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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 3/27/2026, claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, and 14 are amended. Examiner notes that Applicant indicated claim 17 as “new”; however claims 17-24 were previously canceled. MPEP 714(II)(C) states, “A canceled claim can be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment presenting the claim as a new claim with a new claim number. The original numbering of the claims must be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. For example, when applicant cancels all of the claims in the original specification and adds a new set of claims, the claim listing must include all of the canceled claims with the status identifier (canceled) (the canceled claims may be aggregated into one statement). The new claims must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claim previously presented (whether entered or not) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.126.” The claim numbered “17” in Applicant’s amendment filed 3/27/2026 has therefore been renumbered (see claim objection below) as new claim 25, and will be referred to as such herein. Claims 1-3, 6-16, and 25 are therefore currently pending in the application and presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b), and it has introduced new ones.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented claim objections, and it has introduced new ones.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/27/2026 with respect to the previously presented USC 103 rejection of claim 1 over Vanneste and Romano have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 17 been renumbered 25.
Additionally, MPEP 714(II)(C) states, “Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, including the deletion of an existing claim, or submission of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented (including previously canceled and non-entered claims) in the application.” Therefore, claims 17-24 must be listed in the amendment document with the proper status identifier (canceled).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 3 and 6 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the at least one fastener comprises stitching or welding”. Previously, the limitation has been interpreted as implied via the use of the term “seam”; however, after further review of the specification and in light of Applicant’s argument that “the seam is not necessarily by stitching and can be formed without a thread” (Remarks, page 8), the Examiner has updated the interpretation of the claim limitation and determined that disclosure does not provide sufficient support for “stitching” in particular. The specification does not recite “stitch” or “stitching”, only “a seam or weld” (instant specification, page 5). The disclosure of the broad genus “seam” (Examiner notes that the instant specification does not specifically define the term “seam”, therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "seam" is its definition, "a ridge or line made by joining two edges" (Defn. No. 2 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com) does not constitute a sufficient disclosure of specifically stitching as claimed.
The dependent claim 6 inherits the deficiency by nature of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-3, 6-16 and 25 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the pouch opposite the opening is permanently attached to the inner face of said garment”. It is unclear what “the pouch opposite the opening” is referring to, as the opening is part of the pouch. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as referring to a portion of the pouch located opposite the opening of the pouch being permanently attached to the inner face of the garment.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites the limitation “the pouch is made of a fabric”. However, claim 1 already defined that “the pouch is made of fabric”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “fabric” in claim 25 is the same fabric as the “fabric” of claim 1, or if there are multiple fabrics. For the purposes of examination, the “fabric” being described in claim 25 is interpreted as further describing the “fabric” of claim 1.
The dependent claims 2, 3 and 6-16 inherit the deficiency by nature of dependency from independent claim 1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-16, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanneste (US 2011/0094005) in view of Dupont (US 5410758).
Regarding claim 1, Vanneste discloses: A protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment comprising: an outer face intended to be in contact with the surrounding environment (“a clean room suit comprising an outer face provided for being in contact with a surrounding medium” paragraph 52); an inner face arranged to be in contact with or oriented towards an operator (“a clean room suit comprising […] an inner face laid out so as to be in contact with a user or operator” paragraph 52), and a garment having a body portion (body section 6) with a trunk portion and a leg portion (see annotated figure 1 below); wherein said protective equipment has a reusable and sterilisable pouch (casing 18; it is reusable and sterilizable in that it is capable of being reused and capable of being sterilized), wherein the pouch is reversible (the casing 18 is reversible in that it is capable of being reversed), the pouch has an inner surface and an outer surface (casing 18 necessarily has an inner face and an outer face), wherein the pouch is configured to receive the protective equipment in a folded and packaged configuration (“the thereby folded suit 1 is then conditioned in a casing 18 and sterilized” paragraph 57), wherein the pouch has an opening provided with a closure (”he/she opens the package 18 illustrated in FIG. 4 for example by peeling the upper face” paragraph 58; Examiner notes that in order to open the package, it must first have been closed, thus the “upper face” which must be peeled in order to open the package can be considered the “closure means”).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Vanneste showing the trunk portion and leg portion
Vanneste does not explicitly disclose: wherein the pouch is made of fabric, wherein the pouch opposite the opening is permanently attached to the inner face of said garment; wherein said pouch is arranged to be enclosed inside the garment when worn by the operator, thereby isolating the pouch from the surrounding environment, which is exterior to the garment; wherein said pouch is arranged such that when the garment is removed from the pouch, the pouch reverses with and undergoes an inversion of the inner and outer surfaces of the pouch; and wherein when the garment is worn by the operator, any contamination of the outer surface of the pouch is contained in the pouch.
However, Dupont teaches a garment that can be packaged in an integrated pouch. Specifically, Dupont teaches a garment (10) with an inner face (80) and an outer face (opposite the inner face) a reusable and sterilizable pouch (82); wherein the pouch is reversible (“bag 82 which comprises a reversible elongated bag panel 84 and a flap 86” column 4, lines 44-45), the pouch has an inner surface and an outer surface (the pouch necessarily has an inner surface and an outer surface); wherein the pouch is configured to receive the garment in a folded and packaged configuration (“the folded soiled garment is then completely enclosed within the bag 82” column 5, lines 11-12); wherein the pouch is made of fabric (“the retaining bag, similarly to the remainder of the garment, is formed from a fluid repellent material” column 2, lines 38-40; “the garment 10 can be manufactured from a number of fluid repellent type materials. One such example is a material sold under trade-name “Ripstop Nylon”, manufactured by Radice Automatica S.P.A. of Italy” column 5, lines 39-42; Ripstop Nylon is a fabric material) and has an opening (“the flap 86 is reversed to close the opening through which the roll 88 was fitted into the bag” column 5, lines 9-11) provided with a closure (flap 86), wherein the pouch opposite the opening is permanently attached to the inner face of said garment (“the bag 82 is attached to the interior surface 80 of the panel 12” column 5, lines 20-21; see figure 2); wherein said pouch is arranged to be enclosed inside the garment when worn by the operator, thereby isolating the pouch from the surrounding environment, which is exterior to the garment (“since the bag 82 is attached to the interior surface 80 of the panel 12, no contamination has penetrated inside the bag 82” column 5, lines 20-22); wherein said pouch is arranged such that when the garment is removed from the pouch, the pouch reverses with and undergoes an inversion of the inner and outer surfaces of the pouch (see column 4, line 50-column 5, line 19 describing how one would fold/roll up the garment to put it in the pouch, which involves reversing the pouch to completely enclose the garment inside, thus it is readily understood that the inverse process would take place when the garment is removed from the bag; further, the italicized limitation is an intended use limitation, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e., folded or turned inside out) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As the pouch of Dupont has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written); and wherein when the garment is worn by the operator, any contamination of the outer surface of the pouch is contained in the pouch (Examiner notes for the sake of clarity on the record that it appears that Applicant is referring to “outer surface of the pouch” as the side of the pouch that is external when the garment is contained in the pouch (i.e., when the garment is packaged), thus when the garment is worn, this “outer surface” has been inverted and would now technically be seen as the interior surface of the pouch in the worn configuration being described in the claim (supported by the claim language “contained in the pouch”); it is understood that any contamination that might be present on the “outer surface” (i.e., the interior surface of the pouch in the worn configuration) would be contained in the pouch as that “outer surface” is the interior surface of the pouch in this configuration, especially given that the pouch is made of fluid repellent material; further, the italicized limitation is an intended use limitation, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e., folded or turned inside out) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As the pouch of Dupont has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written).
Dupont teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of protective garments foldable into pouches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the pouch of Vanneste with the pouch as taught by Dupont and to attach the pouch to the inner face of the garment, as taught by Dupont, in order to ensure “no contamination has penetrated inside the bag 82, and it is safer to handle the bag 82 in its folded condition with the garment 10 completely encased” (Dupont, column 5, lines 20-24). Further, since Vanneste is silent as to any particular material being used for the pouch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the pouch of Vanneste out of a fluid repellent Ripstop Nylon fabric material, as taught by Dupont, because it can “provide a barrier to harmful fluids and which can be cleaned a number of times” (column 1, lines 47-49), and further because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 1, wherein said garment is selected from the group consisting of an overall (Vanneste, clean room suit 1 is an overall, see title, “Overalls for cleanroom and the like”), an apron, a head covering, at least one glove, at least one shoe cover, a shoe, a clog, a mask, goggles, sleeves, an undergarment, and boots.
Regarding claim 3 as best understood by Examiner, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 1, wherein said pouch is permanently attached to said inner face of said garment via at least one fastener, wherein the at least one fastener comprises stitching or welding (Dupont appears to show stitching in figure 2).
However, assuming arguendo that this is not an explicit disclosure of stitching, Dupont also further teaches “to prevent contamination through the seams, the present invention utilizes a flat felled seam design where the front panel 12 and back panels 14 and 15 are joined by the sleeve 42 and 44” (column 5, lines 49-52).
Dupont teaches analogous art to the instant invention in the field of protective garments with integrated pouches. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to attach the pouch using flat felled seams (a type of stitched seam), as taught by Dupont, in order to prevent contamination through the seams (see Dupont, column 5, line 49).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood by Examiner, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 3, wherein said at least one fastener is a seam (as modified, the attachment is a flat felled seam) or a weld.
Regarding claim 7, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 2, wherein said garment comprises: a first (Vanneste, first sleeve 4) and second sleeve (Vanneste, second sleeve 5) connected to said body portion (Vanneste, “the first sleeve is connected [to the body portion] through a bound end 4a and the second sleeve is connected [to the body portion] through a bound end 5a” paragraph 52), a head passage section in said body portion (Vanneste, “The suit also comprises a section 7 for letting through the head” paragraph 52), at least one gripper in contact with said inner face in said body portion (Vanneste, first grasping means 16 and second grasping means 17; see figure 2), wherein said pouch is connected to said inner surface of said garment via at least one fastener located on an inner surface of said pouch (as modified, the pouch is attached to the inner face of the garment of Vanneste; a seam is considered a fastener insofar as described or claimed by Applicant, see instant claim 6; Examiner notes that the term "seam" is very broad and merely means "a ridge or line made by joining two edges" (Defn. No. 2 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com), so the attachment described in Dupont constitutes a seam), allowing the inner surface of said pouch to be attached to said inner face of the body portion of said garment (Dupont, “the bag 82 is attached to the interior surface 80 of the panel 12” column 5, lines 20-21; see figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 7, wherein said garment is an overall (the suit 1 of Vanneste is an overall, see title “Overalls for cleanroom and the like”), wherein said leg portion comprises: a first and a second leg section (Vanneste, first leg section 2, second leg section 3), each leg section comprising a flank (see figure 1), two longitudinal edges on either side of said flank (see figure 1), continuous closure extending from an ankle area through a crotch area (Vanneste, “crotch area 14 is equipped with a zipper 10 and it comprises a placket (not shown) located below the zipper to avoid any contamination” paragraph 52; see figure 1 which shows the zipper extending from the ankle of one leg through the crotch area and to the ankle of the other leg), said closure arranged to form substantially tubular leg sections when engaged together (see figure 1 showing the substantially tubular leg sections), wherein said first and second leg sections are connected via a linked end to said body portion (Vanneste, “the first leg section 2 also comprises a bound end 2a and the second leg section 3 also comprises a bound end 3a” paragraph 52; see figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 7, configured to transition between: an unfolded position wherein said outer face of said garment is in contact with the surrounding environment and said inner face is arranged to be in contact with an operator and wherein a first inner surface of the pouch is against said inner face of said garment and a second inner surface of the pouch is arranged to be in contact with an operator (see figure 1 of Vanneste, showing the suit being unfolded; when worn, the outer face would be in contact with the environment and the inner face would be in contact with the operator, and one of the faces of the pouch would be against the inner face of the garment while the other face of the pouch is in contact with the operator, as the pouch is located on an inner surface of the garment), and a folded position, wherein: said inner face of the leg portion is folded to expose the inner face to the outside, said outer face of the leg portion is folded against the outer face of said body section, forming an access opening to the inside of the trunk portion, said at least one gripper is exposed adjacent to said closure of said pouch (Vanneste, “FIG. 2 illustrates the suit in the partly folded-back position. The inner face of the first leg section 2 and of the second leg section 3 are exposed toward the outside. The outer face of the first leg section 2 and the outer face of the second leg section 3 are exposed toward the outer face of the body section 6. Said opening of the crotch 14 provides access to the inside of the body portion 6 through a section called a waist section 15. In this way, the first grasping means 16 and the second grasping means 17 are exposed towards the operator” paragraph 55; see figure 2), and wherein said garment is packaged in a folded position in said pouch (Vanneste, as modified, the garment can be packaged in the pouch in a folded position). Examiner notes that the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e., folded) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Vanneste as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claim 10, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 7, wherein when in said folded position and stored in said pouch, said pouch is configured to transition between: a first closed position wherein said opening of said pouch is closed by said closure (as modified, the pouch has a flap which can be closed), and a second open position wherein said opening of said pouch is open and wherein said at least one gripper is exposed to the operator through said opening (as modified, the pouch has a flap which can be opened, and if the garment is inside, any part of the garment would become exposed through the opening of the pouch when the pouch is opened). Examiner notes that the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e., whether the pouch is opened or closed) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Vanneste as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claim 11, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 7, wherein said at least one gripper comprises at least two grippers positioned to be accessible when said garment is in an unfolded configuration and laterally positioned in contact with said inner face, in said body portion (Vanneste, the first and second grasping means 16, 17 are two grippers and they are located on the interior of the garment, see figure 2, therefore they are in contact with the inner face of the body portion at least at their attachment point). Examiner notes that the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e., folded) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Vanneste as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claim 12, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 8, wherein in said folded position: said closure of each leg section are in an open position, forming a crotch opening providing access to the inside of the body portion (Vanneste, “first leg section 2 and second leg section 3 connected to each other through an opening in the crotch area 14 […] said opening of the crotch area 14 is equipped with a zipper 10” paragraph 52; “Said opening of the crotch 14 provides access to the inside of the body portion 6” paragraph 55; see figure 2; the zipper can be opened or closed), and the inner face of the first and second leg sections is exposed to the outside and said outer face of the first and second leg sections is exposed to the outer face of said body section (Vanneste, “the inner face of the first leg section 2 and of the section leg section 3 are exposed toward the outside. The outer face of the first leg section 2 and the outer face of the second leg section 3 are exposed toward the outer face of body section 6. Said opening of the crotch 14 provides access to the inside of the body portion 6” paragraph 55; see figure 2). Examiner notes that the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e., folded) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Vanneste as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claim 13, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 8, wherein said closure of said first leg section and second leg sections together form a continuous closure extending from an ankle portion through said crotch area (Vanneste, “crotch area 14 is equipped with a zipper 10 and it comprises a placket (not shown) located below the zipper to avoid any contamination” paragraph 52; see figure 1 which shows the zipper extending from the ankle of one leg through the crotch area and to the ankle of the other leg), and comprise a single continuous zipper (Vanneste, zipper 10 is a single continuous zipper which closes the crotch opening 14; see figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood by Examiner Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 1, wherein the pouch closure is at least one selected from the group consisting of a zip, hook-and-loop fastener means, a series of press studs, and a flap (Dupont, flap 86).
Regarding claim 15, Vanneste as modified discloses: Protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 7, wherein: each of the first and second sleeves comprises a self-tightener at a free end, opposite said linked end, wherein said self-tightener comprises elastic fabric wrist cuffs (Vanneste, “the first sleeve 4 comprises self-tightening means at the free end 4b in the form of cuffs 11 in elastic fabric. The second sleeve also comprises at the free end 5b a cuff 11 in elastic fabric” paragraph 53), and/or each of the first and second leg sections, comprises a self-tightener at a free end, opposite said linked end, wherein said self-tightener comprises elastic fabric ankle cuffs (Examiner notes that this limitation is not required, because the claim has the conjunction “and/or” which means that only one of the limitations (either the first one regarding the sleeves OR the second one regarding the legs) is required. Since Vanneste as modified teaches the limitation regarding the sleeves as described above, the limitation regarding the legs is not required).
Regarding claim 16, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 8, wherein, in said folded position, said first and second leg sections are folded longitudinally and transversely to form a compact configuration that fits within said pouch (Vanneste, “the first leg section 2 is longitudinally folded back on itself and the second leg section is also longitudinally folded back on itself […] the thereby folded suit 1 according to the invention will then be folded back transversely on itself into all three portions” paragraph 57; see figure 3). Examiner notes that the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e., folded) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Vanneste as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claim 25, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 1, wherein the pouch is made of a fabric that has particulate filtration capability and is a bacteriological barrier (as modified, the pouch is made of a fluid repellent Ripstop Nylon fabric as described in Dupont, which has a particulate filtration capability because it is capable of filtering particulates of some size (for instance, dirt or pebbles), and is a bacteriological barrier because it is fluid repellent which provides a barrier for infectious droplets or liquids carrying bacteria; see also Dupont column 1, lines 28-37 which describes the protective capabilities and specifically specifies that it “must not allow blood or other potentially infectious material to pass through to worker’s clothing, skin, or mucous membrane”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights