DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on June 9th, 2023 in which claims 1-31 were presented for examination.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (Figs. 10, 11), Subspecies 1 (Figs. 6, 7, 9A, 9B) in the reply filed on 11/7/24 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that 1) no showing has been made that the identified species are mutually exclusive, and 2) no evidence of search burden exists. This is not found persuasive because:
1) attention is directed to pages 2, 3 of the requirement that outlined the differences between species/subspecies, wherein these elements indicate mutually exclusive options,
2) attention is again directed to the outlined differences, which would, at the least, require different search queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Furthermore, examiner notes that applicant’s election indicated that the election is represented by Figs. 6, 7, 9A-11 (per restriction requirement), Figs. 1-5C (as these Figures are generically applicable), but also of Figs. 12-17B, which is incorrect. The requirement of 9/10/24 clearly indicate that these figures are of non-elected embodiments. As such, applicant remarks that Claims 1-31 read on the election is also incorrect.
Claim(s) 26, 28-31 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/7/24.
In other words, rejoinder will be considered for the withdrawn claims if the independent claim(s) is/are allowable and is/are generic enough to apply to the embodiment(s) of the withdrawn claim(s).
Priority
Examiner notes that the priority date of the claims presented 6/9/23 is considered 12/9/22 based off PCT/US2022/081309.
However, it is unclear why the instant application is considered a continuation-in-part of the PCT, and not a continuation. Review and/or clarification is requested. In other words, this application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in the PCT and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/23 has been considered by the examiner. Examiner further notes that:
1) Foreign citation No. 1 is missing “Jianyong Zhou” as the name of patentee or applicant of cited document and has been annotated;
2) Non-Patent Literature Documents No. 1 and 3 have not been considered as the provided copies include only snippets of the documents. However, see notice of references cited.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following:
Fig. 3G “BSF” column should actually read “BFS”; see specification objection below
Fig. 3H “BSF” column should actually read “BFS”; see specification objection below
Fig. 6 “15” needs review whether it should read “615” based on [0056]
Fig. 9B “1110” should read “910”, especially as 1110 is utilized for another element, and to be consistent with [0060]
Fig. 9B “1115” should read “915” to be consistent with [0060]
Fig. 10 “510” needs review whether it should read “1105” based on [0063]
Though currently non-elected, examiner notes for compact prosecution--
Fig. 12 “1010” needs review whether it should read “1110” based on [0064]
Fig. 17A needs review whether “spacer 1315” is pointing to the correct structure
“Fig. 17b” should read “Fig. 17B”
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Though currently non-elected, examiner notes for compact prosecution—
Fig. 12 is missing “1105” indicated in [0064] “vertical coupling modules 1105”
[0068] “multiple coupling modules 1410” is not in Fig. 14, but Fig. 14 has “1414” instead, which is not in the specification
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0035] “force FI” should read “force F1” to be consistent with Fig. 1
[0040] “rigid plate 205 may be a sharp cornered rectangular plate” should read “rigid plate 215”
[0046] it is unclear what “APM2” refers to; is it 30-06 M2 AP armor piercing test?
[0049] specification has not indicated what “BFS” stands for; however, based on non-patent literature citation No. 7, it is interpreted as “Back Face Signature.” Specification should make clear the meaning of the abbreviation
[0051] First sentence—after “results” add –365—in order to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) to provide reference numeral “365” in Fig. 3H in the specification
[0053] “honey cone” needs review whether it should read “honeycomb”
[0054] “Polyvinyl” should not be capitalized
Though currently non-elected, examiner notes for compact prosecution--
[0061] “vertical coupling modules 1010” should read “vertical coupling modules 1105” based on at least [0063] onward
[0062] “vertical coupling modules 1010” should read “vertical coupling modules 1105”
[0068] refers to “harness 1310 under the arms is coupled to a handle 1505” and then says to see Fig. 3; review is needed whether “Fig. 3” is correct as Fig. 3 has neither of these structures
[0070] “sewed” should read “sewn”
[0093] “center protrusion 805” should read “center protrusion 605” for consistency with the figures
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 25 “plurality of spacers comprises a plurality of spacer materials” is not in the specification and should be added into an appropriate section such as the summary
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 8, 13, 20-22 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 9 before “separated” add –configured to be— to avoid a U.S.C. 101 rejection for positively claiming a human body
The term “apertures” in Claim 8 is recommended to utilize a different term, as the term “apertures” is referring to a different structure in Claim 2; the term seems to be referring to the radial channels between the protrusions
Claim 13 Line 2 before “functional” delete “a” and substitute –the—for proper antecedent basis with the preamble
Claim 13 Line 4 before “armor plate” delete “the” and substitute –an—for proper antecedent basis
Claim 13 Line 7 before “separated” add –configured to be—
Claim 13 Line 10 before “armor plate” add –the—
Claim 20 Line 3 “apertures” is similarly objected to for reasons indicated for Claim 8
Claim 21 Line 1 delete “protective suit” and substitute –functional garment--
Claim 22 Line 2 “Polyvinyl” should not be capitalized
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection, unless otherwise noted, without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-16, 18, 19 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the living body" in Line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “fixed coupled” in Claim 2 Line 1 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which of the terms was meant to be utilized.
The term “plurality of spacers comprises a wider bottom surface area” in Claim 4 Lines 1-2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what structure the bottom surface area is wider relative to.
The term “plurality of spacers comprises…bottom surface area at a proximal end” in Claim 4 Lines 1-2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the bottom surface area and a proximal end are both of the spacer, or whether the proximal end is of the bottom surface area.
The term “plurality of spacers comprises…bottom surface area at a proximal end to the outer surface of the base garment” in Claim 4 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the recitation means that the spacers have a bottom surface area at their proximal end, such that the bottom surface area at the proximal end of each spacer is facing the outer surface of the base garment.
The term “a projectile” in Claim 6 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this “projectile” differs from that in Claim 1 Line 11.
The term “does not deform” in Claim 7 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Fig. 1 clearly shows the base deforming, and therefore the spacers. As such, the metes and bounds of this term are unclear.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the wearer" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that “living body” was recited in Claim 1, but also has antecedent basis issues as aforementioned.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the wearer" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that “living body” was recited in Claim 1, but also has antecedent basis issues as aforementioned.
Claim 14 is similarly rejected for reasons indicated for Claim 2.
Claim 16 is similarly rejected for reasons indicated for Claim 4.
Claim 18 is similarly rejected for reasons indicated for Claim 6.
Claim 19 is similarly rejected for reasons indicated for Claim 7.
Though currently withdrawn, Claim 28 recites the limitation "the base garment" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 11, 13, 17-21, 23, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnhart II (USPN 10274289), herein Barnhart.
Regarding Claim 1, Barnhart teaches a protective suit (see Fig. 4; Col. 2 Lines 59-61 "Fig. 4…body armor ventilation system in place on a protective vest during wear"), comprising:
a base garment (Col. 3 Line 28 “armor carrier 2”);
a plurality of spacers (1) releasably coupled to an outer surface of the base garment (for spacers-- Col. 3 Lines 27-29 "projections 1 located between a body armor carrier 2 and a wearer's body 3"; Col. 3 Lines 29-32 "plate 4…for retrofitting an existing carrier 2 or may be integrated into the carrier 2, as shown in Figs. 9 and 10"; Col. 3 Lines 35-36 "projections 1 may also provide increased protection from blunt force trauma"; for releasably coupled-- see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 27-28 "back 8 of the plate 4 may have one or more attachment devices 9 for attaching the plate 4 to the carrier 2"; Col. 4 Lines 30-34 "One or more areas 10 of either hook or loop material may be located on the back 8 of the plate 4, and one or more corresponding areas 11 of either loop or hook material, the opposite of areas 10, may be located on the inside face of the carrier 2"; wherein spacers 1 are releasably coupled to base garment/carrier 2 via plate 4); and
a protective armor comprising an armor plate (4) covering at least part of the base garment (Col. 3 Line 29 "plate 4"; see Figs. 1, 2 where 4 would cover at least part of 2; Barnhart teaches the plate which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being armor and protective), wherein:
at least some of the plurality of spacers are adjustably positioned to suspend a region of the armor plate at four or more points around a periphery of the region (see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 27-28 "back 8 of the plate 4 may have one or more attachment devices 9 for attaching the plate 4 to the carrier 2"; Col. 4 Lines 30-34 "One or more areas 10 of either hook or loop material may be located on the back 8 of the plate 4, and one or more corresponding areas 11 of either loop or hook material, the opposite of areas 10, may be located on the inside face of the carrier 2"; Fig. 2 clearly shows four or more points and is hook-and-loop, so the spacers of plate 4 are adjustably positioned),
wherein the suspended region comprises at least 50% of an area of an inner surface of the armor plate, and the suspended region is separated from the living body a continuous air gap (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 4; the hook-and-loop corresponds to less than 50% of armor plate 4, therefore the suspended region recitation is met; Barnhart teaches projections which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of creating an continuous air gap as recited, especially in light of Col. 3 Lines 35-36) such that,
upon impact by a projectile colliding with the armor plate, impact power transferred from the projectile is redistributed across the suspended region of the armor plate before being transmitted to the living body via the plurality of spacers supporting the armor plate (Barnhart teaches the suspended region comprises at least 50% of an area of an inner surface of the armor plate and the projections as aforementioned which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of transferring impact power between projectile and armor plate to be redistributed across the suspended region before being transmitted to the living body via the spacers; wherein spacers support the armor plate away from the living body as indicated by the air gap).
Regarding Claim 5, Barnhart further teaches the protective suit of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of spacers comprises a cone shape (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Barnhart further teaches the protective suit of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of spacers comprises protrusions extending orthogonal to a base of the spacer (see Fig. 1), each protrusion is configured such that,
when a projectile impacts the armor plate such that an impact force is exerted at the spacers supporting the armor plate under impact, a stiffness of the spacers in a direction orthogonal to the inner surface of the armor plate progressively increases as the protrusions are compressed (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Barnhart teaches orthogonal extensions from a base of the spacer which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of progressively increasing stiffness of spacers as protrusions are compressed when an impact force acts on the spacers based on a projectile impacting the armor plate).
Regarding Claim 7, Barnhart further teaches the protective suit of claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of spacers comprises a smooth surface against the outer surface of the base garment, wherein, at impact, the smooth surface does not deform such that an impact energy transferred to the wearer is distributed among an entire surface of the smooth surface (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 1 for smooth surface; Barnhart teaches the smooth surface which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the smooth surface not deforming such that impact energy at impact transferred to the wearer is distributed among the entire surface of the smooth surface).
Regarding Claim 8, Barnhart further teaches the protective suit of claim 1, wherein the plurality of spacers comprises concentric rings of protrusions separated by concentric channels (see annotated Fig. 1 below for clarification),
PNG
media_image1.png
694
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the channels are in fluid communication by apertures in the concentric rings of protrusions (see Fig. 1; Barnhart teaches the aperture channels and concentric rings of protrusions which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as the recited elements being capable of being in fluid communication).
Regarding Claim 9, Barnhart further teaches the protective suit of claim 1, wherein the plurality of spacers supporting the armor plate is configured to deflect, upon receiving kinetic energy transferred from the impact at the armor plate, against the back of the armor plate such that motion of the plate relative to the wearer is reduced (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Col. 5 Lines 10-11 "projections 1 may be made of rubber, foam rubber, foam, plastic, nylon, silicone"; Barnhart teaches the spacers supporting the armor plate which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of deflecting as recited, especially in light of Newton’s Third Law of Motion wherein there is an equal and opposite reaction for every action and/or in light of the materials recited, wherein silicone is indicated as material that meets this recitation, see applicant specification [0054]).
Regarding Claim 11, Barnhart further teaches the protective suit of claim 1, wherein the plurality of spacers comprises silicone (Col. 5 Lines 10-11 "projections 1 may be made of rubber, foam rubber, foam, plastic, nylon, silicone, or any other material desired").
Regarding Claim 13, Barnhart teaches a functional garment (see Fig. 4; Col. 2 Lines 59-61 "Fig. 4…body armor ventilation system in place on a protective vest during wear", specifically, Col. 3 Line 28 "armor carrier 2") comprising:
a plurality of spacers (1) releasably coupled to an outer surface of a functional garment (for spacers-- Col. 3 Lines 27-29 "projections 1 located between a body armor carrier 2 and a wearer's body 3"; Col. 3 Lines 29-32 "plate 4…for retrofitting an existing carrier 2 or may be integrated into the carrier 2, as shown in Figs. 9 and 10"; Col. 3 Lines 35-36 "projections 1 may also provide increased protection from blunt force trauma"; for releasably coupled-- see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 27-28 "back 8 of the plate 4 may have one or more attachment devices 9 for attaching the plate 4 to the carrier 2"; Col. 4 Lines 30-34 "One or more areas 10 of either hook or loop material may be located on the back 8 of the plate 4, and one or more corresponding areas 11 of either loop or hook material, the opposite of areas 10, may be located on the inside face of the carrier 2"; wherein spacers 1 are releasably coupled to functional garment/carrier 2 via plate 4),
wherein at least some of the plurality of spacers are adjustably positioned to suspend a region of the armor plate by at least four points around a periphery of the suspended region (for plate-- Col. 3 Line 29 "plate 4”; Barnhart teaches the plate which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being armor; for spacers adjustably positioned to suspend-- see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 27-28 "back 8 of the plate 4 may have one or more attachment devices 9 for attaching the plate 4 to the carrier 2"; Col. 4 Lines 30-34 "One or more areas 10 of either hook or loop material may be located on the back 8 of the plate 4, and one or more corresponding areas 11 of either loop or hook material, the opposite of areas 10, may be located on the inside face of the carrier 2"; Fig. 2 clearly shows four or more points and is hook and loop, so the spacers of plate 4 are adjustably positioned), such that:
an inner surface of the armor plate covers at least part of the outer surface of the functional garment (see Figs. 1, 2 where 4 would cover at least part of 2),
wherein the suspended region comprises at least 50% of an area of the inner surface of the armor plate and the suspended region is separated from a living body of a wearer by an air gap (see Fig. 4; the hook-and-loop corresponds to less than 50% of armor plate 4, therefore the suspended region recitation is met; Barnhart teaches projections which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of creating an continuous air gap as recited, especially in light of Col. 3 Lines 35-36) such that,
upon impact by a projectile colliding with the armor plate, impact power transferred from the projectile is redistributed across the suspended region of armor plate before being transmitted to the living body via the plurality of spacers supporting the armor plate (Barnhart teaches the suspended region comprises at least 50% of an area of an inner surface of the armor plate and the projections as aforementioned which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of transferring impact power between projectile and armor plate to be redistributed across the suspended region before being transmitted to the living body via the spacers; wherein spacers support the armor plate away from the living body as indicated by the air gap).
Regarding Claim 17, Barnhart further teaches the functional garment of Claim 13.
The body of Claim 17 is the same as the body of Claim 5. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 5 for the rejection of the body of Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, Barnhart further teaches the functional garment of Claim 13.
The body of Claim 18 is the same as the body of Claim 6. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 6 for the rejection of the body of Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 19, Barnhart further teaches the functional garment of claim 18, wherein each of the plurality of spacers comprises a smooth surface against the outer surface of the functional garment, wherein, at impact, the smooth surface does not deform such that an impact energy transferred to the living body is distributed among an entire surface of the smooth surface (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—for smooth surface, see Fig. 1; Barnhart teaches orthogonal extensions from a base of the spacer which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of progressively increasing stiffness of spacers as protrusions are compressed when an impact force acts on the spacers based on a projectile impacting the armor plate).
Regarding Claim 20, Barnhart further teaches the functional garment of Claim 13.
The body of Claim 20 is the same as the body of Claim 8. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 8 for the rejection of the body of Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 21, Barnhart further teaches the functional garment of Claim 13.
The body of Claim 21 is the same as the body of Claim 9. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 9 for the rejection of the body of Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 23, Barnhart further teaches the functional garment of Claim 13.
The body of Claim 23 is the same as the body of Claim 11. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 11 for the rejection of the body of Claim 23.
Regarding Claim 27, Barnhart further teaches the functional garment of Claim 13, wherein the at least four points of contact comprise four distinct points of contact (see Figs. 1, 2 for four distinct hook-and-loop fasteners and four distinct sections of projections, both at the periphery).
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 1, 13, 25, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crye et al (USPN 6892392), herein Crye.
Regarding Claim 1, Crye teaches a protective suit (see Fig. 1; Col. 2 Line 41 "body armor 20"; Crye teaches the armor which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being protective), comprising:
a base garment (see Fig. 1; Col. 2 Lines 42-43 "soft armor vest 22");
a plurality of spacers (each of 32) releasably coupled to an outer surface of the base garment (see Fig. 1; Col. 2 Line 49 "pads 32"; Col. 2 Lines 49-51 "system of pads 32 spaces the vest 22 from the wearer 34, as shown in FIG. 2, such that a plurality of air channels 36 are defined between [the] wearer and the soft armor"; for releasably coupled --Col. 3 Lines 47-51 "The pad system 32 for each vest section 24, 25 is comprised of multiple repositionable pads provided with fastening means for adjustable positioning on the interior surface of the vest sections. Preferably, each pad is provided with one part of a hook and loop fastener system"); and
a protective armor comprising an armor plate covering at least part of the base garment (see Fig. 1; at least one of Col. 4 Line 8 "rigid armor plates 26, 28, 30"), wherein:
at least some of the plurality of spacers are adjustably positioned to suspend a region of the armor plate at four or more points around a periphery of the region (see Fig. 1 for four or more points around periphery, especially in light of Col. 3 Line 47 “pad system 32 for each vest section 24, 25”; Col. 3 Lines 53-59 “pad system 32 may include…pad 60…62…65…66…68…70”; Col. 3 Lines 60-62, Col. 4 Lines 7-8 "pads …serve several purposes…spacing the rigid armor plates 26,28, 30 from the wearer's body", wherein the previous hook and loop teaches adjustably positioned),
wherein the suspended region comprises at least 50% of an area of an inner surface of the armor plate, and the suspended region is separated from the living body a continuous air gap (see Fig. 1; Col. 4 Lines 1-2 "pads cover less than 75 percent of the interior surface of the vest", which indicates spacing at at least 50% of at least plate 28; for air gap-- Col. 2 Lines 49-51) such that,
upon impact by a projectile colliding with the armor plate, impact power transferred from the projectile is redistributed across the suspended region of the armor plate before being transmitted to the living body via the plurality of spacers supporting the armor plate (Crye teaches the suspended region comprises at least 50% of an area of an inner surface of the armor plate and the projections as aforementioned which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of transferring impact power between projectile and armor plate to be redistributed across the suspended region before being transmitted to the living body via the spacers; wherein spacers support the armor plate away from the living body as indicated by the air gap).
Regarding Claim 13, Crye teaches a functional garment (see Fig. 1; Col. 2 Line 41 "body armor 20", specifically Col. 2 Lines 42-43 "soft armor vest 22") comprising:
a plurality of spacers (each of 32) releasably coupled to an outer surface of a functional garment (see Fig. 1; Col. 2 Line 49 "pads 32"; Col. 2 Lines 49-51 "system of pads 32 spaces the vest 22 from the wearer 34, as shown in FIG. 2, such that a plurality of air channels 36 are defined between [the] wearer and the soft armor"; for releasably coupled --Col. 3 Lines 47-51 "The pad system 32 for each vest section 24, 25 is comprised of multiple repositionable pads provided with fastening means for adjustable positioning on the interior surface of the vest sections. Preferably, each pad is provided with one part of a hook and loop fastener system"),
wherein at least some of the plurality of spacers are adjustably positioned to suspend a region of the armor plate by at least four points around a periphery of the suspended region (for armor plate—at least one of Col. 4 Line 8 "rigid armor plates 26, 28, 30"; see Fig. 1 for four or more points around periphery, especially in light of Col. 3 Line 47 “pad system 32 for each vest section 24, 25”; Col. 3 Lines 53-59 “pad system 32 may include…pad 60…62…65…66…68…70”; Col. 3 Lines 60-62, Col. 4 Lines 7-8 "pads …serve several purposes…spacing the rigid armor plates 26,28, 30 from the wearer's body", wherein the previous hook and loop teaches adjustably positioned), such that:
an inner surface of the armor plate covers at least part of the outer surface of the functional garment (see Fig. 1),
wherein the suspended region comprises at least 50% of an area of the inner surface of the armor plate and the suspended region is separated from a living body of a wearer by an air gap (see Fig. 1; Col. 4 Lines 1-2 "pads cover less than 75 percent of the interior surface of the vest", which indicates spacing at at least 50% of at least plate 28; for air gap-- Col. 2 Lines 49-51) such that,
upon impact by a projectile colliding with the armor plate, impact power transferred from the projectile is redistributed across the suspended region of armor plate before being transmitted to the living body via the plurality of spacers supporting the armor plate (Crye teaches the suspended region comprises at least 50% of an area of an inner surface of the armor plate and the projections as aforementioned which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of transferring impact power between projectile and armor plate to be redistributed across the suspended region before being transmitted to the living body via the spacers; wherein spacers support the armor plate away from the living body as indicated by the air gap).
Regarding Claim 25, Crye further teaches the functional garment of Claim 13, wherein the plurality of spacers comprises a plurality of spacer materials (Col. 3 Lines 35-46 "each of the pads 60, 62, 65, 66, 68, 70 of the pad system 32 is formed of an open mesh fabric which encloses a closed cell foam resilient block. The foam block may be…EDA foam, or alternatively, expanded polyethylene foam….the open mesh fabric may be a 3D spacer fabric, or alternatively, a closed smooth surface nylon or cotton or a wicking material, such as duPont COOLMAX material, or a low friction nylon material...alternatively, the foam blocks may be enclosed leather", wherein each spacer is the pad material and enclosure material, and therefore a plurality of materials).
Regarding Claim 27, Crye further teaches the functional garment of Claim 13, wherein the at least four points of contact comprise four distinct points of contact (see Fig. 1 and the rejection of Claim 13, which already established at least four pads around the periphery and therefore four distinct points for plate of 26+28, if not plate 30 alone; Col. 3 Lines 46-59).
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) 10, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnhart II (USPN 1274289), herein Barnhart, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, in view of Kuo (US Publication 2016/0187102) and Plasper (NPL).
Regarding Claim 10, Barnhart teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Barnhart does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of spacers comprises recycled plasticized polyvinyl chloride,
and a durometer of the plurality of spacers between Shore A 45 to Shore A 60.
However, Barnhart does teach the plurality of spacers can be plastic (Col. 5 Lines 10-11 "projections 1 may be made of rubber, foam rubber, foam, plastic, nylon, silicone, or any other material desired").
Kuo teaches wherein a plurality of spacers comprise plasticized polyvinyl chloride (see Figs. 4-6, wherein recitations for Figs. 1-3 apply as well based on [0024]; [0014] "inflatable buffering cushion 2 and a fastening unit 3"; [0015] "inflatable buffering cushion 2…includes...a plurality of spaced-apart connecting members 23 disposed between and interconnecting ... the first cushion layer 21 and...the second cushion layer 22"; [0016] "The first cushion layer 21, the second cushion layer 22 and the connecting members 23 cooperatively define a buffering space 24 for receiving high-pressure air"; for releasably coupled-- see Fig. 4 embodiment where 23 (via layer 2) is removably connected to layer 1 ; [0024] "Referring to FIGS. 4 and 5, the second embodiment of the bullet-proof clothing according to this disclosure is shown to be generally identical to the first embodiment, and only differs in that the fastening unit 3 of the second embodiment removably fastens the buffering cushion 2 to the inner side of the clothing body 1"; [0017] "connecting members 23 is selected from the group consisting of…TPU….PP,…PVC…PE…PET…which has resiliency ,elasticity, and air impermeability"; [0016] "The first cushion layer 21, the second cushion layer 22 and the connecting members 23 cooperatively define a buffering space 24 for receiving high-pressure air" for plasticized -- [0017] "connecting members 23 may be manufactured using...molding", see extrinsic evidence Oxford NPL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barnhart’s projection material with the plasticized polyvinyl chloride of Kuo to provide the desired resiliency and/or elasticity ([0017]).
Plasper teaches wherein recycled polyvinyl chloride has durometer between Shore A 45 to Shore A 60 ("Flexible Recycled PVC Compounds….Eco Grade PVC Compounds are in pellets form, which range shore A from Shore A50 to ShoreA 95").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuo’s polyvinyl chloride, provided by Kuo, to be recycled and of the Shore A taught by Plasper, to be environmentally friendly, and depending on cost and what’s available (see NPL).
Regarding Claim 22, Barnhart teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 13.
The body of Claim 22 is the same as the body of Claim 10. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 10 for the rejection of the body of Claim 22.
Claim(s) 12, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnhart II (USPN 1274289), herein Barnhart, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, in view of Kuo (US Publication 2016/0187102).
Regarding Claim 12, Barnhart teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Barnhart does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of spacers comprises polyurethane.
However, However, Barnhart does teach the plurality of spacers can be other plastics (Col. 5 Lines 10-11 "projections 1 may be made of rubber, foam rubber, foam, plastic, nylon, silicone, or any other material desired").
Kuo teaches wherein the plurality of spacers comprises polyurethane (see Figs. 4-6, wherein recitations for Figs. 1-3 apply as well based on [0024]; [0014] "inflatable buffering cushion 2 and a fastening unit 3"; [0015] "inflatable buffering cushion 2…includes...a plurality of spaced-apart connecting members 23 disposed between and interconnecting ... the first cushion layer 21 and...the second cushion layer 22"; [0016] "The first cushion layer 21, the second cushion layer 22 and the connecting members 23 cooperatively define a buffering space 24 for receiving high-pressure air"; for releasably coupled-- see Fig. 4 embodiment where 23 (via layer 2) is removably connected to layer 1 ; [0024] "Referring to FIGS. 4 and 5, the second embodiment of the bullet-proof clothing according to this disclosure is shown to be generally identical to the first embodiment, and only differs in that the fastening unit 3 of the second embodiment removably fastens the buffering cushion 2 to the inner side of the clothing body 1"; [0017] "connecting members 23 is selected from the group consisting of…TPU….PP,…PVC…PE…PET…which has resiliency ,elasticity, and air impermeability"; [0016] "The first cushion layer 21, the second cushion layer 22 and the connecting members 23 cooperatively define a buffering space 24 for receiving high-pressure air").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barnhart’s projection material with the polyurethane of Kuo to provide the desired resiliency and/or elasticity ([0017]).
Regarding Claim 24, Barnhart teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 13.
The body of Claim 24 is the same as the body of Claim 12. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 12 for the rejection of the body of Claim 24.
Claim(s) 4, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crye et al (USPN 6892392), herein Crye, as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, in view of Carton et al (USPN 9255772), herein Carton.
Regarding Claim 4, Crye teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Crye further teaches wherein each of the plurality of spacers comprises a wider bottom surface area at a proximal end to the outer surface of the base garment (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Figs. 1, 3 wherein the width dimension of the spacer is greater than the thickness dimension of the spacer, and therefore wider, wherein this bottom surface is at a proximal end of the spacer facing the outer surface).
Crye does not explicitly teach wherein the bottom surface area is at least 4 square inches.
Carton teaches wherein the surface of a protective element is at least 4 square inches (abstract "protective armour element"; Col. 3 Lines 61-67 "preferred that the size of the armour element is larger than the projectile against which the armour is supposed to provide protection. Hence, the armour element can have an equivalent circular diameter (defined as the diameter of a circle that has the same area as the armour element) ranging from 1-100 cm, preferably 1-50 cm, such as 2-40 cm, 2-25 cm, or 3-10 cm”, wherein the diameter of 1 cm to 100 cm is 0.12174 to 1217 square inches).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crye’s pad (and therefore bottom surface area) to be at least 4 square inches as taught by Carton in order to ensure that the plate is large enough for projectiles (Col. 3 Lines 61-67).
Regarding Claim 16, Crye teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 13.
Crye further teaches wherein each of the plurality of spacers comprises a wider bottom surface area at a proximal end to the outer surface of the functional garment (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Figs. 1, 3 wherein the width dimension of the spacer is greater than the thickness dimension of the spacer, and therefore wider, wherein this bottom surface is at a proximal end of the spacer facing the outer surface).
Crye does not explicitly teach wherein the bottom surface area is at least 4 square inches.
Carton teaches wherein the surface of a protective element is at least 4 square inches (abstract "protective armour element"; Col. 3 Lines 61-67 "preferred that the size of the armour element is larger than the projectile against which the armour is supposed to provide protection. Hence, the armour element can have an equivalent circular diameter (defined as the diameter of a circle that has the same area as the armour element) ranging from 1-100 cm, preferably 1-50 cm, such as 2-40 cm, 2-25 cm, or 3-10 cm”, wherein the diameter of 1 cm to 100 cm is 0.12174 to 1217 square inches).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crye’s pad (and therefore bottom surface area) to be at least 4 square inches as taught by Carton in order to ensure that the plate is large enough for projectiles (Col. 3 Lines 61-67).
Examiner Notes
Claim(s) 2, 3, 14, 15, as best understood from the disclosure, is/are free of U.S.C. 102/103 rejections, but is/are currently questioned under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Mazo et al (US Publication 2023/0118690), Glenn (USPN 12209847), Bilan (USPN 1279230), Arakaki (USPN 4830245), Brown et al (USPN 8739312) directed to wearable armor with spacer; Kim et al (US Publication 2004/0192133) directed to protective suit with spacer; Wyner et al (USPN 9770642) directed to spacer projections; Bishop (US Publication 2016/0029713), Saito (USPN 6842908), Ziegler (USPN 6189157), Suarez et al (USPN 9592371), Fiegener et al (USPN 8533871), Gallegos (US Publication 2009/0133288) directed to apertures for fastener strip; Sauer et al (US Publication 2023/0201635), Bara et al (USPN 11685796) directed to recycled PVC.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights