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, filed 08 December 2025, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Amended
27 and 29
Pending
1-29
Presented for Examination
1-29
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Election/ Restrictions (Remarks page 8-10)
Applicant argues against Examiner’s finding that the disclosure recites five embodiments on the grounds that the disclosure recites two embodiments. No election between embodiments was required because all of the claims are drawn to a single embodiment. In the present response, the claims remain drawn to the single embodiment, and no election is required. Should Applicant amend such that another embodiment is introduced into the claims, Examiner will consider Applicant’s arguments.
II. Claim Objections (Remarks page 10)
Some of the objections have been addressed and those objections are withdrawn. The unaddressed objections stand.
III. 112(b) Rejections (Remarks page 10-11)
Some of the rejections have been addressed and those rejections are withdrawn. The unaddressed rejections stand.
Claim 1 sets forth the neutral state and extended states as functional recitations. However, dependent claims such as claim 2 structurally limit the states, rendering it unclear if the states are to be treated as functional (e.g., claim 1), where the prior art need only be capable of functioning in the manner claimed to read on the claim, or structural (e.g., claim 2), where the prior art must have or be modifiable to have the claimed function in order to read on the claim.
Applicant’s Remarks are silent as to whether the claimed states are intended to be functional or structural recitations, nor does Applicant amend the claims to clarify.
The claims are examined as best understood.
IV. 103 Rejections (Remarks page 11-27)
Claim(s) 1-18, 20-24, 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flosi in view of Lewis.
Applicant argues Flosi does not disclose “distinct” left or right chest members. Claim 1 does not require distinct left and right chest members. Claim 1 requires left and right front chest “members.” Examiner notes that the noun "member" is broad and has a definition of "a part of a whole" (Noun Defn. No. 4. of Merriam-Webster via merriam-webster.com/dictionary/member). Flosi FIG 1 shows the left and right sides of the combination of 12 and 16 correspond to the left and right front chest members.
Applicant argues Flosi’s upper recessed segment 16 is only a singular component. As shown in FIG 1, 16 is present on the left and right sides of the assembly. Regarding the limitation “segment,” Examiner notes that the term "segment" is very broad and merely means "one of the parts into which something is divided; a division, portion, or section". (Defn. No. 1 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). Each of the left and right sides of 16 is a segment, and reads on the claimed segments. FIG 1 shows that portions of 12 extend further out than portions of 16, so 16 is recessed at least relative to 12. Applicant argues on page 14 there is no need to split 16 into two components. This is not commensurate with the rejection which makes no such rejection, nor would it be necessary to split 16 because Flosi already discloses two “segments” 16. Applicant argues that the claim requires each of the left and right front chest members must include the upper recessed segment, and the upper recessed segment must be part of each of the left and right front chest members. This is shown in Flosi FIG 1, where the is a left side of 12/16 and a right side of 12/16, and each of the left and right sides of 12/16 includes 16.
Applicant argues arch 24 does not overlie any recessed segment of 12. Applicant is reminded that the arch overlies the upper recessed segment of the chest member. The chest member is 12/16 and the upper recessed segment is 16. The figures clearly show 24 overlying 16.
Applicant argues 24 does not attach to the chest member 12/16. The figures clearly show 24 attached to 16. All of the Flosi components parts are attached to one another, either directly or indirectly. Specifically, 24 is attached to 12/16 by 26, 28, and 30.
Applicant argues that because Flosi “does not mention the word ‘flexible,’” Flosi’s 26/28/30 is not a flexible coupler assembly. This is not persuasive. On page 16 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant pastes the relevant disclosure from Flosi. Flosi discloses 26 is plastic and 30 is metal or nylon. These materials are known to have at least some degree of flexibility. Therefore, the flexibility of the “coupler assembly” is derived from the flexibility of the material of its component parts.
Applicant argues that Examiner did not annotate a figure to show Flosi’s first and second reference points. Examiner does not believe an annotated figure is required, as Examiner described with words the locations of the first and second reference points. Applicant does not indicate they do not know understand how Examiner is interpreting the first and second reference points, only that Examiner should have annotated a figure in addition to the description.
Applicant argues they do not understand how Examiner is doing “a complete redesign” of Flosi. This argument is unclear, as the rejection does not make any suggestion of redesigning Flosi to achieve first and second reference points, as Flosi already has first and second reference points and would not need to be redesigned to read on the reference points of claim 1.
Applicant argues it is unknown if the Lewis pads would “fit within” Flosi’s protector, and it is unknown whether the internal components of Flosi have an internal construction to permit the releasable connection of Lewis’ pads. This is not commensurate with the claim. There is no claim requirement that the pads fit within the protector, just that the assembly is “connected to” the protective member assembly. There is also no requirement that the protective member assembly have any particular internal layout or structures/ component. The only requirement is an inner energy attenuation assembly releasably connected to the outer protective member assembly, and combining Flosi and Lewis would achieve this and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill for the reasons set forth in the rejection.
Applicant argues Lewis does not disclose the pads are capable of being removed. This is not persuasive. The Lewis pads are capable of being removed, such as by separating them from the outer protective member. Lewis discloses 44 and 46 are “positioned against” a protective member. The pads may be removed by changing their position to a position that is not against a protective member.
Applicant argues providing padding within a protective member would be too complicated of a design problem for one of ordinary skill. This is not persuasive. The combination known in the art and is a matter of obviousness, as set forth in the rejection below.
Applicant does not separately argue against the rejections of the dependent claims. The arguments against the rejections of the dependent claims are that if claim 1 is allowable then so are the dependents.
Regarding claims 4-6, Applicant objects to Examiner’s formatting of the rejection, which provides the claim language and then follows each claim limitation with a citation to the prior art and/ or explanation in parenthesis. Claim 1 sets forth the neutral state as a functional recitation. The neutral state is being treated as a functional recitation. On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant states that the features of an independent claim (e.g., the functional neutral state) are an inherent feature of dependent claims. Therefore, the neutral state of the dependent claims is a functional recitation.
The recitation “neutral state” is an intended use recitation. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Because the prior art reference and the claimed invention are structurally identical, they are expected to be capable of being used in the same manner, and the prior art reference reads on the intended use recitation in the claim.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case the prior art is capable of having a neutral state and because the first frontal interface region is a feature of the neutral state, the first frontal interface region is also a functional recitation, and the prior art is capable of forming a first frontal interface region. Even though the prior art is not required to disclose a first frontal interface region, Flosi FIGS 1-2 show an interface region. What is shown in FIGS 1-2 is an interface region, as there is no other structure required for an interface region, what is shown in FIGS 1-2 is considered to be an interface region because it reads on the interface region as claimed.
Applicant argues Examiner should have annotated figures for the rejection of claim 5. Examiner disagrees, as what is claimed is shown in the figures. As discussed above, what is shown in the figures is the frontal interface region.
Applicant argues that Flosi does not disclose a rear portion as required by claim 13. This is not commensurate with the rejection, where Flosi is obviously modifiable to have the features of claim 13.
Applicant argues Flosi does not disclose the subject matter of claims 20-24. This is not persuasive. Claims 20-24 are drawn product-by-process recitations. Even though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I). Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a prior art rejection is made, as it was made in the 9/8/2025 nonfinal rejection, the burden shifts to the applicant to show a nonobvious difference. See MPEP 2113 (II). Applicant does not show or attempt to show a difference between claims 20-24 and the prior art, and the rejection stands.
Applicant argues that Flosi does not read on claim 26 because in the rejection of claim 1, Examiner stated Flosi does not disclose an inner energy attenuation assembly. However, if one reads further in the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner sets forth that Flosi is obviously modifiable to have an inner energy attenuation assembly.
Claim(s) 19, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flosi in view of Lewis and Mitchell.
Applicant does not separately argue against the rejections of the dependent claims. The arguments against the rejections of the dependent claims are that if claim 1 is allowable then so are the dependents.
Applicant argues that in the rejection of claim 19, one of Examiner’s citations is insufficient. It is noted that Applicant does not argue the prior art doesn’t teach the claimed subject matter, only that citing FIGS 3-4 is “ambiguous.” Examiner disagrees. The padding 17 including 19, 21, and 23 clearly has an upwardly extending inner lip member that can be seen in FIGS 3-4.
In light of the above, the rejection is believed to be proper.
Election/Restrictions
The disclosure recites multiple embodiments: a first embodiment in FIGS 1-76, a second embodiment in FIG 77, a third embodiment in FIG 78, a fourth embodiment in FIG 79, and a fifth embodiment in FIGS 80-83. All of the claims are drawn to the first embodiment; therefore, the first embodiment is elected by original presentation.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: Insert –a—before “first” and “second” for proper antecedent basis. Replace “its” with –the—to make clear “first length” for proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-6, 14-18, 25, and 28 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 2-6, 14-17, 25, and 28 are indefinite because it is not clear if the neutral state and the extended state are intended to be functional or structural. Claim 1 from which these claims depend functionally recites the states (“when… in a neutral state…” and “when… in an extended state”). However, claims 2-6, 14-17, 25, and 28 further define the states, suggesting the states are intended to be positively structurally recited. For the purpose of examination, the states are being treated as functional recitations. Please note that although claim 29 also recites the states, claim 29 clearly functionally recites the states thus claim 29 is definite with respect to the states.
Claims that depend from an indefinite claim are also indefinite. The claims are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-18, 20-24, 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flosi (US 4590621 A) in view of Lewis (US 8869316 B2).
As to claim 1, Flosi discloses a protective torso assembly to be worn by a player engaged in the play or practice of a contact sport (“Chest protector,” title, capable of being worn by a player), the protective torso assembly comprising:
an outer protective member assembly (FIG 1) including:
(i) a left front chest member having an upper recessed segment (combination of 12 and 16, front shield 12 where over-the-shoulder portion 16 is the recessed portion because it is recessed relative to front shield 12),
(ii) a right front chest member having an upper recessed segment (combination of 12 and 16, front shield 12 where over-the-shoulder portion 16 is the recessed portion because it is recessed relative to front shield 12),
(iii) a left arch member having a frontal portion that is coupled to the chest member by a flexible coupler assembly such that said frontal portion overlies the upper recessed segment of the left chest member (pivotal epaulets 24, coupled via 26, 28, and 30; col 2 line 45-55 discloses coupler assembly materials that have at least some degree of flexibility); and
(iv) a right arch member having a frontal portion that is coupled to the chest member by a flexible coupler assembly such that said frontal portion overlies the upper recessed segment of the right chest member (pivotal epaulets 24, coupled via 26, 28, and 30; col 2 line 45-55 discloses coupler assembly materials that have at least some degree of flexibility);
wherein when the torso protective assembly is in a neutral state (FIG 2, 24 in phantom), a first reference point of the frontal portion of the left arch member is positioned a first distance from a second reference point of the recessed segment of the left chest member (the first reference point is the midpoint of the lowermost edge of 24 best seen in FIGS 3-4 and the second reference point is the midpoint of the sidewall of the recessed segment best seen in FIG 1, a point of element 16 that is proximate element 26); and
wherein when the torso protective assembly is in an extended state (FIG 2, 24), the left arch member pivots about the recessed segment of the left chest member, whereby the first reference point is positioned a second distance from the second reference point, the second distance being greater than the first distance (this is the result of 24 pivoting relative to 16).
Flosi does not expressly disclose an inner energy attenuation assembly releasably connected to the outer protective member assembly.
Lewis teaches a similar protective torso assembly including arch members/ shoulder straps pivot toward and away from one another (Lewis abstract), and further includes an inner energy attenuation assembly releasably connected to the outer protective member assembly (foam pads 44, 46 and/ or the foam padding disclosed in col 6 line 55-65, capable of being removed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an inner energy attenuation assembly releasably connected to the outer protective member assembly for the purpose of spacing the outer protective member from the wearer’s body and to aid in comfort (Lewis col 4 line 15-20 and col 6 line 55-65)
As to claim 2, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 1, wherein in the extended state, an external region of the frontal portion of the left arch member resides external to (outward of) the recessed segment of the left member (capable of residing and Flosi FIG 1 shows at least a portion of the arch member resides external to at least a portion of the recessed segment).
As to claim 3, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 2, wherein in the extended state, an internal region of the frontal portion of the left arch member resides internal to (inward of) the recessed segment of the left member (capable of residing and Flosi FIG 1 shows at least a portion of the arch member resides internal to at least a portion of the recessed segment).
As to claim 4, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 1, wherein in the neutral state, a first frontal interface region is formed by the frontal portion of the left arch member overlying the upper recessed segment of the front member (capable of forming and Flosi FIGS 1-2 show an interface).
As to claim 5, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 4, wherein in the extended state, a second frontal interface region is formed by the frontal portion of the left arch member overlying the upper recessed segment of the front member, and wherein the second interface region has dimensions that are less than dimensions of the first interface region (capable of forming, and Flosi FIG 2 shows a second interface region with dimensions less than the first interface region).
As to claim 6, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 5, wherein the dimensions of the first frontal interface region define a surface area of the first interface region and the dimensions of the second frontal interface region define a surface area (see Flosi FIGS), and wherein the surface area of the second frontal interface region is less than the surface areas of the first frontal interface region (see Flosi FIGS).
As to claim 7, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 1, wherein the first reference point is located at a lowermost edge of the frontal portion of the left arch member (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
As to claim 8, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 7, wherein the first reference point is located at a midpoint of the lowermost edge of the frontal portion of the left arch member (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
As to claim 9, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 7, wherein the second reference point is located at a side wall of the recessed segment of the left chest member (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
As to claim 10, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 9, wherein the second reference point is located at a midpoint of the side wall of the recessed segment of the left chest member (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
As to claim 11, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the left and right front chest member includes a side wall that provides a transition between the recessed segment and a main segment of the chest member that is not recessed (see annotated Flosi FIG 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
544
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 12, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the left and right front chest member includes a side wall that defines a corrugation between the recessed segment and a main segment of the chest member that is not recessed (Flosi FIG 1 shows the top edge of 12 is the sidewall and the top edge is corrugated between the outermost surface of 12 and the outermost surface of 16).
As to claim 13, Flosi does not disclose the protective torso assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer protective member assembly also includes: (v) a left rear back member having an upper recessed segment that is coupled to a rear portion of the left arch member by a flexible coupler assembly such that said rear portion of the left arch member overlies the upper recessed segment of the left rear back member, and (vi) a right rear back member having an upper recessed segment that is coupled to a rear portion of the right arch member by a flexible coupler assembly such that said rear portion of the right arch member overlies the upper recessed segment of the right rear back member.
Flosi does not have a figure showing the structure of the rear portion. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect there to also be a rear portion, at least to have another point to which 24 can be pivotally secured and to protect the wearer’s back. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would expect the rear portion to be of similar construction to the front portion (e.g., to include a recessed portion).
Lewis teaches (v) a left rear back member having an upper recessed segment that is coupled to a rear portion of the left arch member by a flexible coupler assembly such that said rear portion of the left arch member overlies the upper recessed segment of the left rear back member (126), and (vi) a right rear back member having an upper recessed segment that is coupled to a rear portion of the right arch member by a flexible coupler assembly such that said rear portion of the right arch member overlies the upper recessed segment of the right rear back member (126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide (v) a left rear back member having an upper recessed segment that is coupled to a rear portion of the left arch member by a flexible coupler assembly such that said rear portion of the left arch member overlies the upper recessed segment of the left rear back member, and (vi) a right rear back member having an upper recessed segment that is coupled to a rear portion of the right arch member by a flexible coupler assembly such that said rear portion of the right arch member overlies the upper recessed segment of the right rear back member for the purpose of protecting the wearer’s back in the same manner as the front.
As to claim 14, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 13, wherein in the extended state, an external region of the rear portion of the left arch member resides outward of the recessed segment of the left rear back member (capable of residing for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 2 above, see the rejection of claim 13 above).
As to claim 15, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 14, wherein in the extended state, an internal region of the rear portion of the left arch member resides inward of the recessed segment of the left rear back member (capable of residing for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 3 above, see the rejection of claim 13 above).
As to claim 16, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 13, wherein in the neutral state, a first rear interface region is formed by the rear portion of the left arch member overlying the upper recessed segment of the rear back member (capable of forming for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 4 above, see the rejection of claim 13 above).
As to claim 17, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 16, wherein in the extended state, a second rear interface region is formed by the rear portion of the left arch member overlying the upper recessed segment of the rear back member, and wherein the second rear interface region has dimensions that are less than dimensions of the first rear interface region (capable of forming for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 5 above, see the rejection of claim 13 above).
As to claim 18, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 17, wherein the dimensions of the first rear interface region define a surface area of the first rear interface region and the dimensions of the second rear interface region define a surface area (see the rejection of claim 13 above, see Flosi FIGS), and wherein the surface area of the second rear interface region is less than the surface areas of the first rear interface region (see the rejection of claim 13 above, see Flosi FIGS).
As to claim 20, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer protective member assembly is formed from a spatial data collection, processing and fitment system that utilizes best fit concepts to select at least one of said members of the outer protective member assembly (The recitation “is formed from” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).).
As to claim 21, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 20, wherein the inner energy attenuation assembly is formed from a spatial data collection, processing and fitment system that utilizes best fit concepts to select at least one pad of the inner energy attenuation assembly (The recitation “is formed from” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).).
As to claim 22, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer protective member assembly is formed from a spatial data collection, processing and fitment system that utilizes custom fit concepts to design, fabricate and select at least one of said members of the outer protective member assembly (The recitation “is formed from” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).).
As to claim 23, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 22, wherein the inner energy attenuation assembly is formed from a spatial data collection, processing and fitment system that utilizes custom fit concepts to design, fabricate and select at least one pad of the inner energy attenuation assembly (The recitation “is formed from” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).).
As to claim 24, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 1, wherein the inner energy attenuation assembly comprises foam pads that are formed from a molding process (Flosi as modified discloses foam pads, see the rejection of claim 1 above; The recitation “is formed from” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).).
As to claim 26, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 1, wherein the left arch member includes an internal recess (concave interior of the arch), wherein a substantial extent of said internal recess is occupied by a left arch pad member of the inner energy attenuation assembly (16 and/ or 18).
As to claim 27, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 1, wherein the flexible coupler assembly includes a flexible link (Flosi 32) and a plurality of connector pins (Flosi pin 26, and the tips of hairpin spring 32 act as pins and so are each considered to be pins, see Flosi col 2 line 50-65), wherein first and second connector pins of the plurality of connector pins couple a lower end of the flexible link to an inner surface of the recessed segment of the left front chest member and a third connector pin of the plurality of connector pins couples an upper end of the flexible link to an inner surface of the left arch member (all of the components of the assembly are coupled together, therefore, the three pins all serve to couple the flexible link to the inner surface of the recessed segment and the inner surface of the arch member).
As to claim 28, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 27, wherein in the neutral state, the frontal portion of the left arch member obscures from view the location where the first and second connector pins couple the lower end of the flexible link to the recess segment of the left front chest member (capable of obscuring and intended to obscure, see FIG 3).
As to claim 29, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 27, wherein the flexible link is a flexible band (32 is broadly considered to be a band and necessarily has at least some degree of flexibility), and wherein the flexible band:(i) undergoes elongation from a first length to a second length when the torso protective assembly moves from the neutral state to the extended state (capable of extending, and col 3 line 1-5 discloses compressing the spring, which suggests it has another, uncompressed state), and (ii) then returns to its first length when the torso protective assembly moves from the extended state to the neutral state (capable of returning, and col 3 line 1-5 discloses compressing the spring, which suggests it has another, uncompressed state) but does not disclose the flexible band is formed from a polyester material with one of a TPU or PVC coating.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the flexible band from a polyester material with one of a thermoplastic polyurethane or polyvinyl chloride coating, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the flexible band from a polyester material with one of a thermoplastic polyurethane or polyvinyl chloride coating for the purpose of providing a durable and lightweight material.
Claim(s) 19, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flosi (US 4590621 A) in view of Lewis (US 8869316 B2) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mitchell (US 4322859 A).
As to claim 19, Flosi discloses the protective torso assembly of claim 1, wherein the left arch member includes a raised inner edge collar (Flosi FIG 1, unlabeled collar circumscribing the neck opening), but does not disclose the inner energy attenuation assembly includes a left upper pad member with an upwardly extending inner lip member that resides inwardly adjacent to the raised inner edge collar.
Mitchell teaches a similar protective torso assembly/ shoulder pad including the inner energy attenuation assembly (foam padding 17 including 19, 21, and 23, see col 2 line 35-55) includes a left upper pad member with an upwardly extending inner lip member that resides inwardly adjacent to the raised inner edge collar (FIGS 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the raised inner edge collar with an upper pad member for the purpose of protecting the wearer’s body (Mitchell col 2 line 25-55).
As to claim 25, Flosi does not disclose the protective torso assembly of claim 1, wherein the inner energy attenuation assembly includes a left front chest pad with a recess that receives an extent of the left front chest member in the neutral state.
Mitchell teaches a similar protective torso assembly/ shoulder pad including the inner energy attenuation assembly (foam padding 17 including 19, 21, and 23, see col 2 line 35-55) including a left front chest pad with a recess that receives an extent of the left front chest member in the neutral state (FIG 14 shows 17 has a number of recesses receiving a number of extents of members such as 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a left from chest pad for the purpose of protecting the wearer’s body (Mitchell col 2 line 25-55), and further to provide the padding with a recess to receive an extent of the chest member, for the purpose of padding corners and angles of the extent to protect the wearer, to enable the assembly to be shaped around the contours of a wearer’s body, and/ or to nestle the padding and chest member together to prevent unwanted shifting between them.
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 SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732