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
Applicant’s amendment of 03/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are presented.
Claims 1 and 10 are presented in independent form and are amended.
Dependent claims 3, 6-9, 11-15, and 18-20 are amended.
The present Office action treats claims 1-20 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Status of the Claims
For the purpose of record clarity, it is noted the status identifier for claim 5 in the reply of 03/25/2026 is incorrect. Its correct status identifier is “original”.
For the purpose of record clarity, it is noted the status identifier for claim 13 in the reply of 03/25/2026 is incorrect. Its correct status identifier is “currently amended”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Drawings – Replacement Sheets
The drawings (replacement sheets) were received on 03/25/2026. These drawings are acceptable and are entered.
Replacement Abstract
A replacement Abstract of 03/25/2026 is acknowledged and entered. It is noted the replacement abstract has necessitated a new specification objection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS/ARGUMENTS of 03/25/2026 (see p. 8-12 of the reply) are fully considered.
Regarding “objections to the claims”, “Abstract...objections”, and “drawings...correcting the omission of reference number 62” (p. 10 lines 1-5 of the reply): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, upon further review of the present disclosure, Applicant’s amendment of 03/25/2026, and Applicant’s remarks (p. 10 lines 1-5 of the reply of 03/25/2026), Applicant’s reply overcomes the claim objections, Abstract objection, and drawings objection set forth in the previous Office action. However, the new abstract of 03/25/2026 has necessitated a new Abstract objection. It is noted the new Abstract is not within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
Regarding “rejection of claims 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)” (p. 10 lines 6-18 of the reply): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, upon further review of the present disclosure, Applicant’s amendment of 03/25/2026, and Applicant’s remarks (p. 10 lines 6-18 of the reply of 03/25/2026), Applicant’s reply overcomes the 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in the previous Office action.
Regarding “rejections...under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103”, “the cited Norris reference”, and “The non-cited references” (p. 10 line 19 – p. 12 line 12) of the reply): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 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. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10-20 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Davis, US 2019/0025015, previously cited] in view of [Kerr, US 2006/0253950, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Davis discloses (Figs. 5-6):
A ballistic plate carrier 10′′ (i.e. “body armor plate assembly 10″”; para 46), comprising a unitary panel of compressed (paras 54-55; para 10) foam 20 having a center region (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below) and an integral perimeter rim or frame (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below) bounding the center region to define a cavity (that which receives 16) for snuggly receiving and holding an armor plate or panel 16, the foam of the stiffened perimeter rim or frame comprising a fused together closed cell wall structure (“closed cell solid foam material”; para 43, wherein the closed cell wall structure thereof is a fused together closed cell wall insofar as walls thereof are fused together as evidenced by being a “closed cell solid foam material”).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Davis does not expressly disclose the integral perimeter rim or frame is an integral stiffened perimeter rim or frame.
Davis does not expressly disclose the foam of the stiffened perimeter rim or frame comprising a fused together closed cell wall structure that is rigid or semi-rigid.
Kerr teaches a ballistic plate carrier (“protective body garment”; Abstract) configured to receive and hold an armor plate or panel 106 (i.e. “106...layers of Kevlar”; para 31) wherein a foam (“foam (not shown)” that is backing layer 107; para 31) is semi-rigid (“semi-rigid...foam”; para 31) and is stiffened (as evidenced by its being “semi-rigid”).
Kerr further teaches providing the stiffened, semi-rigid foam “acts as a so-called trauma pack, i.e. which spreads the pressure due to weapon contacts and helps reduce bruising” (para 31).
It 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 to have modified the ballistic plate carrier of Davis such that its integral perimeter rim or frame is stiffened and such that its fused together closed cell wall structure is semi-rigid in order to help spread pressure due to weapon contacts and/or help reduce bruising, as taught by Kerr (para 31).
and/or
It 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 to have modified the ballistic plate carrier of Davis such that its integral perimeter rim or frame is stiffened and such that its fused together closed cell wall structure is semi-rigid in order to yield the predictable result of a ballistic plate carrier whose integral perimeter rim or frame and fused together closed cell wall are appropriate for use within a ballistic plate carrier context. One of ordinary skill would have been confronted with one or more decision(s) as to how, specifically, to provide the integral perimeter rim or frame and closed cell wall and would have reasonably expected the integral perimeter rim or frame being stiffened and such that the fused together closed cell wall structure being semi-rigid would be acceptable for use within a ballistic plate carrier context based on the teachings of Kerr that a stiffened, semi-rigid foam is an acceptable foam for a ballistic plate carrier.
Regarding claim 6:
Davis in view of Kerr teach The ballistic plate carrier of claim 1, as set forth above.
Davis further discloses wherein the foam comprises ethylene vinyl acetate (“EVA (ethylene-vinyl acetate)”; para 43).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Davis, US 2019/0025015] and [Kerr, US 2006/0253950] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Becker, US 2020/0300582, previously cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Davis in view of Kerr teach The ballistic plate carrier of claim 1, as set forth above.
Davis does not expressly disclose comprising an outer surface having a pattern of slits or openings therethrough for attaching articles thereto.
However, Becker (Figs. 5-11) teaches a carrier 10, 12 (i.e. the combined 10 and 12) for an “armor plate” (para 39) wherein an outer surface (Fig. 10) of a front panel 102 comprises a pattern (“array”; para 42) of slits 30 (“slots 30”; para 42) or openings therethrough which are “a PALS surface...[]MOLLE-compatible”; para 42 wherein “a PALS surface” is “for attaching MOLLE-compatible devices” (para 22).
It 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 to have modified the modified Davis such that it is provided with an outer surface having a pattern of slits or openings therethrough for attaching articles thereto in order to permit attachment of MOLLE-compatible devices thereto, as suggested by Becker (para 22).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Davis, US 2019/0025015] and [Kerr, US 2006/0253950] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Aquino, US 2014/0150154, newly cited].
Regarding claim 3:
Davis in view of Kerr teach The ballistic plate carrier of claim 1, as set forth above.
Davis does not expressly disclose comprising an outer surface of a component of a hook and loop fastening system for attaching articles thereto.
Aquino teaches (Figs. 32-33) a plate carrier 954 comprising an outer surface of a component 972 of a hook and loop fastening system (“VELCRO[]..., hook and loop”; para 138) for attaching articles thereto (972 is configured to attach to 974 of article 952; in addition, 972 is further capable of attaching to other, unspecified, articles such that 972 is for attaching plural articles).
Aquino further teaches the outer surface of the component 972 permits detachable attachment to an outer garment 952 (para 138; Figs. 32-33)
It 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 to have modified the modified Davis such that it is provided with an outer surface of a component of a hook and loop fastening system for attaching articles thereto in order to permit attachment of the outer surface to a corresponding hook or loop component of another article, as suggested by Aquino (para 138; Figs. 32-33).
Claim(s) 4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Davis, US 2019/0025015] and [Kerr, US 2006/0253950] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Squyers, US 4,905,320, previously cited].
Regarding claim 4:
Davis in view of Kerr teaches The ballistic plate carrier of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Davis further meets the limitation comprising a cover panel 18 (i.e. 18 of Davis) attached to (via at least the combined 22 and 28 of Davis) the stiffened perimeter rim or frame in covering relation to the cavity (Fig. 5), and comprising an outwardly facing surface (as in Fig. 5).
Davis does not expressly disclose the outwardly facing surface having features cooperatively engageable with mating features on a spacer panel for attaching the spacer panel thereto.
Squyers teaches a “protective body support for use to protect a wearer's...body part” that “re-directs and dissipates the forces associated with an impact delivered to the body support” (Abstract) wherein a cover panel 16, 30 (i.e. the combined 16 and 30) comprises an outwardly facing surface (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below) comprising having features (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below) operatively engageable with mating features (see annotated Fig. 2- a below) on a spacer panel 20, 22 (i.e. the combined 20 and 22) for attaching the spacer panel thereto (as in annotated Fig. 2- a below).
PNG
media_image2.png
707
1208
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Squyers further discloses the protective body support so arranged provides “a body protector that protects against high-energy impacts...that protects against high-energy impacts while remaining comfortable to wear....that protects against high-energy impacts while remaining easily manufactured...that can also serve as a body support by re-distributing forces from some areas of the body to other, stronger, areas thereof...that protects against high-energy impacts by re-directing the forces applied thereto and by including means for dissipating such impact-energy in an efficient manner” (col. 1 line 66 – col. 2 line 13).
It 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 to have modified the modified Davis such that its outwardly facing surface is having features cooperatively engageable with mating features on a spacer panel for attaching the spacer panel thereto in order to protect against high energy impact; protect against high energy impact and comfortable to wear; protect against high energy impact and easy to manufacture; serve as a body support by re-distributing forces; and/or to protect against high energy impact by re-directing forces applied thereto and by including means for dissipating impact energy efficiently, as taught by Squyers (col. 1 line 66 – col. 2 line 13).
Regarding claim 7:
Davis in view of Kerr teaches The ballistic plate carrier of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Davis further meets the limitation comprising a cover panel 18 (i.e. 18 of Davis) attached to (via at least the combined 22 and 28 of Davis) the stiffened perimeter rim or frame in covering relation to the cavity (Fig. 5), and comprising an outwardly facing surface (as in Fig. 5).
Davis does not expressly disclose the outwardly facing surface comprising outwardly extending protuberances arranged in a pattern and cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities in a spacer panel, to attach the spacer panel to the outwardly facing surface.
Squyers teaches a “protective body support for use to protect a wearer's...body part” that “re-directs and dissipates the forces associated with an impact delivered to the body support” (Abstract) wherein a cover panel 16, 30 (i.e. the combined 16 and 30) is having an outwardly facing surface (see annotated Fig. 2 – b below) comprising outwardly extending protuberances (see annotated Fig. 2 – b below) arranged in a pattern and cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities (see annotated Fig. 2 - b below) in a spacer panel 20, 22 (i.e. the combined 20 and 22), to attach the spacer panel to the outwardly facing surface (as in annotated Fig. 2 – b below).
Squyers further discloses wherein the spacer panel 20, 22 has an opposite surface (see annotated Fig. 2 – b below) comprising a pattern of outwardly extending protuberances (see annotated Fig. 2 – b below) cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities (see annotated Fig. 2 – b below) in a second spacer panel 14, 28 (i.e. the combined 14 and 28; it is noted the lead line from 28 terminates within 20 of the spacer panel; one of ordinary skill would recognize from the description of Squyers that the lead line from 28 so terminating is in error in that 28 “is fixedly secured between the interior surface of...sheet 14 and a surface of...sheet 20”; the lead line from 28 should terminate instead within the layer identified in annotated Fig. 2 – b below), attaching the second spacer panel to the cover panel (via at least the spacer panel).
(It is noted the concavities are hollowed in ward like the inside of a circle such that they are concave; it is further noted the term “concave” means “curved or hollowed inward like the inside of a circle or sphere”; concave. (n.d.) Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary. (2010). Retrieved September 22 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/concave)
PNG
media_image3.png
707
1208
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Squyers further discloses the protective body support so arranged provides “a body protector that protects against high-energy impacts...that protects against high-energy impacts while remaining comfortable to wear....that protects against high-energy impacts while remaining easily manufactured...that can also serve as a body support by re-distributing forces from some areas of the body to other, stronger, areas thereof...that protects against high-energy impacts by re-directing the forces applied thereto and by including means for dissipating such impact-energy in an efficient manner” (col. 1 line 66 – col. 2 line 13).
It 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 to have modified the modified Davis such that its outwardly facing surface is comprising outwardly extending protuberances arranged in a pattern and cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities in a spacer panel, to attach the spacer panel to the outwardly facing surface; wherein the spacer panel has an opposite surface comprising a pattern of outwardly extending protuberances cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities in a second spacer panel, attaching the second spacer panel to the cover panel in order to protect against high energy impact; protect against high energy impact and comfortable to wear; protect against high energy impact and easy to manufacture; serve as a body support by re-distributing forces; and/or to protect against high energy impact by re-directing forces applied thereto and by including means for dissipating impact energy efficiently, as taught by Squyers (col. 1 line 66 – col. 2 line 13).
Regarding claim 8:
Davis in view of Kerr and Squyers teach The ballistic carrier of claim 7, as set forth above.
The modified Davis further meets the limitation wherein the spacer panel has an opposite surface comprising a pattern of outwardly extending protuberances cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities in a second spacer panel, attaching the second spacer panel to the cover panel.
(See above treatment of claim 7 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Crye, US 2013/0133130, newly cited] in view of [Kerr, US 2006/0253950, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Crye discloses (Figs. 1-5):
A ballistic plate carrier 10, comprising at least one unitary panel 60 of compressed foam having a center region 62 and an integral perimeter rim or frame 72 bounding and defining the center region to define a cavity (as in Fig. 5) for snuggly receiving and holding an armor plate or panel 50, the foam of the stiffened perimeter rim or frame comprising a fused together closed cell wall structure.
Crye does not expressly disclose the integral stiffened perimeter rim or frame is an integral stiffened perimeter rim or frame.
Crye does not expressly disclose the fused together closed cell wall structure that is rigid or semi-rigid.
Kerr teaches a ballistic plate carrier (“protective body garment”; Abstract) configured to receive and hold an armor plate or panel 106 (i.e. “106...layers of Kevlar”; para 31) wherein a foam (“foam (not shown)” that is backing layer 107; para 31) is semi-rigid (“semi-rigid...foam”; para 31) and is stiffened (as evidenced by its being “semi-rigid”).
Kerr further teaches providing the stiffened, semi-rigid foam “acts as a so-called trauma pack, i.e. which spreads the pressure due to weapon contacts and helps reduce bruising” (para 31).
It 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 to have modified the ballistic plate carrier of Crye such that its integral perimeter rim or frame is stiffened and such that its fused together closed cell wall structure is semi-rigid in order to help spread pressure due to weapon contacts and/or help reduce bruising, as taught by Kerr (para 31).
and/or
It 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 to have modified the ballistic plate carrier of Crye such that its integral perimeter rim or frame is stiffened and such that its fused together closed cell wall structure is semi-rigid in order to yield the predictable result of a ballistic plate carrier whose integral perimeter rim or frame and fused together closed cell wall are appropriate for use within a ballistic plate carrier context. One of ordinary skill would have been confronted with one or more decision(s) as to how, specifically, to provide the integral perimeter rim or frame and closed cell wall and would have reasonably expected the integral perimeter rim or frame being stiffened and such that the fused together closed cell wall structure being semi-rigid would be acceptable for use within a ballistic plate carrier context based on the teachings of Kerr that a stiffened, semi-rigid foam is an acceptable foam for a ballistic plate carrier.
Regarding claim 3:
Crye in view of Kerr teach The ballistic plate carrier of claim 1, as set forth above.
Crye further discloses comprising an outer surface of a component (one of “hook and loop fasteners”; para 19) of a hook and loop fastening system for attaching articles thereto (the one of the “hook and loop fasteners” is capable of attaching to a corresponding hook or loop of plural unspecified articles such that the limitation is met).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Crye, US 2013/0133130] and [Kerr, US 2006/0253950] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Becker, US 2020/0300582, previously cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Crye in view of Kerr teach The ballistic plate carrier of claim 1, as set forth above.
Crye does not expressly disclose comprising an outer surface having a pattern of slits or openings therethrough for attaching articles thereto.
However, Becker (Figs. 5-11) teaches a carrier 10, 12 (i.e. the combined 10 and 12) for an “armor plate” (para 39) wherein an outer surface (Fig. 10) of a front panel 102 comprises a pattern (“array”; para 42) of slits 30 (“slots 30”; para 42) or openings therethrough which are “a PALS surface...[]MOLLE-compatible”; para 42 wherein “a PALS surface” is “for attaching MOLLE-compatible devices” (para 22).
It 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 to have modified the modified Crye such that it is provided with an outer surface having a pattern of slits or openings therethrough for attaching articles thereto in order to permit attachment of MOLLE-compatible devices thereto, as suggested by Becker (para 22).
Claim(s) 4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Crye, US 2013/0133130] and [Kerr, US 2006/0253950] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Squyers, US 4,905,320, previously cited].
Regarding claim 4:
Crye in view of Kerr teaches The ballistic plate carrier of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Crye further meets the limitation comprising a cover panel 56 (i.e. 56 of Crye) attached to (Fig. 5) the stiffened perimeter rim or frame in covering relation to the cavity (Fig. 5), and comprising an outwardly facing surface (as in Fig. 5).
Crye does not expressly disclose the outwardly facing surface having features cooperatively engageable with mating features on a spacer panel for attaching the spacer panel thereto.
Squyers teaches a “protective body support for use to protect a wearer's...body part” that “re-directs and dissipates the forces associated with an impact delivered to the body support” (Abstract) wherein a cover panel 16, 30 (i.e. the combined 16 and 30) comprises an outwardly facing surface (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below) comprising having features (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below) operatively engageable with mating features (see annotated Fig. 2- a below) on a spacer panel 20, 22 (i.e. the combined 20 and 22) for attaching the spacer panel thereto (as in annotated Fig. 2- a below).
PNG
media_image2.png
707
1208
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Squyers further discloses the protective body support so arranged provides “a body protector that protects against high-energy impacts...that protects against high-energy impacts while remaining comfortable to wear....that protects against high-energy impacts while remaining easily manufactured...that can also serve as a body support by re-distributing forces from some areas of the body to other, stronger, areas thereof...that protects against high-energy impacts by re-directing the forces applied thereto and by including means for dissipating such impact-energy in an efficient manner” (col. 1 line 66 – col. 2 line 13).
It 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 to have modified the modified Crye such that its outwardly facing surface is having features cooperatively engageable with mating features on a spacer panel for attaching the spacer panel thereto in order to protect against high energy impact; protect against high energy impact and comfortable to wear; protect against high energy impact and easy to manufacture; serve as a body support by re-distributing forces; and/or to protect against high energy impact by re-directing forces applied thereto and by including means for dissipating impact energy efficiently, as taught by Squyers (col. 1 line 66 – col. 2 line 13).
Regarding claim 7:
Crye in view of Kerr teaches The ballistic plate carrier of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Crye further meets the limitation comprising a cover panel 56 (i.e. 56 of Crye) attached to (Fig. 5) the stiffened perimeter rim or frame in covering relation to the cavity (Fig. 5), and comprising an outwardly facing surface (as in Fig. 5).
Crye does not expressly disclose the outwardly facing surface comprising outwardly extending protuberances arranged in a pattern and cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities in a spacer panel, to attach the spacer panel to the outwardly facing surface.
Squyers teaches a “protective body support for use to protect a wearer's...body part” that “re-directs and dissipates the forces associated with an impact delivered to the body support” (Abstract) wherein a cover panel 16, 30 (i.e. the combined 16 and 30) is having an outwardly facing surface (see annotated Fig. 2 – b below) comprising outwardly extending protuberances (see annotated Fig. 2 – b below) arranged in a pattern and cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities (see annotated Fig. 2 - b below) in a spacer panel 20, 22 (i.e. the combined 20 and 22), to attach the spacer panel to the outwardly facing surface (as in annotated Fig. 2 – b below).
Squyers further discloses wherein the spacer panel 20, 22 has an opposite surface (see annotated Fig. 2 – b below) comprising a pattern of outwardly extending protuberances (see annotated Fig. 2 – b below) cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities (see annotated Fig. 2 – b below) in a second spacer panel 14, 28 (i.e. the combined 14 and 28; it is noted the lead line from 28 terminates within 20 of the spacer panel; one of ordinary skill would recognize from the description of Squyers that the lead line from 28 so terminating is in error in that 28 “is fixedly secured between the interior surface of...sheet 14 and a surface of...sheet 20”; the lead line from 28 should terminate instead within the layer identified in annotated Fig. 2 – b below), attaching the second spacer panel to the cover panel (via at least the spacer panel).
(It is noted the concavities are hollowed in ward like the inside of a circle such that they are concave; it is further noted the term “concave” means “curved or hollowed inward like the inside of a circle or sphere”; concave. (n.d.) Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary. (2010). Retrieved September 22 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/concave)
PNG
media_image3.png
707
1208
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Squyers further discloses the protective body support so arranged provides “a body protector that protects against high-energy impacts...that protects against high-energy impacts while remaining comfortable to wear....that protects against high-energy impacts while remaining easily manufactured...that can also serve as a body support by re-distributing forces from some areas of the body to other, stronger, areas thereof...that protects against high-energy impacts by re-directing the forces applied thereto and by including means for dissipating such impact-energy in an efficient manner” (col. 1 line 66 – col. 2 line 13).
It 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 to have modified the modified Crye such that its outwardly facing surface is comprising outwardly extending protuberances arranged in a pattern and cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities in a spacer panel, to attach the spacer panel to the outwardly facing surface; wherein the spacer panel has an opposite surface comprising a pattern of outwardly extending protuberances cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities in a second spacer panel, attaching the second spacer panel to the cover panel in order to protect against high energy impact; protect against high energy impact and comfortable to wear; protect against high energy impact and easy to manufacture; serve as a body support by re-distributing forces; and/or to protect against high energy impact by re-directing forces applied thereto and by including means for dissipating impact energy efficiently, as taught by Squyers (col. 1 line 66 – col. 2 line 13).
Regarding claim 8:
Crye in view of Kerr and Squyers teach The ballistic carrier of claim 7, as set forth above.
The modified Crye further meets the limitation wherein the spacer panel has an opposite surface comprising a pattern of outwardly extending protuberances cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities in a second spacer panel, attaching the second spacer panel to the cover panel.
(See above treatment of claim 7 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Crye, US 2013/0133130] and [Kerr, US 2006/0253950] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Gleason, US 5,961,019, newly cited].
Regarding claim 5:
Crye in view of Kerr teaches The ballistic plate carrier of claim 1, as set forth above.
Crye does not expressly disclose wherein the stiffened perimeter rim or frame is composed of the foam compressed to a first extent, and the panel further comprises an outer perimeter integrally formed with the stiffened perimeter rim or frame composed of the foam in an uncompressed state or compressed to a second extent less than the first extent.
However and in further view of Crye:
In Crye, an outer perimeter integrally formed with the perimeter rim or frame is composed of foam that is thicker than the foam of the perimeter rim or frame region between the tapered portion and the rim is thicker than the tapered portion and the rim (see annotated Fig. 5 – z detail below):
PNG
media_image4.png
923
849
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Gleason teaches a carrier 10 for an armor plate (carrier 10 is a “backpack...of... conventional design” (col. 3 lines 16-17) such that it is capable of carrying unspecified object(s) including and not limited to an armor plate).
Gleason further teaches that foam panel contouring to provide a foam panel with portions thereof of reduced thickness is achievable by “the foam pad is contoured to taper in thickness...This tapered contour is created by compressing the pad to the desired contour while applying heat to the foam. This heat fuses the compressed material, leaving a permanent contour after the pad has cooled. This contouring creates a smoother edge termination, to reduce the thickness ...these compressed regions also have a much greater density than the remainder of the foam, making the pad less flexible along these lines” (col. 1 lines 41-50).
It 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 to have modified the carrier of Crye such that its contour and reduced thickness of the perimeter rim or frame are created by heat compression such that the stiffened perimeter rim or frame is composed of the foam compressed to a first extent, and the panel further comprises an outer perimeter integrally formed with the stiffened perimeter rim or frame composed of the foam in an uncompressed state or compressed to a second extent less than the first extent in order to achieve a smooth contoured profile that provides the reduced thickness of the perimeter rim or frame relative to the foam of the outer perimeter that is thicker than the foam of the perimeter rim or frame, as suggested by Gleason (col. 1 lines 41-50).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Crye, US 2013/0133130] and [Kerr, US 2006/0253950] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Davis, US 2019/0025015, previously cited].
Regarding claim 6:
Crye in view of Kerr teach The carrier of claim 1, as set forth above.
Crye does not expressly disclose wherein the foam comprises ethylene vinyl acetate.
However, Davis teaches a foam material appropriate for receiving a ballistic plate is ethylene vinyl acetate (para 43).
Davis further teaches the foam “provides a resilient protective cover to prevent chipping and/or cracking” of a ballistic plate (para 42).
It 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 to have modified the modified Crye such that the foam comprises ethylene vinyl acetate in order to render the foam capable of protecting a plate from chipping and/or cracking, as suggested by Davis (para 42).
Claim(s) 10-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Crye, US 2013/0133130, newly cited] in view of [Gleason, US 5,961,019, newly cited].
Regarding claim 10:
Crye discloses (Figs. 1-5):
A carrier 10 for an armor plate 50, the armor plate having a predetermined plate thickness and shape, the carrier comprising a unitary panel 60 of polymer foam (“foam panel”; para 24; “polyurethane foam”; para 25), the unitary panel of the polymer foam comprising a center region 62 facing in a first direction (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below) and bounded by a perimeter 72 integral therewith, the perimeter having an integral inwardly located rim (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below) that extends about and laterally joins the center region (Figs. 4-5), the rim extending in the first direction from the center region to define a cavity having an extent in the first direction about equal to the thickness of the armor plate and the shape of the armor plate (as in annotated Fig. 5 – a below) so as to be capable of snuggly receiving the armor plate (as in annotated Fig. 5 – a below), the perimeter having an outer perimeter (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below) extending about and integral with the rim and having a tapered portion (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below) that extends convergingly laterally away from the rim to an outermost edge thinner than the rim (as in annotated Fig. 5 – a below).
PNG
media_image5.png
751
1200
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Crye does not expressly disclose the rim and the tapered portion comprising the polymer foam in stiffened compressed states, and a region between the tapered portion and the rim comprising the polymer foam in an uncompressed state or a less compressed state than the compressed states of the polymer foam of the tapered portion and the rim.
However and in further view of Crye:
In Crye, a region between the tapered portion and the rim is thicker than the tapered portion and the rim (see annotated Fig. 5 – b detail below):
PNG
media_image6.png
923
849
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Gleason teaches a carrier 10 for an armor plate (carrier 10 is a “backpack...of... conventional design” (col. 3 lines 16-17) such that it is capable of carrying unspecified object(s) including and not limited to an armor plate).
Gleason further teaches that foam panel contouring to provide a foam panel with portions thereof of reduced thickness is achievable by “the foam pad is contoured to taper in thickness...This tapered contour is created by compressing the pad to the desired contour while applying heat to the foam. This heat fuses the compressed material, leaving a permanent contour after the pad has cooled. This contouring creates a smoother edge termination, to reduce the thickness ...these compressed regions also have a much greater density than the remainder of the foam, making the pad less flexible along these lines” (col. 1 lines 41-50).
It 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 to have modified the carrier of Crye such that its contour and reduced thickness of the rim and tapered portion are created by heat compression such that the rim and the tapered portion comprising the polymer foam in stiffened compressed states, and a region between the tapered portion and the rim comprising the polymer foam in an uncompressed state or a less compressed state than the compressed states of the polymer foam of the tapered portion and the rim in order to achieve a smooth contoured profile that provides the reduced thickness of the rim and the tapered portion relative to the region therebetween, as suggested by Gleason (col. 1 lines 41-50).
Regarding claim 11:
Crye in view of Gleason teach The carrier of claim 10, as set forth above.
The modified Crye further meets the limitation wherein the rim is compression and heat molded (see above treatment of claim 10 wherein the rim is created by heat compression such that the tapered portion is compression and heat molded as claimed).
Regarding claim 12:
Crye in view of Gleason teach The carrier of claim 10, as set forth above.
The modified Crye further meets the limitation wherein the tapered portion is compression and heat molded (see above treatment of claim 10 wherein the tapered portion is created by heat compression such that the tapered portion is compression and heat molded as claimed).
Regarding claim 13:
Crye in view of Gleason teach The carrier of claim 10, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 10 above, the modified Crye does not meet the limitation wherein the center region is in a compressed state.
However and in further view of Gleason:
Gleason further teaches providing a foam panel with portions thereof of reduced thickness is achievable by “the foam pad is contoured to taper in thickness...This tapered contour is created by compressing the pad to the desired contour while applying heat to the foam. This heat fuses the compressed material, leaving a permanent contour after the pad has cooled. This contouring...to reduce the thickness ...these compressed regions also have a much greater density than the remainder of the foam, making the pad less flexible along these lines” (col. 1 lines 41-50).
It 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 to have modified the modified Crye such that its center region is in a compressed state in order to provide the reduced thickness thereof relative to the thickness of the rim, as suggested by Gleason.
Regarding claim 14:
Crye in view of Gleason teach The carrier of claim 10, as set forth above.
Crye further discloses comprising the armor plate 50 and wherein the armor plate is snuggly received in the cavity (Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 18:
Crye in view of Gleason teach The carrier of claim 10, as set forth above.
Crye further discloses comprising a cover panel 56 attached to the perimeter in covering relation to the cavity (Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Crye, US 2013/0133130] and [Gleason, US 5,961,019] as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of [Davis, US 2019/0025015, previously cited].
Regarding claim 15:
Crye in view of Gleason teach The carrier of claim 10, as set forth above.
Crye does not expressly disclose wherein the polymer foam comprises ethylene vinyl acetate.
However, Davis teaches a foam material appropriate for receiving a ballistic plate is ethylene vinyl acetate (para 43).
Davis further teaches the foam “provides a resilient protective cover to prevent chipping and/or cracking” of a ballistic plate (para 42).
It 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 to have modified the modified Crye such that the polymer foam comprises ethylene vinyl acetate in order to render the polymer foam capable of protecting a plate from chipping and/or cracking, as suggested by Davis (para 42).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Crye, US 2013/0133130] and [Gleason, US 5,961,019] as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of [Becker, US 2020/0300582, previously cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Crye in view of Gleason teach The carrier of claim 10, as set forth above.
Crye does not expressly disclose wherein the center region comprises a pattern of slits therethrough.
However, Becker (Figs. 5-11) teaches a carrier 10, 12 (i.e. the combined 10 and 12) for an “armor plate” (para 39) wherein a center region (Fig. 10) of a front panel 102 comprises a pattern (“array”; para 42) of slits 30 (“slots 30”; para 42) which are “a PALS surface...[]MOLLE-compatible”; para 42 wherein “a PALS surface” is “for attaching MOLLE-compatible devices” (para 22).
It 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 to have modified the modified Crye such that its center region comprises a pattern of slits therethrough; wherein the pattern in a MOLLE PALS pattern, in order to permit attachment of MOLLE-compatible devices thereto, as suggested by Becker (para 22).
Regarding claim 17:
Crye in view of Gleason teaches The carrier of claim 16, as set forth above.
The modified Crye further meets the limitation wherein the pattern is a MOLLE PALS pattern.
(Refer to above treatment of claim 16 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Crye, US 2013/0133130] and [Gleason, US 5,961,019] as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of [Squyers, US 4,905,320, previously cited].
Regarding claim 19:
Crye in view of Gleason teach The carrier of claim 18, as set forth above.
The modified Crye as applied to claim 18 does not expressly disclose wherein the cover panel comprises an outwardly facing surface comprising outwardly extending protuberances arranged in a pattern and cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities in a spacer panel, to attach the spacer panel to the outwardly facing surface.
However, Squyers teaches a “protective body support for use to protect a wearer's...body part” that “re-directs and dissipates the forces associated with an impact delivered to the body support” (Abstract) wherein a cover panel 16, 30 (i.e. the combined 16 and 30) comprises an outwardly facing surface (see annotated Fig. 2 – c below) comprising outwardly extending protuberances (see annotated Fig. 2 – c below) arranged in a pattern and cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities (see annotated Fig. 2 – c below) in a spacer panel 20, 22 (i.e. the combined 20 and 22), to attach the spacer panel to the outwardly facing surface (as in annotated Fig. 2 – c below).
Squyers further discloses wherein the spacer panel 20, 22 has an opposite surface (see annotated Fig. 2 - c below) comprising a pattern of outwardly extending protuberances (see annotated Fig. 2 - c below) cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities (see annotated Fig. 2 – c below) in a second spacer panel 14, 28 (i.e. the combined 14 and 28; it is noted the lead line from 28 terminates within 20 of the spacer panel; one of ordinary skill would recognize from the description of Squyers that the lead line from 28 so terminating is in error in that 28 “is fixedly secured between the interior surface of...sheet 14 and a surface of...sheet 20”; the lead line from 28 should terminate instead within the layer identified in annotated Fig. 2 – c below), to attach the second spacer panel to the cover panel (via at least the spacer panel).
(It is noted the concavities are hollowed in ward like the inside of a circle such that they are concave; it is further noted the term “concave” means “curved or hollowed inward like the inside of a circle or sphere”; concave. (n.d.) Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary. (2010). Retrieved September 22 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/concave)
PNG
media_image7.png
707
1208
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Squyers further discloses the protective body support so arranged provides “a body protector that protects against high-energy impacts...that protects against high-energy impacts while remaining comfortable to wear....that protects against high-energy impacts while remaining easily manufactured...that can also serve as a body support by re-distributing forces from some areas of the body to other, stronger, areas thereof...that protects against high-energy impacts by re-directing the forces applied thereto and by including means for dissipating such impact-energy in an efficient manner” (col. 1 line 66 – col. 2 line 13).
It 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 to have modified the modified Crye such that its cover panel comprises an outwardly facing surface comprising outwardly extending protuberances arranged in a pattern and cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities in a spacer panel, attaching the spacer panel to the outwardly facing surface; wherein the spacer panel has an opposite surface comprising a pattern of outwardly extending protuberances cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities in a second spacer panel, to attach the second spacer panel to the cover panel in order to protect against high energy impact; protect against high energy impact and comfortable to wear; protect against high energy impact and easy to manufacture; serve as a body support by re-distributing forces; and/or to protect against high energy impact by re-directing forces applied thereto and by including means for dissipating impact energy efficiently, as taught by Squyers (col. 1 line 66 – col. 2 line 13).
Regarding claim 20:
Crye in view of Gleason and Squyers teach The carrier of claim 19, as set forth above.
The modified Crye further meets the limitation wherein the spacer panel has an opposite surface comprising a pattern of outwardly extending protuberances cooperatively retained in a like pattern of concavities in a second spacer panel, to attach the second spacer panel to the cover panel (see above treatment of claim 19 where the limitation is addressed).
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 GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights