows a portion of #138 spaced apart from the pad #150; Col. 8:47-60), the at least one handle forming a loop that defines an open space through which a hand may be inserted to grasp the at least one handle (Col. 8:47-60).
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the Prior Art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require the ability of the structure to perform and/or function. As the Prior Art of West discloses the structure of the apparatus, there would be a reasonable expectation for the apparatus to perform such functions as explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding Claim 2, West discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one handle forming the loop is coupled to a predetermined location on the pair of football shoulder pads (Figs. 9-15).
Regarding Claim 3, West discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one handle forming the loop is affixed to the pair of football shoulder pads (Figs. 9-15; Col. 8:47-65).
Regarding Claim 4, West discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one handle forming the loop is detachably coupled to the pair of football shoulder pads (Col. 8:47-65).
Regarding Claim 5, West discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pair of football shoulder pads is configured to be worn below a neck of the user (Figs. 9-15).
Regarding Claim 10, West discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising two attachment points on each shoulder pad of the pair of football shoulder pads (West Annot. Fig. 12), wherein the at least one handle forming the loop has a first end and a second end, the first end and the second end each configured to couple to one of the attachment points (West Annot. Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 11, West discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a fastener (Abstract) attached to the at least one of the handle forming the loop and the pair of football shoulder pads (Figs. 9-15; Col. 8:50-9:21), wherein the at least one handle forming the loop is coupled to the pair of football shoulder pads via the fastener (Col. 8:50-9:21).
Regarding Claim 12, West discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one handle forming the loop defines an enclosed loop between two attachment points on each shoulder pad of the pair of football shoulder pads (Figs. 9-15; Col. 8:50-9:21).
Regarding Claim 21, West discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the at least one handle forming the loop further comprises: a textured grip surface on the portion of the handle (Figs. 9-12 show texture on #138) that is spaced apart from the pair of football shoulder pads (Fig. 11 shows a portion of #138 spaced apart from the pad #150).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wingo US 5029341.
Regarding Claim 9, West discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the apparatus further comprising a spine plate coupled to a rear area of the pair of football shoulder pads, wherein the at least one handle includes at least one spine plate handle that is coupled to the spine plate and projects outwardly therefrom so as to have a portion thereof spaced apart from the spine plate, the at least one spine plate handle thereby forming a loop that defines an open space through which a hand may be inserted to grasp the spine plate handle.
Wingo discloses a spine plate (Fig 1, #201/99) coupled to a rear area of the pair of football shoulder pads (Fig 1, rear area of #80), wherein one of the at least one handles (Fig 1, #205 has the structure of a handle #117 which has the first end and second end, each end mounted onto a plate that creates a loop to enter the fingers/hand of the user within the loop and capable of holding or grabbing by the hand) is coupled to the spine plate.
Both West and Wingo teach analogous inventions in the art of protective sports gear for wear on the torso. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify West with the teachings of Wingo by adding a spine plate coupled to a rear area of the pair of football shoulder pads, wherein one of the at least one handles is coupled to the spine plate in order to provide additional protection and to prevent injuries to the back and spine area of a player; protected from impact forces.
Claim(s) 18-19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West in view of Wingo.
Regarding Independent Claim 18, West discloses an apparatus for modified tackling in a game of football (Figs. 9-15; Abstract), comprising: an article of protective equipment (Figs. 9-15 #110) configured to be worn by a user during the game of football (Abstract; Col. 2:11-58), including, a pair of football shoulder pads (Figs. 9-15 #146/150), a sternum plate (Figs. 9-15 #132), and a rib protector pad (Figs. 9-15 #112); and a plurality of handles, the plurality of handles including: a first handle coupled to and projecting outwardly from a first shoulder pad of the pair of football shoulder pads so as to have a portion thereof spaced apart from the pair of football shoulder pads (West Annot. Fig. 12), forming a loop that defines an open space through which a hand may be inserted to grasp the first handle (Fig. 11 shows a portion of #138 spaced apart from the pad #150; Col. 8:47-60); a second handle coupled to and projecting outwardly from a second shoulder pad of the pair of football shoulder pads so as to have a portion thereof spaced apart from the pair of football shoulder pads (West Annot. Fig. 12), forming a loop that defines an open space through which a hand may be inserted to grasp the second handle (Fig. 11 shows a portion of #138 spaced apart from the pad #150; Col. 8:47-60); a third handle coupled to and projecting outwardly from the sternum plate so as to have a portion thereof spaced apart from the sternum plate (West Annot. Fig. 12), forming a loop that defines an open space through which a hand may be inserted to grasp the third handle (Fig. 11 shows a portion of #138 spaced apart from the pad #150; Col. 8:47-60).
West does not expressly disclose a spine plate nor a fourth handle coupled to and projecting outwardly from the spine plate so as to have a portion thereof spaced apart from the spine plate, forming a loop that defines an open space through which a hand may be inserted to grasp the fourth handle.
Wingo discloses a spine plate (Fig. 1 #201/99), and a fourth handle coupled to and projecting outwardly from the spine plate so as to have a portion thereof spaced apart from the spine plate (Fig. 1 #117), forming a loop that defines an open space through which a hand may be inserted to grasp the fourth handle (Fig. 1).
Both West and Wingo teach analogous inventions in the art of protective sports gear for wear on the torso. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify West with the teachings of Wingo by adding a spine plate coupled to a rear area of the pair of football shoulder pads, wherein one of the at least one handles is coupled to the spine plate in order to provide additional protection and to prevent injuries to the back and spine area of a player; protected from impact forces.
Regarding Claim 19, the modified apparatus of West discloses the apparatus of claim 18, wherein each handle of the plurality of handles is detachably coupled to the article of protective equipment (Figs. 14-15 #138; Col. 8:47-65).
Regarding Claim 23, the modified apparatus of West discloses the apparatus of claim 18, wherein each of the first handle and the second handle further comprises a textured grip surface on a portion of the first handle and second handle (Figs. 9-12 show texture on #138) that is spaced apart from the pair of football shoulder pads (Fig. 11 shows a portion of #138 spaced apart from the pad #150); further wherein the third handle further comprises a textured grip surface on a portion of the third handle (Figs. 9-12 show texture on #138) that is spaced apart from the sternum plate (Fig. 11 shows a portion of #138 spaced apart from the pad #150); and further wherein the fourth handle further comprises a textured grip surface on a portion of the fourth handle (Wingo Fig. 1 shows texture on #205) that is spaced apart from the spine plate (Fig 1, #205 has the structure of a handle which has the first end and second end, each end mounted onto a plate that creates a loop to enter the fingers/hand of the user within the loop and capable of holding or grabbing by the hand).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West in view of Wingo as applied to claim 18, further in view of Clifford US 20100299830.
Regarding Claim 20, the modified apparatus of West discloses the apparatus of claim 18, wherein each handle of the first hand and the second handle defines an enclosed loop (Figs. 13-15 #138 loop) between two attachment points on one shoulder pad of the pair of football shoulder pads (Col. 8:66-9:21); further wherein the third handle defines an enclosed loop (Figs. 12-15 shows the loop; Col. 8:66-9:21) between two attachment points (Figs. 12-15; Col. 8:66-9:21); and further wherein the fourth handle defines an enclosed loop between two attachment points on the spine plate (West Annot. Fig. 12).
West does not expressly disclose that the third handle defines the enclosed loop between two attachment points specifically on the sternum plate.
Clifford discloses a vest with handles (Figs. 1-6 #10) with a third handle (Fig. 1 #70 center) defines an enclosed loop between two attachment points (Clifford Annot. Fig. 1) specifically on a sternum plate (Clifford Annot. Fig. 1).
Both West and Wingo teach analogous inventions in the art of protective sports gear for wear on the torso. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify West with the teachings of Wingo by adding a spine plate coupled to a rear area of the pair of football shoulder pads, wherein one of the at least one handles is coupled to the spine plate thereby “configuring readily accessible hand holds near the… chest area's center of mass… to more easily assist… to move from one position to another,” (Clifford ¶0042).
PNG
media_image1.png
802
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
792
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12 September 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 9-12, 18-21, and 23 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-4, 9-12, 18-21, and 23, Applicant argues:
The limitation, “a loop through which a hand may be inserted to grasp the handle” is not solely functional and, “when interpreted in view of the specification, inherently requires that the loop be spaced apart sufficiently to form an open space that allows a player's hand to be inserted therethrough to grasp the handle while playing football. However, the above amendment to the description of the loop positively states the requirement that the loop define an open space of sufficient size, which is not disclosed or suggested in the prior art,” (Remarks Pg. 12-13)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The handle will fit differently sized hands in different manners and an intended relative position of the strap to the apparatus and to the wearer's hand anatomy is functional and not patentably significant. See 35 USC 102 rejection above.
“West discloses straps which do not form handles that project away from the structure to which they are attached to define an open space to provide a handle, and these straps need to be tight enough to securely attach plates of the protective gear to underlying structure. Similarly, the straps of Wingo are used to secure plates to underlying structure, rather than to project outwardly to form handles for grasping…. While the strap 138 has a portion that is spaced apart from the inner layer 112, it is not spaced apart from the plate 122 that forms a part of the protective equipment, and thus does not have any "a portion thereof spaced apart from the pair of football shoulder pads", because the plate 122 would be considered a part of the pair of football shoulder of pads. Furthermore, the anchor strap 138 does not form "a loop that defines an open space through which a hand may be inserted to grasp the handle", as it must be sufficiently tight to secure the plate 122 to the inner layer 112 to retain it in proper position to serve its protective function,” (Remarks Pg. 13-15).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in Fig. 11 of West, the strap #138 projects outwardly and away from the plates. The claim does not require the entirety of the strap to be outside of the plate and projecting away from it. Further, the claim recites, “at least one handle coupled to and projecting outwardly from the pair of football shoulder pads so as to provide the at least one handle with a portion thereof spaced apart from the pair of football shoulder pads”. As seen in the rejection above, West provides a handle #138 which is coupled to (Figs. 9-12 shows the handle around the pad openings #136 which allow the handle to be attached to the pad via encirclement) and projecting outwardly from (Fig. 11 shows the projection outward of the pads) from the pair of football shoulder pads (Figs. 9-12 show at least two shoulder pads #146 with at least two handles #138) so as to provide the at least one handle with a portion thereof spaced apart from the pair of football shoulder pads (Fig. 11 shows the gap between the pad #122b and the portion of pad #138). As for, “a loop that defines an open space through which a hand may be inserted to grasp the handle”, the handle will fit differently sized hands in different manners and an intended relative position of the strap to the apparatus and to the wearer's hand anatomy is functional and not patentably significant. See 35 USC 102 rejection above.
“the length of the straps 138 is shorter than a hand width, and would not allow a player to even forcibly insert their hand through the loop, even if the player and the person wearing the loop were stationary,” (Remarks Pg. 15).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the arguments above, the strap size as it relates to a hand size is a functional limitation, and how the strap is operated is a recitation of intended use. See 35 USC 102 rejection above.
The straps of Wingo are functionally similar to West and serve to secure a plate to the protective gear and do not project outwardly or away from the plates (rather rests against the plate), and are not handles nor intended to be used as such, (Remarks Pg. 15-16.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in Fig. 1 of Wingo, the strap #117 is on the outer surface of the plate (Wingo Col. 6:56-30), thus is projecting away from the plate by being on the outside of it. One object can rest against another object and still be projecting away from that object. “projecting away” means to protrude or bulge, or to create a ridge, shelf, or overhang, which the prior arts of both West and Wingo provide. See 35 USC 103 rejection above.
“… neither West nor Wingo discloses straps having a textured grip portion as claimed. The action cites Figs. 9-12 of West for showing a textured surface of straps 138, but these figures merely show shading, that appears similar to shading shown for the plates and inner layer. There is no explicit disclosure of a textured surface, much less a texture portion intended to be gripped,” (Remarks Pg. 18).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Col. 8:51-60 notes the straps #138 of West have “hook and loop fastener strips” #142, which are well known to be textured. Further, 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. As for the intention of being gripped, that is a recitation of intended use and is not germane to patentability. See 35 USC 103 rejection above.
“The action further states that "(Fig. 11 shows a portion of #138 spaced apart from the pad #150")”, but pad 150 is not labeled in Fig. 11, and the figure shows the strap 138 having a portion that rests against a plate of shell 120 and is only spaced apart from the inner layer 112, this portion passing through slots 136 to secure the shell 120 to the inner layer 112 (see col. 8 lines 61-65), and thus is not spaced apart from the plate of shell 120, which forms a part of the shoulder pads,” (Remarks Pg. 18).
The Examiner apologizes for not noting that the pad #150 is labeled in Fig. 15. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the strap #138 is not shown to be spaced apart from the shell #120. Figs. 11 & 15 both show the gap between the strap #138 and the pad #150, even if that gap is filled with the plate #120. The claim does not require the gap to be empty. See 35 USC 103 rejection above.
Applicant submits that the dependent claims are patentable based on their dependencies from claim(s) 1 and 18; however, as discussed in the rejection and in the arguments above, claim(s) 1 and 18 are not allowable over the prior art. Therefore, these arguments have not been found convincing and the rejections of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 have been maintained.
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 RAQUEL M. WEIS whose telephone number is 571-272-6804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 0800-1700.
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 J. TOMPKINS can be reached on 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.
/RAQUEL M. WEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732