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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 4/2/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/5/2026.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, lines 10-11, “the back surface” should read ---the rear surface---
Claim 17, line 1, “the back surface” should read ---the rear surface---
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roque et al. (US 11,311,062) and further in view of Buhler (US 4,272,847).
Regarding independent claim 1, Roque et al. teaches a chest plate (plate portion 12) comprising:
a front surface (18) having a top edge (221, 222, 228) and bottom edge (224, 225, 226);
a back surface (20) located opposite of the front surface;
a first side edge (223) and a second side edge (227) connecting the top edge to the bottom edge;
wherein the first side edge has a shoulder relief structure adjacent to the top edge and the second side edge (in the broadest reasonable interpretation, concave portion of first side edge 223 constitutes a shoulder relief structure; concave portion of first side edge 223 is adjacent to top edge 221, 222, 228 and, insomuch as applicant has shown the same, is adjacent to the second side edge 227);
wherein the top edge forms a "u" shaped chin relief structure (concave portion 221 of top edge constitutes a “u” shaped chin relief structure); and
the front surface and the back surface have an opening formed therebetween for diaphragm relief (in the broadest reasonable interpretation and absent further structural requirements, center opening 24 constitutes an opening for diaphragm relief; col. 11 lines 24-26, “the plurality of passages 24 extend through the thickness T16 of the body 16”).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Roque et al. does not teach wherein the opening occupies a majority of the front surface and the back surface. However, Roque et al. teaches the number and configuration of the plurality of openings (24) may be of whatever number or geometric shape is desired (Roque et al. col. 40 lines 7-17, “Furthermore, as comparatively seen in each of, for example, FIGS. 3 and 25, the passages 24, 724 may be formed to include any desirable geometry such as, for example: substantially square-shaped geometries, substantially rectangular-shaped geometries, substantially triangular-shaped geometries, substantially circular geometries and the like. In view of the above-described structure of the passages 24, 724, the other above-described plate portions 212, 312, 412, 512 may also include any desirable number of passages 224, 324, 424, 524 as well as any desirable geometric shape of the passages 224, 324, 424, 524”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number and geometry of the plurality of openings (24) of Roque et al. such that the central opening occupies a majority of the front surface and the back surface a matter of obvious design choice by selecting a suitable configuration of the openings that achieves the same expected result of reducing the weight of the plate (12) and providing additional air flow paths (col. 11 lines 26-27, “The plurality of passages 24 may reduce the weight of the plate portion 12 and provide additional air flow paths P.”). It has been held that a change in form or shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
Roque et al. does not teach wherein the shoulder relief structure has shoulder angle portions that form an angle between at least two of the shoulder angle portions.
Buhler, in the same field of endeavor with regards to chest plates, teaches a chest plate (chest protecting portion 12) comprising a first side edge and a second side edge (annotated Fig. 1), where each of the first side edge and the second side edge have a shoulder relief structure adjacent the top edge and each other, wherein the shoulder relief structures have shoulder angle portions that form an angle between at least two of the shoulder angle portions (i.e., two straight portions of side edge that form angle of shoulder relief structure).
PNG
media_image2.png
306
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As Roque et al. teaches the shape of the side edges may be selected to form any desirable shape (col. 12 lines 14-16, “the plurality of side surface segments 221-228 may be selectively shaped to form a plate portion 12 having any desirable shape”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the first and second side edges to each include a shoulder relief structure having shoulder angle portions that form an angle between at least two of the shoulder angle portions, as is similarly taught by Buhler, as a matter of obvious design choice to select a suitable desirable shape that accommodates the anatomy of a human upper torso and provides an ergonomically comfortable chest plate shape. It has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 2, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler further teaches wherein the at least two shoulder angle portions of the shoulder relief structure form an obtuse angle (as modified by Buhler, see Buhler annotated Fig. 1 above showing obtuse angle between shoulder angle portions of shoulder relief structure).
Regarding claim 3, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler appears to teach wherein the at least two shoulder angle portions of the shoulder relief structure form an obtuse angle greater than 120 degrees (as modified by Buhler, see Buhler annotated Fig. 1 above). However, should it be determined the obtuse angle is not greater than 120 degrees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle between the shoulder angle portions of the shoulder relief structure of Roque et al. as modified by Buhler as an obvious matter of design choice to select a suitable desirable shape created by the angle between the shoulder angle portions of the shoulder relief structure that accommodates the anatomy of a human upper torso and provides an ergonomically comfortable chest plate shape. It has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 4, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler further teaches wherein the second side edge has another shoulder relief structure (as modified by Buhler, see rejection to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler further teaches wherein the another shoulder relief structure has at least two other shoulder angle portion that form an obtuse angle (as modified by Buhler, see rejection to claim 1 above and see Buhler annotated Fig. 1 above showing obtuse angle between shoulder angle portions of shoulder relief structure of the second side edge).
Regarding claim 6, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler further teaches wherein the opening is formed by a diaphragm relief structure (absent further structural requirements, the triangular shape of the center opening 24 constitutes a diaphragm relief structure that forms the center opening 24).
Regarding claim 7, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler does not teach wherein the front surface has more material closer to the top edge than the bottom edge. However, as Roque et al. teaches the shape of the chest plate may be selected to form any desirable shape (col. 12 lines 14-16, “the plurality of side surface segments 221-228 may be selectively shaped to form a plate portion 12 having any desirable shape”) and the number and shape of the openings (24 of Roque et al.) may be selected in any desirable number or configuration (Roque et al. col. 40 lines 7-17, “Furthermore, as comparatively seen in each of, for example, FIGS. 3 and 25, the passages 24, 724 may be formed to include any desirable geometry such as, for example: substantially square-shaped geometries, substantially rectangular-shaped geometries, substantially triangular-shaped geometries, substantially circular geometries and the like. In view of the above-described structure of the passages 24, 724, the other above-described plate portions 212, 312, 412, 512 may also include any desirable number of passages 224, 324, 424, 524 as well as any desirable geometric shape of the passages 224, 324, 424, 524”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the chest plate and the size/configuration of the openings of Roque et al. in view of Buhler such that the front surface has more material closer to the top edge than the bottom edge as a matter of obvious design choice to select a suitable desirable shape that accommodates the anatomy of a human upper torso and provides an ergonomically comfortable chest plate shape. It has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 8, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler further teaches wherein the top edge (221, 222, 228) has a smaller width than the bottom edge (224, 225, 226; see Fig. 1 of Roque et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler further teaches wherein the back surface (20) has a sternum relief structure formed proximate the top edge (in the broadest reasonable interpretation and absent further structural requirements, the central body portion 16e forms a sternum relief structure when engaged with plate container portion 14 as it forms a concave structure over the sternum of a user; see Figs. 7A-7C and 8B).
Regarding claim 10, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler teaches wherein the bottom edge is curved (see curved portions 224, 226 of bottom edge formed by 224, 225, 226).
Regarding independent claim 11, Roque et al. teaches a chest plate (plate portion 12) for exercising (the invention of Roque et al. is capable of being used during performance of exercises) comprising:
a top edge (221, 222, 228) and bottom edge (224, 225, 226), wherein a front surface (18) and a rear surface (20) are formed between the top edge and the bottom edge, the front surface being opposite to the rear surface (see Fig. 1A);
a first side edge (223) extending between the top edge and the bottom edge;
a second side edge (227) extending between the top edge and the bottom edge;
shoulder relief structures formed by the first side edge and the second side edge (in the broadest reasonable interpretation, concave portions of first side edge 223 and second side edge 227 constitute shoulder relief structures);
wherein the top edge has a chin relief structure formed by a depressed portion (concave portion 221 of top edge forms chin relief structure in the form of a depression) adapted to provide chin relief (concave portion 221 is capable of providing chin relief); and
a diaphragm relief structure forming an opening (absent further structural requirements, the triangular shape of the center opening 24 constitutes a diaphragm relief structure that forms the center opening 24) between the front surface and the rear surface (col. 11 lines 24-26, “the plurality of passages 24 extend through the thickness T16 of the body 16”).
Roque et al. does not teach wherein the opening occupies a majority of the front surface and the rear surface. However, Roque et al. teaches the number and configuration of the plurality of openings (24) may be of whatever number or geometric shape is desired (Roque et al. col. 40 lines 7-17, “Furthermore, as comparatively seen in each of, for example, FIGS. 3 and 25, the passages 24, 724 may be formed to include any desirable geometry such as, for example: substantially square-shaped geometries, substantially rectangular-shaped geometries, substantially triangular-shaped geometries, substantially circular geometries and the like. In view of the above-described structure of the passages 24, 724, the other above-described plate portions 212, 312, 412, 512 may also include any desirable number of passages 224, 324, 424, 524 as well as any desirable geometric shape of the passages 224, 324, 424, 524”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number and geometry of the plurality of openings (24) of Roque et al. such that the central opening occupies a majority of the front surface and the rear surface a matter of obvious design choice by selecting a suitable configuration of the openings that achieves the same expected result of reducing the weight of the plate (12) and providing additional air flow paths (col. 11 lines 26-27, “The plurality of passages 24 may reduce the weight of the plate portion 12 and provide additional air flow paths P.”). It has been held that a change in form or shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
Roque et al. does not teach wherein the shoulder relief structures have shoulder angle portions forming angles.
Buhler, in the same field of endeavor with regards to chest plates, teaches a chest plate (chest protecting portion 12) comprising a first side edge and a second side edge (annotated Fig. 1), where each of the first side edge and the second side edge form a shoulder relief structure, wherein the shoulder relief structures have shoulder angle portions that form angles (i.e., two straight portions of side edge that form angle of shoulder relief structure).
As Roque et al. teaches the shape of the side edges may be selected to form any desirable shape (col. 12 lines 14-16, “the plurality of side surface segments 221-228 may be selectively shaped to form a plate portion 12 having any desirable shape”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the first and second side edges to each form a shoulder relief structure having shoulder angle portions that form an angle, as is similarly taught by Buhler, as a matter of obvious design choice to select a suitable desirable shape that accommodates the anatomy of a human upper torso and provides an ergonomically comfortable chest plate shape. It has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 12, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler further teaches wherein the angles formed are obtuse angles (as modified by Buhler, see Buhler annotated Fig. 1 above showing obtuse angles between shoulder angle portions of shoulder relief structures).
Regarding claim 13, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler appears to teach wherein the angles formed are obtuse angles greater than 120 degrees (as modified by Buhler, see Buhler annotated Fig. 1 above). However, should it be determined the obtuse angles are not greater than 120 degrees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angles between the shoulder angle portions of the shoulder relief structures of Roque et al. as modified by Buhler as an obvious matter of design choice to select a suitable desirable shape created by the angles between the shoulder angle portions of the shoulder relief structures that accommodates the anatomy of a human upper torso and provides an ergonomically comfortable chest plate shape. It has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 14, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler further teaches wherein the chin relief structure is “U” shaped (concave portion 221 of top edge forms “U” shaped chin relief structure).
Regarding claim 15, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler does not teach wherein the front surface has more material closer to the top edge than the bottom edge. However, as Roque et al. teaches the shape of the chest plate may be selected to form any desirable shape (col. 12 lines 14-16, “the plurality of side surface segments 221-228 may be selectively shaped to form a plate portion 12 having any desirable shape”) and the number and shape of the openings (24 of Roque et al.) may be selected in any desirable number or configuration (Roque et al. col. 40 lines 7-17, “Furthermore, as comparatively seen in each of, for example, FIGS. 3 and 25, the passages 24, 724 may be formed to include any desirable geometry such as, for example: substantially square-shaped geometries, substantially rectangular-shaped geometries, substantially triangular-shaped geometries, substantially circular geometries and the like. In view of the above-described structure of the passages 24, 724, the other above-described plate portions 212, 312, 412, 512 may also include any desirable number of passages 224, 324, 424, 524 as well as any desirable geometric shape of the passages 224, 324, 424, 524”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the chest plate and the size/configuration of the openings of Roque et al. in view of Buhler such that the front surface has more material closer to the top edge than the bottom edge as a matter of obvious design choice to select a suitable desirable shape that accommodates the anatomy of a human upper torso and provides an ergonomically comfortable chest plate shape. It has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 16, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler further teaches wherein the top edge (221, 222, 228) has a smaller width than the bottom edge (224, 225, 226; see Fig. 1 of Roque et al.).
Regarding claim 17, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler further teaches wherein the back surface (20) has a sternum relief structure formed proximate the top edge (in the broadest reasonable interpretation and absent further structural requirements, the central body portion 16e forms a sternum relief structure when engaged with plate container portion 14 as it forms a concave structure over the sternum of a user; see Figs. 7A-7C and 8B).
Regarding claim 18, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler further teaches wherein the sternum relief structure is formed as a depression in the rear surface (insomuch as applicant has disclosed and illustrated the sternum relief structure being formed as a depression in the rear surface by showing the rear surface is concave, the Office holds when plate portion 12 is engaged with plate container portion 14, the curving of central body portion 16e forms a depression in the rear surface).
Regarding claim 19, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler further teaches wherein the bottom edge is curved (see curved portions 224, 226 of bottom edge formed by 224, 225, 226).
Regarding claim 20, Roque et al. as modified by Buhler does not teach wherein a length of the opening (central opening 24) is larger than a width of the opening. However, as Roque et al. teaches a shape of the openings (24 of Roque et al.) may be selected in any desirable configuration (Roque et al. col. 40 lines 7-13, “Furthermore, as comparatively seen in each of, for example, FIGS. 3 and 25, the passages 24, 724 may be formed to include any desirable geometry such as, for example: substantially square-shaped geometries, substantially rectangular-shaped geometries, substantially triangular-shaped geometries, substantially circular geometries and the like”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the opening of Roque et al. in view of Buhler such that a length of the opening is larger than a width of the opening as a matter of obvious design choice to select a suitable desirable shape for the opening that provides an ergonomically comfortable and lightweight chest plate. It has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art to Roque et al. and Buhler fail to teach an opening that occupies a majority of the front surface and the back surface. However, Roque et al. explicitly teaches the number and geometry of the disclosed openings may be of any number and geometry as desired (Roque et al. col. 40 lines 7-17). In view of the disclosure of Roque et al., it would have been obvious to modify the number and geometry of the openings such that the central opening occupies a majority of the front and back surface. Such a modification would achieve the same desired result of the openings of the invention of Roque et al. to decrease the overall weight of the plate and to provide air flow paths (col. 11 lines 26-27). Therefore, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
