Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/19/24 and 12/17/24 are noted. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statements.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 10 is objected to because “the cape extends is configured to” does not read correctly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dieffenbach (US 2020/0263959 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dieffenbach discloses a backpack system, comprising: a main body (15/60) having a front surface, a back surface, a top end, a bottom end, a pair of sides and an interior space (see Figures); and a hood (45) that extends outward from the main body (see Figures), wherein at least one of the hood or the backpack body are constructed from or lined with a ballistic resistant material (see “ballistic-resistant hood” in [0028] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 2, Dieffenbach discloses the backpack system of claim 1, wherein the hood extends outward from the top end of the main body and is configured to encompass a head of a backpack wearer (see Figures 3 and 11 where the hood extends outward from or relative to all portions of the backpack, including the top end).
Regarding claim 3, Dieffenbach discloses the backpack system of claim 1, wherein the hood extends outward from an upper portion of the back surface of the main body and is configured to encompass a head of a backpack wearer (see Figures 3 and 11 where the hood extends outward from or relative to all portions of the backpack, including an upper portion).
Regarding claim 4, Dieffenbach discloses the backpack system of claim 1, wherein each of the hood and the main body are constructed from or lined with a ballistic resistant material (see “ballistic-resistant hood” in [0028] and “ballistic-resistant plate 60” in [0036] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 7, Dieffenbach discloses the backpack system of claim 1, further comprising: a cape (50A or 50B) that extends outward from the main body (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Dieffenbach discloses the backpack system of claim 7, wherein the cape is constructed from or lined with a ballistic resistant material (see “bullet-resistant side panels 50A and 50B” in [0029] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Dieffenbach discloses the backpack system of claim 1, wherein the cape extends outward from a top portion of the front surface of the main body (the cape extends outward from or relative to all portions of the backpack, including a top portion of the front surface) and extends below the bottom end of the main body (see “60 inches at is greatest height” in [0048]). Examiner is of the position that the backpack itself is clearly not going to be 60 inches tall and that the flexible cape must at least partially extend below the bottom end of the main body. Furthermore, even if the cape were limited to being within the bounds of the top and bottom of the main body, again, being flexible, nothing would stop it from at times draping down below the bottom edge.
Regarding claim 10, Dieffenbach discloses the backpack system of claim 9, wherein the cape is configured to cover each of a backpack wearers back, a backpack wearers arms and a backpack wearers legs (see ““60 inches at its greatest height” and “60 inches at its greatest width” in [0048], where such sizing is configured to cover the entire body of anyone shorter than 60 inches).
Regarding claim 13, Dieffenbach discloses the backpack system of claim 1, further comprising: at least one shoulder strap (55A,55B) that is positioned along the back surface of the main body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbach (US 2020/0263959 A1) in view of Ball (GB 2197582 A).
Regarding claim 5, Dieffenbach discloses the backpack system of claim 1, further comprising: a hood pocket (see “cover 40” in [0028] and “hood cover may be designed as a pocket” in [0034]) but fails to disclose the hood pocket being positioned along the back surface of the main body. Dieffenbach shows the hood pocket attached to the top end of the main body (see Figure 1) but discloses no criticality to such design choice. Ball teaches that it was already known in the art for a hood (26) to be stored in a pocket (24) positioned along the back surface of backpack (see Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have moved the hook pocket of Dieffenbach to the back surface of the main body, where such position was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Ball. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 6, Dieffenbach as modified above would include the backpack system of claim 4, wherein the hood is selectively positioned within the hood pocket, as originally taught by Dieffenbach and also taught by Ball.
9. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbach (US 2020/0263959 A1) in view of Al (CN 208837129 U).
Regarding claim 11, Dieffenbach discloses the backpack system of claim 9, further comprising: a cape pocket (35A or 35B) but fails to disclose the cape pocket being positioned along the front surface of the main body. Dieffenbach shows the cape pocket attached to the side of the main body (see Figure 1) but discloses no criticality to such design choice. Al teaches that it was already known in the art for a body covering to be stored in a pocket (12) positioned along the back surface of backpack (see Figures 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have moved the cape pocket of Dieffenbach to the front surface of the main body, where such position was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Al. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12, Dieffenbach as modified above would include the backpack system of claim 11, wherein the cape is selectively positioned within the hood pocket, as originally taught by Dieffenbach and also taught by Al.
10. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbach (US 2020/0263959 A1) in view of Kerr (GB 2445607 A).
Regarding claim 14, Dieffenbach discloses the backpack system of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein each of the at least one shoulder strap is lined with or constructed from a ballistic resistant material. Dieffenbach is silent as to the material of the shoulder straps but the overall idea of the Dieffenbach device is to protect a user in an active shooter situation. Kerr teaches that it was already known in the art for shoulder straps (62) to be made of Kevlar (see page 8 lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the Dieffenbach shoulder straps from a ballistic-resistant material, in this case Kevlar, where Kevlar was already known to be suitable for such shoulder strap use, as shown by Kerr, and with the motivation of maximizing the bullet-resistant coverage of the user of the backpack. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 6/10/25