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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbach (US 2020/0263959) in view of Park (US 2006/0037121) and Lim et al. (US 2021/0022484, hereinafter ‘Lim’).
Regarding claim 1, Dieffenbach discloses a ballistic protection device with built-in multifunctional load comprising: a main sac with at least one compartment (15, para 0027); and a ballistic protector comprising a first panel made from a ballistic protection material extending from a side of said main sac (50A) and a second panel made from a ballistic protection material extending from another side of said main sac (50B), wherein said main sac and said ballistic protector form a single body (10); except does not expressly disclose the section panel or the first and second panel abutting against each other in the inactive position as claimed as claimed.
However, Park teaches a similar device including a section panel (25) extending from a first panel so that a proximal end of the section panel is coupled to the first panel between a proximal end and a distal end of the first panel and a distal end of the first panel extends away from a surface of the first panel (see Fig. 1).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the section panel and hook and loop fasteners taught by Park to the panels taught by Dieffenbach, in order to releasably join the panels in front of the user as taught by Park (para 0047).
Further, Lim teaches a similar device wherein said first and second panels are abutted against each other (see Figs. 2, 3) and attached to a front of said main sac in an inactive position (right side of Fig. 5 shows attached to front of main sac 160 (front facing the front of the wearer)).
Because Dieffenbach as modified above and Lim both deployable ballistic panels for a carrying bag, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the abutting panels that wrap around the bag or user in inactive/active positions, respectively as taught by Lim for the folding panels taught by Dieffenbach as modified above to achieve the predictable result of allowing the ballistic panels to protect the user or stow away conveniently when not in use.
Regarding claim 2, Dieffenbach as modified above further discloses a distal end of said first panel is removably coupled to a distal end of said second panel (see Park Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Dieffenbach as modified above further discloses said distal ends are removably coupled to each other through at least one of magnetic or mechanical securing (see Park 26, 27; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Dieffenbach as modified above further discloses the ballistic protector (4) is located external to said main sac and is independent of said at least one compartment and a closing system of said main sac (see Lim Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Dieffenbach as modified above further discloses and said first and second panels are deployed around a user's body and coupled together at their distal ends in an active position, providing rear, side, and front ballistic protection (see Lim Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 8, Dieffenbach as modified above further discloses said first and second panels are deployed around a user's body so that a distal end of said section is coupled to a distal end of said second panel providing rear, side, and front ballistic protection (when viewed in combination with Park).
Regarding claim 9, Dieffenbach as modified above further discloses the at least one compartment is provided for internal storage of elements (functional/intended use recitation).
Regarding claim 10, Dieffenbach as modified above further discloses the at least one compartment has an opening located at a top of the main sac (see Fig. 1; upper 20 or 25).
Regarding claim 11, Dieffenbach as modified above further discloses the at least one compartment is independent of the ballistic protector (see Fig. 4; see Lim Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 12, Dieffenbach as modified above further discloses at least one shoulder strap coupled to said main sac (55A).
Regarding claim 13, Dieffenbach as modified above further discloses a crossbody strap coupled to said main sac (55B can be used as a crossbody strap).
Regarding claim 14, Dieffenbach as modified above further discloses a handle coupled to said main sac (30).
Regarding claim 16, Dieffenbach as modified above further discloses at least one said first panel or said second panel comprises a plurality of individual adjacent panels (see Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbach (US 2020/0263959) in view of Park (US 2006/0037121) and Lim et al. (US 2021/0022484, hereinafter ‘Lim’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bradley (US 2009/0014490).
Dieffenbach as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the main sac or panels being made of a material with ballistic protection inside a waterproof material as claimed.
However, Bradley teaches a similar device wherein the ballistic protection structure is made internally from a ballistic protection material and externally from a waterproof material (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the Dieffenbach as modified above device out of a ballistic protection material inside a waterproof material as taught by Bradley, since 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2021/0022484, hereinafter ‘Lim’) in view of Bradley (US 2009/0014490) and Park (US 2006/0037121).
Lim discloses a main sac (160), said main sac having at least one compartment (inside 160, para 0037) and at least one shoulder strap (130); and a ballistic protector (120), said ballistic protector (120) comprising a first panel made from said ballistic protection material extending from a side of said main sac (124) and having at a distal end at least one of magnetic or mechanical securing elements (172), and a second panel made from said ballistic protection material extending from another side of said main sac (123) and having at a distal end at least one of magnetic or mechanical securing elements (171), such that the ballistic protector is located external to said main sac (see Fig. 5) and is independent of a closing system of said main sac (see Fig. 5), said first and second panels are abutted against each other (see Figs. 2, 3) and attached to a front of said main sac in an inactive position (right side of Fig. 5 shows attached to front of main sac 160 (front facing the front of the wearer)); except does not expressly disclose the bag or panels being made internally from a ballistic protection material and externally from a waterproof material or the section panel details as claimed.
However, Bradley teaches a similar device wherein the ballistic protection structure is made internally from a ballistic protection material and externally from a waterproof material (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the Lim device out of a ballistic protection material inside a waterproof material as taught by Bradley, since 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Further, Park teaches a similar device including a section panel (25) extending from a first panel so that a proximal end of the section panel is coupled to the first panel between a proximal end and a distal end of the first panel and a distal end of the first panel extends away from a surface of the first panel (see Fig. 1).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the section panel and hook and loop fasteners taught by Park to the panels taught by Dieffenbach, in order to releasably join the panels in front of the user as taught by Park (para 0047).
Regarding claim 19, Lim as modified above further discloses said first and second panels are deployed around the user's body and coupled together at their distal ends in an active position, providing rear, side, and front ballistic protection (Lim Fig. 5; 171, 172).
Regarding claim 20, Lim as modified above further discloses at least one said first panel or said second panel comprises a plurality of individual adjacent panels (Lim Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the functionality interpretation of Dieffenbach are moot due to the combination with Lim as set forth above.
Applicant argues that Lim does not teach having the panels attached to the front of the mesh sack 160 (the main body) in an inactive position. This argument has been considered, however is not persuasive.
Referencing the figures of Lim, the panels are attached to the front side of the main body (the front side being the side facing the front of the user). This attachment point remains the same whether the panels are in the active or inactive positions (both shown in Fig. 5).
The Figures of Lim also clearly demonstrate the panels being abutted against each other when in an inactive position (see Lim Figs. 1-3).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the panels being abutted against the front surface of the main body) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Lim does not teach the limitations of the claims because Lim’s panels are part of the main sac. This argument has been considered, however is not persuasive in light of the rejection above detailing the interpretation that Lim’s main sac is the mesh sack 160, not the various components detailed by the applicant, and as such, the Lim ballistic panels are located external to the main sac (160) and independent of its closing system as claimed.
For the reasons stated above, as well as those set forth in the rejections above, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm EST.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
September 18, 2025