DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 16-31, filed on 7/6/2021, are examined herein. Claims 1-15 have been canceled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, although page 6, lines 23-24 of the specification describe FIG. 2 as being an XRF spectrum that shows transmittance reaching 50% simultaneously in four wavelengths, page 8, lines 10-16 of the specification describe FIG. 2 as showing reflectance reaching 50% in the four wavelengths. In addition, although FIG. 2 is described as showing reflectance/transmittance reaching 50% simultaneously in four wavelengths, the transmittance units on the y-axis include negative numbers, and the wavenumbers on the x-axis do not appear to match the four wavelengths of 7 µm, 11 µm, 12.5 µm and 17 µm disclosed in the specification. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites the limitation “at the far infrared.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “7 mm, 11 mm, 12.5 mm and 17 mm” instead of “7 µm, 11 µm, 12.5 µm and 17 µm.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the near infrared electromagnetic spectrum,” instead of “the far infrared spectrum.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “with the bioceramic powder being embedded during the polymer extrusion process to make the bioceramic powder capable of transmitting infrared radiation.” The specification does not provide support for the polymer extrusion process making the bioceramic powder capable of transmitting infrared radiation. In this regard, Applicant’s filing on 6/5/2024 of a complete English translation of the specification includes, in claim 1 of the filed claims, the limitation “rendering it capable of transmitting infrared radiation.” However, the term “it” in the claimed context is interpreted as referring to the claimed textile. Claims 17-31 are rejected because they depend from claim 16.
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 16-31 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 refers to bioceramic microparticles that emit at the far infrared at four specific wavelengths. However, the claim also refers to the bioceramic powder being capable of transmitting infrared radiation and to the textile maintaining a high reflectance of about 50% simultaneously at four wavelengths in the near infrared electromagnetic spectrum. It is unclear how the bioceramic microparticles relate to the particles of bioceramic powder, and it is unclear if the bioceramic microparticles/powder emits, transmits or reflects in the far infrared electromagnetic spectrum.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “1%.” It is unclear what type of percentage is being claimed.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the polymer extrusion process.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the proportional composition of the bioceramic powder is mean.....” It is unclear how the mean composition is determined.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “57.40% oxygen; 0.73% sodium, 2.91 % magnesium, 2.65% aluminum, 9.59% silicon, 1.56% calcium, 14.75% titanium, and 10.41% zirconium.” It is unclear what type of percentage is being claimed.
Claims 17-31 are rejected because they depend from claim 16.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the textile simultaneously maintains a reflectance of at least 50% at the four wavelengths of the far infrared electromagnetic spectrum.” The limitation “at least 50%” renders the claim indefinite because independent claim 16 is limited to a reflectance of about 50%. Claims 19-22 and 25-31 are rejected because they depend from claim 18.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “intended to provide bactericidal protection to a diabetic person.” It is unclear how providing bactericidal protection specifically to a diabetic person limits the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “wherein the garment reduces body pain after surgical operation for herniated disc in the spine of a wearer.” As the claim is not limited, for instance, to any period of time after surgical operation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “wherein the garment improves the physical performance of the wearer.” As physical performance is relative and/or subjective, as the term is not defined by the claim, and as the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “wherein the garment improves recovery after physical effort by the wearer.” As physical effort and recovery therefrom are relative and/or subjective, as the term is not defined by the claim, and as the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights