DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 30 January 2026. Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 13, 16 – 17, 19 – 21, and 26 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3, 9 – 10, 20 – 21 and 26, as well as the cancellation of claims 5 and 14.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11, "is transparent, wherein" should read –is transparent, and wherein--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “generally” in claim 3, line 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what “generally planar” entails.
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.
Claims 1 - 2, 6 - 7, 13, 17, 19 - 21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maleki (US 5015864 A, hereinafter "Maleki”).
Regarding claim 1, Maleki teaches an apparatus (the apparatus illustrated in Fig. 1; col 2 In 43-46) comprising:
a frame (1, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, Fig. 1 and 3, Fig. 1; col 2 In 43-46) (upon which 11 rest, as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 2 In 56-68);
a plurality of wheels (“Caster wheels 9, 11 and 14” col 2, ln 66, Figure 1; as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 2 In 56-68) coupled to the frame (1, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 19), wherein the frame (1, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 19) is configured to be movably supported on a floor surface by the plurality of wheels (9, 11, 14) (upon which 11 rest, as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 2 In 56-68); and
a shield (which includes the forward-facing portions of 2, as well as 37, 34, and 16, as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 2 In 43-46; col 3 In 5-18, 49-54; col 4 In 3-5) that is coupled to the frame (as illustrated in Fig. 1), the shield comprising:
a front wall (which includes the forward-facing portions of 2, rods 6, and 37, as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 2 In 42-55; col 4 In 3-5) that extends along a first horizontal axis (left-to-right, as illustrated in Fig. 2; col 4 In 3-5),
wherein the front wall defines a pair of arm holes (arm holes 29, Fig. 5; col 3 In 42-53) that are configured to receive arms of a healthcare worker positioned behind the front wall (as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 3 In 42-53),
wherein each arm hole of the pair of arm holes (29) is formed by an opening in a respective portion of the shield (Fig. 5; col 3 In 42-53) and surrounded by a respective planar region of the shield (forward-facing portions of 2, 37, 34, and 16, as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 2 In 43-46; col 3 In 5-18, 49-54; col 4 In 3-5; Examiner interprets the arm holes are surrounded by a respective planar region of the shield as shown in Figure 1.) and
wherein at least a portion of the front wall (window 37, Fig. 4; col 4 In 3-5) is transparent ("lead-glass", col 4 In 3-5)
wherein a position of the shield (which includes the forward-facing portions of 2, as well as 37, 34, and 16, as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 2 In 43-46; col 3 In 5-18, 49-54; col 4 In 3-5) or a portion thereof is adjustable to permit selection of an operative height of the arm holes from the floor ("adjustable for the height of the user'', col 4 In 42-46; "adjustment ... height", col 2 In 52-55; Examiner interprets the adjustment of frame 1 adjusts the arm holes in the shield.).
Regarding claim 2, Maleki teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Maleki also teaches that the shield further comprises a plurality of opposing side walls (the portions of 2 between the arms and torso of the wearer, as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 4 In 24-26) that extend from the front wall along a second horizontal axis (into the page, as illustrated in Fig. 2; col 4 In 24-26) that is perpendicular to the first horizontal axis (as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Maleki teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Maleki also teaches that the front wall comprises an upper portion (the forward-facing portion of 2 above the wearer's midriff, as illustrated in Fig. 2; col 4 In 24-26) and a lower portion (the forward-facing portion of 2 below the wearer's midriff, as illustrated in Fig. 2; col 4 In 24-26),
wherein the upper portion is movable relative to the lower portion (as illustrated in Fig. 2; "fabric", col 3 In 42-52).
Regarding claim 7, Maleki teaches the apparatus of claim 6, and Maleki also teaches that the upper portion of the front wall is configured to move to a fully collapsed portion (as illustrated in Fig. 2; "fabric", col 3 In 42-52; "adjustable for the height of the user'', col 4 In 42-46).
Regarding claim 13, Maleki teaches the apparatus of claim 2, and Maleki also teaches that at least a portion of the front wall and at least a portion of each of the opposing side walls (the portions of 2 between the arms and torso of the wearer, Figs. 1-2; col 2 In 43-46) are configured to slide vertically as a coupled assembly (as illustrated in Figs. 1-2; "adjustment ... height", col 2 In 52-55).
Regarding claim 17, Maleki teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Maleki also teaches that the frame comprises one of a walker, a child walking aid, or a stroller (a walker: "walks ... applies a force to the thrust bars", col 4 In 29-33; Examiner interprets as a walking person.).
Regarding claim 19, Maleki teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Maleki also teaches that at least a portion of the shield is collapsible ("fabric", col 3 In 42-52; "adjustable for the height of the user", col 4 In 42-46) relative to the frame to reduce a height of the shield above a floor surface ("adjustable for the height of the user", col 4 In 42-46).
Regarding claim 20, Maleki teaches all limitations of claim 19. Maleki teaches the front wall (which includes the forward-facing portions of 2, rods 6, and 37, as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 2 In 42-55; col 4 In 3-5) comprises an upper portion (6, Fig. 1; col 2 In 50-52) that extends above the frame (1, 4, 6, 19, Fig. 1 and 3; col 2 In 43-46),
wherein the upper portion of the front wall is hingedly (“removable fasteners, such as hook and loop fasteners”, col 3 ln 50 - 52) coupled to the frame (1, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 19) to reduce the height of the shield above the floor surface (“adjusted in height to accommodate the height of the user or operator”, col 2 ln 53 – 55; “adjustable for the height of the user”, col 4, ln 42 - 43).
Regarding claim 21, Maleki teaches the apparatus of claim 19, and Maleki also teaches that the front wall comprises an upper portion (6, Fig. 1; col 2 In 50-52) that extends above the frame (as illustrated in Fig. 2),
wherein the upper portion of the front wall is slidably coupled to the frame (as illustrated in Fig. 1; "telescopic movement", col 2 In 47-55) so that the upper portion is movable along a vertical axis relative to the frame (vertically with respect to ground, as illustrated in Fig. 1; "telescopic", col 2 In 47-55).
Regarding claim 26, Maleki teaches the apparatus of claim 2, and Maleki also teaches that the shield further comprises a rear wall (16, Fig. 1; col 3 In 5-18) that extends between the side walls along the first horizontal axis (as illustrated in Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 1 - 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kropf (US 20030213359 A1, hereinafter "Kropf”) in view of Maleki.
Regarding claim 1, Kropf teaches an apparatus (20, Fig. 1; para [0022]) comprising:
a frame (75, Fig. 2; para [0028]);
a plurality of wheels (“wheels” 46, Figure 2, [0028]) coupled to the frame (75),
wherein the frame (75) is configured to be movably supported on a floor surface by the plurality of wheels (46) ([0025], [0028]) and
a shield (which includes walls 22, 25, and 26, as well as windows 27 and 31, as illustrated in Fig. 2; para [0022]) that is coupled to the frame (as illustrated in Fig. 2), the shield comprising:
a front wall (26, Fig. 2; para [0022]) that extends along a first horizontal axis (generally parallel to the elongate span of 75, as illustrated in Fig. 2; para [0028]),
wherein the front wall defines a pair of arm holes (“ a pair of arm openings 99”, Fig. 1 and 4; para [0031]) that are configured to receive arms of a healthcare worker positioned behind the front wall (as illustrated in Fig. 4; para [0031]),
wherein each arm hole of the pair of arm holes (99) is formed by an opening in a respective portion of the shield (22, 25, 26, 27 and 31) (see Figures 1 and 4) and surrounded by a respective planar region of the shield (see Figures 1 and 4), and
wherein at least a portion of the front wall (which includes windows 27 and 31, as illustrated in Fig. 1; par [0022]) is transparent ("window", para [0022]; "armored glass", para [0022]).
Kropf does not teach a position of the shield or a portion thereof is adjustable to permit selection of an operative height of the arm holes from the floor.
However, Maleki teaches a “mobile radiation shield apparatus to protect a physician or other personnel who may be exposed to stray radiation during diagnostic, therapeutic, or surgical procedures” (abstract) and teaches a position of the shield (which includes the forward-facing portions of 2, as well as 37, 34, and 16, as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 2 In 43-46; col 3 In 5-18, 49-54; col 4 In 3-5) or a portion thereof is adjustable to permit selection of an operative height of the arm holes from the floor ("adjustable for the height of the user'', col 4 In 42-46; "adjustment ... height", col 2 In 52-55; Examiner interprets the adjustment of frame 1 adjusts the arm holes in the shield.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kropf such that a position of the shield or a portion thereof is adjustable to permit selection of an operative height of the arm holes from the floor, as taught by Maleki, for the benefit of being “readily accommodate different heights” (Maleki: col 1 ln 55 - 59).
Regarding claim 2, Kropf and Maleki teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Kropf also teaches that the shield further comprises a plurality of opposing side walls (26, Fig. 2; para [0022]) that extend from the front wall along a second horizontal axis (generally perpendicular to 75, as illustrated in Fig. 2; para [0028]) that is perpendicular to the first horizontal axis (as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Kropf and Maleki teach the apparatus of claim 2, and Kropf also teaches that the front wall is generally planar (as illustrated in Fig. 1) and the opposing side walls extend rearwardly from the front wall of the shield (as illustrated in Fig. 1) along the second horizontal axis (as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maleki.
Regarding claim 8, Maleki teaches all limitations of claim 7. Maleki teaches when the upper portion of the front wall is in the fully collapsed position (as illustrated in Fig. 2; "fabric", col 3 In 42-52; "adjustable for the height of the user'', col 4 In 42-46)..
Maleki does not teach the upper portion of the front wall has a height that is no greater than five feet.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Maleki by making the fully collapsed position having a height that is no greater than five feet in light of appropriate sized for storage and transportation as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Lastly, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed value.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maleki, as applied in claim 1 in view of Rogers (US 5179746 A, hereinafter “Rogers”).
Regarding claim 16, Maleki teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Maleki does not teach that the frame is movably supported on a plurality of slidable skids.
However, Rogers teaches an apparatus (the apparatus illustrated in Fig. 3; col 5 In 25-38) comprising a frame (22, Fig. 3; col 5 In 4-24) that is movably supported on a plurality of slidable skids (26, Fig. 3; col 5 In 25-38).
Rogers teaches including this technical feature to adjust the stability of an apparatus (as illustrated in Figs. 5 and 9; "protective skids", col 5 In 25-38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the apparatus taught by Maleki could have been modified as claimed in view of Rogers to optimize the stability of an apparatus as desired or necessary to meet the demands or requirements of a given application.
Claims 1, 6, 9 – 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuqua et al (US 8015910 B1, hereinafter “Fuqua”) in view of Kropf in further view of Maleki.
Regarding claim 1, Fuqua teaches an apparatus (10, Fig. 1; col 3 In 60-col 4 In 1) comprising:
a frame (which includes 24A-B, 25A-B, and 26A-B, as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 4 In 18-38)
a plurality of wheels (wheel 72, Figure 2, col 5 In 38-43) coupled to the frame (24A-B, 25A-B, and 26A-B),
wherein the frame (24A-B, 25A-B, and 26A-B) is configured to be movably supported on a floor surface by the plurality of wheels (via wheeled base 14, as illustrated in Fig. 2; col 5 In 38-43); and
a shield (which includes panels 21 and 22, and 16 and 18, as illustrated Fig. 2; col 4 In 1-3, 49-60) that is coupled to the frame (as illustrated in Figs. 1-2), the shield comprising:
a front wall (which includes 21-22 and 36, as illustrated in Fig. 2; col 4 In 18-38, 49-60) that extends along a first horizontal axis (left-to-right, as illustrated in Fig. 2; col 4 In 49-60), and
wherein at least a portion of the front wall is transparent (transparent ballistic shield 35, Fig. 2; col 4 In 34-38).
Fuqua does not teach that the front wall defines a pair of arm holes that are configured to receive arms of a healthcare worker positioned behind the front wall, wherein each arm hole of the pair of arm holes is formed by an opening in a respective portion of the shield and surrounded by a respective planar region of the shield, wherein a position of the shield or a portion thereof is adjustable to permit selection of an operative height of the arm holes from the floor.
However, Kropf teaches an apparatus (20, Fig. 1; para [00221) comprising:
a front wall (26, Fig. 2; para [0022]), wherein the front wall defines a pair of arm holes (99, Fig. 1; para [0031]) that are configured to receive arms of a healthcare worker positioned behind the front wall (as illustrated in Fig. 4; para [0031]),
wherein each arm hole of the pair of arm holes (99) is formed by an opening in a respective portion of the shield (which includes walls 22, 25, and 26, as well as windows 27 and 31, as illustrated in Fig. 2; para [0022]) and surrounded by a respective planar region of the shield (see Figures 1 and 4).
Kropf teaches including this technical feature to facilitate manipulation of door handles (as illustrated in Fig. 4; para (0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the apparatus taught by Fuqua could have been modified as claimed in view of Fuqua such that the front wall defines a pair of arm holes that are configured to receive arms of a healthcare worker positioned behind the front wall, wherein each arm hole of the pair of arm holes is formed by an opening in a respective portion of the shield and surrounded by a respective planar region of the shield for the benefit of facilitating entrances/movements of a barrier shield.
The modified invention of Fuqua and Kropf does not teach a position of the shield or a portion thereof is adjustable to permit selection of an operative height of the arm holes from the floor.
However, Maleki teaches a “mobile radiation shield apparatus to protect a physician or other personnel who may be exposed to stray radiation during diagnostic, therapeutic, or surgical procedures” and teaches a position of the shield (which includes the forward-facing portions of 2, as well as 37, 34, and 16, as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 2 In 43-46; col 3 In 5-18, 49-54; col 4 In 3-5) or a portion thereof is adjustable to permit selection of an operative height of the arm holes from the floor ("adjustable for the height of the user'', col 4 In 42-46; "adjustment ... height", col 2 In 52-55; Examiner interprets the adjustment of frame 1 adjusts the arm holes in the shield.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fuqua and Kropf such that a position of the shield or a portion thereof is adjustable to permit selection of an operative height of the arm holes from the floor, as taught by Maleki, for the benefit of being “readily accommodate different heights” (Maleki: col 1 ln 55 - 59).
Regarding claim 6, Fuqua, Kropf and Maleki teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Fuqua also teaches that the front wall comprises an upper portion (36, Fig. 2; col 4 In 34-38) and a lower portion (22, Fig. 1; col 4 In 18-28), wherein the upper portion is movable relative to the lower portion ("removable", col 4 In 34-38).
Regarding claim 9, Fuqua, Kropf and Maleki teach the apparatus of claim 6, and Fuqua also teaches that the shield further comprises a plurality of opposing side walls (which include 16 and 18, as illustrated in Fig. 2; col 4 In 1-3), wherein at least a portion of each of the opposing side walls is pivotable (as illustrated in Figs. 1-3; "articulate", col 4 In 3-12) about and between:
a respective first position (the stance of 16 and 18, as illustrated in Fig. 3; col 4 In 1-3), in which the at least a portion of the respective side wall (which includes 16 and 18, as illustrated in Fig. 3; col 4 In 1-3) extends from the front wall along a second horizontal axis (left-to-right, as illustrated in Fig. 7; col 4 In 1-3) that is perpendicular to the first horizontal axis (as illustrated in Fig. 7); and
a respective second position (the -stance of 16 and 18, as illustrated in Figs. 1-2; col 4 In 1-3), in which the at least a portion of the respective side wall is parallel to or generally parallel to the front wall (as illustrated in Fig. 1; col 4 In 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Fuqua, Kropf and Maleki teach the apparatus of claim 9, and Fuqua also teaches that the opposing side walls each comprise an upper portion (which include 46A and 48A, as illustrated in Fig. 2; col 4 In 49-60) and a lower portion (which include 46B and 48B, as illustrated in Fig. 2; col 4 In 49-60),
wherein the upper portion of each side wall is movable about and between the respective first position and the respective second position (as illustrated in Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Fuqua, Kropf and Maleki teach the apparatus of claim 10, and Fuqua also teaches the upper portion of the front wall (36, Fig. 2; col 4 In 34-38) and respective upper portions of the side walls (which include 46A and 48A, as illustrated in Fig. 2; col 4 In 49-60) are pivotable (col 2 ln 12 - 19) about and between a raised configuration (Fig. 7; col 5 ln 27 – 29; Examiner interprets the raised configuration as an apparatus being setup.) and a compact configuration (Fig. 6; col 5 ln 8 – 26; Examiner interprets the compact configuration as an apparatus in a compressed design). The limitation “to adjust an operative height of the apparatus” is intended use. Since Fuqua teaches the device contracts (Fig. 6; col 5 ln 8 - 26) and expands (Fig. 7; col 5 ln 27 - 29), the device of Fuqua is capable of performing the intended use as claimed.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuqua, Kropf and Maleki, as applied in claim 10, in view of Zhang et al (CN 106562825 A, see attached translation, hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 11, Fuqua, Kropf and Maleki teach all limitations of claim 10. Fuqua does not teach the upper portion of the front wall and respective upper portions of the side walls are slidable along a vertical axis about and between a raised configuration and a compact configuration to adjust an operative height of the apparatus.
However, Zhang discloses “vertical operating platform” (abstract) and teaches an upper portion (see annotated Zhang’s Figure 1 below) of a front wall (see annotated Zhang’s Figure 1 below) and respective upper portions (see annotated Zhang’s Figure 1 below) of side walls (see annotated Zhang’s Figure 1 below) are slidable along a vertical axis about and between (“a height adjusting structure comprises an adjusting nut 9 and the adjusting screw 10”, page 5 paragraph 2; page 3 paragraph 2; “capable of freely adjusting the height so as to adapt to different need of doctor”, page 3 paragraph 11) a raised configuration (Examiner interprets adjusting the height higher is a raised configuration.) and a compact configuration (Examiner interprets adjusting the height lower is a compact configuration.) to adjust an operative height of an apparatus (“vertical operating platform assists”, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fuqua, Kropf and Maleki such that the upper portion of the front wall and respective upper portions of the side walls are slidable along a vertical axis about and between a raised configuration and a compact configuration to adjust an operative height of the apparatus, as taught by Zhang, for the benefit of avoids the influence of protective clothing to the user and improves the effect of the operation (Zhang: abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
405
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 January 2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The claim objections for claims 10, 20 - 21 of 2 September 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 January 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections for claims 3, 5 and 26 of 2 September 2025 has been withdrawn except for the one below.
The term “generally” in claim 3, line 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what “generally planar” entails.
Applicant’s arguments, page 7, with respect to claim 1 over Kubicsko have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments, pages 7 – 8, filed 2 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends the modification would not be obvious as Fuqua is a ballistic structure designed to be provided between the thread side and protected side. However, Fuqua discloses a shield that includes “a body panel assembly, and at least one movable side panel assembly adjacent the body panel assembly” (abstract). The structure is similar to a shield that can be used in healthcare.
Applicant’s arguments, page 8, with respect to claim 1 over Kropf have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments, pages 8 - 9, filed 2 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends Maleki fails to disclose “wherein each arm hole of the pair of arm holes is formed by an opening in a respective portion of the shield and surrounded by a respective planar region of the shield”. However, the arm holes of Maleki invention are on the side (Figures 1 - 3) and Examiner interprets the arm holes are surrounded by a respective planar region of the shield. One can argue that a side is planar (Figures 1 - 3) where each of the arm holes are, considering that the side is 2-dimensional.
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 JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights