DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A power of attorney is of record for this application, received on 10/26/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 26-32 and 35-40, in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 41-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/12/2026.
Claims 1-25 remain cancelled and claims 33 and 34 were cancelled in the reply of 2/12/2026.
An Office Action on the merits of claims 26-32 and 35-40 is presented herein.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: pg.3 and line 310, “collarbone?” should be changed to “collarbone”, pg.8, line 8, “07” should be “107”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
The recitation of “data logger or interface” is interpreted under 35 USC 112f.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 29 recites “and comprising elasticated bands at torso and neck ribs;” which recites the protective vest structure in combination with the wearer’s anatomy. Please revise the claim language such that the anatomy is recited functionally.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 26-32 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 26, 27, 37 and 39 recite “at least some pockets include an impact sensor and a data logger or interface..” (claim 26) and “at least some of the pads are of a material including a gel, and wherein at least some of the pads include polyurethane elastic fibre material” (claim 27), and “wherein at least some pockets include a movement direction sensor” (claim 37), “wherein at least some pockets include an impact sensor and a data logger or interface” (claim 39). The specification doesn’t provide a standard for determining the scope of “some” and values equivalent to “some” such that it can be determined the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Claims 26, 36, and 37 recite “data logger or interface” which is not described in the specification with sufficient structure to convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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.
Claims 26-32 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. Claims 26, 27, 37 and 39 are indefinite as they recite “at least some pockets include an impact sensor and a data logger or interface..” (claim 26) and “at least some of the pads are of a material including a gel, and wherein at least some of the pads include polyurethane elastic fibre material” (claim 27), and “wherein at least some pockets include a movement direction sensor..” (claim 37) “wherein at least some pockets include an impact sensor and a data logger or interface” (claim 39). The term “some” is vague and the scope unclear. Therefore, it’s not clear how many pockets and pads are defined by “some”. The limitations are met by prior art teaching more than one pocket.
For claim 36, the claim is unclear as it repeats limitations previously set forth in claim 26 as follows: Claim 36-“wherein the vest further includes a pocket for a data logger,” and claim 26 recites “wherein at least some pockets include an impact sensor and a data logger or interface..”. Therefore, the pocket for a data logger is set forth in claim 26 such that claim 36 should be amended to delete “a pocket for a data logger,” and recite “and a wiring loom linking the data logger and the sensor or sensors”.
For claim 39, line 5 recites pads of shock-absorbing material and a plurality of pockets in lines 4-5 and in the last line of the claim recites “a plurality of pads for selective insertion in the vest pockets.” Should the plurality of pads in the last line be modified to recite “said pads for selective insertion in said vest pockets”? The limitations in the last line of the claim appear to be redundant in light of the recitations of pads and pockets in lines 4-5. Please clarify.
For claim 40, the claim depends from claim 39 which recites a plurality of pockets and pads of shock-absorbing material. Claim 40 recites “the kit comprises a container for the vest and an array of recesses for different pads shaped for fitting in associated pockets.” Are the “different pads” intended to refer to the pads as set forth in claim 39? Or is claim 40 reciting additional pads? The claim is recited as referencing the pads of claim 39. Please clarify. A suggested revision is as follows: wherein the kit comprises a container for receiving the vest and an array of recesses shaped for receiving said pads.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 26, 31, 32, 35, 37, and 38, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamboa et al. (Gamboa, U.S. 2012/0022418) in view of Coza et al. (Coza, U.S. 9,737,261). Gamboa discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Gamboa teaches a protective vest 10 comprising: a fabric body of elasticated material for a skin-tight fit (“The fabric of the garment 10 is made of a compression-like material sufficiently resilient and flexible.” (par.20)), a plurality of pockets 22,24, and pads 26,28 of shock-absorbing material, wherein the pads and the pockets are configured so that the pockets can removably and securely hold the pads (“The material of the shoulder pads 26 and 28 are sufficiently energy absorbing and resilient to help mitigate and prevent injury…” (par.24)), and wherein at least one of said pockets is located at a front part of the vest to cover a chest region in use (“The shoulder pads and corresponding holders are sufficiently shaped to cover the wearer’s shoulder while extending rearward across a portion of the wearer’s back and also forward across a portion of the wearer’s chest.” (par.24)). However, Gamboa doesn’t at least some pockets include an impact sensor and a data logger or interface for wireless transmission of sensed data to an external processor, and wherein the sensor is embedded in pocket body material. Coza teaches an upper body garment in the form of a shirt, with an impact sensor in pockets (The sensor module 102 may include one or more sensors (col.5, lines 57-60)) and Coza teaches different arrangements of the sensor in pockets. For example, col.19, lines 9-11 teach the sensor module 102 may be disposed within a knitted or woven pocket of the sensor garment 500 (e.g. that has been knitted or woven around sensor module 102 to secure it in place) such that the sensor is embedded in pocket body material. Transceiver 122 enables the sensor module 102 to wirelessly communicate with other components of the system such as a data logger or interface (memory 114) for wireless transmission of sensed data to an external processor (a microprocessor is part of personal computer 204). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gamboa’s vest to provide at least some pockets include an impact sensor and a data logger or interface for wireless transmission of sensed data to an external processor, and wherein the sensor is embedded in pocket body material, as Coza teaches these features combine to provide useful data for assessing the wearer’s performance during athletic activities and the modification would result in a more versatile vest.
For claim 31, Gamboa teaches the protective vest of claim 26, wherein the pockets include: a pocket 22 located to cover part of the sternum in use, at least one pocket 22 located to cover an upper shoulder region adjacent the neck in use, and at least one pocket 24 located to cover a lower shoulder region near the shoulder joint in use.
For claim 32, Gamboa teaches the protective vest of claim 26, wherein the pockets include: a pocket 22 located to cover part of the sternum in use, at least one pocket 22 located to cover an upper shoulder region adjacent the neck in use, and at least one pocket 24 located to cover a lower shoulder region near the shoulder joint in use, and at least one pocket 24 located to cover a region between the sternum and the shoulder in use.
For claim 35, the modified Gamboa teaches the protective vest of claim 26, wherein at least one said sensor is sandwiched between layers of pocket fabric as taught by Coza and discussed above in the rejection of claim 26.
For claims 37 and 38, Gamboa discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Gamboa doesn’t teach the protective vest of claim 26, wherein at least some pockets include a movement direction sensor and the data logger or the interface are configured for wireless transmission of sensed direction data to an external processor; and wherein the direction sensor is embedded in pocket body material sandwiched between layers of pocket fabric. For claim 38, Gamboa doesn’t teach at least some pockets include a movement direction sensor and the data logger or the interface are configured for wireless transmission of sensed direction data to an external processor; and wherein the direction sensor comprises an accelerometer or a gyroscope. Coza’s transceiver 122 enables the sensor module 102 to wirelessly communicate with other components of the system such as a data logger or interface (sensor module) for wireless transmission of sensed data to an external processor (a microprocessor is part of personal computer 204). Coza teaches that the sensors of the garment can include an angular momentum sensor (e.g. a gyroscope) and a direction of acceleration sensor (movement direction sensor). Col.19, lines 9-11 teach the sensor module 102 may be disposed within a knitted or woven pocket of the sensor garment 500 (e.g. that has been knitted or woven around sensor module 102 to secure it in place) such that the sensor is sandwiched between layers of pocket fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gamboa’s vest such that at least some pockets include a movement direction sensor and the data logger or the interface are configured for wireless transmission of sensed direction data to an external processor and the direction sensor is embedded in pocket body material sandwiched between layers of pocket fabric and at least some pockets include a movement direction sensor and the data logger or the interface are configured for wireless transmission of sensed direction data to an external processor and wherein the direction sensor comprises an accelerometer or a gyroscope, as Coza teaches the movement direction sensor and gyroscope are known sensors for providing useful data to an external processor for analysis of the wearer’s athletic performance.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamboa ‘418 in view of Coza ‘261 as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Eastwood et al. (U.S. 7,765,615). Gamboa discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t teach at least some of the pads are of a material including a gel, and wherein at least some of the pads include Polyurethane Elastic Fibre material. Eastwood teaches a chest protector including padding formed from a high impact polymer pad of polyurethane gel. Eastwood teaches the polyurethane gel pad is resistant to deformation under projectile impacts and “excellent shock dispersement properties”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gamboa’s pads to form at least some of the pads of a gel material and some of the pads including polyurethane elastic fibre material as taught by Eastwood, as pads of a gel material and pads including polyurethane elastic fibre material has desirable shock dispersing properties as well as resistance to deformation.
Claims 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamboa ‘418 in view of Coza ‘261 as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Dorm (U.S. 4,866,789). Gamboa discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Gamboa doesn’t teach the protective vest of claim 26, wherein the pads have a thickness in the range of 5 mm to 20 mm and doesn’t teach each pocket has a pocket body and a flap which is releasably secured to the pocket body by a fastener; and wherein the fastener is a hook-and-loop fastener. Dorm’s pads have a thickness of 3/8 inch (9.52 mm), with the thickness considered as suitable for protecting the wearer’s body. Dorm also teaches an upper body garment with pads 52 secured within pockets 50, with each pocket having a pocket body and a flap releasably secured to the pocket body by a hook-and-loop fastener 76,78. The flaps can be closed to secure the respective pads 52 in place and opened to remove and/or replace the pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gamboa to form the pads with a thickness in the range of 5 mm to 20 mm as Dorm teaches that pads having thickness values within this range are suitable for protecting the wearer’s body from impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gamboa’s vest such that each pocket has a pocket body and a flap which is releasably secured to the pocket body by a fastener; and wherein the fastener is a hook-and-loop fastener as Dorm teaches these structures are known in the art as means to secure and/or allow for removal of pads from pockets.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamboa ‘418 in view of Coza ‘261 as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Williams et al. (Williams, U.S. 10,582,731) and Eckes (U.S. 5,826,273) and Dorm ‘789. Gamboa discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Gamboa doesn’t teach the protective vest of claim 26, wherein the vest body is cropped, being configured to fit over only a wearer's chest and upper back regions and comprising elasticated bands at torso and neck ribs; and wherein each pocket has a pocket body and a flap which is releasably secured to the pocket body by a fastener. Williams teaches a cropped vest as in Figures 10 and 11, including protective pads. Eckes teaches an upper body garment including elasticated bands 44,54 at neck ribs and the waist to conform to the wearer’s neck ribs and waist, Eckes teaches in col.3, lines 51-57, “The upper torso component 32 has a neck ribbing 44 for snugly fitting about the neck 45 of the user 30…and an upper torso waist conforming portion 54 for snugly fitting about the waist 52 of the user.” with the modification of Gamboa providing elasticated bands at the torso of the cropped vest body for snugly fitting about the torso. Dorm teaches an upper body garment with pads 52 secured within pockets 50, with each pocket having a pocket body and a flap releasably secured to the pocket body by a hook-and-loop fastener 76,78. The flaps can be closed to secure the respective pads 52 in place and opened to remove and/or replace the pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gamboa to provide the cropped vest body, the body being configured to fit over only a wearer's chest and upper back regions and comprising elasticated bands at torso and neck ribs as taught by Williams and Eckes, such that the vest body fits snugly to retain the pads in the proper protective position and the cropped configuration avoids excessive fabric and allow for freedom of movement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gamboa’s vest such that each pocket has a pocket body and a flap which is releasably secured to the pocket body by a fastener; and wherein the fastener is a hook-and-loop fastener as Dorm teaches these structures are known in the art as means to secure and/or allow for removal of pads from pockets.
Claim 36, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamboa ‘418 in view of Coza ‘261 as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Davies et al. (Davies, U.S. 10,826,252). Gamboa discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including the pocket for a data logger in a rear portion of the vest body as in Figure 35, to cover the upper back region in use and the data logger adapted to log data from the sensor or sensors, as the data logger includes memory 114. However, Gamboa doesn’t teach the protective vest of claim 26, wherein the vest further includes a wiring loom linking the data logger and the sensor or sensors, and the data logger is adapted to log data from the sensor or sensors. Davies teaches that it’s known in the art to provide a wiring loom woven into textile material of a garment to link electrical components mounted on the garment for providing and/or enabling signaling. Davies teaches this arrangement is advantageous to reduce weight and to reduce a risk of cables or wires snagging during use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gamboa to provide the vest with a wiring link woven into the vest material and linking the data logger and the sensor or sensors, as Davies teaches that the wiring link connects the sensors and data logger or interface and weaving the wiring loom into the material of the vest reduces the weight of the garment and reduces the possibility of the wires snagging during use.
Claim 39, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamboa ‘418 in view of Coza ‘261. Gamboa discloses the invention as claimed. Gamboa teaches a kit comprising: a vest 10 comprising: a fabric body of elasticated material for a skin-tight fit (“The fabric of the garment 10 is made of a compression-like material sufficiently resilient and flexible.” (par.20)), a plurality of pockets 22,24, and pads 26,28 of shock-absorbing material, wherein the pads and the pockets are configured so that the pockets can removably and securely hold the pads (pads are disclosed as removable), and wherein at least one of said pockets is located at a front part of the vest to cover a chest region in use (“The shoulder pads and corresponding holders are sufficiently shaped to cover the wearer’s shoulder while extending rearward across a portion of the wearer’s back and also forward across a portion of the wearer’s chest.” (par.24)). Gamboa teaches a plurality of pads 26,28 for selective insertion in the vest pockets 22,24. However, Gamboa doesn’t teach at least some pockets include an impact sensor and a data logger or interface for wireless transmission of sensed data to an external processor, and wherein the sensor is embedded in pocket body material. Coza teaches an upper body garment in the form of a shirt, with an impact sensor in pockets (The sensor module 102 may include one or more sensors (col.5, lines 57-60)) and Coza teaches different arrangements of the sensor in pockets. For example, col.19, lines 9-11 teach the sensor module 102 may be disposed within a knitted or woven pocket of the sensor garment 500 (e.g. that has been knitted or woven around sensor module 102 to secure it in place) such that the sensor is embedded in pocket body material. Transceiver 122 enables the sensor module 102 to wirelessly communicate with other components of the system such as a data logger or interface (memory 114) for wireless transmission of sensed data to an external processor (a microprocessor is part of personal computer 204). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gamboa’s vest to provide at least some pockets include an impact sensor and a data logger or interface for wireless transmission of sensed data to an external processor, and wherein the sensor is embedded in pocket body material, as Coza teaches these features combine to provide useful data for assessing the wearer’s performance during athletic activities and the modification would result in a more versatile vest.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art doesn’t teach or render obvious a kit comprising a container for the vest and an array of recesses for different pads shaped for fitting in associated pockets. Note that the rejection above outlines the Examiner’s understanding of the recitation as intended to reference the plurality of pads set forth in claim 39, and the container’s recesses shaped to receive the respective pads.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights