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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
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 1-3 and 5-9 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 1 states that the gusset comprises a portion of each of the outer textile layer, the inner textile layer, and the lining. The specification lacks written description support. Rather, the specification indicates that the gusset is “sewn into a straight slit of the lined garment” ([0033] and [0072]). The specification provides support for the gusset being made of the same synthetic polymer material as the components (having a first textile layer, a second textile layer, and a lining arranged between the first textile layer and the second textile layer) but specification lacks support for the gusset comprising a portion of said outer textile layer facing outwards, said inner textile layer facing inwards, and said lining arranged between the inner and outer textile layers. Rather, the gusset is sewn to said outer textile layer facing outwards, said inner textile layer facing inwards, and said lining arranged between the inner and outer textile layers.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,533,210 to Maderek in view of USPAP 2005/0081281 to Hannon, USPN 5,341,514 to Dale, and USPAP 2015/0374054 to Martin and further in view of (when necessary) USPN 5,990,444 to Costin.
Claim 1, Maderek discloses a lined garment consisting of components, all of which are made of the same synthetic polymer material, the components comprising; an outer textile layer facing outwards when the lined garment is worn by a person, and a lining, wherein the outer textile layer and the lining are manufactured individually, and a connecting means made of the same synthetic polymer material as the components; wherein the connecting means runs through the outer textile layer and the lining; wherein the lined garment is a jacket (see entire document including the title and column 1, line 46 through column 3, line 15).
Maderek does not appear to mention the presence of an inner textile layer facing inwards when the lined garment is worn by the person, such that the lining is arranged between the inner textile layer and the outer textile layer but Hannon and Dale each disclose that it is known in the art to construct a jacket with the claimed outer textile, lining, and inner textile construction (see entire documents including [0002]-[0004] or Hannon and column 2, line 62 through column 3, line 51 of Dale). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the recyclable jacket of Maderek with the claimed outer textile, lining, and inner textile construction, all made of the same synthetic polymer material, to provide a recyclable (without component separation) jacket with added fabric layer functionality such as waterproofness and/or insulation.
Maderek does not appear to mention the jacket having a hood and a gusset located in a front collar region and extending into a stomach region but Martin discloses that it is known in the art to construct a jacket with a hood and a gusset extending from the collar into the stomach region (and beyond) to increase warmth and insulation characteristics and to protect the wearer from the elements (see entire document including the Figure 3, [0003]-[0006], [0018], [0023]-[0026] and [0029]-[0031]). In addition, Dale discloses that it is known in the art to include a fabric panel extender extending from the collar into the stomach region (and beyond) to expand the jacket when desired wherein the extender is made of the same three textile layer outer/liner/inner textile material as the jacket (Figures 1-5 and column 2, line 39 through column 3, line 51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the recyclable jacket of Maderek with the claimed hood and the claimed gusset, extending from the collar to the stomach and comprising a portion of the outer textile, inner textile, and lining (as taught by Dale), to provide a recyclable jacket with increased comfort, warmth, insulation characteristics and/or to protect the wearer from the elements. Although a Dale gusset teaching is not necessary to properly reject the claims (Martin teaches a gusset and Dale teaches the claimed 3-layer material), it is noted that the jacket width extender of Dale is a type of gusset. A gusset is a fabric insert used to expand and add breadth or reduce stress in tight-fitting areas of a garment. While the extender of Dale refers to a removable accessory, it performs the same role as a permanent sewn-in gusset, which is to improve fit and provide extra room.
Maderek clearly discloses that the goal of the invention is to construct a fully recyclable textile that can be recycled without separating the individual textile components (column 1, lines 46-55). Maderek discloses this is accomplished as long as the (synthetic polymer material) components are capable of being mixed homogeneously with one another in the molten state (paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2). Maderek discloses that the sorted thermoplastic synthetic polymers may “comprise or consist of polyester” (column 2, lines 18-19) and further discloses that “for example all the components are polyester” (column 2, lines 23-25). Therefore, either Maderek sufficiently teaches constructing all the jacket components from the same synthetic polymer material (e.g. polyester) or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make all the jacket components from the exact same synthetic polymer material, to provide a jacket that can be recycled without separating the components and 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 and desired characteristics.
Claim 2, Hannon discloses the connecting means comprises seams formed from yarn, the yarn is manufactured individually beside the outer textile layer, the lining and the inner textile layer, and the yarn is sewn through the outer textile layer, the lining and the inner textile layer, wherein the outer textile layer is firmly connected to the inner textile layer and the lining is enclosed and fixed between the outer textile layer and the inner textile layer ([0002]-[0004]).
Claim 3, Hannon discloses the connecting means comprises weld seams created by friction welding, the weld seams run through the outer textile layer, the lining and the inner textile layer, so that the outer textile layer is firmly connected to the inner textile layer and so that the lining is enclosed and fixed between the outer textile layer and the inner textile layer ([0002]-[0004]).
Claim 5, Maderek discloses that the synthetic polymer material is recycled polyester or a thermoplastic polymer material selected from one of the following materials: thermoplastic polyurethane TPU, polyamide PA, polyethylene terephthalate PET, or polybutylene terephthalate PBT (column 2, lines 18-22).
Claim 6, Maderek discloses that the synthetic polymer material is configured to be processed into a recycled synthetic polymer material in a common recycling process for all components and the connecting means of the lined garment such that it can inherently serve as a recycled synthetic polymer material for the manufacture of at least one of the components or a connecting means of a further lined garment according to claim 1 (column 1, lines 46-50).
Claim 7, Maderek does not appear to mention the lined garment comprising a marking, wherein the marking is formed by laser cutting the outer textile layer or the inner textile layer, but Costin discloses that it is known in the art to laser cut a textile to form a graphic (see entire document including column 1, lines 10-30 and column 3, lines 1-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form a marking by laser cutting the outer textile layer and/or the inner textile layer to provide the garment with a graphic(s).
Claim 8, Maderek discloses that the lined garment comprises an adjustment means (e.g. drawstring) which is brought into different positions to form an opening of the lined garment that is opened or enlarged or reduced or closed, wherein the adjustment means is made of the same synthetic polymer material as the components and the connecting means (column 2, lines 37-41).
Claim 9, Maderek does not appear to mention the lined garment comprises a patch but Hannon discloses that it is known in the art to attach a patch on a garment [0030]. The examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that it is known in the art to attach a patch as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to attach a patch, as claimed, to the garment of Maderek, to provide the garment with patch functionality and/or aesthetics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789