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 Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 12/23/2025 is acknowledged and appreciated. With respect to Applicant’s claim amendments and in light of newly found prior art (Banducci), the claim rejections are modified as follows.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dovner et al. (U.S. Patent 7,716,748) in view of Banducci et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0023334).
In regards to claim 1, Dovner et al (henceforth referred to as Dovner) disclose a ballistic shield, comprising:
a first section having an outward face exposed to projectiles and an opposing inward face. Note the shield in figures 8 and 9 with a lower “first” section and an upper second section; and
Dovner teaches a second section, but not explicitly that the second section is constructed from a different material than the first section. However, Banducci et al (henceforth referred to as Banducci) teaches a ballistic shield fabricated from a bottom section and a top (second) section fabricated from a different material (translucent) as shown in figure 1 of Banducci and pars. 23 and 35. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to produce a shield like that of Dovner with the two different materials as taught by Banducci, to allow of user a wider viewing area, the second section comprising:
a frame mechanically coupled to the first section, the frame being substantially coplanar with the first section; and a transparent window mechanically coupled to the frame. The shield device of Dovner includes a protruding second section above the first section that includes a frame that is coplanar with the lower first section and also includes a transparent window (“viewport”, item 18).
In regards to claim 2, Dovner discloses that the first section is dimensioned to protect a human torso and the second section is dimensioned to protect a human head. The larger lower section is shaped to protect a lower portion of a user and the upper smaller portion protects a user’s head (see figures).
In regards to claim 4, Dovner discloses a first handle mechanism mechanically coupled to the frame, the first handle mechanism having a first arm that pivots at a base to fixedly secure a first grip in one of various positions. As shown in figure 6, the Dovner shield includes a rotating or movable grip handle (item 40).
In regards to claim 7, Dovner as modified by Banducci discloses a cover plate that is mechanically coupled to the frame and positioned to overlap the transparent window and the cover plate sandwiches an edge of the transparent window against the frame to add mechanical strength to the second section. Banducci teaches a metal plate that overlaps a portion of the transparent plastic upper portion and attaches mechanically to sandwich the upper portion (item 9).
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dovner et al. (U.S. Patent 7,716,748) and Banducci et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0023334) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tervola et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220/0064106).
In regards to claim 3 and 6, Dovner does not explicitly disclose a boundary offset layer provided over a boundary area provided between the first section and the second section, a handle offset layer provided over the second handle mechanism.. However, Tervola et al (henceforth referred to as Tervola) describes and illustrates two offset layers in/on a shield with one at the transition between the upper and lower portions (item 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide offset layers in on the Dovner shield in/on various sections as taught by Tervola, to increase support especially where handles are mounted.
In regards to claim 5, Dovner teaches a second handle (item 25) as a second handle mechanism mechanically coupled to the inward face, but fails to teach the second handle mechanism having a second arm that pivots at a base to fixedly secure a second grip in one of various positions. However, Tervola teaches a shield with at least two handles with a lower handle that includes an arm that pivots (see item 36) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide multiple handles in/on the Dovner shield and including a pivoting grip mounted on the inward face as taught by Dovner, to allow for increased user control of the shield.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dovner et al. (U.S. Patent 7,716,748) and Banducci et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0023334) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Mickiewicz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0058819).
In regards to claim 8, Dovner fails to disclose a shield extension coupled to the first section through a hinge. However, Mickiewicz et al (henceforth referred to as Mickiewicz) teaches a shield with an extension portion (item 25) that is hinge attached to an upper shield as depicted (figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide an extension to the shield of Dovner as taught by Mickiewicz, to further increase the cover provided by the shield;
The shield of Dovner as modified by Mickiewicz teaches that the hinge includes a hinge base coupled to the first section, a hinge clip coupled to the shield extension, and a hinge pin that mechanically couples the hinge base and the hinge clip. The components that make up the hinge attachment constitute the claimed components since the hinge includes a base attached to the upper shield, a clip portion attached to the extension and a pin that holds them together (see figures).
In regards to claim 9, Dovner as modified by Mickiewicz discloses that the shield extension is biased at least 10° forward of a plane defined by the first section. Note that the extension in/on the Dovner modified shield is capable of positioning at any of various angles.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dovner et al. (U.S. Patent 7,716,748) and Banducci et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0023334) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Siebers et al. (WIPO Patent Document WO 2008/145317).
In regards to claim 10, Dovner does not disclose that the first section is constructed from ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene and the transparent window is constructed from a transparent ceramic material. However, Siebers et al (henceforth referred to as Siebers) teaches utilizing transparent ceramic for a viewing “window” or visor in a shield while using ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (indicated as ultra-high density polyethylene) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize any of various ballistic materials including those claimed and disclosed in Seibers, since it has been held to be 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dovner et al. (U.S. Patent 7,716,748) in view of Banducci et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0023334) and further in view of Mickiewicz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0058819).
In regards to claim 11, Dovner discloses a ballistic shield, comprising:
a first section having an outward face exposed to projectiles and an opposing inward face. Note the shield in figures 8 and 9 with a lower “first” section and an upper second section;
Dovner teaches a second section, but not explicitly that the second section is constructed from a different material than the first section. However, Banducci et al (henceforth referred to as Banducci) teaches a ballistic shield fabricated from a bottom section and a top (second) section fabricated from a different material (translucent) as shown in figure 1 of Banducci and pars. 23 and 35. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to produce a shield like that of Dovner with the two different materials as taught by Banducci, to allow of user a wider viewing area,
a second section comprising:
a frame mechanically coupled to the first section, the frame being substantially coplanar with the first section; and a transparent window mechanically coupled to the frame. The shield device of Dovner includes a protruding second section above the first section that includes a frame that is coplanar with the lower first section and also includes a transparent window (“viewport”, item 18); and
Dovner does not explicitly disclose a shield extension coupled to the first section through a hinge. However, Mickiewicz et al (henceforth referred to as Mickiewicz) teaches a shield with an extension portion (item 25) that is hinge attached to an upper shield as depicted (figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide an extension to the shield of Dovner as taught by Mickiewicz, to further increase the cover provided by the shield.
In regards to claim 12, Dovner discloses the first section is dimensioned to protect a human torso and the second section is dimensioned to protect a human head. The larger lower section is shaped to protect a lower portion of a user and the upper smaller portion protects a user’s head (see figures).
In regards to claim 14, Dovner discloses a first handle mechanism mechanically coupled to the frame, the first handle mechanism having a first arm that pivots at a base to fixedly secure a first grip in one of various positions. As shown in figure 6, the Dovner shield includes a rotating or movable grip handle (item 40).
In regards to claim 18, the shield of Dovner as modified by Mickiewicz teaches that the hinge includes a hinge base coupled to the first section, a hinge clip coupled to the shield extension, and a hinge pin that mechanically couples the hinge base and the hinge clip. The components that make up the hinge attachment constitute the claimed components since the hinge includes a base attached to the upper shield, a clip portion attached to the extension and a pin that holds them together (see figures).
In regards to claim 17, Dovner fails to disclose a cover plate that is mechanically coupled to the frame and positioned to overlap the transparent window and the cover plate sandwiches an edge of the transparent window against the frame to add mechanical strength to the second section. Banducci teaches a metal plate that overlaps a portion of the transparent plastic upper portion and attaches mechanically to sandwich the upper portion (item 9).
In regards to claim19, Dovner as modified by Mickiewicz discloses that the shield extension is biased at least 10° forward of a plane defined by the first section. Note that the extension in/on the Dovner modified shield is capable of positioning at any of various angles.
Claim(s) 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dovner et al. (U.S. Patent 7,716,748) and Banducci et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0023334) and Mickiewicz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0058819) as per claim 11 and further in view of Tervola et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220/0064106).
In regards to claims 13 and 16, Dovner fails to disclose a boundary offset layer provided over a boundary area provided between the first section and the second section, or a handle offset layer provided over the second handle mechanism. However, Tervola describes and illustrates two offset layers in/on a shield with one at the transition between the upper and lower portions (item 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide offset layers in on the Dovner shield in/on various sections as taught by Tervola, to increase support especially where handles are mounted.
In regards to claim 15, Dovner discloses a second handle mechanism (item 25) mechanically coupled to the inward face, but fails to teach the second handle mechanism having a second arm that pivots at a base to fixedly secure a second grip in one of various positions. However, Tervola teaches a shield with at least two handles with a lower handle that includes an arm that pivots (see item 36) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide multiple handles in/on the Dovner shield and including a pivoting grip mounted on the inward face as taught by Dovner, to allow for increased user control of the shield.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dovner et al. (U.S. Patent 7,716,748) and Banducci et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0023334) and Mickiewicz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0058819) as applied to claim 11, and in further view of Siebers et al. (WIPO Patent Document WO 2008/145317).
In regards to claim 20, Dovner does not disclose that the first section is constructed from ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene and the transparent window is constructed from a transparent ceramic material. However, Siebers teaches utilizing transparent ceramic for a viewing “window” or visor in a shield while using ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (indicated as ultra-high density polyethylene) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize any of various ballistic materials including those claimed and disclosed in Seibers, since it has been held to be 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641