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 .
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on March 2, 2026, claims 1-4, 7, 11-14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24-25 have been amended. Claim 26 is new. Accordingly, claims 1-26 are currently pending in this application with claims 6-10 and 15 being previously withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on March 2, 2026, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated October 1, 2025, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one fixation member” as recited in claim 1
“a support member” as recited in claim 19
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 11-14, and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “which in use is designed to be […]” at lines 7-8. As several structures were previously introduced in the clause, it is unclear which structure (i.e., at least one energy absorbing device, the flexible base layer) is being described in the limitation. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “, the at least one energy absorbing device, in use, being designed to be […]”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “a coat is made of a high friction coefficient, the coat being […]” at line 2. It is unclear how a coat or coating can be made of a coefficient which is a property, not a physical structure or material. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a coat is made of a high friction coefficient material, the material being arranged […]”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 2-5, 11-14, and 16-26 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, and 5, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 6,260,196 to Van Der Sleesen (hereinafter, “Sleesen”).
Regarding claim 1, Sleesen teaches a protective garment for articulations of a human body, suitable for being used in a sporting activity, in particular motorcycling or cycling (See Sleesen, Fig. 1; jacket (10) capable of allowing for hypothetical articulations of a hypothetical human body, and capable of being used in a sporting activity such as motorcycling or cycling; abstract), the protective garment comprising: a flexible base layer which in use is designed to stay close to a body of a user (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; outer panel (14) formed of flexible material and capable of staying close to a body of a hypothetical user); at least one energy absorbing device positioned at a portion of the flexible base layer which in use is designed to be superimposed to an articulation of the body of the user (See Sleesen, Figs. 1 and 8; armor element assembly on shoulder includes structure of Fig. 8, i.e., together an energy absorbing device, positioned at portion of outer panel (14) of garment (10); energy absorbing device is capable of superimposing a hypothetical articulation of the body of a hypothetical user; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); the at least one energy absorbing device being connected to the flexible base layer, so as to be movable with respect to the flexible base layer if a tangential impact acts on the at least one energy absorbing device (See Sleesen, Fig 8; energy absorbing device is connected, at least indirectly, to outer panel (14) and is capable of moving with respect to base layer in a direction (A) if acted upon by a hypothetical tangential impact); wherein said at least one energy absorbing device comprises a slidable layer connected to the flexible base layer by means of at least one fixation member (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; energy absorbing device includes armor element (22) is at least indirectly connected to outer panel (14) by hook and loop fasteners strips (25) and is capable of sliding relative to outer panel (14)).
Regarding claim 2, Sleesen (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches the at least one energy absorbing device is movable with respect to the flexible base layer along a direction which is substantially parallel to a direction along which the tangential impact is directed (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; energy absorbing device is capable of moving with respect to outer panel (14) along direction (A) which is substantially parallel to a direction of a hypothetical tangential impact).
Regarding claim 3, Sleesen (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches said at least one energy absorbing device is positioned at a shoulder portion of the protective garment, the slidable layer having a concave shape configured to fit with a shoulder articulation of the user (See Sleesen, Figs. 1 and 8; energy absorbing device is positioned at a shoulder portion of garment (10); armor element (22) has a concave shape and is capable of fitting a hypothetical shoulder articulation of the user).
Regarding claim 5, Sleesen (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches said at least one fixation member is arranged along a direction which is substantially perpendicular to the slidable layer and the flexible base layer (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; hook and loop fastener strips (25) are arranged in a direction substantially perpendicular to armor element (22) and outer panel (14)).
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 4, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sleesen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0127734 to Roberts et al. (hereinafter, “Roberts”).
Regarding claim 4, Sleesen (as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to the slidable layer is made of a low friction material or is coated with the low friction material.
That said, Roberts, in a related protective garment art, is directed to a structure for absorbing and dissipating force (See Roberts, Fig. 1; abstract). More specifically, Roberts teaches the slidable layer is made of a low friction material or is coated with the low friction material (See Roberts, Figs. 1-2; pad (2) can include impact dissipating layer formed of polycarbonate; [0051]; Examiner notes that Applicant provides polycarbonate as an example of an acceptable low friction material in the application as originally disclosed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the armor element, i.e., the slidable layer, of Sleesen from polycarbonate as disclosed by Roberts for a variety of reasons including for example but not limited to forming the armor element from a high impact polymer material that provides high flexural strength as well as high puncture resistance and flexibility (See Roberts, [0051]).
Claim 16, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sleesen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0282243 to Martinez et al. (hereinafter, “Martinez”).
Regarding claim 16, Sleesen (as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to an inner element arranged on an inner side of the flexible base layer, the at least one energy absorbing device being positioned between the flexible base layer and the inner element.
That said, Martinez, in a related protective garment art, is directed to an ensemble of shirt and pants that provide protection to a wearer (See Martinez, Figs. 1-6; abstract). More specifically, Martinez teaches an inner element arranged on an inner side of the flexible base layer (See Martinez, Figs. 1-6; pants and/or shirt can include high friction material such as silicone on inner surface; [0079]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to includes the high friction material on the innermost layer of the protective garment of Sleesen in order to assist in keeping the garment in position and laying in the intended disposition when worn (See Martinez, [0079]). As a result of the above modification, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay and Martinez, as discussed above) would further teach the at least one energy absorbing device being positioned between the flexible base layer and the inner element (armor element (22) of Sleesen would be positioned between the innermost high friction material and the outer panel (14)).
Claim 26, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sleesen in view of Roberts, as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, or, in the alternative, further in view of and/or as evidenced by US 2022/0071332 to Pomering (hereinafter, “Pomering”).
Regarding claim 26, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Roberts, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 4 above) further appears to teach said low friction material is a material having a friction coefficient lower than 0.3 (low friction material of Roberts as applied in the modified protective garment of Sleesen is polycarbonate which Applicant provides as an example of an acceptable low friction material in the application as originally disclosed; See Roberts, [0051]).
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the Examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention, the basis shifts the burden of proof to Applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§ 2112 - 2112.02.
However, Pomering, in a related protective garment art, is directed to a connector for connecting inner and outer layers of a protective apparel such as a helmet (See Pomering, Fig. 1; abstract). More specifically, Pomering teaches said low friction material is a material having a friction coefficient lower than 0.3 (low coefficient of friction polycarbonate material is positionable between protective component layers to enable sliding therebetween; material has friction coefficient lower than 0.3; [0086], [0092], [0104]).
It would have at least been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to configure the low coefficient of friction polycarbonate material of the modified protective garment of Sleesen to have the coefficient of friction value disclosed by Pomering in order to promote sliding between the two parts during an impact (See Pomering, [0086]).
Claims 1-3, 5, 11-14, 17-23, and 25, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sleesen in view of US 2012/0174298 to Bay (hereinafter, “Bay”).
Examiner’s Note: the claims are also rejected as discussed below based on an alternative interpretation of Sleesen, wherein Sleesen is silent to a fixation member consisting of a pocket.
Regarding claim 1, Sleesen teaches a protective garment for articulations of a human body, suitable for being used in a sporting activity, in particular motorcycling or cycling (See Sleesen, Fig. 1; jacket (10) capable of allowing for hypothetical articulations of a hypothetical human body, and capable of being used in a sporting activity such as motorcycling or cycling; abstract), the protective garment comprising: a flexible base layer which in use is designed to stay close to a body of a user (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; outer panel (14) formed of flexible material and capable of staying close to a body of a hypothetical user); at least one energy absorbing device positioned at a portion of the flexible base layer which in use is designed to be superimposed to an articulation of the body of the user (See Sleesen, Figs. 1 and 8; armor element assembly on shoulder includes structure of Fig. 8, i.e., together an energy absorbing device, positioned at portion of outer panel (14) of garment (10); energy absorbing device is capable of superimposing a hypothetical articulation of the body of a hypothetical user; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); the at least one energy absorbing device being connected to the flexible base layer, so as to be movable with respect to the flexible base layer if a tangential impact acts on the at least one energy absorbing device (See Sleesen, Fig 8; energy absorbing device is connected, at least indirectly, to outer panel (14) and is capable of moving with respect to base layer in a direction (A) if acted upon by a hypothetical tangential impact); wherein said at least one energy absorbing device comprises a slidable layer connected to the flexible base layer (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; energy absorbing device includes armor element (22) is at least indirectly connected to and is capable of sliding relative to outer panel (14)).
That said, Sleesen is silent to the slidable layer being connected to the flexible base layer by means of at least one fixation member.
However, Bay, in a related protective garment art, is directed to a garment protective system having movable body armor portions inside of a jacket (See Bay, Figs. 1 and 11; abstract). More specifically, Bay teaches the slidable layer being connected to the flexible base layer by means of at least one fixation member (See Bay, Fig. 11; protective pad (55) is capable of being maintained in a relative position by inner layer (101) which can be made from a nylon mesh material; [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the inner layer disclosed by Bay interior to the energy absorbing device of Sleesen for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing an additional layer between a user and the protection device for user comfort while still allowing for protection device movement due to the use of a flexible, nylon mesh material.
Regarding claim 2, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches the at least one energy absorbing device is movable with respect to the flexible base layer along a direction which is substantially parallel to a direction along which the tangential impact is directed (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; energy absorbing device is capable of moving with respect to outer panel (14) along direction (A) which is substantially parallel to a direction of a hypothetical tangential impact).
Regarding claim 3, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches said at least one energy absorbing device is positioned at a shoulder portion of the protective garment, the slidable layer having a concave shape configured to fit with a shoulder articulation of the user (See Sleesen, Figs. 1 and 8; energy absorbing device is positioned at a shoulder portion of garment (10); armor element (22) has a concave shape and is capable of fitting a hypothetical shoulder articulation of the user).
Regarding claim 5, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches said at least one fixation member is arranged along a direction which is substantially perpendicular to the slidable layer and the flexible base layer (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; the inner layer fixation member of Bay as applied to the modified protective garment of Sleesen as discussed above would be arranged in a direction substantially perpendicular to armor element (22) and outer panel (14) at least where joined to outer panel (14)).
Regarding claim 11, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches said at least one fixation member consists of a pocket defined by two layers of fabric (See Sleesen, Fig. 8 and Bay, Fig. 11; the fixation member of the modified protective garment is formed as a pocket between the outer panel (14) and the added inner layer disclosed by Bay as discussed in the modification above).
Regarding claim 12, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11 above) further teaches the slidable layer is movable inside the pocket by sliding along the two layers of fabric of the pocket (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; armor element (22) is capable of moving and sliding to at least some extent inside the formed pocket of the modified protective garment as discussed above).
Regarding claim 13, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11 above) further teaches the slidable layer is housed inside said pocket (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; armor element (22) is housed in the pocket of the modified protective garment as discussed above and is capable of at least some movement within said pocket).
Regarding claim 14, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11 above) further teaches said pocket is applied at an inner or at an outer side of the flexible base layer without interrupting the structure of the flexible base layer (See Sleesen, Fig. 8 and Bay, Fig. 11; inner layer (101) of Bay is applied to the inner side of outer panel (14) of Sleesen in the modified protective garment as discussed above; the inner layer does not interrupt the outer panel (14)).
Regarding claim 17, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches said at least one fixation member is made of rigid or semi-rigid polymeric material (See Bay, Fig. 11; inner layer (101) can be made from a nylon mesh material which has at least some rigidity; [0024]).
Regarding claim 18, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches said at least one fixation member is made of elastic or visco-elastic polymeric material (See Bay, Fig. 11; inner layer (101) can be made from a nylon mesh material which has at least some elasticity; [0024]; Examiner notes that Applicant provides nylon as an example of an acceptable elastic fabric in the application as originally disclosed).
Regarding claim 19, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11 above) further teaches said at least one energy absorbing device comprises a support member, the support member being housed inside the pocket so as to act as a support for the slidable layer (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; hook and loop fastener strips (25) provides at least some support to armor element (22) and would be housed inside of the formed pocket of the modified protective garment as discussed above).
Regarding claim 20, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 11, and 19 above) further teaches the slidable layer is positioned on top of the support member so as to be movable on the support member (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; armor element (22) is positioned on top of hook and loop fastener strips (25) and is movable thereon)
Regarding claim 21, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 11, and 19 above) further teaches the support member is fixed inside the pocket (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; hook and fastener loop strips (25) are fixed to inner side of outer panel (14)).
