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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10/06/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US11498244 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 10/06/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1, 4, 7-15, and 21-30 remain pending in the application.
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 (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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-15, 21, 25-26, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sidnell (US2838047 of record).
Regarding claim 1, Sidnell teaches:
A method of manufacturing a garment (col 1, ln 15-16), comprising:
providing a shaping mold (Fig 1: form 1; col 1, ln 32-35);
contacting the shaping mold with a first solution being at least one of: latex, natural rubber latex, synthetic latex, butyl rubber, polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), high density polyethylene, polypropylene, olefin copolymer, styrene/butadiene rubber (SBR), polyurethane, polyisoprene, polyvinylidene chloride, polychloroprene, carboxylated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber, nitrile, graphene, spinifex grass, other grass, nanocellulose, vegan material, hypoallergenic material, organic material, superelastomer, other elastomer, other polymer, other copolymer, other polyolefin, ammonia, water, soap, softening agents, accelerators, antioxidants, salts, stabilizers, defoamers, dispersants, wetting agents, de-aeraters, antifungal and antibacterial compounds, preservatives, pigments, anticoagulants, lubricants, potassium laureate, potassium oleate, potassium hydroxide, sulfur, zinc oxide, corn starch, chlorine, chalk, silica, clay, other additives, and a combination of any of the foregoing materials (Fig 1: latex 11; col 1, ln 32-35; col 3, ln 57-63);
removing the shaping mold from the solution when at least one of a gelled and a solidified coating of a desired thickness is produced on the shaping mold (col 2, ln 1-3);
drying and vulcanizing the coating on the shaping mold (col 1, ln 57-61; col 2, ln 39-40);
separating the coating from the shaping mold (col 2, ln 39-40); and
excising any excess material from at least one of a thigh portion and a torso portion of the coating (col 2, ln 36-39).
Regarding claim 4, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 1.
Sidnell further teaches wherein the coating is at least one of: a completely non-permeable material, a partially non-permeable material, a partially pliable material, and a completely pliable material (col 1, ln 20-21).
Regarding claim 7, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 1.
Sidnell further teaches wherein the coating is an elastomeric material having a thickness of one of: more than 0.33 millimeters, 0.33 millimeters, and less than 0.33 millimeters (col 3, ln 62-63).
Regarding claim 8, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 1.
Sidnell further teaches wherein the excising of the excess material occurs so that there is a front portion and a back portion of the coating joined so as to form an opening at a top portion of the coating, and so that two thigh portions for covering at least part of two respective thigh regions are provided (Fig 2: trim guiding groove 2, 3, 4; col 1, ln 50-52).
Regarding claim 21, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 1.
Sidnell further teaches wherein the mold is shifted (col 1, ln 62-63).
Regarding claim 25, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 1.
Sidnell further teaches at least one of: (i) leaching the material to remove impurities, (ii) curing the material by heat to set the material, (iii) thickening the edges of the material by adding additional material, (iv) thickening the edges of the material by rolling the existing material, (v) thickening the edges of the material by another means, and (vi) applying a powder to the material (col 2, ln 30-34).
Regarding claim 9, Sidnell teaches:
A method of manufacturing a garment (col 1, ln 15-16), comprising:
providing a shaping housing (Fig 1: form 1; col 1, ln 32-35);
contacting the shaping housing with a solution (Fig 1: latex 11; col 1, ln 32-35; col 3, ln 57-63);
removing the shaping housing from the solution when at least one of: a gelled and a solidified coating of a desired thickness, is produced on the shaping housing (col 2, ln 1-3);
drying and vulcanizing the coating on the shaping housing (col 1, ln 57-61; col 2, ln 39-40);
separating the coating from the shaping housing (col 2, ln 39-40); and
excising any excess material from at least one of a thigh portion and a torso portion of the coating (col 2, ln 36-39).
Regarding claim 10, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 9.
Sidnell further teaches wherein the solution is at least one of: latex, natural rubber latex, synthetic latex, butyl rubber, polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), high density polyethylene, polypropylene, olefin copolymer, styrene/butadiene rubber (SBR), polyurethane, polyisoprene, polyvinylidene chloride, polychloroprene, carboxylated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber, nitrile, graphene, spinifex grass, other grass, nanocellulose, vegan material, hypoallergenic material, organic material, superelastomer, other elastomer, other polymer, other copolymer, other polyolefin, ammonia, water, soap ,softening agents, accelerators, antioxidants, salts, stabilizers, defoamers, dispersants, wetting agents, de-aeraters, antifungal and antibacterial compounds, preservatives, pigments, anticoagulants, lubricants, potassium laureate, potassium oleate, potassium hydroxide, sulfur, zinc oxide, corn starch, chlorine, chalk, silica, clay, other additives, and a combination of any of the foregoing materials (Fig 1: latex 11; col 1, ln 32-35; col 3, ln 57-63).
Regarding claim 11, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 9.
Sidnell further teaches wherein the coating is seamless (Fig 4; col 2, ln 30-34; second dip completely coats the first deposit 15 and tapes 17-19 as shown in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 12, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 9.
Sidnell further teaches wherein the coating is at least one of a completely non-permeable material, a partially non-permeable material, a partially pliable material, and a completely pliable material (col 1, ln 20-21).
Regarding claim 13, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 12.
Sidnell further teaches wherein the partially non-permeable material has at least one of: a microscopic opening, a deficiency in the material, a weakness in the material, and an opening for design purposes (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 14, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 12.
Sidnell further teaches wherein the partially pliable material is at least one of: material having a non-flexible region and material having a reduced flexibility region (metal plate 30).
Regarding claim 15, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 9.
Sidnell further teaches wherein the shaping housing is put into contact with at least one solution to create the coating that has a thickness at least one of: more than 0.33 millimeters, 0.33 millimeters, and less than 0.33 millimeters (col 3, ln 62-63).
Regarding claim 26, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 9.
Sidnell further teaches wherein the mold is shifted (col 1, ln 62-63).
Regarding claim 30, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 9.
Sidnell further teaches at least one of: (i) leaching the material to remove impurities, (ii) curing the material by heat to set the material, (iii) thickening the edges of the material by adding additional material, (iv) thickening the edges of the material by rolling the existing material, (v) thickening the edges of the material by another means, and (vi) applying a powder to the material (col 2, ln 30-34).
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.
Claim(s) 22 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidnell in view of Anderson (US3005237 of record).
Regarding claim 22, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 1.
Sidnell does not teach wherein the mold is never in contact with a coagulant.
However, Sidnell teaches controlling the thickness of the latex by controlling the amount of coagulant.
In the same field of endeavor regarding garments, Anderson teaches applying no coagulant to the form where thicker deposits of rubber are not desired (col 1, ln 56-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Sidnell to use no coagulant to contact the form as taught by Anderson in order to produce latex dippings where thicker deposits of rubber are not desired.
Regarding claim 27, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 9.
Sidnell does not teach wherein the mold is never in contact with a coagulant.
However, Sidnell teaches controlling the thickness of the latex by controlling the amount of coagulant.
In the same field of endeavor regarding garments, Anderson teaches applying no coagulant to the form where thicker deposits of rubber are not desired (col 1, ln 56-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Sidnell to use no coagulant to contact the form as taught by Anderson in order to produce latex dippings where thicker deposits of rubber are not desired.
Claim(s) 23-24 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidnell.
Regarding claim 23, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 1.
Sidnell does not teach wherein the excess material is removed with at least one of: hand-cutting, die-cutting, or by use of a cutting press.
However, Sidnell teaches that the excess material is removed with cutting by a knife (col 2, ln 36-39).
Sidnell is silent as to whether the knife is hand operated or automated.
It has been held that providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(III) (B). Therefore, it must logically hold that a manual activity is obvious in view of the same activity performed by an automatic or mechanical means.
The knife cutting of Sidnell must be either manual or automated. Therefore, Sidnell either teaches or makes obvious hand-cutting of the excess material using a knife.
Regarding claim 24, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 1.
Sidnell further teaches wherein the excess material is removed from the front and the back of the garment in the same fashion (Fig 1; (col 2, ln 36-39)).
Sidnell does not teach wherein the excess material is removed from the front and the back simultaneously.
However, it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the excess material removal simultaneously.
Regarding claim 28, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 9.
Sidnell does not teach wherein the excess material is removed with at least one of: hand-cutting, die-cutting, or by use of a cutting press.
However, Sidnell teaches that the excess material is removed with cutting by a knife (col 2, ln 36-39).
Sidnell is silent as to whether the knife is hand operated or automated.
It has been held that providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(III) (B). Therefore, it must logically hold that a manual activity is obvious in view of the same activity performed by an automatic or mechanical means.
The knife cutting of Sidnell must be either manual or automated. Therefore, Sidnell either teaches or makes obvious hand-cutting of the excess material using a knife.
Regarding claim 29, Sidnell teaches the method of claim 9.
Sidnell further teaches wherein the excess material is removed from the front and the back of the garment in the same fashion (Fig 1; (col 2, ln 36-39)).
Sidnell does not teach wherein the excess material is removed from the front and the back simultaneously.
However, it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the excess material removal simultaneously.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sidnell teaches grooves 3, 4 while the instant invention does not. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the garment of Sidnell is not seamless as the tape attachments create seams. However, the examiner notes that none of the claims require that the garment be seamless. In particular, the examiner notes claim 11 recites “wherein the coating is seamless”. Sidnell teaches that second dip completely coats the first deposit 15 and tapes 17-19 as shown in Fig 4 (col 2, ln 30-34). Furthermore, applicant argues that the tapes 17-19 require seams in the final garment. However, this is directly contradicted by the above teaching, applicant has provided no evidence of such an assertion, and attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence.
Applicant argues that the order of steps of Sidnell are different from that of the instant invention, specifically that Sidnell teaches (1) dip, (2) cut, (3) vulcanized, (4) removed, while the instant requires (1) dipped, (2) vulcanized, (3) removed, and (4) cut. However, the examiner notes that the claims do not require cutting to occur after removal. The examiner notes that the order that steps are recited in the claims do not indicate an required order of carrying out the steps unless specifically claimed as such. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the present invention provides for a more efficient process by cutting simultaneously, and that cutting on the mold prevents such efficiencies. However, applicant has not shown how the modification that makes obvious the simultaneous cutting would produce unexpected results. A simple saving in time from conducting two steps simultaneously is logical and would not be considered an unexpected result to one of ordinary skill. Applicant has provided no evidence of unexpected results, and attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence. It is also not clear how cutting on the mold prevents such efficiencies, as cutting on the mold does not have any discernible effects on increasing time of the process as compared to cutting after removal, either logically, or from any teaching in Sidnell. Applicant has provided no evidence of such an assertion, and attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence.
Applicant argues that Sidnell causes wear and tear on the form itself. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, applicant has provided no evidence of such an assertion, and attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence.
Applicant argues that vulcanizing after cutting as taught by Sidnell can cause irregularities in the produced garments. Applicant has provided no evidence of such an assertion, and attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741