DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8, 12, and 13 are pending. Claims 9-11 are cancelled.
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 .
Patent Prosecution Highway Examination
For information regarding the manner in which amendments are to be made under PPH examination please see MPEP 708.02(c) which provides a link to a page that includes the FAQs found in PDF via the URL listed below for convenience https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FAQs-for-PPH-revised-05032023.pdf.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on January 30, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2 and 3 are withdrawn from consideration.
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: tunnel 110. 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. 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
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.
The current abstract is over 150 words.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 , and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-8, and 13 recites “A vest” which should be “The vest”. Claim 1 includes a period on the third to last line which should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites that “the lower part of the panel space is open at both sides”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Does the panel space only have two sides? How does a “space” have sides at all? It is unclear what is the difference between “the sides” of claim 1 line 7 and “both sides” of the space in the present claim. The examiner is interpreting them as the same.
Claim 8 recites “a flap pocket extending from the outer layer adjacent one of the side openings” in lines 5-6 but then recites that the flap pocket, when donned is “located in the panel space in the carrier on the second lateral front side of the carrier”. It is unclear how the flap pocket could be extending adjacent the opening adjacent the second lateral front side of the carrier (because lines 5-6 permit the flap pocket to extend from any side opening), while also being located within the opening of the second lateral front side of the carrier. The examiner believes that this first recitation refers to the opening on the first lateral front side of the carrier and should be amended to indicate as much.
Claim 8 recites that the carrier has a front zipper for joining the first and second lateral front sides, however claim 1, includes a fastener for joining the left side edge and right side edge. It is unclear if the carrier includes a both a fastener and a zipper, or if the recitation is to further limit the fastener to be particularly a zipper that joins the left side edge and the right side edge.
Claim 12 recites the term “near” in line 6 which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "near" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person may deem “near” another may deem “far” or at least “not near”.
The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12416475 in view of Aquino (US 20150059042). Claim 4 of ‘475 lacks that the front and back panels move “independently of one another”. In related art, Aquino includes that the panels may move independently of one another (see, e.g. Fig. 26 showing the panels are not attached at the bottom to each other and thus are movable independently of one another, furthermore, they are removable).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify ‘475 to include the independently movable feature in order to permit a uniform that does not inhibit movement and air circulation and thus provide a more comfortable vests (see Aquino, para. 0003).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Blauer (US 20220290945).
Regarding claim 1, Blauer describes a ballistic vest (carrier cover 100, carriers 12, 14), comprising:
a carrier (100) having a left side edge and a right side edge (see annotated Fig. 5);
a fastener (fastener 240) for, when the vest is being worn by a user, fastening the left side edge of the carrier to the right side edge of the carrier to close the vest on the user;
at least two ballistic panels (12, 14) supported in the carrier (100), including a front ballistic panel (12) and a back ballistic panel (14);
the carrier being made from at least two layers of material including an outer layer and an inner layer (see annotated Fig. 5) that are joined to each other at the top and bottom of the vest and that are substantially open at the left side edge and the right side edge (at 172, 176);
the carrier having portions defining a left armhole and a right armhole (122, 124);
the two carrier layers defining between them a panel space in the carrier (see annotated Fig. 5);
an upper part of the panel space being located above the bottom of the left and right armholes (see annotated Fig. 5) and a lower part of the panel space being located below the bottom of the left and right armholes (see annotated Fig. 5), the lower part of the panel space extending from the left side edge of the carrier to the right side edge of the carrier and being free of seams interconnecting the two carrier layers (lower part extends from edge to edge without seams interconnecting the carrier layers, that is, the lower part only includes openings at the edges, while the upper part includes seams, thus the lower part is free of seams);
the front panel (12) having an upper section that is positioned in the upper part of the panel space, the carrier constraining lateral movement of the front panel upper section within the panel space (panel space contains hoop and loop patches 30, which attach to carriers 12, 14, para. 0098);
the front panel having a lower section that is positioned in the lower part of the panel space, the front panel lower section being free to move laterally in the panel space (the front panel is free to move within the lower section of the space, any restriction is from outside of the space);
the back panel (14) having an upper section that is positioned in the upper part of the panel space, the carrier constraining lateral movement of the back panel upper section within the panel space (panel space contains hoop and loop patches 30, which attach to carriers 12, 14, para. 0098);
the back panel having a lower section that is positioned in the lower part of the panel space, the back panel lower section being free to move laterally in the lower part of the panel space (the rear panel is free to move within the lower section of the space, any restriction is from outside of the space).
The front panel lower section and the back panel lower section being movable independently of each other in the lower part of the panel space (waist strap 18 may not be mated, thus the panels can rotate with respect each other while being in the panel space, thus satisfying the claim language).
PNG
media_image1.png
730
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Blauer describes [A vest] the vest as set forth in claim 1 wherein the carrier inner and outer layers are made from an elastic material (side panels, which house the carriers 12, 14, are composed of stretch fabric, para. 0067) and provide a snug fit on a user's torso thereby to transfer load of the ballistic panels to the user's torso while allowing the lower sections of the front and back ballistic panels to move laterally in the panel space upon movement and bending of the user (formed of stretch fabric and thus permit movement inasmuch as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Blauer describes a vest as set forth in claim 1 wherein the lower part of the panel space is open at both sides thereby forming a laterally extending tunnel in the carrier (includes an opening on both sides and forms two tunnels).
Regarding claim 7, Blauer describes a vest as set forth in claim 1 wherein the two carrier layers together define a bottom opening (waist attachments 150, 158 are zippers, facilitating inserting the carriers into the pockets from the bottom, para. 0064) that is configured to accept insertion of the back panel upward into the panel space, the two carrier layers having closed edge portions on either side of the bottom opening that help to support the front and back ballistic panels in the panel space (zippers have closed edges).
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 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer (US 20220290945) in view of Aquino (US 20150059042).
Regarding claim 4, Blauer describes a vest as set forth in claim 1 wherein the back panel lower section and the front panel lower section do not at least partially overlap each other (attached via waist straps 16, 18 and thus do not overlap); and
the front panel lower section and the back panel lower section being movable laterally relative to the left and right side panels (are removable and thus are movable laterally relative to side panels).
Blauer does not explicitly describe further including left and right side ballistic panels supported on the carrier at a location below the bottom of the left and right armholes and at least partially overlapping the front and back ballistic panels.
In relate art for ballistic vests Aquino describes including left and right side ballistic panels (detachable carrier panel 925, 836) supported on the carrier at a location below the bottom of the left and right armholes and at least partially overlapping the front and back ballistic panels (provide overlap between inserts, para. 0129).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the vest of Blauer to include the additional attachments of Aquino in order to provide enhanced protection to vital areas such as the kidneys (Aquino, para. 0129).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aquino (US 20150059042).
Regarding claim 12, Aquino describes a ballistic vest (vest, para. 0068, 0107), comprising:
a carrier (support panel 700, Figs. 19, 22a, 22b as embodied in Fig. 25) made from at least two layers of material including an outer layer (backing layer 740) and an inner layer (inner layer 710) that are joined to each other at least partially at the top of the vest (seamed, para. 0115, 0110, exploded view);
the carrier having portions defining a left armhole and a right armhole (see annotated Fig. 25 above with respect to claim 1);
the two carrier layers defining between them a panel space in the carrier (pocket, para. 0114);
at least two ballistic panels (panels 50 in each of the openings, attachment 746 for securing protective insert 50, para. 0114) suspended in the panel space near the top of the vest (insert 50 secured via attachment 746 which is located at the top of the insert), including a front ballistic panel and a back ballistic panel (inserts in panels 840, 850, and 845);
the carrier having portions that substantially constrain lateral movement of the front and back panels between the armholes (via attachment 746), and the carrier substantially enabling lateral movement of the front and back panels below the armholes independently of one another (there is no attachment mechanism and thus the lower panel section is free to move inasmuch as claimed, the front and back panels are unattached to one another and thus are independently movable).
The embodiment of Fig. 19 does not explicitly describe using the arrangement in other areas of a vest. However, the embodiment of Fig. 25 depicts a vest that includes multiple openings for inserts.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the panel of Fig. 19 to be utilized in other areas so that a vest could be made utilizing the panel construction. That is, without the other panels, the front panel of Fig. 19 would be a floating panel and would not be useful in a situation requiring bullet-proof vests as a large portion of the torso would be unprotected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8 and 13 include a combination of limitations not present in the prior art regarding a fastener, flap pocket, space adjacent the flap pocket, location of the lateral sections, and orientation of the flap pocket when worn. To modify the prior art references to include such a feature would be the result of improper hindsight reconstruction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Clint Ostrup can be reached on 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732