DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on July 3rd, 2025 in which claims 1-25 are presented for examination.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
[0068] “md-section 104k” is not in the drawings
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Specifically, the abstract utilizes the term “comprises” and/or its variants.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0064] “second supplemental padding section 102k” should be “102i”
[0068] “intermediate section 104” should read “intermediate section 104c”
[0068] “wall 104r is configured to mate with the first channel 102l of the padding upper surface 102a, shown in Fig. 5E” needs review whether it should be “Fig. 5D”
[0072] second to last sentence after “retention members” add –110—
[0076] “first longitudinal side 1002b” should read “1002a”
[0076] “as shown in Fig. 10A, one of the straps 112…may be inserted through the loops 1004 and wraps around the leg 1005 of the wearer” needs review whether it should read “Fig. 14B” which is the only depiction of a strap around a leg
[0076] “In another embodiment, the lower strap 112…secured to the corresponding cantilever hook 103d or 105d” needs review whether this embodiment should indicate as being directed to Fig. 10A
[0078] “Figs. 10C” should read “Fig. 10C”
[0081] “1002is proximal” should read “1002 is proximal”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 16, 21 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 Line 8 before “elongated pockets” add –of—
Claim 21 Line 39 before “elongated pockets” add –of—
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
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.
Claim(s) 1-15, 17, 19-25 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “shell having a capsule shape” in Claim 1 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The plain and ordinary meaning of the term is “a cylinder with hemispherical ends.” However, that is not the shape depicted in the figures for shell 104. Although applicant is allowed to be their own lexicographer, applicant must then clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning the term would otherwise possess (see MPEP 2111.01 IV). Due to the lack of special definition, the term is unclear and clarification is needed as to applicant intention. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, based on [0066], the term will be considered met inasmuch as the shell comprises a curved arch.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first channel" in Line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the first channel” in Claim 6 Line 11 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear when the term should have been established. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as though a first channel of a padding upper surface had been previously positively established (for example: “further comprising a first channel of a padding upper surface”).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second channel" in Line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the second channel” in Claim 6 Line 13 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear when the term should have been established. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as though a second channel of a padding upper surface had been previously positively established (for example: “further comprising a second channel of a padding upper surface”).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the side" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the side” in Claim 7 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear when the term should have been established. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “a side.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said downwardly sloping cantilever slabs" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “said downwardly sloping cantilever slabs” in Claim 8 Lines 1-2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear when the term should have been established. It is unclear whether Claim 8’s dependency is incorrect (currently on Claim 1)-- whether Claim 8 should instead depend on Claim 7 where the term was established, or if the claim inadvertently did not establish “wherein each indentation comprises a downwardly sloping cantilever slab.” For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 8 will be interpreted as the latter.
The term “the downwardly sloping cantilever slabs” in Claim 8 Lines 2-3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which specific slabs are being referred to, relative to “each” in Line 1. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “each of the downwardly sloping cantilever slabs.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the cantilever snap-fit connectors" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the cantilever snap-fit connectors” in Claim 9 Lines 1-2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear when the term should have been established. It is unclear whether Claim 9’s dependency is incorrect (currently Claim 1)—whether Claim 9 should instead depend on Claim 14, where the term was established, or some other interpretation, such as establishing the appropriate structure currently in Claim 14. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 9 will be interpreted as depending on Claim 14.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the cantilever snap-fit connector" in Lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “each of the respective cantilever snap-fit connectors”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the slot" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “each of the respective slots.”
The term “the retention member” in Claim 9 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which specific retention member the recitation is referring to. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “each retention member.”
The term “the anchor slot” in Claim 10 Line 1 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 Line 24 established an anchor slot for each anchor plate, which makes the term unclear as to which specific anchor slot is being referred to. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “each anchor slot.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the cantilever hook" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the cantilever hook” in Claim 10 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Not only is the term indefinite because of its relation to indefiniteness of the term “anchor slot” as aforementioned (and therefore it is unclear which specific cantilever hook is being referred to on which specific plate), but it is unclear when the structure should have been established. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as “a respective one of cantilever hooks.”
Relatedly, Claim 10 recites the limitation "the cantilever hook" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Relatedly, Claim 10 recites the limitation "the anchor slot" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the slotted anchor plate" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the anchor plate" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the cantilever hook" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “additional padding material” in Claim 17 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. There cannot be an “additional” without an “initial” padding, which has not been recited. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as “padding material.” A similar interpretation is taken for Claim 17 Line 7.
The term “the auxiliary pocket” in Claim 17 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 17 Lines 2-3 established a plurality of auxiliary pockets by indicating that each elongated pocket has an auxiliary pocket. As such, it is unclear which specific auxiliary pocket the term is referring to. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as “each auxiliary pocket.”
The term “the…padding material” in Claim 17 Lines 6-7 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether Claim 17 is indicating that each elongated pocket receives padding, or only a single one, or some other interpretation. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “the respective…padding material.”
The term “the elongated pockets are configured to receive additional padding material from the top opening…the auxiliary pocket comprises a separate opening at a top of the auxiliary pocket for receiving the additional padding material” in Claim 17 Lines 1-2, 6-7 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the elongated pockets and the auxiliary pocket, with separate openings, receive the same additional padding material. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as all pockets are merely capable of receiving the same padding material, but not at the same time.
The term “the strap” in Claim 19 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 19 Lines 1-2 established a plurality of straps, as each loop has a strap. As such, it is unclear which specific strap the term is referring to. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “each strap.”
The term “strap is inserted…and drawn out” in Claim 19 Lines 3-4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 19 previously only establishes the strap functionally (each of the loops is configured to receive a strap) and not positively (The trousers further comprising a strap). As such, the term should read “strap is configured to be inserted…and configured to be drawn out” for clarity that the term is not trying to now establish the strap positively.
The term “the loop” in Claim 19 Line 5 and Line 6 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which specific loop is being referred to in both instances, as there are a plurality. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be interpreted as “the one of the loops” based on Claim 19 Lines 3-5.
The term “a strap…a one of said pair of trousers…a leg…a wearer” in Claim 20 Lines 2-3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Similar terms were established in Claim 19, on which Claim 20 currently depends. As such, it is unclear how these terms differ from those in Claim 19. It is unclear whether the antecedent basis of the terms are incorrect, or whether the dependency of the Claim is incorrect, and should instead be on Claim 16.
Similarly to Claim 19, the term “the loop” in Claim 20 Line 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which specific loop is being referred to in both instances, as there are a plurality. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be interpreted as “one of the plurality of loops.”
The term “the strap” in Claim 20 Line 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 20 Lines 1-2 established a plurality of straps, as each opening has a strap. As such, it is unclear which specific strap the term is referring to. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “each strap.”
Similarly to Claim 19, the term “strap is inserted…and drawn out” in Claim 20 Lines 4-5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 20 previously only establishes the strap functionally (each of the loops is configured to receive a strap) and not positively (The trousers further comprising a strap). As such, the term should read “strap is configured to be inserted…and configured to be drawn out” for clarity that the term is not trying to now establish the strap positively.
The term “the opening at the second longitudinal side…the opening at the first longitudinal side” in Claim 20 Lines 6-7 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. There are a plurality of openings at each of the first/second longitudinal sides (see at least Claim 20 Lines 4-6). As such, it is unclear which specific opening the term is referring to. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “the one of the openings…the another one of the openings” in light of Claim 20 Lines 4-6.
The term “shell having a capsule shape” in Claim 21 Line 6 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The plain and ordinary meaning of the term is “a cylinder with hemispherical ends.” However, that is not the shape depicted in the figures for shell 104. Although applicant is allowed to be their own lexicographer, applicant must then clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning the term would otherwise possess (see MPEP 2111.01 IV). Due to the lack of special definition, the term is unclear and clarification is needed as to applicant intention. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, based on [0066], the term will be considered met inasmuch as the shell comprises a curved arch.
The term “the strap” in Claim 22 Line 1 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 21 Line 19 established a plurality of straps, as each loop has a strap. As such, it is unclear which specific strap the term is referring to. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “each strap.”
The term “strap is inserted…and drawn out” in Claim 22 Lines 3-5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Confirmation is requested as to whether this is meant to be a functional configuration or is positively claimed as a constant structure of the kit (as is currently claimed).
The term “the loop” in Claim 22 Line 5 and Line 6 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which specific loop is being referred to in both instances, as there are a plurality. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be interpreted as “the one of the loops” based on Claim 22 Lines 3-5.
The term “the strap” in Claim 23 Line 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 21 Line 19 established a plurality of straps, as each loop has a strap. As such, it is unclear which specific strap the term is referring to. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “each strap.”
The term “strap is inserted…and drawn out” in Claim 23 Lines 4-6 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Confirmation is requested as to whether this is meant to be a functional configuration or is positively claimed as a constant structure of the kit (as is currently claimed).
The term “the loop” in Claim 23 Line 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which specific loop is being referred to in both instances, as there are a plurality. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be interpreted as “one of the plurality of loops.”
The term “the opening at the second longitudinal side…the opening at the first longitudinal side” in Claim 23 Lines 6-7 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. There are a plurality of openings at each of the first/second longitudinal sides (see at least Claim 23 Lines 4-6). As such, it is unclear which specific opening the term is referring to. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “the one of the openings…the another one of the openings” in light of Claim 23 Lines 4-6.
The term “The kit of claim 1” in Claim 24 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the preamble is incorrect (and should be directed to the relocatable protection system of claim 1) or if the dependency is incorrect (should be claim 21, instead of claim 1). For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as being dependent on Claim 21. However, see related 112(d) rejection below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, Claim 24 cites a different preamble (the kit) from the claims upon which they depend (relocatable protection system). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Applicant is suggested to amend the preamble of Claim 24 to recite “The relocatable protection system” as one potential remedy, should the dependency be correct.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (USPN 7945968) in view of Williams (US Publication 2008/0222767) and Pratson et al (USPN 5455969), herein Pratson.
Regarding Claim 1, Johnson teaches a relocatable protection system (it is noted that 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; however, see Fig. 2; Col. 2 Line 33 "adjustable protective member 140"), comprising:
a shell (see Fig. 2; Col. 3 Lines 7-11 "adjustable protective member 140 is sized and configured to cover a wearer's kneecap and includes a rigid shell that may be constructed, for example, of hard plastics , metal, and/or other appropriate materials"),
said shell having a capsule shape (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Fig. 5 for capsule shape/arch),
said shell comprising a shell upper section, a shell lower section, and an intermediate section therebetween (the existence of the shell meets the recitation, wherein upper/lower sections are the outermost/innermost surfaces, and the intermediate section is therebetween);
a fastening mechanism (see below), said fastening mechanism comprising:
a plurality of retention members (see Fig. 4b; retention members being the apertures through which straps extend),
wherein said retention members are configured to be attached to said shell lower section (see Fig. 4b wherein retention members are visible on lower section and therefore attached as recited);
a plurality of straps corresponding to said number of retention members (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 3-4 "fasteners 153, 155 on the straps 152, 154 are coupled to the fasteners 122, 124 in the arrays 121, 123", wherein loops are of the first/second side),
wherein said straps are configured to fasten said relocatable protection system to said wearer's body part (see Figs. 2, 3; Col. 3 Lines 12-16 "means are included for removably coupling the first and second sides 142a, 142b to the fasteners 122, 124 in the first and second arrays 121, 123 such that utilizing fasteners 122, 124…causes the adjustable protective member to be closer to the leg portion"),
wherein each of said straps are disposed along a length of one of said retention members and sandwiched between said retention member and said shell lower section (see Figs. 2, 3 for sandwiched).
Johnson does not explicitly teach a base padding comprising a base padding upper surface and a base padding lower surface,
wherein the base padding lower surface is shaped to substantially conform to a wearer's body part;
a shell positioned over said base padding,
a slip resistant layer positioned over said shell; and
a fastening mechanism disposed between said base padding and said shell
Williams teaches a base padding (24) comprising a base padding upper surface and a base padding lower surface (see Figs. 2, 3; [0034] "kneepad 10 includes…protective hard shell 22. As shown in Fig. 2 the kneepad has inner and outer layers of soft material 24 and 25 applied to the inner protective shell. The protective shell may be made of a hard yet flexible plastic such as a thermoplastic urethane, polyurethane, polyvinylchloride, polypropylene or other suitable similar compound and the softer material applied to the protective shell may be made of a thermoplastic elastomer or a foam rubber or other relatively soft material", wherein base padding is inner soft layer of 24, the existence of which would have upper/lower surfaces),
wherein the base padding lower surface is shaped to substantially conform to a wearer's body part (see Fig. 3; inasmuch as the shell is oval, so would the base padding/slip resistant layer 24, 25, as 24, 25 covers 22 shell; Williams teaches the base padding lower surface shape which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being substantially conforming as recited);
a shell (22) positioned over said base padding (see Figs. 2, 3; [0034]),
a slip resistant layer (25) positioned over said shell (see Figs. 2, 3; [0034] "kneepad 10 includes…protective hard shell 22. As shown in Fig. 2 the kneepad has inner and outer layers of soft material 24 and 25 applied to the inner protective shell. The protective shell may be made of a hard yet flexible plastic such as a thermoplastic urethane, polyurethane, polyvinylchloride, polypropylene or other suitable similar compound and the softer material applied to the protective shell may be made of a thermoplastic elastomer or a foam rubber or other relatively soft material", wherein the outer layer 25 is slip resistant inasmuch as the term has been defined, especially as the applicant specification is silent regarding the material; as such, 25 is slip resistant inasmuch as its existence indicates a degree of friction is provided that would have otherwise not been present).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s shell with the base padding/slip-resistant arrangement as taught by Williams as a known effective body protector.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Johnson teaches a fastening mechanism disposed between said base padding and said shell (see Johnson, wherein at least part of the fastening mechanism (strap through the aperture) is under the shell 140, and therefore with padding behind shell as taught by Williams, the fastening mechanism is disposed between).
Johnson also does not explicitly teach said shell further comprising at least two pairs of indentations,
wherein each of said indentations comprises a cantilever hook projecting substantially perpendicularly upwards from said indentations and disposed proximal to an external wall of said intermediate section,
wherein a top end of each of said cantilever hooks comprise a catch;
said fastening mechanism further comprising: a plurality of slotted anchor plates,
each attached to an end of one of said straps,
wherein each of said slotted anchor plates comprise an anchor slot and a plurality of adjuster slots,
wherein said one of one of the straps is looped through said adjuster slots to adjust the length of said one of the straps,
wherein the anchor slot and the adjuster slots are substantially parallel to each other.
Pratson teaches said shell further comprising at least two pairs of indentations (see Figs. 3, 4, 7; wherein, for example, 29, 30 are a pair, and 31, 32 are a pair; Col. 3 Lines 18-19 "knee protector 8 comprising a lower semi-cylindrical member 9, an upper semi-cylindrical member 10"; Col. 3 Lines 38-47 "protector further includes a means for attaching the protector a user's knee in the form a pair of adjustable straps 20, 21. The top strap has two ends 22, 23. A first end is releasably attached to the protector a first connection point 24 located on a side edge 25 of the protector. The other end is adjustably attached to a clip 26. The clip in turn provides means for releaseably attaching itself to a second connection point 27 located on the other side 28 of the protector. The lower strap 21 has similar connections"; Col. 3 Lines 48-53 "The means for attaching the strap to the first connection point may be relatively permanent such as a rivet but is preferably adjustable and releasable to allow for easy replacement of the strap. In the preferred embodiment, both connection points for a given strap will be buckle style connectors designed to provide attachment for a strap or a clip", indicating that sides with 29, 30, 31, 32 have the same clip 26/buckle 88 fastenings; Col. 3 Lines 57-63 "cuts 29, 30, 31, and 32 adjacent to the connection points reduce the rigidity of the lateral position of the connection points. This allows the connection points to bend inward slightly depending on the size of the user's leg and the tightness of the straps. This in turn provides for a more snug and hence, comfortable fit to a user's thigh or calf").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson with the indentations as taught by Pratson in order to provide a comfortable fit (Col. 3 Lines 57-63).
Pratson further teaches a cantilever hook projecting substantially perpendicularly upwards (see Fig. 10; Col. 4 Lines 59-61 "hook 86 which extends below the plane…sized an dimensioned to releasably engage a slot 87 in a buckle connector 88"; for cantilever-- wherein it is cantilever for its Col. 5 Lines 10-20 "hook having an angled rear facing surface 89 which rests flat up against an angled front facing surface 90 at the rear termination of the slot 87. Any force components which would tend to bring the clip further back get translated into forces which drive the clip down toward the buckle. Once mated, with the front portion 95 of the lower surface of the side-pieces resting up against the buckle, the clip essentially can only move in the forward direction 91 with respect to the buckle in order to disengage the clip. This movement is discouraged by the backward bias provided by the taut strap");
wherein a top end of each of said cantilever hooks comprise a catch (see Fig. 10 for catch being flat part at end, wherein top is a relative perspective);
the fastening mechanism further comprising: a plurality of slotted anchor plates (see Fig. 10; abstract "apparatus for protecting a user's knee or other joint"; Col. 4 Lines 59-61 "hook 86…is sized and dimensioned to releasably engage a slot 87 in a buckle connector 88"),
each attached to an end of one of said straps (see Figs. 7, 12, 14; Col. 4 Lines 52-55 "Figs. 10 through 16 show that a strap 20 may be adjustably attached to a separate clip 26"),
wherein each of said slotted anchor plates comprise an anchor slot and a plurality of adjuster slots (see Fig. 10; Col. 4 Lines 55-57 "The strap is looped around a group of three substantially parallel cross-pieces 80,81 and 82, which are held in place by two oblong side-pieces 83 and 84", wherein anchor slot is 86, 89; adjuster slots being where 81, 82 are located);
wherein said one of one of the straps is looped through said adjuster slots to adjust the length of said one of the straps (see Fig. 10; abstract "apparatus for protecting a user's knee or other joint"; Col. 4 Lines 59-61 "hook 86…is sized and dimensioned to releasably engage a slot 87 in a buckle connector 88"),
wherein the anchor slot and the adjuster slots are substantially parallel to each other (see Fig. 10).
Pratson at least suggests wherein each of said indentations comprises a cantilever hook,
and said fastening mechanism comprising the (corresponding) anchor slot
(Pratson teaches the opposite—the cantilever hook 86 is of the fastening mechanism with retention member/clip 26 in Fig. 10; and the indentations have the corresponding anchor slots 87, 103 in Fig. 16; wherein the opposite would meet the recitations—wherein the indentations have the hooks inasmuch as being in the vicinity of the connection point where the indentations are located; as such, after modification, 86 is on the shell instead of on the retention member/clip 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pratson to teach the opposite as recited, as a simple reversal of parts a mere reversal of parts is held to be an obvious modification, in reGazda 219 F.2d 449,104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Pratson further teaches wherein the a cantilever hook projecting substantially perpendicularly upwards from said indentations and disposed proximal to an external wall of said intermediate section (see Figs. 8, 10 where 86 are of the shell after modification/reversal of parts and would be substantially perpendicular to the indentations after modification/reversal of parts) and disposed proximal to an external wall (where an indentation is located) of an intermediate section (indentation spans all sections),
the fastening mechanism further comprising wherein each of said slotted anchor plates comprise an anchor slot (Col. 4 Line 62-Col. 5 Line 5 "The buckle itself is made up of two substantially parallel side-members 99 and 100 which are spaced apart commensurate with the side pieces of the clip. The side members are connected at one end by an end cross-member 97 and at the other end by the side edge of the semi-cylindrical member 101. A middle cross-member 102 which bridges medial portions of the two side-members is positioned between the end cross-member and the edge of the semi-cylinder thereby forming two slots 103 and 87. These slots and their adjacent angled surfaces provide means for adjustably attaching a strap or clip", wherein 103, 87 are of Fig. 10 clip 26 after modification/reversal of parts),
wherein the anchor slot and the adjuster slots are substantially parallel to each other (see Fig. 10; even with modification/reversal of parts, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pratson such that the structures are still substantially parallel similar to the original arrangement).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson's snaps to be the cantilever fastening of Pratson as a simple substitution of one type of kneepad to leg fastening for another, such as to avoid contamination (Col. 5 Lines 36-40).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Williams further teaches wherein the base padding, the shell and the slip resistant layer has one of a rounded rectangular shape and an oval shape (see Fig. 3; inasmuch as the shell includes an oval shape, so would the base padding/slip resistant layer 24, 25, as 24, 25 covers 22 shell).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Williams further teaches wherein the base padding has a lateral cross-section of a segmental arch (see Fig. 2 for base padding 24 being segmental arch).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Johnson further teaches wherein the shell is made of an impact resistant material (see Fig. 2; Col. 3 Lines 7-11 "adjustable protective member 140 is sized and configured to cover a wearer's kneecap and includes a rigid shell that may be constructed, for example, of hard plastics , metal, and/or other appropriate materials", wherein applicant specification [0066] indicates plastic as being impact resistant).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Johnson further teaches wherein said shell lower section and said intermediate section have a cross-sectional shape of a curved arch (see Fig. 5),
wherein said shell upper section comprises a substantially flat mid-section extending symmetrically from a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 5),
wherein said shell upper section further comprises a first lateral curved section extending downwardly from a first side of said substantially flat mid-section and a second lateral curved section extending downwardly from a second side of said substantially flat mid-section (see Fig. 5).
Williams further teaches wherein said intermediate section comprises a plurality of cut-outs integrally formed along a width of the shell (see Fig. 3 intermediate section being between outermost/innermost surfaces; [0036] "protective hard shell 22 has an array of openings such as openings 36 formed there through");
wherein said cut-outs are located at a mid-section of the shell and extend along a thickness of the intermediate section (see Fig. 3 mid-section with 36; [0036]),
wherein said intermediate section further comprises a first latticework integrally formed at a first end and a second latticework integrally formed at a second end of said shell (see Fig. 3 upper/lower sections with 36; [0036]),
wherein said first and second latticework are substantially parallel to said cut-outs and extend along the thickness of the intermediate section (see Fig. 3 wherein all of 36 is substantially in the same plane and therefore substantially parallel, wherein 36 makes the cut-outs and latticework).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Johnson further teaches wherein each of said downwardly sloping cantilever slabs comprise guardrails on both sides of the downwardly sloping cantilever slabs (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Pratson Figs. 10, 16; with the reversal of parts, the downwardly sloping cantilever slab 89 shown in Fig. 10 would be located in Fig. 16 and therefore have guardrails 99, 100 of Fig. 16; Col. 4 Lines 55-58 "The strap is looped around a group of three substantially parallel cross-pieces 80, 81 and 82, which are held in place by two oblong side-pieces 83 and 84", wherein 83 is the guardrail for 89).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 14.
Pratson further teaches wherein each of the cantilever snap-fit connectors are configured to be inserted into corresponding one of a plurality of slots in the shell lower section (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Figs. 10, 16; Col. 4 Lines 60-61 "hook is sized and dimensioned to releaseably engage a slot 87 in a buckle connector 88", wherein, by reversal of parts, the slots 87 would be of the shell; see Figs. 7, 14, wherein the slot would be at the shell lower section),
wherein each of the cantilever snap-fit connectors deflects and snaps back into place inside the slots when the cantilever snap-fit connectors is inserted into the slots to secure the retention member to the shell lower section (Pratson teaches cantilever as established in Claim 1, and therefore cantilever connectors which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being snap-fit secured as recited, especially as this structure is known in the art to be as such, see extrinsic evidence Erye NPL; for lower section-- see Figs. 7, 14; wherein the slot would be at the shell lower section/innermost surface).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Johnson further teaches wherein the anchor slot is configured to be positioned over the cantilever hook (see Pratson Fig. 14),
and wherein the cantilever hook is slid into the anchor slot of the slotted anchor plate to secure the anchor plate to the cantilever hook (see Pratson Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Williams further teaches wherein the base padding is configured to provide cushioning to the body part of the wearer (see Figs. 2, 3; [0034] "kneepad 10 includes…protective hard shell 22. As shown in Fig. 2 the kneepad has inner and outer layers of soft material 24 and 25 applied to the inner protective shell...the softer material applied to the protective shell may be made of a thermoplastic elastomer or a foam rubber or other relatively soft material", wherein the existence of the base padding indicates cushioning, especially as it is known in the art that foam provides shock absorption, and therefore cushioning, see extrinsic evidence Valtakari 5105473).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Johnson further teaches wherein the padding upper surface comprises a mid-section located along a longitudinal axis of the padding upper surface (wherein the existence of inner layer 24/padding indicates a mid-section in the padding upper surface),
wherein the padding upper surface curves downwards from the mid-section located along the longitudinal axis to both sides of the padding upper surface that are parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 3; inasmuch as the shell is oval, so would the base padding/slip resistant layer 24, 25, as 24, 25 covers 22 shell; and therefore inner layer 24/padding shape meets the recitation).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Johnson further teaches wherein said retention member has a curved rectangular profile (see Fig. 4b wherein each hole is rectangular and is at a curved portion).
Pratson at least suggests wherein each of said retention members comprise a plurality of cantilever snap-fit connectors located proximal to each corner of said retention member (see Fig. 10, wherein there is a single cantilever snap-fit connector, wherein cantilever was established in claim 1, and therefore cantilever connector which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being snap fit, see extrinsic evidence Eyre NPL).
However, Pratson Fig. 8 already teaches a plurality of connectors located proximal to each corner of a member (Col. 4 Lines 19-27 "strip 60 has a pair of resilient projections 67,68 spaced apart from one another. Each projection is sized and dimensioned to engage an aperture extending through the member from its outer surface to its inner surface. In this embodiment a pair of oblong apertures 69,70 are positioned adjacent to each side ridge within the frame. Once engaged, each projection has a nib 71 which inhibits extraction of the projection from the aperture").
A mere duplication of parts is seen as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such duplication into a plurality of cantilever snap-fit connectors would not have produced a new and unexpected result and therefore has no patentable significance. In other words, a mere duplication of parts of an element involves only routine skill in the art. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)), wherein Fig. 8 further clearly shows it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s cantilever snap-fit connectors, as provided by Pratson, to be a plurality as a known arrangement for fastening and/or for aesthetic design choice.
Claim(s) 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (USPN 7945968) in view of Williams (US Publication 2008/0222767) and Pratson et al (USPN 5455969), herein Pratson, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Arslan (US Publication 2025/0040634).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Johnson does not explicitly teach wherein the padding upper surface comprises a plurality of protrusions disposed along a width of the base padding at a mid-section of the padding upper surface,
wherein the protrusions have a generally square shape and are spaced apart from an adjacent one of the protrusions.
Arslan teaches wherein the padding upper surface comprises a plurality of protrusions disposed along a width of the base padding at a mid-section of the padding upper surface (see Fig. 3; [0001] "The invention relates to an impact protector"; [0002] "impact protectors include in particular shin guards...can also be used for all other parts of the body"; abstract "base body (2) is made of a cork material, in particular a pressed cork material"; [0054] "FIG. 3 shows a perspective view of a third exemplary embodiment of an impact protector 1 with a fully pressed base body 2 and a contact structure with multiple structural elements 7 on the inner side 5 as well as a protective structure with multiple structural elements 8 on the outer side 6", wherein protrusions are elements 8),
and are spaced apart from an adjacent one of the protrusions (see Fig. 3).
Arslan at least suggests wherein the protrusions have a generally square shape ([0018] "structural elements are designed as round, oval, triangular, square, rectangular, pentagonal, hexagonal and/or polygonal structural elements. These geometries have proven to be particularly efficient; they can also be combined depending on the body part and/or sport in order to achieve special adhesion or gliding properties"-- although the recitation is in regards to structural elements relative to an inner surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arslan’s outer structural elements/protrusions on the upper surface to be the same, for aesthetic design choice, especially as suggested in Fig. 3; a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s padding, as provided by Williams, with the protrusions as taught by Arslan as a known structure for impact protection in a garment ([0001]), such as in order to increase strength, impact protection, and stability ([0021]), and/or for efficiency ([0018]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Johnson does not explicitly teach wherein the base padding lower surface comprises a plurality of circular protuberances,
wherein the circular protuberances are arranged in a plurality of rows on the base padding lower surface,
wherein the circular protuberances are spaced apart from each other,
wherein the circular protuberances in one of the rows along a width of the base padding are offset in position with respect to the circular protuberances in an immediate adjacent row.
Arslan teaches wherein the base padding lower surface comprises a plurality of circular protuberances (see Fig. 3; [0001] "The invention relates to an impact protector"; [0002] "impact protectors include in particular shin guards...can also be used for all other parts of the body"; abstract "base body (2) is made of a cork material, in particular a pressed cork material"; [0054] "FIG. 3 shows a perspective view of a third exemplary embodiment of an impact protector 1 with a fully pressed base body 2 and a contact structure with multiple structural elements 7 on the inner side 5 as well as a protective structure with multiple structural elements 8 on the outer side 6", wherein protuberances are elements 7),
wherein the circular protuberances are arranged in a plurality of rows on the base padding lower surface ([0018] "structural elements are designed as round, oval, triangular, square, rectangular, pentagonal, hexagonal and/or polygonal structural elements. These geometries have proven to be particularly efficient; they can also be combined depending on the body part and/or sport in order to achieve special adhesion or gliding properties"),
wherein the circular protuberances are spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 3),
wherein the circular protuberances in one of the rows along a width of the base padding are offset in position with respect to the circular protuberances in an immediate adjacent row (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s padding, as provided by Williams, with the protuberances as taught by Arslan as a known structure for impact protection in a garment ([0001]), such as in order to prevent slippage ([0017]), and/or for efficiency ([0018]).
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (USPN 7945968) in view of Knight-Yurt (USPN 5652961), herein Knight.
Regarding Claim 16, Johnson teaches a pair of trousers (it is noted that 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; however, see Fig. 1, 6a, 6b; Col. 2 Line 32 "trousers 110";Col. 2 Lines 20-21 "Fig. 6a is…of the trousers in Fig. 1"; Col. 2 Lines 23-24 "Fig. 6b…of Fig. 6a"), comprising:
a pair of elongated pockets (see Fig. 6b for one of the pockets where Col. 2 Line 32 "padding 130" is located, the pair shown in Fig. 1; see Figs. 2, 6b for elongated),
wherein each one of said pair of elongated pockets is attached to a front section of a trouser leg of the pair of trousers (see Figs. 1, 6a, 6b),
wherein each of the pair of elongated pockets comprise a plurality of adjacently located loops on a first longitudinal side and a second longitudinal side of the pair of elongated pockets (see Fig. 2 for loop-shape fasteners; Col. 2 Lines 50-52 "first array 121 of fasteners 122 and a second array 123 of fasteners 124 are coupled to the leg portion 112"; Col. 2 Line 34-38 "trousers 110 have a leg portion 112…padding 130…is coupled to the trousers 110"; wherein 121/123 are first/second sides of the pocket, see Figs. 2, 6b),
wherein the pair of elongated pockets comprise a plurality of openings disposed below the first and second longitudinal sides of the pair of elongated pockets (see Fig. 2 wherein each loop as openings that extend below a top surface of the sides).
Johnson does not explicitly teach wherein the elongated pockets comprise a top opening.
However, Johnson does teach removable padding from the pocket(s) (Col. 2 Lines 45-46 "padding 130 may be removably coupled to the trousers 110").
Knight teaches wherein the elongated pockets comprise a top opening (see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 2 Lines 36-42 "two-pocket pouch 10…two separate flaps 12 covering these pockets...the area behind the two pockets 10 creates a third, wide pocket, as shown by the arrow 16"; Col. 2 Line 61-Col. Line 4 "described another way...first panel 30 fixedly attached to the front 2 of the shirt in such a manner as to form the third pocket 16. A first panel top portion 30A is configured to fold down and over a second panel 32. The second panel 32 is fixedly attached to the shirt and a bottom portion 30B of the first panel 30 in a such a manner as to form a second pocket 34 delimited by the second panel 32 and the bottom portion 30B of the first panel 30. The bottom portion 30B of the first panel 30 is disposed between the front 2 of the shirt and the second panel 32", wherein elongated pocket has top opening at 16, wherein auxiliary pocket has top opening at 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s pocket(s) with the pocket(s) with top opening(s) as taught by Knight as a known structural arrangement to allow accessibility to objects in garments, which Johnson desired as well (Col. 2 Lines 45-46), and/or to provide a variety of specialty compartments for desired use (Col. 1 Lines 66-67).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Modified Johnson further teaches wherein the elongated pockets are configured to receive additional padding material from the top opening (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Johnson teaches elongated pocket with padding, with a top opening provided by Knight which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the elongated pocket receiving additional padding material from the opening),
wherein each of the elongated pockets comprise an auxiliary pocket positioned at a lower section of the elongated pocket (Knight taught the auxiliary pocket with top opening at 34; see Knight Fig. 2, wherein auxiliary pocket has an attachment point at the lower section of the elongated pocket with opening at 16),
wherein said lower section of the elongated pocket is proximal to a shin area of the pair of trousers (Johnson teaches the lower section which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of proximal to a shin area of trousers),
and wherein the auxiliary pocket comprises a separate opening at a top of the auxiliary pocket for receiving the additional padding material (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Knight Fig. 2 with separate opening at 34; Knight teaches the separate top opening of an auxiliary pocket which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of receiving additional padding).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Johnson teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Johnson further teaches wherein the loops extend along an entire length of the pair of elongated pockets (see Fig. 2b).
Examiner Notes
Claim(s) 6, 7, 19-25, as best understood from the disclosure, is/are free of U.S.C. 102/103 rejections, but is/are currently questioned under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Finley (2024/0057698) directed to trouser pocket with top opening for removable padding; Schaaper (USPN 12302960) directed to a knee protector with base padding, shell, a slip resistant layer; Weber (US Publication 2014/0230116) directed to trousers with loops for straps; Arceo (US Publication 2013/0061365) directed to trousers with loops for straps of a relocatable protection system; Niffenegger (US Publication 2025/0185736), Carver et al (US Publication 2014/0237696), Meadows (USPN 7490360), Dumont (USPN 7380283), Hsieh (US Publication 2014/0325729), Matthews (USPN 5592689), Wilcox (USPN 6347403), Jerome et al (USPN 6988281), Shin (US Publication 2008/0289072), James (USPN 11771297), Krinick (USPN 2561872), Frieler et al (USPN 7219372), Hull (USPN 4561123), Nierhaus (DE 4137766) directed to trousers with relocatable and/or attachable protection system;; Grimm (USPN 5309570) directed to fastening mechanism between two layers; Hennessey (USPN 6745398), Grover (USPN 4613991) directed to pockets with removable padding on trousers; Lee (USPN 7143484) directed to anchor plates; Worple (US Publication 2025/0221476) directed to latticework; Donzis (USPN 4453271), Wingo Jr (USPN 4985931) directed to base padding upper/lower surfaces having protrusions/protuberances; Henson (USPN 5065457) directed to padding lower surface with protuberances; James (USPN 11771297) directed to plurality of openings below pockets; Ceolin (US Publication 2024/0382820), Behrend et al (USPN 7937768) directed to cut-outs corresponding to protrusions; Xia et al (US Publication 2025/0000215) directed to magnetic connection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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 on 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732