DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the amendment and / or remarks filed on February 09, 2026. Claims 1 – 24 are pending and currently being examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 09, 2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 18, 19, 21 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,263,837) to Dompe in view of (U.S. Patent Number 6,155,470) to Robinson.
Regarding claim 1, Dompe discloses the carrying device (20) (See Figure 1), comprising:
the protective equipment retention feature (36);
the wearable support member (10) comprising an at least partially rigid plate (i.e. Plate of (10) in Figures 1, 2 & 3); and
an adjustable connection feature (22, 24, 40, 42 & 44) (See Figure 4)
wherein the protective equipment retention feature (36) is configured to removably receive and retain the unit of protective equipment (50), wherein the protective equipment retention feature (36) is connected to the wearable support member (10), wherein the adjustable connection feature (22, 24, 40, 42 & 44) is configured to aid in adjustably securing the carrying device (20) to a user, and wherein, after the unit of protective equipment (50) has been removably connected to the carrying device (20), the protective equipment retention feature (36) is configured to support the unit of protective equipment (50) without additional support from the hand of the user (See Figures 1 & 4).
However, Dompe does not explicitly disclose the protective layer attached to the wearable support member and covering at least the first covered portion of the at least partially plate.
Robinson discloses the carrying device (See Figures 2, 3, 6 & 7) comprising the protective layer (i.e. ¼” Thick Foam Layer (24) in Figure 3) attached to the wearable support member (20) and covering at least the first covered portion of the at least partially plate (i.e. via Front Portion of (20) in Figure 3) (See Column 2, lines 25 & 26) (See Figure 3) for the purpose of providing comfort against the users back, covering and / or protecting the aluminum layer (22) from accidental scuff marks and / or environmental elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the protective layer attached to the wearable support member and covering at least the first covered portion of the at least partially plate as taught by Robinson with the carrying device of Dompe for the purpose of providing comfort against the users back, covering and / or protecting the aluminum layer (22) from accidental scuff marks and / or environmental elements.
Regarding claim 2, Dompe discloses further wherein the unit of protective equipment (50) is an umbrella (See Figures 1 & 4).
Regarding claim 3, Dompe discloses further wherein the adjustable connection feature (22, 24, 40, 42 & 44) comprises at least one adjustable strap (i.e. (24 & 40) via (44) in Figure 4) (See Column 4, lines 25 – 33).
Regarding claim 4, Dompe as modified by Robinson discloses further wherein protective layer (i.e. ¼” Thick Foam Layer (24) in Figure 3) is at least partially made of fabric or textile (i.e. Foam) (See Column 2, lines 25 & 26).
Regarding claim 5, Dompe discloses further wherein the protective equipment retention feature (36) is configured to receive at least a portion of the umbrella (50) (See Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding claim 7, Dompe discloses further wherein the equipment retention feature (36) is the tube (i.e. Cylindrical Tube of (36) in Figure 1) (See Figures 1, 2 & 3).
Regarding claim 18, Dompe discloses method steps of using an umbrella (50), comprising: connecting an umbrella (50) to the carrying device (20); and
wearing the carrying device (20);
wherein the carrying device (20) comprises the protective equipment support feature (36) configured to removably receive the umbrella (50), and further wherein the carrying device (20) further comprises at least one adjustable strap (i.e. Sliding Buckle (44) of (22 & 24) in See Figure 4), and further wherein the umbrella (50) comprises the wearable support member (10) which further comprises an at least partially rigid plate (i.e. Plate of (10) in Figures 1, 2 & 3) (See Figures 1, 2 & 3).
However, Dompe does not explicitly disclose the method steps of further wherein the protective layer covering at least the first covered portion of the at least partially plate.
Robinson teaches the method steps of further wherein the protective layer (i.e. ¼” Thick Foam Layer (24) in Figure 3) covering at least the first covered portion of the at least partially plate (i.e. via Front Plate Portion of (20) in Figure 3) (See Column 2, lines 25 & 26) (See Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the method steps of further wherein the protective layer covering at least the first covered portion of the at least partially plate as taught by Robinson with the carrying device of Dompe for the purpose of providing comfort to the users back, covering and / or protecting the aluminum layer (22) from accidental scuff marks and / or environmental elements.
Regarding claim 19, Dompe discloses the method steps of wherein the umbrella (50) is in an at least partially open configuration (See Figure 1) when the umbrella (50) is removably connected to the carrying device (20).
Regarding claim 21, Dompe as modified by Robinson discloses further wherein the protective layer (i.e. ¼” Thick Foam Layer (24) in Figure 3) is bonded to the at least partially rigid plate (i.e. via Front Plate Portion of (20) in Figure 3) and conforms to the contour of the at least partially rigid plate (i.e. via Front Plate Portion of (20) in Figure 3) (See Column 2, lines 25 & 26) (See Figure 3).
Regarding claim 22, Dompe as modified by Robinson discloses further wherein the protective layer (i.e. ¼” Thick Foam Layer (24) in Figure 3) is configured to shield the at least partially rigid plate (i.e. via Front Plate Portion of (20) in Figure 3) (See Column 2, lines 27 & 28) from direct contact with external objects.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,263,837) to Dompe and (U.S. Patent Number 6,155,470) to Robinson as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 2,041,494) to Schultze.
Regarding claim 6, Dompe discloses further wherein the protective equipment retention feature (36) is configured to receive at least a portion of the handle (52) of the umbrella (50) (See Figure 1), and further wherein the at least partially rigid plate (10) is at least partially complement the first back portion of a user’s back (See Figure 1).
However, Dompe as modified by above does not explicitly disclose contoured.
Schultze teaches wherein the at least partially rigid plate (1) is at least partially contoured (i.e. Curved Shape of (1) in Figure 3) so as to at least partially complement the user (See Figure 1) for the purpose of following the shape of the user’s body (See Column 1, lines 44 – 51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was effectively filed to make the at least partially rigid plate at least partially contoured so as to at least partially complement the user as taught by Schultze with the carrying device of Dompe for the purpose of following the shape of the user’s body (See Column 1, lines 44 – 51).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,263,837) to Dompe and (U.S. Patent Number 6,155,470) to Robinson as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 3,204,650) to Shinew.
Regarding claim 8, Dompe discloses further wherein the tube (i.e. Cylindrical Tube of (36) in Figure 1) is offset away from the back side of the wearable support member (20) relative to the user by means of an extension member (34 & 38) (See Figure 3).
However, Dompe does not explicitly disclose wherein at least the top portion of the tube extends above the user’s shoulders and above the adjustable connection feature.
Shinew teaches wherein at least the top portion of the tube (2) extends above the user’s shoulders and above the adjustable connection feature (10, 11 & 12) (See Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make wherein at least the top portion of the tube extends above the user’s shoulders and above the adjustable connection feature as taught by Shinew with the carrying device of Dompe because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent umbrella equipment retention tube feature length size configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12, 13 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,263,837) to Dompe, (U.S. Patent Number 6,155,470) to Robinson and (U.S. Patent Number 2,041,494) to Schultze as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 4,537,339) to Pearson.
Regarding claim 9, Dompe as modified by above does not explicitly disclose further wherein the equipment retention feature is an at least partially flexible pocket.
Pearson teaches wherein the equipment retention feature (35 or 40) is an at least partially flexible pocket (See Figures 1 & 5) for the purpose of accommodating various sizes and shapes such as receiving the curved handle (37) on the end of the umbrella shaft (38) of the umbrella (11) (See Column 3, lines 53 – 56) (See Figures 1 & 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the equipment retention feature (35 or 40) is an at least partially flexible pocket as taught by Pearson with the carrying device of Dompe in order to accommodate various sizes and shapes such as receiving the curved handle (37) on the end of the umbrella shaft (38) of the umbrella (11) (See Column 3, lines 53 – 56) (See Figures 1 & 5).
Regarding claim 10, Dompe as modified by Pearson discloses wherein the at least partially flexible pocket (35 or 40) is made of fabric (i.e. Leather) (i.e. See Column 3, lines 34 & 35) & (See Column 3, lines 50 & 51) (See Figures 1 & 5).
Regarding claim 12, Dompe as modified by Pearson discloses further comprises the secondary retention feature (49 & 51) (See Figures 1 & 5) for the purpose of receiving, holding and retaining the shaft of the umbrella (See Column 4, lines 33 – 56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the secondary retention feature as taught by Pearson with the carrying device of Dompe in order to receive, hold and retain the shaft of the umbrella and prevent excess movement (See Column 4, lines 33 – 56).
Regarding claim 13, Dompe as modified by Pearson discloses wherein the secondary retention feature (49, 51 & 53) is configured to receive at least the portion of the pole (38) of the umbrella (11) (See Column 4, lines 33 – 56) (See Figures 1 & 5).
Furthermore, Dompe as modified by Robinson discloses further wherein at least the top portion of the wearable support member (20) extends above the user’s shoulders and above the adjustable connection feature (50 & 60) (See Figure 7).
Regarding claim 16, Dompe as modified by Pearson discloses wherein the secondary retention feature (49) is the flexible fabric feature (i.e. Leather Strips) (See Column 4, line 33).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,263,837) to Dompe, (U.S. Patent Number 6,155,470) to Robinson and (U.S. Patent Number 2,041,494) to Schultze as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of (German Patent Number DE 196 37 440 A1) to Schiechel.
Regarding claim 11, Dompe discloses further wherein the equipment retention member (36) (See Figure 1).
However, Dompe as modified by above does not explicitly disclose being at least partially elastic material.
Schiechel teaches further wherein the equipment retention member (28) is an at least partially elastic material (See Written Description of (28)) (See Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the equipment retention member being an at least partially elastic material as taught by Schiechel with the carrying device of Dompe because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent equipment retention member configuration for another to obtain predicable results.
Claim(s) 14 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,263,837) to Dompe, (U.S. Patent Number 6,155,470) to Robinson, (U.S. Patent Number 2,041,494) to Schultze and (U.S. Patent Number 4,537,339) to Pearson as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 8,132,582 B2) to Goebel.
Regarding claim 14, Dompe as modified by Pearson discloses further wherein the secondary retention feature (49, 51 & 53) (See Figures 1, 2 & 5).
However, Dompe as modified by above does not explicitly disclose the clip.
Goebel teaches the secondary retention feature (20) is the clip (14 & 18) (See Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the secondary retention feature the clip as taught by Goebel with the hands-free umbrella holster of Dompe because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of the secondary retention feature configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Dompe as modified by Goebel discloses further the clip (14 & 18) is at least partially deformable to aid in insertion and removal of the portion of the pole (4) of the umbrella (5) (See Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,263,837) to Dompe, (U.S. Patent Number 6,155,470) to Robinson, (U.S. Patent Number 2,041,494) to Schultze and (U.S. Patent Number 4,537,339) to Pearson as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 5,918,612) to Hughes.
Regarding claim 17, Dompe as modified by Pearson discloses wherein the flexible fabric feature (49) (i.e. Leather Strips) (See Column 4, line 33).
However, Dompe as modified by above does not explicitly disclose comprises the hook and loop closure feature.
Hughes teaches wherein the flexible fabric feature (i.e. Flexible Strap (22) in Figure 3A) comprises the hook and loop closure feature (23 & 25) (See Figures 1, 2, 3A & 3B) for the purpose quickly and easily securing the umbrella shaft to the strap within a range of positions along the length of the strap (See Column 3, lines 28 – 37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make wherein the flexible fabric feature comprises the hook and loop closure feature as taught by Hughes with the hands-free umbrella holster of Dompe in order to quickly and easily secure the umbrella shaft to the strap within a range of positions along the length of the strap (See Column 3, lines 28 – 37).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,263,837) to Dompe and (U.S. Patent Number 6,155,470) to Robinson as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 4,537,339) to Pearson and (U.S. Patent Number 2,041,494) to Schultze.
Regarding claim 20, Dompe discloses the method steps of wherein the carrying device (20) comprises the wearable support member (10) and further wherein the wearable support member (10) is connected to the protective equipment support feature (36), and further wherein at least a portion of the protective equipment support feature (36) is made of the material (i.e. Sleeve / Tube), and further wherein the at least partially rigid plate (i.e. Plate Portion of (10) in Figures 1, 2 & 3) so as to at least partially complement the first back portion of the user’s body (See Figure 1).
However, Dompe as modified by above does not explicitly disclose the method steps of the flexible material.
Pearson teaches the method steps of the protective equipment support feature (35 or 40) is made of the flexible material (i.e. Leather).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the method steps of the flexible material as taught by Pearson with the carrying device of Dompe because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent protective equipment support features configuration for another to obtain predicable results.
However, Dompe does not explicitly disclose the method steps of at least partially contoured.
Schultze teaches the method steps of at least partially rigid plate (1) is at least partially contoured (i.e. Curved of (1) in Figure 3) so as to at least partially complement the first portion of the user’s body (See Figure 1) for the purpose of following the shape of the user’s body (See Column 1, lines 44 – 51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was effectively filed to make the method steps of at least partially contoured as taught by Schultze with the carrying device of Dompe for the purpose of following the shape of the user’s body (See Column 1, lines 44 – 51).
Claim(s) 23 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,263,837) to Dompe and (U.S. Patent Number 6,155,470) to Robinson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 4,657,037) to Garrido et al.
Regarding claim 23, Dompe discloses further wherein the protective equipment retention feature (36) is mounted (i.e. via (34 & 38) in Figures 2 & 3) into the at least partially rigid plate (i.e. Plate of (10) in Figures 1, 2 & 3).
In addition, Dompe as modified by Robinson discloses the protective layer (i.e. ¼” Thick Foam Layer (24) in Figure 3) into the at least partially rigid plate (i.e. via Front Plate Portion of (20) in Figure 3).
However, Dompe as modified by above does not explicitly disclose mounted through.
Garrido et al., teaches wherein the protective equipment retention feature (i.e. via Hollow Sleeve of (82) of (60) in Figure 4) is mounted through the layer (58) into the at least partially rigid plate (52) (See Column 4, lines 41 – 43) (See Figures 3 & 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make wherein the protective equipment retention feature is mounted through the layer into the at least partially rigid plate as taught by Garrido et al., with the carrying device of Dompe because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent protective equipment retention feature configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, Dompe discloses further wherein the protective equipment retention feature (36) is mounted (i.e. via (34 & 38) in Figures 2 & 3) into the at least partially rigid plate (i.e. Plate of (10) in Figures 1, 2 & 3) (See Figure 1).
Furthermore, Dompe as modified by Robinson discloses further wherein the protective layer (i.e. ¼” Thick Foam Layer (24) in Figure 3) is bonded to the at least partially rigid plate (i.e. via Front Plate Portion of (20) in Figure 3) and conforms to the contour of the at least partially rigid plate (i.e. via Front Plate Portion of (20) in Figure 3), and further wherein the protective layer (i.e. ¼” Thick Foam Layer (24) in Figure 3) is configured to shield the at least partially rigid plate (i.e. via Front Plate Portion of (20) in Figure 3) from direct contact with external objects, and the protective layer (i.e. ¼” Thick Foam Layer (24) in Figure 3) into the at least partially rigid plate (i.e. via Front Plate Portion of (20) in Figure 3) (See Figure 3).
However, Dompe as modified by above does not explicitly disclose mounted through.
Garrido et al., teaches wherein the protective equipment retention feature (i.e. via Hollow Sleeve of (82) of (60) in Figure 4) is mounted through the layer (58) into the at least partially rigid plate (52) (See Column 4, lines 41 – 43) (See Figures 3 & 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make wherein the protective equipment retention feature is mounted through the layer into the at least partially rigid plate as taught by Garrido et al., with the carrying device of Dompe because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent protective equipment retention feature configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 09, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, the proposed combination would fundamentally alter the principle of operation of Dompe’s carrying device and lacks any articulated rational grounded in the prior art beyond impermissible hindsight.
Examiner disagrees, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues, the combination of Dompe ‘837 as modified by Robinson ‘470 does NOT disclose or suggest a layered rigid-plate / protective-layer wearable support member; or a protective layer structurally integrated with and covering the rigid plate.
Examiner disagrees, in response to applicant’s argument Robinson ‘470 teaches the protective layer (i.e. ¼” Thick Foam Layer (24) in Figure 3) covers at least the first covered portion of the at least partially plate (i.e. via Front Plate Portion of (20) in Figure 3) (See Column 2, lines 23 – 28).
Moreover, Dompe ‘837 and Robinson ‘470 references all deal with wearable carriers and it is with the level of ordinary skill to pick and choose between known wearable carriers features absent a showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2143 (I) (A) & (B).
Lastly, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, Dompe ‘837 as modified by Robinson ‘470 meet the structural limitations as set forth in Claim 1.
Therefore, the §103 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues, the proposed combinations are NOT supported by a proper motivation to combine and do NOT yield predictable results as required under KSR.
Examiner disagrees, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Robinson ‘470 teaches the carrying device (See Figures 2, 3, 6 & 7) comprising the protective layer (i.e. ¼” Thick Foam Layer (24) in Figure 3) attached to the wearable support member (20) and covering at least the first covered portion of the at least partially plate (i.e. via Front Portion of (20) in Figure 3) (See Column 2, lines 26 – 28) (See Figure 3) for the purpose of providing comfort against the users back, covering and / or protecting the aluminum layer (22) from accidental scuff marks and / or environmental elements (See Column 2, lines 23 – 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the protective layer attached to the wearable support member and covering at least the first covered portion of the at least partially plate as taught by Robinson with the carrying device of Dompe for the purpose of providing comfort against the users back, covering and / or protecting the aluminum layer (22) from accidental scuff marks and / or environmental elements (See Column 2, lines 23 – 28).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020 / 0397102 A1) to McAdoo teaches further wherein the padding material (26) is attached to at least the first padded portion (28, 30 & 32) of the wearable support member (10) and further wherein the padding material (26) is configured to separate the at least the first padded portion (28, 30 & 32) of the wearable support member plate (12) from at least the first back portion of the user’s back (See Figures 1 & 3) for the purpose of optimizing comfort and support on the user’s back (See Paragraph 0017).
(U.S. Patent Number 5,887,771) to Perry teaches further wherein the protective equipment retention feature (23 & 27) is mounted and the protective layer (44) into the at least partially rigid plate (20) (See Figures 1, 3 & 6).
(U.S. Patent Number 9,993,052 B2) to Williams teaches further wherein the protective equipment retention feature (120) is mounted through the protective layer (114) (See Figures 1, 3 & 6).
(U.S. Patent Design Number 714,540 S) to Barlet discloses the protective layer covers at least the first covered portion of the at least partially rigid plate.
(U.S. Patent Number 5,513,786) to Drane discloses the protective layer (32) covers at least the first covered portion (31) of the at least partially plate (30 & 41) (See Figure 3).
(Japan Patent Number 2004 – 229785 A) to Uchimiya, Katsuhiro teaches wherein the at least partially rigid plate (2) is at least partially contoured (i.e. Curved in Figures 3 & 5) so as to at least partially complement the user (See Figures 3 & 5) for the purpose of following the shape of the user’s body (See Paragraph 0008).
U.S. Patent Number 10,334,920 B1 to Chagalamarri discloses the hands-free umbrella holster (See Figure 1).
U.S. Patent Number 7,641,085 B2 to Nickels discloses the hands-free umbrella holster (10) (See Figures 1 & 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER L VANTERPOOL whose telephone number is (571)272-8028. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Nathan J. Newhouse can be reached on 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.
/L.L.V/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734