DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0155264 to Waterman et al. (hereinafter, "Waterman").
Regarding Claim 1, Waterman discloses a radiation shielding system (an exoskeleton capable of
supporting a protective garment, abstract), comprising: a weight supporting device (an exoskeleton 20,
para. [0036]), wherein the weight supporting device includes an exoskeleton configured to transfer a weight of a radiation shielding garment from a user’s shoulder’s to a user’s hips (exoskeleton 20 is configured to engage a load 10, para. [0036]; load 10 may be a garment that protects against ionizing radiation, para. [0039]; and see paragraph 0042 disclosing pelvic attachment belt 14 which would naturally transfer weight as claimed), wherein the radiation shielding garment is configured to be arranged and at least partially supported by the weight supporting device (the exoskeleton 20 provides a hanging force to counteract at least some weight of the load 10 when an applied force from the load 10 is encountered, para. [0037]), wherein the radiation shielding garment comprising: a vest; a skirt; and a scarf (load 10 may be a protective garment of multiple pieces, for example a vest and a skirt. Additionally, other features, such as a collar for thyroid shielding, may be included, para. [0039]), wherein the vest and the skirt are configured to be at least partially supported by the weight supporting device (the exoskeleton 20 can offload the entire weight of protective garment 10, para. [0034], [0035]).
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11,071,673 to Van Engelhoven et al. (hereinafter “Engelhoven”).
Regarding claim 21, Engelhoven (Figures 25-47) discloses a radiation shielding system, comprising: a weight supporting device (Figure 39) including: a first shoulder extension 422 and a spaced apart second shoulder extension 424; an upper back plate 160, wherein the first shoulder extension and the second shoulder extension are attached to the upper back plate and extend upward and away from the upper back plate; a lower back plate 142 adjustably connected to the upper back plate with an attachment member 122; and a waist belt 118 coupled to the lower back plate and configured to encircle a user's waist; and a radiation shielding garment 402 including a vest, wherein the vest includes interior attachment mechanisms 419 configured to couple the vest to the first shoulder extension and the second shoulder extension of the weight supporting device.
Regarding claim 22, see the embodiment of Figure 42 wherein extensions at 164 each have an outer surface at 406 that is configured to face upward and away from a user's shoulders when the weight supporting device is worn, and wherein the outer surface of each shoulder extension includes a nonslip pad – col. 29 lines 16-19.
Regarding claim 23, the interior attachment mechanisms 419 comprise loop portions (419 in Figure 46 and col. 27 lines 56-col. 28 line 22) configured to receive the first shoulder extension and the second shoulder extension therethrough.
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0155264 to Waterman et al. in view of WO 2013/128240 to Izi Medical Products (hereinafter, "Izi").
Regarding Claim 2, Waterman discloses the system of claim 1. Waterman fails to explicitly disclose wherein the scarf comprises opposing ends configured to be at least partially coupled by a hook-and-loop fastener. However, Izi is in the field of radiation shielding (para. [0058]) and teaches wherein the scarf comprises opposing ends configured to be at least partially coupled by a hook-and-loop fastener (a protective liner 10 has a loop element 26 on one side of the liner and a hook element 28 on the opposite side to secure liner 10 around the neck, para. [0066], figure 5C; liner 10 has a radiation shield 22 fixed to it, para. [0063], figure 11B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Waterman to include wherein the scarf comprises opposing ends configured to be at least partially coupled by a hook- and-loop fastener as taught by Izi. The motivation would have been to secure the collar around a person’s neck.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0155264 to Waterman et al. in view of US 5,247,182 to Servant et al. (hereinafter, "Servant").
Regarding Claim 3, Waterman discloses the system of claim 1. Waterman fails to explicitly disclose wherein the skirt comprises opposing ends configured to be at least partially coupled by a buckle. However, Servant is in the field of radiation protection (abstract) and teaches wherein the skirt comprises opposing ends configured to be at least partially coupled by a buckle (Fabric 28 includes a pouch 26 of radiation protection material and is supported around the waist of a person by a belt 22 with belt buckle 23. Buckle 23 connects the right side of fabric 28 to the left side of fabric 28, column 3, lines 19-21, figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Waterman to include wherein the skirt comprises opposing ends configured to be at least partially coupled by a buckle as taught by Servant. The motivation would have been to secure the skirt around the waist of the exoskeleton.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0155264 to Waterman et al. in view of US 8,067,759 to Swartz et al. (hereinafter, "Swartz").
Regarding Claim 4, Waterman discloses the system of claim 1. Waterman fails to explicitly disclose wherein the vest comprises opposing ends configured to be at least partially coupled by a buckle and a plurality of hook-and-loop fasteners. However, Swartz is in the field of radiation protection (abstract) and teaches wherein the vest comprises opposing ends configured to be at least partially coupled by a buckle and a plurality of hook-and-loop fasteners (Vest 100 has hook and loop securing means 106 on the front panels 102, 104, and mating buckle components 112 and 114 on the straps 108 and 110 of the panels 102, 104, column 3, lines 61-67 -column 4, lines 1-4, figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Waterman to include wherein the vest comprises opposing ends configured to be at least partially coupled by a buckle and a plurality of hook-and-loop fasteners as taught by Swartz. The motivation would have been to secure the vest around the exoskeleton.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0155264 to Waterman et al. in view of US 3,394,260 to Phipps.
Regarding Claim 5, Waterman discloses the system of claim 1. Waterman fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the vest, skirt, and scarf comprise a laminate having an outer layer, an inner layer, and at least one core material between the outer layer and inner layer. However, Phipps is in the field of radiation protection garments (column 3, lines 2-3) and teaches wherein each of the vest, skirt, and scarf comprise a laminate having an outer layer, an inner layer, and at least one core material between the outer layer and inner layer (A metal sheet 24 is coated on its first side by plastic coating 26 layer and on its second side by plastic coating 28 layer, column 4, lines 39-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Waterman to include wherein each of the vest, skirt, and scarf comprise a laminate having an outer layer, an inner layer, and at least one core material between the outer layer and inner layer as taught by Phipps. The motivation would have been to make the garments more comfortable.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Waterman discloses the system of claim 5. Waterman references lead in association with shielding garments (Shielding garments also called "leads", para. [0005]) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the core material is lead. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to include a lead core material since lead is known in the art of radiation protection and selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use requires only routine skill in the art. The motivation would have been to prevent unwanted exposure to ionizing radiation.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 18-20 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0155264 to Waterman et al. in view of US 2015/0083941 to Khandkar et al. (hereinafter, "Khandkar").
Regarding Claim 5, Waterman discloses the system of claim 1. Waterman fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the vest, skirt, and scarf comprise a laminate having an outer layer, an inner layer, and at least one core material between the outer layer and inner layer. However, Khandkar is in the field of radiation protection (abstract) and teaches a laminate having an outer layer, an inner layer, and at least one core material between the outer layer and inner layer (Containment layers 120 and 130 may be adhered to radio-opaque layer 140 with a binder [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Waterman to include a laminate having an outer layer, an inner layer, and at least one core material between the outer layer and inner layer as taught by Khandkar. The motivation would have been to make the garment more comfortable.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Waterman discloses the system of claim 5. Waterman fails to explicitly disclose wherein the core material is lead. However, Khandkar is in the field of radiation protection (abstract) and teaches wherein the core material is lead (A lead based radio opaque layer, para. [0080], Figure 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Waterman to include wherein the core material is lead as taught by Khandkar. The motivation would have been to shield the wearer from ionizing radiation.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Waterman discloses the system of claim 6. Waterman fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a dosimeter configured to monitor radiation shielding garment usage. However, Khandkar is in the field of radiation protection (abstract) and teaches a dosimeter configured to monitor radiation shielding garment usage (Each radiation shield was placed over one dosimeter and irradiated by an x-ray source to determine the transmitted dosages of x-ray radiation, para. [0074-0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Waterman to include a dosimeter configured to monitor radiation shielding garment usage as taught by Khandkar. The motivation would have been to indicate unsafe levels of exposure.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Waterman discloses the system of claim 5. Waterman fails to explicitly disclose wherein the core material comprises one or more of a light lead material, a lead material, and a lead-free material configured to a have a lead equivalence in range from about 0.125 mm to about 1.0 mm or greater. However, Khandkar is in the field of radiation protection (abstract) and teaches wherein the core material comprises one or more of a light lead material, a lead material, and a lead-free material configured to a have a lead equivalence in range from about 0.125 mm to about 1.0 mm or greater (The lead shield, which had a thickness of 1.5 mm, was a 0.5 mm lead-equivalent STARLITE radiation shield (Lot #101.66), para. [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Waterman to include wherein the core material comprises one or more of a light lead material, a lead material, and a lead-free material configured to a have a lead equivalence in range from about 0.125 mm to about 1.0 mm or greater as taught by Khandkar. The motivation would have been to prevent unsafe levels of exposure.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Waterman discloses the system of claim 5. Waterman fails to explicitly disclose wherein the core material comprises one or more of layers of radiation shielding material configured to a have a lead equivalence in range from about 0.125 mm to about 1.0 mm. However, Khandkar is in the field of radiation protection (abstract) and teaches wherein the core material comprises one or more of layers of radiation shielding material configured to a have a lead equivalence in range from about 0.125 mm to about 1.0 mm (The lead shield, which had a thickness of 1.5 mm, was a 0.5 mm lead-equivalent STARLITE radiation shield (Lot #101.66), para. [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Waterman to include wherein the core material comprises one or more of layers of radiation shielding material configured to a have a lead equivalence in range from about 0.125 mm to about 1.0 mm as taught by Khandkar. The motivation would have been to prevent unsafe levels of exposure.
Regarding claim 24, Waterman discloses a radiation shielding system (an exoskeleton capable of
supporting a protective garment, abstract), comprising: a weight supporting device (an exoskeleton 20,
para. [0036]), wherein the weight supporting device includes an exoskeleton configured to transfer a weight of a radiation shielding garment from a user’s shoulder’s to a user’s hips (exoskeleton 20 is configured to engage a load 10, para. [0036]; load 10 may be a garment that protects against ionizing radiation, para. [0039]; and see paragraph 0042 disclosing pelvic attachment belt 14 which would naturally transfer weight as claimed), wherein the radiation shielding garment is configured to be arranged and at least partially supported by the weight supporting device (the exoskeleton 20 provides a hanging force to counteract at least some weight of the load 10 when an applied force from the load 10 is encountered, para. [0037]), wherein the radiation shielding garment comprising: a vest; a skirt; and a scarf (load 10 may be a protective garment of multiple pieces, for example a vest and a skirt. Additionally, other features, such as a collar for thyroid shielding, may be included, para. [0039]), wherein the vest and the skirt are configured to be at least partially supported by the weight supporting device (the exoskeleton 20 can offload the entire weight of protective garment 10, para. [0034], [0035]). Waterman fails to explicitly disclose wherein shielding garment is a laminate having an outer layer, an inner layer, and at least one core material between the outer layer and inner layer. However, Khandkar is in the field of radiation protection (abstract) and teaches a laminate having an outer layer, an inner layer, and at least one core material between the outer layer and inner layer (Containment layers 120 and 130 may be adhered to radio-opaque layer 140 with a binder [0064]); additionally, the lead shield, which had a thickness of 1.5 mm, was a 0.5 mm lead-equivalent STARLITE radiation shield (Lot #101.66), para. [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Waterman to include a laminate having an outer layer, an inner layer, and at least one core material between the outer layer and inner layer as taught by Khandkar. The motivation would have been to make the garment more comfortable.
Regarding claim 25, Khandkar discloses that core layer 140’ can also be a bilayer core (142’/144’) having a high atomic weight element on one layer and a lower atomic weight element on another layer. See para. [0066]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the laminate with a bilayer core as taught by Khandkar in order to make the garment more comfortable and effective at blocking radiation.
Regarding claim 26, the weight supporting device includes padding (paragraph 0042, third to last sentence) and padding on belt 14 would create additional space between the user and garment to the degree claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that Waterman does not disclose transferring the weight of the garment from the user’s shoulder to the user’s hips. However, Waterman clearly discloses this by use of pelvic belt 14 as outlined in paragraph [0042]. Belt 14 would function to do exactly what Applicant argues is not disclosed – it would inherently transfer weight to the user’s hips, even if additional weight is supported/transferred into the ground.
Applicant also argues that Engeloven does not disclose an upper and lower back plate that are adjustably connected. Applicant argues that component 160 is only an attachment point and is not a plate. However, as shown in Examiner’s Figure 1, attachment point 160 is more than just a single “point” – it is very clearly an elongated, flat plate like structure with opposed ends. Similarly, Applicant argues that part 142 is not a plate as claimed. However, component 142 is an elongated, flat, plate member with opposed ends. If applicant would the term “plate” to impart more structure to the claims than those features should be positively recited in the claim. Additionally, applicant argues that even if considered plates that component 160 and 142 are not adjustably connected by load bearing structure 122. However, load bearing 120 includes sections 410 and 412 which are adjustable as at 414. Examiner maintains that all claimed elements are clearly disclosed by Engeloven.
PNG
media_image1.png
810
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-4pm 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.
/COREY N SKURDAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