Regarding claim 22, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11 above) further teaches the slidable layer is configured to be fixed by means of a fastening device at an inner perimetral portion of the pocket (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; armor element (22) is capable of being fixed by some hypothetical fastening device at an inner perimetral portion of the pocket; Examiner notes that the use functional language “can be” enables a broad interpretation of the claim).
Regarding claim 23, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 11, and 22 above) further teaches the fastening device comprises two webbings arranged on top of the support member in a crisscross configuration (Examiner notes that the claim further limits a structure of the functional limitation introduced in claim 22; that said, the armor element of the modified protective garment is capable of being fixed by such a hypothetical fastening device having two webbings as claimed).
Regarding claim 25, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11 above) further teaches at least one of the two layers of fabric defining the pocket is part of the flexible base layer (See Sleesen, Fig. 8; outer panel (14) forms one of the layers of the pocket along with inner layer (101) of Bay in the modified protective garment as discussed above).
Claim 4, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sleesen in view of Bay, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roberts.
Regarding claim 4, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to the slidable layer is made of a low friction material or is coated with the low friction material.
That said, Roberts, in a related protective garment art, is directed to a structure for absorbing and dissipating force (See Roberts, Fig. 1; abstract). More specifically, Roberts teaches the slidable layer is made of a low friction material or is coated with the low friction material (See Roberts, Figs. 1-2; pad (2) can include impact dissipating layer formed of polycarbonate; [0051]; Examiner notes that Applicant provides polycarbonate as an example of an acceptable low friction material in the application as originally disclosed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the armor element, i.e., the slidable layer, of the modified protective garment of Sleesen from polycarbonate as disclosed by Roberts for a variety of reasons including for example but not limited to forming the armor element from a high impact polymer material that provides high flexural strength as well as high puncture resistance and flexibility (See Roberts, [0051]).
Claims 16 and 24, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sleesen in view of Bay (as applied to claim 1 above with respect to claim 16, and as applied to claims 1 and 11 above with respect to claim 24), and further in view of Martinez.
Regarding claim 16, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to an inner element arranged on an inner side of the flexible base layer, the at least one energy absorbing device being positioned between the flexible base layer and the inner element.
That said, Martinez, in a related protective garment art, is directed to an ensemble of shirt and pants that provide protection to a wearer (See Martinez, Figs. 1-6; abstract). More specifically, Martinez teaches an inner element arranged on an inner side of the flexible base layer (See Martinez, Figs. 1-6; pants and/or shirt can include high friction material such as silicone on inner surface; [0079]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to includes the high friction material on the innermost layer of the modified protective garment of Sleesen in order to assist in keeping the garment in position and laying in the intended disposition when worn (See Martinez, [0079]). As a result of the above modification, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay and Martinez, as discussed above) would further teach the at least one energy absorbing device being positioned between the flexible base layer and the inner element (armor element (22) of the modified garment would be positioned between the innermost high friction material and the outer panel (14)).
Regarding claim 24, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11 above) is silent to a coat is made of a high friction coefficient, the coat being arranged at an inner side of the pocket.
That said, Martinez, in a related protective garment art, is directed to an ensemble of shirt and pants that provide protection to a wearer (See Martinez, Figs. 1-6; abstract). More specifically, Martinez teaches a coat is made of a high friction coefficient, the coat being is arranged at an inner side of the pocket (See Martinez, Figs. 1-6; pants and/or shirt can include high friction material such as silicone on inner surface; [0079]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to includes the high friction material on the innermost layer of the modified protective garment of Sleesen in order to assist in keeping the garment in position and laying in the intended disposition when worn (See Martinez, [0079]). As a result of the above modification, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay and Martinez, as discussed above) would further teach the high friction coat being arranged at an inner side of the pocket (the high friction material would be positioned on an innermost surface which would be the inner layer of the pocket in the modified garment as discussed above).
Claim 26, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sleesen in view of Bay and Roberts, as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, or, in the alternative, further in view of and/or as evidenced by Pomering.
Regarding claim 26, the modified protective garment of Sleesen (i.e., Sleesen in view of Bay and Roberts, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 4 above) further appears to teach said low friction material is a material having a friction coefficient lower than 0.3 (low friction material of Roberts as applied in the modified protective garment of Sleesen is polycarbonate which Applicant provides as an example of an acceptable low friction material in the application as originally disclosed; See Roberts, [0051]).
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the Examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention, the basis shifts the burden of proof to Applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§ 2112 - 2112.02.
However, Pomering, in a related protective garment art, is directed to a connector for connecting inner and outer layers of a protective apparel such as a helmet (See Pomering, Fig. 1; abstract). More specifically, Pomering teaches said low friction material is a material having a friction coefficient lower than 0.3 (low coefficient of friction polycarbonate material is positionable between protective component layers to enable sliding therebetween; material has friction coefficient lower than 0.3; [0086], [0092], [0104]).
It would have at least been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to configure the low coefficient of friction polycarbonate material of the modified protective garment of Sleesen to have the coefficient of friction value disclosed by Pomering in order to promote sliding between the two parts during an impact (See Pomering, [0086]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Sleesen’s outer shell is not designed to stay close to the body of the user and is instead separated from a user’s body by a pad, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the limitation of a flexible base layer being “designed to stay close to a body of a user” is met by the garment of Sleesen under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language and that another structure of Sleesen being positioned closer to a wearer than the outer shell does not preclude the outer shell of Sleesen from being considered close to the wearer as well. Indeed, Examiner notes that the claim does not recite any degree of closeness of the flexible base layer relative to another structure as seemingly argued by Applicant. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Applicant’s energy absorbing device is movable with respect to the flexible base layer thereby creating a sliding interface relative to the user’s body to dissipate tangential impact forces, while Sleesen instead allows an armor element to move with the rider instead of with the garment, the structure of Sleesen further being designed for the armor element to move with the wearer as the wearer moves, Examiner again respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the features upon which Applicant seems to rely (i.e., creating a sliding interface relative to a user’s body) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Instead, the claims only recite capability of movement between an energy absorbing device and a flexible base layer which Sleesen teaches as discussed in the current grounds of rejection above. Again, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
In general, Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments with respect to Sleesen appear directed to the functional limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention. That said, Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the claims to also recite the structural differences associated with these functional limitations (e.g., relative positioning of elements to one another within the protective garments and/or a hypothetical wearer) in order to potentially patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art of Sleesen.
In response to Applicant’s arguments directed to the modification of Sleesen in view of Bay with respect to claim 11, Examiner notes that as discussed in the current grounds of rejection above with respect to claims 1 and 11, Bay is relied upon for teaching an inner layer capable of maintaining a relative position of a protective pad (See Bay, Fig. 11; inner layer (101); [0024]). In the modification, this inner layer of Bay is applied to the protective garment of Sleesen interior to the energy absorbing device of Sleesen thereby forming a pocket between the now present inner layer of Bay and the outer panel of Sleesen in the modified protective garment. Although Applicant appears to state that this modification “makes no structural sense with Applicant’s claimed embodiment”, Examiner notes that this modification using the disclosure of Bay is made with respect to the prior art of Sleesen as discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, not Applicant’s claimed invention.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references of Sleesen in view of Bay, Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as stated in the current grounds of rejection above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the inner layer disclosed by Bay interior to the energy absorbing device of Sleesen for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing an additional layer between a user and the protection device for user comfort while still allowing for protection device movement due to the use of a flexible, nylon mesh material.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Roberts discloses an impact dissipating layer that has either an embedded or sandwiched construction and that there is not teaching or suggestion for separating the polycarbonate layer from such a construction, Examiner again respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, Examiner notes that Roberts is not relied upon for its teaching of an embedded or sandwiched impact structure but instead for teaching of an impact dissipating material. Additionally, motivation for using such a material to form the armor element of Sleesen is explicitly provided as it would be desirable to form the armor element from a high impact polymer material that provides high flexural strength as well as high puncture resistance and flexibility (See Roberts, [0051])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, CLINTON T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights