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 on 4/27/2026 has been received; Claims 1-6, 15, 16, 18, 20-23 are pending. Claim 4 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 15, 16, & 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crye (US 2006/0005292) in view of Neuron (US 2012/0311755).
Regarding Claim 1, Crye discloses a protective garment system (Figures 1-4 & 9), comprising: a garment base (26); and at a first protective element (142) comprising a body having a perimeter; and a second protective element (144) that is removably engageable with the garment base (Figures 1-4 & 9), wherein the first protective element and the second protective element comprises a discrete mechanical interlock (Figure 9, Para. 36) configured to couple the first protective element in a removable manner to the second element; wherein each of the discrete mechanical interlocks comprises a first interlock portion associated with the first protective element (152, Figure 9, Para. 36) and a second interlock portion associated with the second protective element (150, Figure 9, Para. 36) and wherein the first interlock portion is configured to engage the second interlock portion in response to movement in a radially outward direction relative to the perimeter of the first protective element (Figure 9). Crye does not disclose a plurality of mechanical interlock portions. However, Neuron discloses the use of multiple snaps (120, Para. 27) attached to a padding system (Figures 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a plurality of mechanical interlock fasteners, as taught by Neuron, to the system of Crye, as a substitution of one known fastening system for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Crye discloses the first protective element is a rigid cap (Para. 25).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Crye and Neuron disclose each of the plurality of discrete mechanical interlocks comprises a clip and a post or receptacle (Crye, Para. 36 & Neuron, Para. 27).
Regarding Claim 5, Crye discloses the second protective element is a pad (44).
Regarding Claim 15, Crye discloses a protective garment system (Figures 1-4 & 9), comprising: a garment base (26); and a first protective element (142) comprising a discrete first mechanical interlock portion (Figure 9, Para. 36) configured to pass through a respective one of a plurality of discrete openings in the garment base at spaced-apart regions of the perimeter of the first protective element (Figures 1-4 & 9) and a second protective element (144) that is removably engageable with the garment base (Figures 1-4 & 9); wherein the second protective element comprises a discrete second mechanical interlock portion (Figure 9, Para. 36); wherein the first protective element is removably engageable with the second protective element such that the first protective element is secured relative to the garment base when the discrete first mechanical interlock portion are engaged with the discrete second mechanical interlock portion (Figure 9, Para. 36). Crye does not disclose a plurality of mechanical interlock portions. However, Neuron discloses the use of multiple snaps (120, Para. 27) attached to a padding system (Figures 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a plurality of mechanical interlock fasteners, as taught by Neuron, to the system of Crye, as a substitution of one known fastening system for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding Claim 16, Crye discloses the first protective element is a rigid cap (Para. 25 & 36).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Crye and Neuron disclose each of the plurality of the plurality of discrete first mechanical interlock portions comprises one or more hooks, or a clip (Neuron, 108 & 120, Para. 27) and each of the plurality of discrete second mechanical interlock portions comprises a post or receptacle (Neuron, 108 & 120, Para. 27).
Regarding Claim 20, Crye discloses at least a portion of the first protective element is located external of the garment base (Figures 1-4) and at least a portion of the second protective element is located internal of the garment base (Figures 1-4).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Crye and Neuron disclose the first interlock portion comprises a pair of hooks connected to and extending outward from a base that is connected to the first protective element (Neuron, 108 & 120, Para. 27)
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Crye and Neuron disclose each of the plurality of discrete first mechanical interlock portions comprises a clip or a post (Neuron, 108 & 120, Para. 27).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Crye and Neuron disclose each of the plurality of discrete second mechanical interlock portions comprises a clip or a receptacle (Neuron, 108 & 120, Para. 27).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crye (US 2006/0005292) in view of Neuron (US 2012/0311755) in further view of Hernandez (US 2012/0131729).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Crye and Neuron do not specifically disclose the first protective element and the second protective element are separated by a layer of the garment base. However, Hernandez discloses two protective elements separated by a layer of a garment base (Figures 4-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to includes a layer of garment base between two protective elements in order to be able to switch out and modify the various protective elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
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 KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights