DETAILED ACTION Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cooling means of claims 14-17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 ( a n exoskeleton capable of supporting a protective garment, abstract), comprising: a weight supporting device ( a n exoskeleton 20, para. [0036]), wherein the weight supporting device includes an exoskeleton configured to bear a weight of a radiation shielding garment ( e xoskeleton 20 is configured to engage a load 10, para. [0036]; l oad 10 may be a garment that protects against ionizing radiation, para. [0039]), wherein the radiation shielding garment is configured to be arranged and at least partially supported by the weight supporting device ( t he 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 ( l oad 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 ( t he 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; l iner 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, 6, 14-17 is 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. Regarding Claim 14, modified Waterman discloses the system of claim 6. Waterman fails to explicitly disclose the system further comprising an active cooling means. However, Phipps is in the field of radiation protection garments (column 3, lines 2-3) and teaches an active cooling means (An electric blower 38 is designed to circulate fresh air within the garment 10, c olumn 5, lines 45-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Waterman to include an active cooling means as taught by Phipps. The motivation would have been to prevent heat exhaustion caused by wearing shielding garments for long periods of time. Regarding Claim 15, modified Waterman discloses the system of claim 14. Waterman fails to explicitly disclose wherein the active cooling means is a heat exchanger. However, Phipps is in the field of radiation protection garments (column 3, lines 2-3) and teaches wherein the active cooling means is a heat exchanger (The blower 38 generates a continuous flow of fresh air through the garment 10, column 5, lines 42-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Waterman to include wherein the active cooling means is a heat exchanger as taught by Phipps. T he motivation would have been to remove body heat generated by the wearer of the garment. Regarding Claim 16, modified Waterman discloses the system of claim 14. Waterman fails to explicitly disclose wherein the active cooling means is a forced convectional cooling fan. Phipps fails to explicitly disclose wherein the active cooling means is a forced convectional cooling fan. However, Phipps discloses an electric blower 38. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to include a fan since the equivalence of fans and blowers are recognized for their use in the art of air circulation and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The modification for making such an equivalent substitution would have been to provide a gentler airflow. Regarding Claim 17, modified Waterman discloses the system of claim 6. Waterman fails to explicitly disclose the system further comprising a passive cooling means. However, Phipps is in the field of radiation protection garments (column 3, lines 2-3) and teaches a passive cooling means (The plastic-coated metal sheet 24 may be used to make a helmet 42 with a wire mesh window 44 which allows the subject to breathe freely, column 5, lines 56-72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Waterman to include a passive cooling means as taught by Phipps. The motivation would have been to prevent heat exhaustion caused by wearing shielding garments for long periods of time. 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 i n 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 ( a n exoskeleton capable of supporting a protective garment, abstract), comprising: a weight supporting device ( a n exoskeleton 20, para. [0036]), wherein the weight supporting device includes an exoskeleton configured to bear a weight of a radiation shielding garment ( e xoskeleton 20 is configured to engage a load 10, para. [0036]; l oad 10 may be a garment that protects against ionizing radiation, para. [0039]), wherein the radiation shielding garment is configured to be arranged and at least partially supported by the weight supporting device ( t he 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 ( l oad 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 ( t he 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, t he 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 bi layer 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9588 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nathan Newhouse can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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