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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on June 18, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-15, 17, 19-23, 29, and 34-37 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (a fluid-based body protective system) and Species 6 (Figs. 27-58) in the reply filed on February 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 29 and 34-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and/or Species there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 2, 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-15, 17, and 19-23 are presented for examination below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 21, a comma should be inserted between “the neck portion chamber” and “such that” to improve clarity and form
in line 25, “the neck of a wearer” should read “a neck of a wearer” to establish and maintain consistent antecedent basis within the claims
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the sensor” should read “the at least one sensor” to maintain consistent antecedent basis within the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 17, 19, and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, 25, 28, and 31 of US Patent No. 11,247,115. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 14, 25, 28, and 31 of US Patent No. 11,247,115 anticipate each and every limitation of claims 1, 17, 19, and 22 of the pending application. See the following chart which indicates how the pending claims correspond to allowed claims of US Patent No. 11,247,115:
Current Application Claim
Claim of US Patent No. 11,247,115
1
1, 31
17
14
19
25
22
28
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-15, 17, and 19-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, and 21-25 of US Patent No. 12,133,566. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 5, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, and 21-25 of US Patent No. 12,133,566 anticipate each and every limitation of claims 1, 5, 8, 10-15, 17, and 19-23 of the pending application. See the following chart which indicates how the pending claims correspond to allowed claims of US Patent No. 12,133,566:
Current Application Claim
Claim of US Patent No. 12,133,566
1
1
5
5
8
9
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
18
17
19
19
21
20
22
21
23
22
25
23
24
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 8, 10-15, 17, 19-23, 29, and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 8, 10-15, 17, 19-23, 29, and 34-37 recite the limitation “The protective system of claim 1 (or claim 8, 10, 12, 13, etc.).” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as currently amended. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: “The protective suit of claim 1 (or claim 8, 10, 12, 13, etc.).”
Claims 8, 12, and 19 recite the limitation “the system.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as currently amended.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the predetermined threshold.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as currently amended.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from rejected claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowable over the prior art of record, pending resolution of the double patenting rejections above.
Claims 5, 8, 10-15, 17, and 19-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action, further pending resolution of the double patenting rejections above.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches a protective suit having, in combination with other limitations: a fluid-filled head portion chamber; a neck portion chamber; and a fluid-filled torso portion chamber; and wherein the fluid-filled head portion chamber and the fluid-filled torso portion chamber are in fluid communication with the neck portion chamber, such that when a force of an impact is received on the head portion chamber of the protective suit, fluid from the fluid-filled head portion chamber is transferred into the neck portion chamber of the protective suit to support the neck of a wearer, and when a force of an impact is received on the torso portion chamber of the protective suit, fluid from the fluid-filled torso portion chamber is transferred to the neck portion chamber of the protective suit to support the neck of the wearer.
The closest prior art of record is Nelson (US PG Pub 2014/0007326).
Nelson discloses a protective suit (10) comprising: a fluid-filled head portion chamber (16); a neck portion chamber (22); and a fluid-filled torso portion chamber (20); and wherein the fluid-filled head portion chamber and the fluid-filled torso portion chamber are in fluid communication with the neck portion chamber (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0011-0015), such that when a force of an impact is received on the head portion chamber of the protective suit, fluid from the fluid-filled head portion chamber is transferred into the neck portion chamber of the protective suit to support the neck of a wearer (see at least paragraphs 0012 and 0015; Nelson discloses wherein fluid is transferred from head portion chamber 16 to torso portion chamber 20; as such, the fluid necessarily travels through neck portion chamber 22, which connects head and torso chambers 16, 20, and is transferred thereto at least for a period of time).
Nelson fails to further disclose wherein, when a force of an impact is received on the torso portion chamber of the protective suit, fluid from the fluid-filled torso portion chamber is also transferred to the neck portion chamber of the protective suit to support the neck of the wearer. The Examiner notes that Nelson’s impact dispersal system is designed for exactly the opposite function, i.e., dispersing impact/fluid from the head portion chamber towards the torso portion chamber, as discussed above.
Nelson is silent regarding impact dispersal from the torso portion chamber towards the head portion chamber. However, the Examiner notes that Nelson’s torso portion chamber (20) includes a safety release valve (30) designed to allow excess fluid and pressure to be released from the torso portion chamber. As such, any significant impact force applied to the torso portion chamber would likely cause fluid and/or pressure to be released via the safety release valve (30) instead of traveling up the system towards the neck and head chambers. Therefore, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, it is unlikely that Nelson’s impact dispersal system would function as claimed to transfer fluid from the torso portion chamber to the neck portion chamber of the protective suit to support the neck of the wearer.
Furthermore, absent a teaching in the prior art, it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Nelson’s fluid dispersal system to also include the opposite function of allowing fluid to be transferred from the torso portion chamber to the neck portion chamber when a force of an impact is received on the torso portion chamber, as such a modification would be improper hindsight modification based solely upon Applicant’s disclosure.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. For example, Metts et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0054363) teaches an impact dispersal system that uses non-Newtonian fluid to transfer impact from a helmet to shoulder pads of the system; and Feldman et al. (US PG Pub 2010/0251451) teaches a protective vest comprising a plurality of fluid passageways designed to disperse impact throughout the protective vest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOCELYN BRAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-0581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, 12:00 pm - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Ostrup, can be reached at (571) 272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOCELYN BRAVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights