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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by US 8397312 (Crye et al.).
Regarding claim 1, ‘312 discloses: a mounting accessory for an armor carrier carrying a ballistic plate donned by a wearer [seen most clearly in fig. 4], comprising: one or more resilient members for projecting from an inside surface of the armor carrier [54 and 55; figs. 2 and 4], the one or more resilient members each having a respective first contoured surface configured for resting against the wearer's body and a respective second surface opposite the respective first contoured surface configured for resting against the inside surface of the body carrier, the respective first contoured surface and the respective second contoured surface defining a variable thickness therebetween [see annotated figs. 3 and 4 below; elements 54 and 55 are disclosed as “open cell foam…or any appropriately resilient material (par. 11)”; resilient open cell foam inherently provides a ‘variable thickness’ between the contours because in wear/use the forces on the elements 54 and 55 are ‘variable’ due to variations in body sizes and the ‘variation’ of forces from movement during wear/use of the body armor device which will inherently cause the resilient material to ‘vary’ in thickness];
PNG
media_image1.png
442
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the one or more resilient members [54 and 55; figs. 2 and 4] are configured to position the ballistic plate in an aligned disposition with respect to the wearer's torso [figs. 1, 2 and 4; show the spacer pads 54 and 55 do function to affect the position/alignment of the ballistic plate 30 with respect to the torso].
Regarding claim 2, ‘312 discloses: wherein the one or more resilient members [54, 55] include one or more straps [34, 36] for attaching the resilient members to the armor carrier [see annotated figure below].
PNG
media_image2.png
494
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 4, ‘312 discloses: each one of the one or more resilient members include an attachment device for removably attaching the resilient member to the interior side of the armor carrier per claim 3 and the attachment device comprises a hook and loop fastener per claim 4 [in par. 11, ’312 states, “The pads 54, 55 may be attached to the front sheet 28 in any conventional fashion. In a preferred embodiment the pads are backed with the hook material of a hook and loop fastener material like VELCRO® fastener, to allow the ready attachment and positioning of the pads. The fastening material is not shown in the drawings.”].
Regarding claim 9, ‘312 discloses: the one or more resilient members substantially conform to the wearer's torso [in par. 11, ‘312 states, “The pads may be fabricated of a conventional closed cell compression molded foam, an open cell foam, spacer fabric or any appropriately resilient material.”; open cell foam and resilient material will inherently to at least some degree ‘substantially conform’ to the surface it contacts under the weight of the complete armor carrier and movement forces of the wearer].
Regarding claim 11, ‘312 discloses: the one or more resilient members include at least one abdominal member [54, 55] configured to conform to the wearer's abdominal region when making contact under the weight of the armor carrier [in par. 11, ‘312 states, “The pads may be fabricated of a conventional closed cell compression molded foam, an open cell foam, spacer fabric or any appropriately resilient material.”; open cell foam and resilient material will inherently to at least some degree ‘substantially conform’ to the surface it contacts under the weight of the complete armor carrier].
Regarding claims 14 and 15, ‘312 discloses: the one or more resilient members include at least two distinct abdominal members [54, 55; fig. 4], configured to rest upon a portion of the wearer's abdomen and conform to the abdomen of the wearer when making contact under the weight of the armor carrier per claim 14 [Fig. 1 shows the device in use the pads 54 and 55 resting on the wearer’s abdomen and the resilient, open cell foam materials would inherently at least some degree ‘conform’ to the surface it contacts under the weight of the complete armor carrier.]; and wherein the first contoured surface of each abdominal member substantially matches the profile of the wearer's abdominal region [fig. 4 shows pad with a contoured surface that “substantially matches” the profile of the abdomen; further the resilient open cell foam would conform to also “substantially match” the profile of the abdomen; even further humans are of near infinite profile so the fig. 4 pad does “substantially match” the profile of at least one human wearer].
Regarding claim 17, ‘312 discloses: the aligned disposition comprises the ballistic plate being substantially parallel to the wearer's torso [fig.1 shows the device in use with ballistic plate ‘substantially parallel to the wearer’s torso].
Regarding claim 25, ‘312 discloses: wherein the one or more resilient members include at least one abdominal member wherein the respective first contoured surface of the abdominal member is substantially concave [shown clearly in annotated figure below].
PNG
media_image3.png
553
945
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8397312 (Crye et al.).
Regarding claims 5-8, ‘312 does explicitly fully disclose claim 3 from which claims 5-8 all intervene thereto.
‘312 explicitly states, “The pads 54, 55 may be attached to the front sheet 28 in any conventional fashion. In a preferred embodiment the pads are backed with the hook material of a hook and loop fastener material like VELCRO® fastener, to allow the ready attachment and positioning of the pads. The fastening material is not shown in the drawings.”
This recitation shows ‘312 contemplates “any conventional” fastening means and further use of detachable fastening means such as hook and loop type fasteners.
‘312 does not explicitly teach the claimed zip, magnetic, buckle nor snaps; in claims 5-8, respectively.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that zip, magnetic, buckle and snap fastening means are widely known and conventionally used mechanically equivalent fastening means to hook and loop type fasteners used for at least the last 100 years in the garment arts to provide simple economic detachable attachment capability to garment sections in need of fastening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify the hook and loop fastening means of ‘312 to any known conventional detachable fastening means including zip, magnetic, buckle and/or snap type fastening means to provide simple economic detachable attachment capability to garment sections in need of fastening.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, ‘312 discloses multiple abdominal resilient members each configured to conform to the respective pectoral mass of the wearer when making contact under the weight of the armor carrier as noted above.
‘312 does not teach these members as pectoral members per claims 10 and 12.
‘312 does further teach, “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, it is the belt 46 which supports the component and holds it in position on the wearer 22. For added comfort, foam pads 54, 55 are adhered to the exterior surface of the front sheet 28 of the carrier 26.”. This citation teaches the pads and belt that holds the pads function to support the armor carrier; hold in proper position the armor carrier and provide comfort for the user wearing the armor carrier.
‘312 also shows in fig. 1 the armor carrier is commonly worn with an upper torso and pectoral covering vest armor article.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify an upper torso and pectoral covering vest armor article to include a similar spacer pad construction as taught by ‘312 to provide the upper torso and pectoral covering vest armor article with multiple resilient pectoral spacer pads to provide added/enhanced support of the pectoral covering vest armor article; hold in proper position the pectoral covering vest armor article and comfort for the user of the pectoral covering vest armor article.
Regarding claim 13, the pads of ‘312 are shown as having a respective first contoured surface, as noted above, that would “substantially match the profile of the wearer’s pectoral mass”, further the resilient open cell foam would conform to also “substantially match” the profile of the pectoral mass of the wearer; even further humans are of near infinite profile so the fig. 4 pad does “substantially match” the profile of at least one human wearer.
Regarding claim 16, the right side and left side pads 55 shown in fig. 2 of ‘312 are ‘mirror images’ of each other.
The modified teachings of ‘312 addressing claims 10 and 12 above would therefore include right and left side pectoral pads that are mirror images of each other.
Claim 18 recites the combined limitations of claims 1, 10 and 11; which are fully addressed above. The same rejections are repeated below.
‘312 discloses: a mounting accessory for an armor carrier carrying a ballistic plate donned by a wearer [seen most clearly in fig. 4], comprising: one or more resilient members for projecting from an inside surface of the armor carrier [54 and 55; figs. 2 and 4]; the one or more resilient abdominal members including a first contoured surface substantially matching the profile of the wearer's abdominal mass [shown in annotated figs. 3 and 4 above];
wherein the one or more resilient abdominal members [54 and 55; figs. 2 and 4] are configured to position the ballistic plate in an aligned disposition with respect to the wearer's torso [figs. 1, 2 and 4; show the spacer pads 54 and 55 do function to affect the position/alignment of the ballistic plate 30 with respect to the torso].
‘312 discloses: the one or more resilient members include at least one abdominal member [54, 55] having a first contoured surface [fig. 4], and wherein the abdominal member is configured to conform to the wearer's abdominal region when making contact under the weight of the armor carrier [in par. 11, ‘312 states, “The pads may be fabricated of a conventional closed cell compression molded foam, an open cell foam, spacer fabric or any appropriately resilient material.”; open cell foam and resilient material will inherently to at least some degree ‘substantially conform’ to the surface it contacts under the weight of the complete armor carrier].
‘312 does not teach additional pectoral members attached at an upper torso area.
‘312 does further teach, “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, it is the belt 46 which supports the component and holds it in position on the wearer 22. For added comfort, foam pads 54, 55 are adhered to the exterior surface of the front sheet 28 of the carrier 26.”. This citation teaches the pads and belt that holds the pads function to support the armor carrier; hold in proper position the armor carrier and provide comfort for the user wearing the armor carrier.
‘312 also shows in fig. 1 the armor carrier is commonly worn with an upper torso and pectoral covering vest armor article.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify an upper torso and pectoral covering vest armor article to further include a similar spacer pad construction as taught by ‘312 to provide the upper torso and pectoral covering vest armor article with multiple resilient pectoral spacer pads to provide added/enhanced support of the pectoral covering vest armor article; hold in proper position the pectoral covering vest armor article and comfort for the user of the pectoral covering vest armor article.
Regarding claim 19, ‘312 does disclose the pads 54, 55 as detachably attached to the armor carrier [“The pads 54, 55 may be attached to the front sheet 28 in any conventional fashion. In a preferred embodiment the pads are backed with the hook material of a hook and loop fastener material like VELCRO® fastener, to allow the ready attachment and positioning of the pads. The fastening material is not shown in the drawings.”].
Regarding claim 20, ‘312 does disclose the pads are made of resilient open cell foam material that would “substantially conform” to the surface to which they contact.
Regarding claim 21, ‘312 in fig.1 shows the device in use with ballistic plate ‘substantially parallel to the wearer’s torso’.
Regarding claim 22, ‘312 does disclose pads 54, 55 as attached to the interior side of the armor carrier in figs. 2 and 4.
Claim 23, ‘312 discloses: a mounting accessory for an armor carrier carrying a ballistic plate donned by a wearer [seen most clearly in fig. 4], comprising: one or more resilient members projecting from a lower inside surface of the armor carrier [54 and 55; figs. 2 and 4]; wherein the one or more resilient members [54 and 55; figs. 2 and 4] are configured to position the ballistic plate in an aligned disposition with respect to the wearer's torso [figs. 1, 2 and 4; show the spacer pads 54 and 55 do function to affect the position/alignment of the ballistic plate 30 with respect to the torso];
the one or more resilient members include at least one abdominal member [54, 55] having a first contoured surface [fig. 4], and wherein the abdominal member is configured to conform to the wearer's abdominal region when making contact under the weight of the armor carrier [in par. 11, ‘312 states, “The pads may be fabricated of a conventional closed cell compression molded foam, an open cell foam, spacer fabric or any appropriately resilient material.”; open cell foam and resilient material will inherently to at least some degree ‘substantially conform’ to the surface it contacts under the weight of the complete armor carrier];
wherein the one or more resilient members [54, 55] include one or more straps [34, 36] for attaching the resilient members to the armor carrier [see annotated figure below];
PNG
media_image4.png
618
1056
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and the aligned disposition comprises the ballistic plate being substantially parallel to the wearer's torso [fig.1 shows the device in use with ballistic plate ‘substantially parallel to the wearer’s torso].
‘312 does not teach these members as pectoral members attached at an upper torso area.
‘312 does further teach, “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, it is the belt 46 which supports the component and holds it in position on the wearer 22. For added comfort, foam pads 54, 55 are adhered to the exterior surface of the front sheet 28 of the carrier 26.”. This citation teaches the pads and belt that holds the pads function to support the armor carrier; hold in proper position the armor carrier and provide comfort for the user wearing the armor carrier.
‘312 also shows in fig. 1 the armor carrier is commonly worn with an upper torso and pectoral covering vest armor article.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify an upper torso and pectoral covering vest armor article to include a similar spacer pad construction as taught by ‘312 to provide the upper torso and pectoral covering vest armor article with multiple resilient pectoral spacer pads to provide added/enhanced support of the pectoral covering vest armor article; hold in proper position the pectoral covering vest armor article and comfort for the user of the pectoral covering vest armor article.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, ‘312 discloses: wherein the one or more resilient members include at least one pectoral or abdominal member wherein the respective first contoured surface of the abdominal member is substantially concave [shown clearly in annotated figure below; elements 54 and 55 are in the region of a human body that is considered the “abdomen”].
PNG
media_image5.png
553
945
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Assertion regarding “variable thickness” is incorrect. As noted above in the rejection and repeated here: elements 54 and 55 are disclosed as “open cell foam…or any appropriately resilient material (par. 11)”; resilient open cell foam inherently provides a ‘variable thickness’ between the contours because in wear/use the forces on the elements 54 and 55 are ‘variable’ due to variations in body sizes and the ‘variation’ of forces from movement during wear/use of the body armor device which will inherently cause the resilient material to ‘vary’ in thickness.
It is noted “variable thickness” is not recited in the disclosure specification. The examiner is therefore using the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the term “variable thickness”, i.e. a thickness that is variable. A resilient material under variable force levels inherently has a thickness that is ‘variable’.
Assertions regarding the elements 54, 55, not having claimed first and second contours is incorrect. Annotated figures in rejection above clearly shows the elements 54, 55, with concave inner surfaces that contact the user’s body and outer convex surfaces that contact the armor carrier surface. The resilience of the elements 54, 55, does inherently provide at least some level of armor element positioning function. The disclosure of the elements providing comfort does not preclude other inherent functional capabilities of the resilient elements 54, 55.
All assertions regarding incomplete disclosure of amended claim 1 are incorrect and clearly refuted above.
Assertions that elements 54, 55, are not “abdominal members” is incorrect.
All figures show elements 54, 55, in regions of at least one human’s abdominal areas. The fact that the reference refers to them as back and side pads is in fact evidence that they are also “abdominal” members as the lower back and lower sides of the torso are in fact also “abdominal” areas of a human body [attached NPL document defines “abdomen: The part of the body that lies between the thorax and the pelvis and encloses the stomach, intestines, liver, spleen and pancreas in humans”].
As repeatedly noted above and here the elements 54, 55 are resilient and inherently will conform to whatever surfaces of the body they are in contact with due to the weight of the armor and the forces of wearing/using the armor. This explicitly does address the elements’ 54, 55, functional capability to “conform to” and “substantially match the profile of the wearer’s abdomen”. Assertions otherwise are incorrect.
As repeatedly noted above and here the elements 54, 55 are resilient and inherently will conform to whatever surfaces of the body they are in contact with due to the weight of the armor and the forces of wearing/using the armor. This functional capability also inherently affects the positioning of the armor. Further, figures, 2-4 show the device in it’s wear position with the armor at a position within the scope of the term “substantially parallel to the wearer’s torso”. This limitations was and is fully addressed in the rejection above.
Assertions regarding a “common plate” of armor are not germane to the claimed language currently present. The projecting members are not required by any claim language to be extending from a common plate. The 103 rejection makes clear that the reference doesn’t explicitly teach pectoral projection members but that it would be prima facie obvious to modify any other armor covering area of an armor carrier to include the teachings of resilient members 54, 55, to provide those areas with the added comfort and positioning function of the resilient members 54, 55, to those additional armor covering areas of the armor carrier device.
All claimed limitations are fully addressed and all arguments/assertions are fully addressed. The rejection is considered to be proper.
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 ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR whose telephone number is (571)272-4991. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-1730.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights