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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to an amendment filed on 4/17/2025 in which claims 1-12 were presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/17/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Figs. 8-31 in the reply filed on 2/9/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). It is noted that based on an interview with Mr. Coles that Figs. 8-31 are the same embodiment but different point of view. Examiner agreed and therefore species Figs. 8-31 will be examined on the merit.
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 1-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,313,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim the same subject matter of a protective mantle and accessory hub, having a primary yoke comprising a one-piece element configured to cover the thorax of the wearer and providing for a gap delimiting an opening delimited by respective front sides of the yoke; and wherein the primary yoke retains one or more accessories.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cole et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0196203 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Cole et al. “Cole” discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub (Fig. 12 identifier 22), comprising:
a primary yoke (See annotated Fig. A above) comprising a one-piece element (As shown in Fig. A having a one-piece element or structure) configured (capable) to over the thorax of the wearer (when worn) and providing for a gap delimiting an opening delimited by respective front sides of the yoke (See Fig. A);
wherein the primary yoke (See Fig. A) is configured (capable) to retain a one or more accessories (For example 24, 26 described in para. 0052).
Regarding claim 2, Cole discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub wherein the accessories include a throat guard (24), a deltoid guard (46), a collar (26), or combinations thereof (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Cole discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub wherein the deltoid guard (46) removably attached to a shoulder area of the primary yoke (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Cole discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub wherein the deltoid guard (46) is removably attached to the shoulder area of the primary yoke by an expandable element (Fig. 5 illustrates a strap 48 which was considered as the expandable element).
Regarding claim 5, Cole discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub including a bicep guard attached to the deltoid guard such that the bicep guard can articulate with respect to the deltoid guard (Fig. 1 the portion under 48 is considered as the bicep guard).
Regarding claim 6, Cole discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub wherein the throat guard (24) is removably attached to the collar of the primary yoke (See Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 7, Cole discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub wherein the throat guard (24) is removably received in one or more openings of the primary yoke (See Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Cole discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub wherein at least one of the one or more openings is located on the collar of the primary yoke (See Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Cole discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub wherein a shoulder suspension member (44) is received by the primary yoke (See Fig. 5), the shoulder suspension member (44) configured (capable) to distribute the weight of the armor carrier disposed over the primary yoke. The recitation “to distribute…yoke” was considered as functional, the device of the prior art discloses substantially al of the claimed structural elements, and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function.
Regarding claim 11, Cole discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub comprising a ballistic material (See for example para. 0058, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Cole discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub wherein the ballistic material comprises soft armor (See para. 0011 describing soft armor, and para. 0058 describe a lighter fabric ballistic protective material which was considered as soft armor).
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 of this title, 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0196203 A1) in view of Anderson (U.S. Patent No. 3,981,027).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Cole discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub wherein the upper protector (which was considered as the protective mantel and accessory hub).
Cole does not disclose a lateral expansion feature comprising a resilient elastic material.
Anderson teaches yet another protective mantle and accessory hub (See Fig. 3), having a lateral expansion feature (1) comprising firm rubber, which was considered as a resilient elastic material.
therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured Cole device with a lateral expansion feature comprising a resilient elastic material as taught by Anderson in order to restrict the shoulder pads from putting pressure on the neck of the wearer when reaching in front of the body or above the head (See Abstract) and to enhance fit of the device on the wearer.
IN AN ALTERNATIVE:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Storms et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0205708 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
576
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Storms discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub (See Fig. 1A identifier 100), comprising:
a primary yoke (See annotated Fig. B above) comprising a one-piece element (See Fig. B clearly illustrating a one-piece element or structure) configured (capable) to cover the thorax of the wearer (when worn) and providing for a gap (See Fig. B) delimiting an opening (See Fig. B) delimited by respective front sides of the yoke (See Fig. B); and
wherein the primary yoke retains one or more accessories (para. 0030 describe exterior pouches, pockets or carriers such as ballistic plate, ammunition, also para. 0046-0047 describe accessories).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beck (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0128577 A1).
PNG
media_image3.png
589
519
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Beck discloses a protective mantle and accessory hub (See Fig. 2 identifier 100), comprising:
a primary yoke (See annotated Fig. C above) comprising a one-piece element (Fig. C clearly illustrates a one-piece element or structure) configured (capable) to cover the thorax of the wearer (When worn) and providing for a gap (See Fig. C) delimiting an opening (See Fig. C) delimited by respective front sides of the yoke (See Fig. C); and
wherein the primary yoke (See Fig. C) retains one or more accessories (para. 0036).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered (See PTO-892) pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED ANNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-5 PM 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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached on 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.
/KHALED ANNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732