DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application claims priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013, and is being examined under pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination and amendment filed on June 9, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending, and claims 1, 2, 8, 13, and 15 have been amended.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.321(c) or § 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR § 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR § 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 20 and 16 of copending Application No. 17/876,965 in view of art of record in the attached notice of references cited.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 13 recite “a calming affect” at lines 19 and 18, respectively. This should read -- a calming effect --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 are rejected under 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13 recite the term “safely.” This term is subjective and not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide an objective standard for ascertaining the meaning of these terms such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
In addition, it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the pad is utilized for a calming affect.” This language is both unclear and subjective and the specification does not provide an objective standard for ascertaining the meaning of this clause such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim. For example, it is unclear how a pad is utilized for a calming effect. In addition, calming effect is subjective and not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide definitions for this term, such that one of ordinary skill in the art is left to guess at the metes and bounds of the claim.
These claims also recite “utilizing the blocking pad in a defensive posture to safely absorb or deflect blows or strikes physical contact initiated by the special individual to protect the special individual without using restraint or seclusion.” It is unclear what is meant by the terms “without using restraint or seclusion.” For example, if a blocking pad is being used on an individual, then the individual is not secluded so it is unclear what this term adds to the claim or means. Does this mean the blocking pad is used somehow fully, i.e., in an unrestrained manner? In addition, it is unclear if this phrase is referring to other activity not associated with the use of the blocking pad or to the use of the blocking pad not being used in a way that restrains or secludes the individual.
In re claim 8, the claim recites “wherein the pad has an outer surface to soothe the special individual.” This language is both unclear and subjective and the specification does not provide an objective standard for ascertaining the meaning of this clause such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim. For example, what about the surface is soothing. Moreover, what is soothing to one individual might not be soothing to another. Therefore, it is unclear what structural makeup of the surface causes it to be soothing, such that one of ordinary skill in the art is left to guess at the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 5,329,636 to Siddle (“Siddle”) in view of the publication “the Publication titled “The Effects of an Action Plan, Staff Training, Management Support and Monitoring on Restraint Use and Costs of Work-Related Injuries” by Sanders (“Sanders”)” and the publication “Best Practice in the Reduction and Elimination of Seclusion and Restraint Seclusion: Time for Change” by O’Hagan et al. (“O’Hagan), or in the alternative Siddle in view of Sanders, O’Hagan, and publication https://www.amazon.com/Deluxe-Punch-Shield-Kickboxing- Martial/dp/ B005ESOWZM (“Deluxe Punch Shield”).
In re claim 1, Siddle discloses a method of utilizing a blocking pad [Abstract, col. 1 ll. 7-39], comprising: receiving an alert of a potentially violent situation involving a special individual [col. 1, ll. 5-11 to col. 2, ll. 31-51 describes various uses of a shield (blocking pad) including in combat, crowd control, or martial arts, in the context, for example, of police deploying for use in crowd control, in which the police are routinely alerted prior to confronting the crowd, combatant, or other individual before using the shield]; retrieving a blocking pad, the blocking pad including a first edge, a second edge, a third edge, and a fourth edge, the first edge opposite the second edge, the third edge opposite the fourth edge [Figs 1 and 2 show a shield (blocking pad) with edges ## 5, 6, 7, and 8, and show an individual holding the pad and therefore the pad has been retrieved]; a pad disposed between the first edge, the second edge, the third edge, and the fourth edge [col. 1, l. 64 to col. 2, l. 30 describe foam and cushioning forming pad disposed between the edges 5, 6, 7, and 8] smooth and covered [Abstract and col. 4, ll. 64-68 states the pad includes an outer covering maybe of vinyl (which is also disclosed as outer covering in Applicant specification) or Propex (both of which are smooth)]; a first side handle aligned with the third edge [Fig. 2 shows two handles #10 one of which is aligned with a third edge #5], and a second side handle aligned with the fourth edge [Fig. 2 shows two handles #10, one of which is aligned with a fourth edge #6]; each of the handles is configured with an ergonomic shape [Fig. 2, handles 10 and 11, col. 5, ll. 3-10 describe handles may be formed of a cushioning material to aid to the comfort of its user and provide adequate bulk for gripping by the hand, for the convenience of the user (ergonomic). In addition, the handles are shown in Fig. 2 to be “rectangular” which Applicant’s specification identifies as an ergonomic shape.]; and utilizing the blocking pad in a defensive posture to safely absorb or deflect blows or strikes initiated by the special individual to protect the special individual without using restraint or seclusion and to prevent the special individual from harming himself/herself or from harming the user of the blocking [col. 2, ll. 5-10, 39-58 describe a safety containment shield (blocking pad) used in a defensive posture. The shield includes a significant degree of cushioning against the impact to the party against whom the shield is deployed and to prevent injury or harm to the both the party deploying the shield and to an individual confronted with the shield. The shield when used to block an individual does not require restraint or seclusion].
The figures (excerpts of which are shown below) of Siddle show rounded edges, and col. 3, l.4 states the pad contains no sharp edges. Rounded/non-sharp edges on a pad prevent injury to anyone involved with use of the pad including a user and/or a special individual.
PNG
media_image1.png
78
96
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
128
96
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
150
142
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Siddle teaches the limitation wherein the first edge, second edge, third edge, and fourth edge are rounded to prevent injury to the special individual and a user of the blocking pad, wherein the rounded edges prevent injury to the special individual.
However, in the alternative, to any extent that Siddle does not explicitly teach the edges are “rounded,” or that the handles are “ergonomic” Deluxe Punch Shield shows a blocking pad with rounded edges, which prevent injury to anyone involved with use of the pad (including a user and/or a special individual) and ergonomic handles (padded handles forming a rectangular shape).
Siddle and Deluxe Punch Shield are both considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of blocking pads. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute or modified the edges of the blocking pad of Siddle with another type of edge (rounded) and handles (ergonomic), as taught by Deluxe Punch Shield, to obtain the predictable results of blocking blows and/or to provide a better user experience, for example, by minimizing the chances of cuts or other injuries resulting from more squared edges and by making use of the pad easier with less strain on the hands.
Siddle describes the use of the blocking pad to provide shelter against an individual under surveillance; however, Siddle does not explicitly teach the individual is a special individual with behavioral health issues or de-escalation. Sanders teaches a method of utilizing a blocking pad in a potentially violent situations involving special individuals with behavioral health issues. Sanders introduction and paragraphs bridging pp. 217-218, among others, describe minimizing the use of seclusion and restraints is a key goal for all services for people with intellectual disabilities, de-escalation of violent episodes, and that extensive training consisting of lecture, demonstration and practice was provided to all employees on ‘Extraordinary Blocking’ techniques as an alternative to restraint of people with intellectual disabilities (i.e., individual with behavioral health issues) including the use of a baseball umpires shield (blocking pad) that was soft yet sturdy with handle on the back that protects arms and legs to de-escalate situations and avoid the need for restraints.
In addition, to the extent that Sanders lacks a teaching of receiving an alert of a potentially violent situation involving a special individual with behavioral health issues, Sanders teaches employees were instructed to call for assistance when clients were experiencing the very early stages of difficulties. Imminent restraints could then be avoided with the additional support to assist in deescalating the situation. Managers were also able to observe employees in difficult situations and give positive feedback and/or offer coaching and guidance. This schedule of additional support was available through the week and at night. At any given moment, a direct care employee could look at the on-call schedule and contact a manager for support, see, e.g., p. 218, col. 1, 2nd full ¶. Therefore, Sanders teaches managers received alerts of potential violent situation with the special individual and direct care employees were trained to retrieve blocking pads for extraordinary blocking technique to deescalate the situation.
Siddle and Sanders are both considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of use of blocking pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of the blocking pad of Siddle to include use with special individuals having behavioral health issues, to use the pad in de-escalating violent episodes, and to provide/receive an alert of a potentially violent situation involving a special individual with behavioral health issues, as taught by Sanders, to improve care for special individuals, for example, by drastically reducing the use of physical restraints and staff injuries and to create a safer place to work, see, e.g., “conclusions” p. 216.
Siddle in view of Sanders teaches using a blocking pad and de-escalation in the care of special individuals. To the extent the combination fails to teach using the blocking pad “for a calming effect” O’Hagan teaches prevention and early intervention tools for treatment of special individuals includes de-escalation including skills to ‘bring down’ aggressive behavior through keeping calm, showing support for the person, acknowledging their feelings, active listening and helping to find a non-violent solution to the current situation (See, Prevention and early intervention tools, p. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of the blocking pad for use with special individuals having behavioral health of Siddle in view of Sanders to include using the pad as an early intervention to for de-escalating violent episodes wherein the user keeps calm, shows support for the person, acknowledges their feelings, actively listens and helps to help find a non-violent solution to the current situation, as taught by O’Hagan, to improve care for special individuals, for example, by reducing need for physical restraints and seclusion (See, e.g., p. ii).
In re claim 6, Siddle discloses the blocking pad further comprises at first top handle aligned with the first edge [Fig. 2 shows two handles #11, one of which is aligned with top edge #7].
In re claim 7, Siddle discloses the blocking pad further comprises a first bottom handle aligned with the second edge [Fig. 2 shows two handles #11, one of which is aligned with top edge #8].
In re claim 11, Siddle discloses positioning the blocking pad between property the special individual is attempting to destroy and the special individual to prevent property damage or self-harm [Col. 1, ll. 6-63 describe use in crowd control by law enforcement by placing the pad between the user/officer and combatant, officers routinely deploy to prevent damage to property in crowd control by placing themselves between the property].
In re claim 12, Siddle discloses the use of the pad as a shield and therefore an alternative to restraint (e.g., handcuffing) Abstract, col. 2, ll. 31-44. Sanders discloses blocking pad is utilized as an alternative to restraint or seclusion of the special individual [introduction and paragraphs bridging pp. 217-218, among others, describe minimizing the use of seclusion and restraints is a key goal for all services for people with intellectual disabilities, de-escalation of violent episodes, and that extensive training consisting of lecture, demonstration and practice was provided to all employees on ‘Extraordinary Blocking’ techniques as an alternative to restraint of people with intellectual disabilities (i.e., individual with behavioral health issues) including the use of a baseball umpires shield (blocking pad) that was soft yet sturdy with handle on the back that protects arms and legs to de-escalate situations and avoid the need for restraints].
Siddle and Sanders are both considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of use of blocking pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of the blocking pad of Siddle to include use with special individuals having behavioral health issues, to use the pad as an alternative to restraint or seclusion of the special individual, as taught by Sanders, to improve care for special individuals, for example, by drastically reducing the use of physical restraints and staff injuries and to create a safer place to work, see, e.g., “conclusions” p. 216.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Siddle in view of Sanders, O’Hagan, and Deluxe Punch Shield, and further in view of the YoutTubeTM Video “Outlet and Finish Drill with Blocking Pad” by Troy Sowders (“Sowders”).
In re claim 2, Siddle teaches wherein the first side handle and the second side handle extend from a rear portion of the pad [Fig. 2 shows handles 10 and 11 on back of pad].
Siddle lacks, but Sowders teaches holding the blocking pad away from a body of the user with bent elbows and allowing the elbows to flex as a strike is received against the blocking pad to absorb energy of the strike and reduce injury to the user and the special individual [YouTube Video at numerous points such as the 55 second mark (among others) show trainer holding blocking pad with bent arms and flexing elbows as individual moves into blocking pad].
Siddle, Sanders, and Sowders are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of blocking pads/shield for preventing harm to an individual. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Siddle in view of Sanders to hold the pad with bent elbows and flex when absorbing a strike from an individual, as taught by Sowders, in order to properly position the pad relative to a moving individual and prevent injury to the blocker and prevent them from being knocked over.
Siddle does expressly teach that the handles have a padded handgrip. However, Deluxe Punch Shield shows handgrips that are padded.
Siddle and Deluxe Punch Shield are both considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of blocking pads. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute or modified the handles/grips of the blocking pad of Siddle with another type of handle/grip (padded as taught by Deluxe Punch Shield) to obtain the predictable results of allowing a user to hold the pad and/or to provide a better user experience, for example, easing use or hand strain over a longer period of user and/or to prevent handles from cutting into a user’s hands.
In re claim 10, Siddle lacks, but Sowders teaches moving the user with the blocking pad away from or around another individual, wherein keeping distance includes permitting the special individual to press against the pad while the user refrains from pushing the pad into the individual. [YouTube Video at the 35, 45 second mark (among others) show trainer with blocking pad moving around individual including allowing the individual to contact the pad (e.g., press against the pad while attempting a shot) with the coach or training moving back with the individual to maintain contact without pushing using small and/or quick steps].
Siddle, Sanders, and Sowders are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of blocking pads/shield for preventing harm to an individual. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Siddle in view of Sanders to move around an individual with small quick steps, as taught by Sowders, in order to properly position the pad relative to a moving individual.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Siddle in view of Sanders and O’Hagan, or Siddle in view of Sanders O’Hagan and Deluxe Punch Shield, and further in view of US Publication No. 2010/0205228 to Reese (“Reese”).
In re claim 3, Siddle discloses a method of utilizing the blocking pad as describes with regard to claim 1 above. However, Siddle lacks an electronic device to providing training. Reese teaches an electronic device to provide various training material and instructions to users [¶¶ 6, 7, 34-36 describe an interface to provide instructional training material].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Siddle to provide an electronic device providing an instructional video on how to use the pads (and thus protect the blocker (user) and/or the blockee (special individual)), as taught by Reese, in order to provide a better user experience, for example, by providing a customizable visual demonstration with audio and/or written instructions of proper use/technique, see, e.g., ¶37.
In re claim 4, Siddle in view of Sanders teaches “using the blocking pad to protect the user and the special individual” but lacks a teaching of an electronic device to provide instructions in real-time on the user of the blocking pad. Reese teaches the electronic device provides instructions in real-time for training material [¶¶35, 47 describes various formats and interfaces that provide training material in real time].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Siddle to provide an interface providing real time instructional video on how to use the pads, as taught by Reese, in order to provide a better user experience, for example, by providing a customizable visual demonstration with audio and/or written instructions of proper technique, see, e.g., ¶37.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Siddle in view of Sanders and O’Hagan, or Siddle in view of Sanders, O’Hagan, and Deluxe Punch Shield, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,377,577 to Bounkong et al. (“Bounkong”).
In re claim 5, Siddle doesn’t explicitly teach the blocking pad includes written instructions on the blocking pad for protecting the user and the special individual.
Bounkong teaches a shield with written material thereon [Fig. 1, shows removable printed message #56 affixed to interior surface of shield, and the message can be whatever is appropriate]. While Bounkong doesn’t teach the message is written instructions, the limitations directed to written instructions are reasonably interpreted as non-functional descriptive material that does not further limit the claimed structure of the pad because these limitations are directed towards printed indicia conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting structure, which only provides support and display for the indicia printed thereon, See MPEP 2111.05. These limitations do not provide a new feature of physical structure over the corresponding structure of the cited prior art, and there is no new relation of printed matter to physical structure other than to support it.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the written instructions, since it would only depend on the intended use of the assembly and/or the desired information to be displayed. Further, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 217 USPZ 401, (CAFC 1983). The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate (i.e., instructions on the pad) it does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate which is required for patentability.
In addition, the courts have also held that providing instructions of the use of the structural element do not patently distinguish the claimed product. Astrazeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (FDA-required instructions did not create functional relationship to drug). 228 F. Supp. 664 (D.D.C. 1964).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Siddle in view of Sanders and O’Hagan, or Siddle in view of Sanders, O’Hagan, and Deluxe Punch Shield, and further in view of the Publication “Colour psychology and meaning green and blue” (“Colour”).
In re claim 8, Siddle lacks a description of the color of the pad.
Colour teaches the color blue calls to mind feelings of calmness or serenity and is often described as peaceful, tranquil, secure, and orderly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pad of Siddle to be blue, as taught by Colour, in order to promote feelings of calmness or serenity in potentially violent situations. In addition, one skilled in the art would color the outer surface of the pad to be blue as this the outer surface is what would be visible to the individual. Therefore, modifying the outer surface to be blue would also soothe the special individual.
Claims 9, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Siddle in view of Sanders and O’Hagan, or Siddle in view of Sanders, O’Hagan, and Deluxe Punch Shield, and further in view of Chinese Patent No. CN200954798Y by Weiguo (“Weiguo”).
In re claim 9, Siddle discloses use of shield (blocking pad) in response to the potentially violent situation, but doesn’t explicitly teach blocking pad is retrieved from a designated storage location.
Weiguo teaches a designated storage location for police shields [¶10 describes a designated area cavity rack for use of storing larger items, such as shields].
Siddle and Weiguo are both considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of policing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Siddle to place the shield (blocking pad) in a designated location for retrieval, as taught by Weiguo, so that when equipment is needed during a police call, the required equipment can be found very conveniently and orderly, and it is also conducive to the management and maintenance of daily police equipment, see, e.g., ¶10.
In re claim 13, Siddle discloses method of utilizing a blocking pad [Abstract, col. 1 ll. 7-39], comprising: receiving an alert of a potentially violent situation involving a special individual [col. 1, ll. 5-11 to col. 2, ll. 31-51 describes various uses of a shield (blocking pad) including in combat, crowd control, or martial arts, in the context, for example, of police deploying for use in crowd control, in which the police are routinely alerted prior to confronting the crowd, combatant, or other individual before using the shield]; retrieving a blocking pad, the blocking pad including a first edge, a second edge, a third edge, and a fourth edge, the first edge opposite the second edge, the third edge opposite the fourth edge [Figs 1 and 2 show a shield (blocking pad) with edges ## 5, 6, 7, and 8, and show an individual holding the pad and therefore the pad has been retrieved edges 5 and 6 are opposite each other and edges 7 and 8 are opposite each other], a pad disposed between the first edge, second edge, third edge, and fourth edge [col. 1, l. 64 to col. 2, l. 30 describe foam and cushioning forming pad disposed between the edges 5, 6, 7, and 8], and a first side handle aligned with the third edge[Fig. 2 shows two handles #10 one of which is aligned with a third edge #5], and a second side handle aligned with the fourth edge [Fig. 2 shows two handles #10, one of which is aligned with a fourth edge #6]; smooth and covered [Abstract, col. 4, ll. 64-68 states the pad includes an outer covering maybe of vinyl (which is also disclosed as outer covering in Applicant specification) or Propex (both of which are smooth)]; each of the handles is configured with an ergonomic shape [Fig. 2, handles 10 and 11, col. 5, ll. 3-10 describe handles may be formed of a cushioning material to aid to the comfort of its user and provide adequate bulk for gripping by the hand, for the convenience of the user (ergonomic). In addition, the handles are shown in Fig. 2 to be “rectangular” which Applicant’s specification identifies as an ergonomic shape]; and utilizing the blocking pad in a defensive posture to safely absorb or deflect blows or strikes initiated by the special individual to protect the special individual without using restraint or seclusion and to prevent the special individual from harming himself/herself or from harming the user of the blocking pad [col. 2, ll. 5-10, 39-58 describe a safety containment shield (blocking pad) used in a defensive posture. The shield includes a significant degree of cushioning against the impact to the party against whom the shield is deployed and to prevent injury or harm to the both the party deploying the shield and to an individual confronted with the shield. When shield is used in a defensive posture to block blows it is used without restraint or seclusion of the individual against whom the shield is used].
The figures (excerpts of which are shown above) of Siddle show rounded edges, and col. 3, l.4 states the pad contains no sharp edges. Rounded/non-sharp edges on a pad prevent injury to anyone involved with use of the pad including a user and/or a special individual.
Therefore, Siddle teaches the limitation wherein the first edge, second edge, third edge, and fourth edge are rounded to prevent injury to the special individual and a user of the blocking pad and therefore the rounded edges, pad, and each handles configuration work in combination to reduce the risk of injury or abrasion. In addition, because there is no structural difference between the pad and handles of Siddle and that of Applicant’s disclosed pad, the configuration of Siddle also necessarily promote a calm, non-threatening demeanor.
However, in the alternative, to any extent that Siddle does not explicitly teach the edges are “rounded,” or that the handles are “ergonomic” Deluxe Punch Shield shows a blocking pad with rounded edges, which prevent injury to anyone involved with use of the pad (including a user and/or a special individual) and ergonomic handles (padded handles forming a rectangular shape).
Siddle and Deluxe Punch Shield are both considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of blocking pads. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute or modified the edges of the blocking pad of Siddle with another type of edge (rounded) and handles (ergonomic), as taught by Deluxe Punch Shield, to obtain the predictable results of blocking blows and/or to provide a better user experience, for example, by minimizing the chances of cuts or other injuries resulting from more squared edges and by making use of the pad easier with less strain on the hands.
Siddle describes the use of the blocking pad to provide shelter against an individual under surveillance; however, Siddle does not explicitly teach the individual is a special individual with behavioral health issues or de-escalation. Sanders teaches a method of utilizing a blocking pad in a potentially violent situations involving special individuals with behavioral health issues. Sanders introduction and paragraphs bridging pp. 217-218, among others, describe minimizing the use of seclusion and restraints is a key goal for all services for people with intellectual disabilities, de-escalation of violent episodes, and that extensive training consisting of lecture, demonstration and practice was provided to all employees on ‘Extraordinary Blocking’ techniques as an alternative to restraint of people with intellectual disabilities (i.e., individual with behavioral health issues) including the use of a baseball umpires shield (blocking pad) that was soft yet sturdy with handle on the back that protects arms and legs to de-escalate situations and avoid the need for restraints.
In addition, to the extent that Sanders lacks a teaching of receiving an alert of a potentially violent situation involving a special individual with behavioral health issues, Sanders teaches employees were instructed to call for assistance when clients were experiencing the very early stages of difficulties. Imminent restraints could then be avoided with the additional support to assist in deescalating the situation. Managers were also able to observe employees in difficult situations and give positive feedback and/or offer coaching and guidance. This schedule of additional support was available through the week and at night. At any given moment, a direct care employee could look at the on-call schedule and contact a manager for support, see, e.g., p. 218, col. 1, 2nd full ¶. Therefore, Sanders teaches managers received alerts of potential violent situation with the special individual and direct care employees were trained to retrieve blocking pads for extraordinary blocking technique to deescalate the situation.
Siddle and Sanders are both considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of use of blocking pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of the blocking pad of Siddle to include use with special individuals having behavioral health issues, to use the pad in de-escalating violent episodes, and to provide/receive an alert of a potentially violent situation involving a special individual with behavioral health issues, as taught by Sanders, to improve care for special individuals, for example, by drastically reducing the use of physical restraints and staff injuries and to create a safer place to work, see, e.g., “conclusions” p. 216.
Siddle in view of Sanders teaches using a blocking pad and de-escalation in the care of special individuals. To the extent the combination fails to teach using the blocking pad “for a calming effect” O’Hagan teaches prevention and early intervention tools for treatment of special individuals includes de-escalation including skills to ‘bring down’ aggressive behavior through keeping calm, showing support for the person, acknowledging their feelings, active listening and helping to find a non-violent solution to the current situation (See, Prevention and early intervention tools, p. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use of the blocking pad for use with special individuals having behavioral health of Siddle in view of Sanders to include using the pad as an early intervention to for de-escalating violent episodes wherein the user keeps calm, shows support for the person, acknowledges their feelings, actively listens and helps to help find a non-violent solution to the current situation, as taught by O’Hagan, to improve care for special individuals, for example, by reducing need for physical restraints and seclusion (See, e.g., p. ii).
Siddle doesn’t explicitly teach blocking pad is retrieved from a designated storage location; however, Weiguo teaches a designated storage location for police shields [¶10 describes a designated area cavity rack for use of storing larger items, such as shields].
Siddle and Weiguo are both considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of policing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Siddle to place the shield (blocking pad) in a designated location for retrieval, as taught by Weiguo, so that when equipment is needed during a police call, the required equipment can be found very conveniently and orderly, and it is also conducive to the management and maintenance of daily police equipment, see, e.g., ¶10.
In re claim 16, Siddle discloses positioning the blocking pad between a hard surface and the special individual to prevent self-harm [Abstract, col. 2, ll. 39-51 describe placing the pad between the user/officer (which includes hard surfaces such as the skull) to prevent and/or mitigate harm].
Claims 14, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Siddle in view of Sanders, O’Hagan and Weiguo, or Siddle in view of Sanders, O’Hagan, Weiguo and Deluxe Punch Shield, and further in view of Sowders.
In re claim 14, Siddle teaches wherein the first side handle and the second side handle extend from a rear portion of the pad [Fig. 2 shows handles 10 and 11 on back of pad].
Siddle lacks, but Sowders teaches increasing a distance between the user with the blocking pad and the special induvial [YouTube Video at 2:28 mark (among others) show trainer with blocking pad increasing the distance between the blocker and the dribbler (moving backwards)].
Siddle, Sanders, and Sowders are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of blocking pads/shield for preventing harm to an individual. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Siddle to increase a distance between the user with the blocking pad and the special induvial, as taught by Sowders, in order to properly position the pad relative to a moving individual and/or avoid contact.
Siddle does expressly teach that the handles have a padded handgrip. However, Deluxe Punch Shield shows handgrips that are padded.
Siddle and Deluxe Punch Shield are both considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of blocking pads. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute or modified the handles/grips of the blocking pad of Siddle with another type of handle/grip (padded as taught by Deluxe Punch Shield) to obtain the predictable results of allowing a user to hold the pad and/or to provide a better user experience, for example, easing use or hand strain over a longer period of user and/or to prevent handles from cutting into a user’s hands.
In re claim 15, Siddle lacks, but Sowders teaches moving the user with the blocking pad away from or around another individual, wherein keeping distance includes permitting the special individual to press against the pad while the user refrains from pushing the pad into the individual. [YouTube Video at the 35, 45 second mark (among others) show trainer with blocking pad moving around individual including allowing the individual to contact the pad (e.g., press against the pad while attempting a shot) with the coach or trainer moving back with the individual to maintain contact without pushing using small and/or quick steps].
Siddle, Sanders, and Sowders are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of blocking pads/shield for preventing harm to an individual. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Siddle in view of Sanders to move around an individual with small quick steps, as taught by Sowders, in order to properly position the pad relative to a moving individual.
In re claim 18, Siddle lacks, but Sowders teaches avoiding the individual engaged with the pad; and scanning for the blocking pad [YouTube Video at 2:28 mark (among others) show trainer with blocking pad avoiding the player and the player scanning for the blocking pad].
Siddle, Sanders, and Sowders are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of blocking pads/shield for preventing harm to an individual. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Siddle in view of Sanders to avoid the special individual by moving and scanning for the pad, as taught by Sowders, in order to properly position the pad relative to a moving individual and/or avoid contact.
In re claim 19, Siddle lacks, but Sowders teaches placing the blocking pad between the individual and a second individual to prevent harm [YouTube Video at 36 second mark (among others) shows trainer with blocking pad placing the blocking pad between a first player and a second player preventing injury of the second player behind the trainer].
Siddle, Sanders, and Sowders are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of blocking pads/shield for preventing harm to an individual. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Siddle in view of Sanders place the blocking pad between individuals (including special individuals), as taught by Sowders, in order to prevent injury, such as a collision between those individuals.
In re claim 20, Siddle teaches wherein the first side handle and the second side handle extend from a rear portion of the pad [Fig. 2 shows handles 10 and 11 on back of pad].
Siddle lacks, but Sowders teaches holding the blocking pad away from a body of the user with bent elbows [YouTube Video at numerous points such as the 55 second mark (among others) show trainer holding blocking pad with bent arms and flexing elbows as individual moves into blocking pad].
Siddle, Sanders, and Sowders are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of blocking pads/shield for preventing harm to an individual. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Siddle in view of Sanders to hold the pad away from the body with bent elbows, as taught by Sowders, in order to properly position the pad relative to a moving individual and prevent injury to the blocker and prevent them from being knocked over.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Siddle in view of Sanders, and O’Hagan, or Siddle in view of Sanders , O’Hagan, and Deluxe Punch Shield, and in view of Weiguo and further in view of Reese.
In re claim 17, Siddle discloses a method of utilizing the blocking pad as describes with regard to claim 13 above. However, Siddle lacks an electronic device to providing training. Reese teaches an electronic device to provide various training material and instructions to users [¶¶ 6, 7, 34-36 describe an interface to provide instructional training material].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Siddle to provide an electronic device providing an instructional video on how to use the pads (and thus protect the blocker (user) and/or the blockee (special individual)), as taught by Reese, in order to provide a better user experience, for example, by providing a customizable visual demonstration with audio and/or written instructions of proper use/technique, see, e.g., ¶37.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 9, 2026 have been fully considered.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting is maintained. Applicant’s remarks did not respond to this rejection.
The previous objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims; however, a new objection to claims 1 and 13 is made in view of the amendments to claims 1 and 13 as provided above.
The previous rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained and new rejections are made as Applicant’s amendments introduce new issues in the claims as explained above. Applicant’s remarks did not address the rejection accept to state the claims have been amended to address this rejection. The rejection has been updated to address the amendment and the rejection is made for the reasons provided above.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the anticipation/obviousness of claims 1 and 13 have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In addition, Applicant’s arguments directed to the pad, and each handles configuration work in combination to promote a calm, non-threatening demeanor during de-escalation and lack of “de-escalation” in general are not persuasive as Applicant has deleted this language from the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights