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
Applicant’s amendment, filed 29 April 2026, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Amended
1, 24-26, and 39
Withdrawn
11-20
Canceled
21-22, 27-30, 35-36
Pending
1-20, 23-26, 31-34, 37-40
Presented for Examination
1-10, 23-26, 31-34, 37-40
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Drawing Objections, Specification Objections, Claim Objections, 112(a) Rejections, 112(b) Rejections
Overcome by the amendments and withdrawn.
103 Rejections
The arguments that are drawn to newly amended subject matter are addressed in the rejections below.
Applicant argues Marder’s pouch structure differs from the present pouch structure. Examiner agrees that the pouch structure shown in Applicant’s FIG 3 differs from the pouch structure taught by Marder. However, Applicant’s claims are broad enough to include a pouch that is a folded up portion of the bib, and Marder reads on the claimed pouch.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant does not separately argue against the dependent claim rejections.
In light of the above, the rejection is believed to be proper.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 39-40 were indicated allowable in the previous office action. However, Applicant’s amendments broaden claims 39-40 such that the prior art reads on the claims. There are no allowable claims.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 29 April 2026. These drawings are not acceptable.
Replacement FIG 3 introduces new matter which is adhesive seal 309E.
Originally filed para. 0040 discloses “The pouch may include a removable adhesive seal along the fourth side.” The adhesive seal is an optional feature and the originally filed drawings do not support an adhesive seal as a feature of the FIG 3 embodiment. The addition of the adhesive seal 309E introduces new matter.
Please note that the other amendments to FIG 3 which is references numbers 309A-309D would be acceptable to enter if submitted without 309E and its structure.
FIG 4A would be acceptable to enter if submitted independently of FIG 3.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the adhesive seal (claims 1, 11, and 39) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “wherein the pouch is attached to the bib” (claim 24). Claim 1 from which claim 24 depends recites “the pouch is being formed into the bib.” Para. 0040 discloses, “the pouch may be incorporated into the dispensable bib 302 or attached to the dispensable bib 302.” Therefore, according to the disclosure, the pouch being “formed into the bib” and the pouch being “attached to the bib” are alternative embodiments, and the disclosure does not support a single embodiment where the bib is both “formed into” and “attached to” the bib.
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 24-26 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.
The new matter is “wherein the pouch is attached to the bib” (claim 24). Claim 1 from which claim 24 depends recites “the pouch is being formed into the bib.” Para. 0040 discloses, “the pouch may be incorporated into the dispensable bib 302 or attached to the dispensable bib 302.” Therefore, according to the disclosure, the pouch being “formed into the bib” and the pouch being “attached to the bib” are alternative embodiments, and the disclosure does not support a single embodiment where the bib is both “formed into” and “attached to” the bib.
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 24-26 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 24 is indefinite because it is not clear how the pouch can be both “formed into” as required by claim 1 and “attached to” the bib as required by claim 24.
Claim 25 is indefinite because it cannot be determined to which or all of the “adhesive areas” the claim is referring.
Claim 26 is indefinite because it cannot be determined to which or all of the “adhesive areas” the claim is referring.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-4, 23-26, 31-34, 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 3735865 A), hereinafter, “Smith 1” in view of Musselwhite (US 2621330 A), Smith et al. (US 6216269 B1), hereinafter, “Smith 2,” Cheng et al. (US 20130074239 A1), hereinafter, “Cheng,” Marder et al. (US 3416157 A), and Smith (US 4225977 A), hereinafter, “Smith 3”.
As to claim 1, Smith 1 discloses a method of deploying a bib from a continuum of dispensable bibs suitable for protecting a torso of a wearer from spillage (“ROLL OF PLASTIC FILM APRONS,” title; the Smith 1 “apron” is equivalent to the claimed “bib”), the method comprising the steps of:
tearing (col 2 line 60-65 discloses, “In FIG. 2, the apron 4 has been torn from the roll”) a continuum of bib material (roll 1 of plastic film 3; see fig 1) comprising a first surface and a second surface (fig 3 shows a surface and the bib necessarily has a second surface opposite the surface shown in fig 3) along a series of multiple bib separation perforations formed into the continuum of the bib material in an arcuate pattern defining a shape of the bib (perforations 5 and 5', see modification below regarding “arcuate”);
creating a head flap (cutout portion 10) via tearing a series of multiple head flap perforations (plurality of perforations 9, col 2 line 40-45 discloses removing 10 via 9 and one of ordinary skill would recognize that 10 would obviously be removed by tearing along 9) additionally formed into the continuum of the bib material in a pattern defining a shape of the head flap (fig 3);
said folding of the head flap at the base of the head flap down from the series of multiple head flap perforations (see modification below regarding “folding of the head flap”) creating a head space bordered by a neck collar of the bib material within the pattern defining the shape of the bib (a head and neck opening 12 in the center portion 11, where 12 is “a head space” and 11 is “a neck collar”), the head space being sizeable for circumventing a head of the wearer (capable of circumventing, see col 2 line 40-45 which discloses, “When the arcuate cutout 10 is removed from the apron it provides a neck opening to fit over the head and neck of the user when the apron is removed from the roll.”), and
the head space is formed by detaching the head flap along the series of multiple head flap perforations (Smith 1 fig 3, where 10 is detached to form a head space);
creating a securing strap via tearing along multiple securing strap perforations (tie straps 8 torn from cutout 7 via perforations 6, see col 2 line 30-40), wherein the securing strap is separable from the neck collar via the multiple securing strap perforations (capable of being separated and intended to be separated).
Smith 1 does not disclose “base material providing physical characteristics, a first surface comprising a liquid resistant material, and a second surface comprising an absorbent.”
Smith 1 does disclose a base material of plastic, which necessarily has “physical characteristics,” but is silent as to the properties of the plastic.
Smith 2 teaches similar bib, including base material providing physical characteristics (bib portion 24 necessarily has “physical characteristics”), a first surface comprising a liquid resistant material (fluid impermeable layer 30), and a second surface comprising an absorbent (absorbent top layer 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the base material of Smith 1 with a first surface comprising a liquid resistant material, and a second surface comprising an absorbent, for the purpose of providing a barrier layer that will protect an underlying garment.
Smith 1 does not disclose the series of multiple head flap perforations define a boundary of the head flap except a base of the head flap, enabling the head flap to be folded downwards at the base of the head flap; folding the head flap at the base of the head flap down from the series of multiple head flap perforations to cause a portion of the second surface of the bib material comprising the head flap to cover a corresponding area of the first surface of the bib material.
Smith 1 discloses the head flap perforations defining a boundary of the head flap and removing the head flap.
Musselwhite teaches a similar bib (title) including the head flap (7) a series of multiple perforations (5) define a boundary of the head flap except a base of the head flap (figs 2, 4, and 5), enabling the head flap to be folded downwards at the base of the head flap (capable of being folded and intended to be folded as shown in figs 4 and 5); folding the head flap at the base of the head flap down from the series of multiple head flap perforations to cause a portion of the second surface of the bib material comprising the head flap to cover a corresponding area of the first surface of the bib material (7 covers 6 as shown in figs 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the head flap of Smith 1 with a boundary as taught by Musselwhite as well as the folding step taught by Musselwhite in order to form a napkin or shield (Musselwhite col 2 line 25-30).
Smith 1 does not disclose receiving a substance on one of the first surface and the second surface of the bib material as the bib is supported against the torso of the wearer.
Musselwhite teaches receiving a substance on one of the first surface and the second surface of the bib material as the bib is supported against the torso of the wearer (col 1 line 1-15).
Furthermore, it is the known function of aprons and bibs to be worn over the body to protect the body and garments from substances being spilled on the body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to receiving a substance for the purpose of demonstrating the apron/ bib will protect the garment worn under the apron/ bib.
Smith 1 does not disclose defining a border in between the neck collar and the securing strap, the neck collar and the securing strap abutting each other along the multiple securing strap perforations formed alongside the bib.
Cheng teaches a similar method of deploying a bib (“Apron of One Piece Design,” title) including creating a securing strap via tearing along multiple securing strap perforations (one or both of neck belts 18 and the waist belts 10, perforations “A” are the multiple securing strap perforations) defining a border in between the neck collar and the securing strap (slits 12 and/ or 13 are the border), the neck collar and the securing strap abutting each other along the multiple securing strap perforations formed alongside the bib (the neck collar is the portion of 1 between 11 and 12/13/14; FIG 4 shows 10/18 abutting the collar along perforations “A”), wherein the securing strap is separable from the neck collar via the multiple securing strap perforations (capable of being separated and intended to be separated).
The Smith 1 structure of straps separated from the neck collar by a cutout is known to Cheng (Cheng FIG 1), and Cheng has improved upon the Smith 1 structure by eliminating the cutout so that the straps and neck collar abut each other along perforations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to eliminate the cutouts 7 of Smith 1 and to instead provide the structure of Cheng where the straps and neck collar abut, for the purpose of decreasing exposure area and waste material (Cheng para. 0006).
Smith 1 does not disclose forming a pouch from a material used to form the continuum of the bib material, the pouch being formed into the bib, and comprising three sides essentially sealed thereby forming a cavity, and a fourth side sealable via a removable adhesive seal along the fourth side.
Marder teaches a similar method (“disposable bib,” title) including forming a pouch from a material used to form the continuum of the bib material, the pouch being formed into the bib, and comprising three sides essentially sealed thereby forming a cavity, and a fourth side sealable via a removable adhesive seal along the fourth side (the bottom of the bib is folded up along fold line 40 and sealed with adhesive 32 and 34 which is along both lateral side edges and partially along the top edge; the pouch is integral with/ formed into the rest of the bib).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a pouch with the Smith 1 bib by providing adhesive and a fold line as taught by Marder, for the purpose of preventing spillage from reaching the floor and storing items (Marder col 3 line 10-20).
Smith 1 does not disclose the shape of the bib is “arcuate.”
Smith 3 teaches a similar bib including rounded corners at 4 and 4’ which result in the bib having an arcuate shape.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to round the corners of Smith 1 to achieve an arcuate shape as taught by Smith 3 because Applicant has not disclosed that the arcuate shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with straight or rounded corners because the shape will not affect the function of the bib. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Smith 1 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
As to claim 2, Smith 1 as modified discloses the method of Claim 1, additionally comprising the step of: folding the head flap away from a neck strap, via the folding of the head flap down from the series of multiple head flap perforations (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 1 above; see Musselwhite figs 1 and 6); wherein the fourth side is adjacent the base of the head flap and the pouch is incorporated into the bib (the fourth side is Smith 1’s lowermost peripheral edge of the bib, equivalent to Marder’s 38 in FIG 5, and all of the component parts are adjacent one another).
As to claim 3, Smith 1 as modified discloses the method of Claim 1, additionally comprising the steps of: forming the head space via the tearing of the series of multiple head flap perforations (Smith 1 discloses these steps as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the pouch is incorporated into the bib (Smith as modified by Marder discloses this structure as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above).
As to claim 4, Smith 1 as modified discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the substance received on the one of the first surface and the second surface comprises a liquid (Musselwhite col 1 line 6) and the method additionally comprises the step of: absorbing the liquid received on the one of the first surface and the second surface into the bib material (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, Smith 1 as modified by Smith 2 results in “an absorbent” and a known property of absorbents is the ability to absorb liquid).
As to claim 23, Smith 1 discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the base material is located between the absorbent and the liquid resistant material (see the rejection of claim 1 above), and the method additionally comprises the step of receiving the substance on one of the absorbent and the liquid resistant material of the continuum of the bib material as the bib is supported against the torso of the wearer (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
As to claim 24, as best understood, Smith 1 as modified discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the pouch is attached to the bib (see the modification presented in the rejection of claim 1 above) and the bib further comprises adhesive areas to allow closure of the bib after use of the bib (see annotated FIG 3 below; Examiner notes that the term "area" is very broad and merely means "a section, portion, or part". (Defn. No. 3 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com), the term “adhesive” does not lend any particular structure to the claimed “area,” in para. 0030 Applicant discloses the “adhesive area” is an area of the bib that does not necessarily include any adhesive).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 25, as best understood, Smith 1 wherein the adhesive areas are located on the neck collar to allow closure of the bib after use (see annotated FIG 3 above).
As to claim 26, as best understood, Smith 1 as modified discloses the method of Claim 24, wherein the adhesive areas comprise a scent quality to mask scent of a used bib (the areas have an inherent “scent quality” imparted by the material and “scent quality” is broad enough to include the quality of being scented or unscented), the scent quality being created through use of one or more oils (please note that the claim does not require “oil;” The recitation “created through use of one or more oils” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).).
As to claim 31, Smith 1 as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the neck collar is configured to rest on a neck behind a the head of the wearer (see the rejection of claim 1 above and Smith 1 fig 3).
As to claim 32, Smith 1 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the head space is formed by detaching the head flap from the series of multiple head flap perforations toward the base of the head flap down from the head flap perforations, and wherein the head flap includes one of: a circular shape and a stadium shape (Smith 1 fig 3).
As to claim 33, Smith 1 as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the series of multiple bib separation perforations formed into the continuum of the bib material comprises arcuate bib separation perforations comprising an arcuate lap contour (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 1 above, where Smith 1’s corners are modified to be rounded as taught by Smith 3, which results in an arcuate lap contour).
As to claim 34, Smith 1 as modified discloses the bib comprises a leg extension (Smith 1 fig 3, the lower portion of the bib which extends from the top portion).
As to claim 37, Smith 1 discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the first surface, comprising the liquid resistant material, comprises a separate layer from the second surface, comprising the absorbent (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 1 above), and the folding of the head flap at the base of the head flap down from the series of multiple head flap perforations to cause the portion of the second surface of the bib material comprising the head flap to cover the corresponding area of the first surface of the bib material (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 1 above), allows the second surface to be an absorbent top surface over the first surface thereby becoming an additional layer of protection to catch a dropped liquid in the absorbent (capable of allowing; this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 1 above).
As to claim 38, Smith 1 discloses the method of Claim 1 wherein the base material providing the physical characteristics, the absorbent, and the liquid resistant material are combined together to form a single material (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 1 above) such that multiple desired properties exist in the single material that make up the continuum of bib material (a single material will have multiple properties such as hand, drape, color, size, shape, etc.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 3735865 A), hereinafter, “Smith 1” in view of Musselwhite (US 2621330 A), Smith et al. (US 6216269 B1), hereinafter, “Smith 2,” Cheng et al. (US 20130074239 A1), hereinafter, “Cheng,” Marder et al. (US 3416157 A), and Smith (US 4225977 A), hereinafter, “Smith 3” as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Swanson et al. (US 20210137176 A1).
As to claim 5, Smith 1 does not disclose the method of Claim 4, wherein the one of the first surface and the second surface comprises a super absorbent polymer and the liquid is absorbed at least partially by the super absorbent polymer.
Swanson teaches a similar bib (“Moisture Wicking Bib Assembly,” title) including a first (14) and second (16) surface, and the one of the first surface and the second surface comprises a super absorbent polymer (16; para. 0017 discloses, “The bib 12 has a second layer 16 that is comprised of a fluid absorbent material to absorb moisture wicked by the first layer 14. The fluid absorbing material may include, but not be limited to, a superabsorbent polymer or other type of fluid absorbing material.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the absorbent material of Smith 1 to be superabsorbent polymer, since it is 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. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the absorbent material of Smith 1 to be superabsorbent polymer, for the purpose of absorbing moisture (Swanson para. 0017).
When the Smith 1 bib is provided with superabsorbent polymer, the liquid will obviously be absorbed at least partially by the super absorbent polymer.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 3735865 A), hereinafter, “Smith 1” in view of Musselwhite (US 2621330 A), Smith et al. (US 6216269 B1), hereinafter, “Smith 2,” Cheng et al. (US 20130074239 A1), hereinafter, “Cheng,” Marder et al. (US 3416157 A), and Smith (US 4225977 A), hereinafter, “Smith 3” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the SUNVENO video (Applicant’s 6/26/2023 IDS, NPL #2).
As to claim 6, Smith 1 as modified discloses pouch is sealed at at least one side of the plurality of sides (Smith 1 as modified by Marder results in the pouch being completely sealed by adhesive along two lateral sides and partially sealed by adhesive along the top side); and
the pouch is attached to the bib (via the fold line and adhesive), but does not disclose the method additionally comprises the step of folding the bib into the pouch.
Sunveno teaches the bib comprises a pouch (0:31-0:37) and the method additionally comprises the step of folding the bib into the pouch (0:57-1:01).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to fold the bib into the pouch, for the purpose of more easily catching spills that run down the bib and to reduce a footprint of the bib after use.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 3735865 A), hereinafter, “Smith 1” in view of Musselwhite (US 2621330 A), Smith et al. (US 6216269 B1), hereinafter, “Smith 2,” Cheng et al. (US 20130074239 A1), hereinafter, “Cheng,” Marder et al. (US 3416157 A), and Smith (US 4225977 A), hereinafter, “Smith 3” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazursky (US 9155338 B2).
As to claim 7, Smith 1 as modified does not disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein the pattern defining the shape of the bib comprises multiple series of head flap perforations along a length of the continuum of dispensable bibs, each series corresponding with a different head size of a respective bib along the length of the continuum of dispensable bibs, and the method additionally comprises the step of selecting one of the multiple series of head flap perforations to tear to select a suitable sized bib along the length of the continuum of dispensable bibs.
Mazursky teaches a similar bib (“Objects with built-in, variably-sized, removable portions,” title; and col 2 line 50-55 teaches, “object 100 may be a bib or surgical gown”) including wherein the pattern defining the shape of the bib comprises multiple series of head flap perforations (col 3 line 20-25 teaches, “the separation edges 102 may be perforations”), each series corresponding with a different head size (col 3 line 17-41), and the method additionally comprises the step of selecting one of the multiple series of head flap perforations to tear (col 3 line 17-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide multiple series of head flap perforations along a length of the continuum of dispensable bibs, each series corresponding with a different head size of a respective bib along the length of the continuum of dispensable bibs, and the method additionally comprises the step of selecting one of the multiple series of head flap perforations to tear to select a suitable sized bib along the length of the continuum of dispensable bibs, for the purpose of providing an opening size selectable by a user (Mazursky col 3 line 5-16).
As to claim 8, Smith 1 discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein the liquid resistant material is configured to repel a liquid (it is a known property of liquid impermeable material to repel liquid).
As to claim 10, Smith 1 as modified does not disclose the method of Claim 8, wherein the liquid resistant material comprises a wax.
Smith 1 as modified discloses liquid resistant material, but does not expressly disclose that material is wax.
Marder teaches a similar bib (“Disposable bib,” title) including wax (col 2 line 26-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide wax, since it is 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. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide wax, for the purpose of providing a known waterproof material.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 3735865 A), hereinafter, “Smith 1” in view of Musselwhite (US 2621330 A), Smith et al. (US 6216269 B1), hereinafter, “Smith 2,” Cheng et al. (US 20130074239 A1), hereinafter, “Cheng,” Marder et al. (US 3416157 A), Smith (US 4225977 A), hereinafter, “Smith 3”, and Mazursky (US 9155338 B2) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Savin et al. (US 4475250 A).
As to claim 9, Smith 1 as modified does not disclose the method of Claim 8, wherein the liquid resistant material comprises a polyurethane.
Smith 1 as modified discloses liquid resistant material, but does not expressly disclose that material is polyurethane.
Savin teaches a similar bib (“Disposable bib,” title) including “The waterproof layer is composed of a thermoplastic resin such as… polyurethane.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide polyurethane, since it is 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. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide polyurethane, for the purpose of providing a known waterproof material.
Claim(s) 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 3735865 A), hereinafter, “Smith 1” in view of Musselwhite (US 2621330 A), Smith et al. (US 6216269 B1), hereinafter, “Smith 2,” Cheng et al. (US 20130074239 A1), hereinafter, “Cheng,” and Marder et al. (US 3416157 A).
As to claim 39, Smith 1 discloses a method of deploying a bib from a continuum of dispensable bibs suitable for protecting a torso of a wearer from spillage (“ROLL OF PLASTIC FILM APRONS,” title; the Smith 1 “apron” is equivalent to the claimed “bib”), the method comprising the steps of:
tearing (col 2 line 60-65 discloses, “In FIG. 2, the apron 4 has been torn from the roll”) a continuum of bib material (roll 1 of plastic film 3; see fig 1) comprising a first surface and a second surface (fig 3 shows a surface and the bib necessarily has a second surface opposite the surface shown in fig 3) along a series of multiple bib separation perforations formed into the continuum of the bib material in an arcuate pattern defining a shape of the bib (perforations 5 and 5', see modification below regarding “arcuate”);
creating a head flap (cutout portion 10) via tearing a series of multiple head flap perforations (plurality of perforations 9, col 2 line 40-45 discloses removing 10 via 9 and one of ordinary skill would recognize that 10 would obviously be removed by tearing along 9) additionally formed into the continuum of the bib material in a pattern defining a shape of the head flap (fig 3);
said folding of the head flap at the base of the head flap down from the series of multiple head flap perforations (see modification below regarding “folding of the head flap”) creating a head space bordered by a neck collar of the bib material within the pattern defining the shape of the bib (a head and neck opening 12 in the center portion 11, where 12 is “a head space” and 11 is “a neck collar”), the head space being sizeable for circumventing a head of the wearer (capable of circumventing, see col 2 line 40-45 which discloses, “When the arcuate cutout 10 is removed from the apron it provides a neck opening to fit over the head and neck of the user when the apron is removed from the roll.”), leaving a strip of the bib material along the series of multiple head flap perforations as the neck collar (11 is “a neck collar”);
the head space is formed by detaching the head flap along the series of multiple head flap perforations (Smith 1 fig 3, where 10 is detached to form a head space);
creating a securing strap via tearing along multiple securing strap perforations in between the neck collar and the securing strap that abut each other (tie straps 8 torn from cutout 7 via perforations 6, see col 2 line 30-40; see modification with Cheng below regarding “abut”), to separate the securing strap from the neck collar (capable of being separated and intended to be separated).
Smith 1 does not disclose “base material providing physical characteristics, a first surface comprising a liquid resistant material, and a second surface comprising an absorbent.”
Smith 1 does disclose a base material of plastic, which necessarily has “physical characteristics,” but is silent as to the properties of the plastic.
Smith 2 teaches similar bib, including base material providing physical characteristics (bib portion 24 necessarily has “physical characteristics”), a first surface comprising a liquid resistant material (fluid impermeable layer 30), and a second surface comprising an absorbent (absorbent top layer 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the base material of Smith 1 with a first surface comprising a liquid resistant material, and a second surface comprising an absorbent, for the purpose of providing a barrier layer that will protect an underlying garment.
Smith 1 does not disclose the series of multiple head flap perforations define a boundary of the head flap except a base of the head flap, enabling the head flap to be folded downwards at the base of the head flap; folding the head flap at the base of the head flap down from the series of multiple head flap perforations to cause a portion of the second surface of the bib material comprising the head flap to cover a corresponding area of the first surface of the bib material.
Smith 1 discloses the head flap perforations defining a boundary of the head flap and removing the head flap.
Musselwhite teaches a similar bib (title) including the head flap (7) a series of multiple perforations (5) define a boundary of the head flap except a base of the head flap (figs 2, 4, and 5), enabling the head flap to be folded downwards at the base of the head flap (capable of being folded and intended to be folded as shown in figs 4 and 5); folding the head flap at the base of the head flap down from the series of multiple head flap perforations to cause a portion of the second surface of the bib material comprising the head flap to cover a corresponding area of the first surface of the bib material (7 covers 6 as shown in figs 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the head flap of Smith 1 with a boundary as taught by Musselwhite as well as the folding step taught by Musselwhite in order to form a napkin or shield (Musselwhite col 2 line 25-30).
Smith 1 does not disclose receiving a substance on one of the first surface and the second surface of the bib material as the bib is supported against the torso of the wearer.
Musselwhite teaches receiving a substance on one of the first surface and the second surface of the bib material as the bib is supported against the torso of the wearer (col 1 line 1-15).
Furthermore, it is the known function of aprons and bibs to be worn over the body to protect the body and garments from substances being spilled on the body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to receiving a substance for the purpose of demonstrating the apron/ bib will protect the garment worn under the apron/ bib.
Smith 1 does not disclose the neck collar and the securing strap abutting each other.
Cheng teaches a similar method of deploying a bib (“Apron of One Piece Design,” title) including creating a securing strap via tearing along multiple securing strap perforations (one or both of neck belts 18 and the waist belts 10, perforations “A” are the multiple securing strap perforations) defining a border in between the neck collar and the securing strap (slits 12 and/ or 13 are the border), the neck collar and the securing strap abutting each other along the multiple securing strap perforations formed alongside the bib (the neck collar is the portion of 1 between 11 and 12/13/14; FIG 4 shows 10/18 abutting the collar along perforations “A”), wherein the securing strap is separable from the neck collar via the multiple securing strap perforations (capable of being separated and intended to be separated).
The Smith 1 structure of straps separated from the neck collar by a cutout is known to Cheng (Cheng FIG 1), and Cheng has improved upon the Smith 1 structure by eliminating the cutout so that the straps and neck collar abut each other along perforations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to eliminate the cutouts 7 of Smith 1 and to instead provide the structure of Cheng where the straps and neck collar abut, for the purpose of decreasing exposure area and waste material (Cheng para. 0006).
Smith 1 does not disclose forming a pouch from a material used to form the continuum of the bib material and comprising three sides essentially sealed thereby forming a cavity, and a fourth side sealable via an adhesive seal along the fourth side adjacent the base of the head flap, the pouch being part of the bib and usable to store the bib in a folded state prior to use and to store the bib after the bib has received a substance to become soiled.
Marder teaches a similar method (“disposable bib,” title) including forming a pouch from a material used to form the continuum of the bib material and comprising three sides essentially sealed thereby forming a cavity, and a fourth side sealable via an adhesive seal along the fourth side adjacent the base of the head flap (the bottom of the bib is folded up along fold line 40 and sealed with adhesive 32 and 34 which is along both lateral side edges and partially along the top edge; the pouch is integral with/ formed into the rest of the bib), the pouch being part of the bib (the pouch is integral/ part of the bib) and usable to store the bib in a folded state prior to use and to store the bib after the bib has received a substance to become soiled (the pouch is capable of being used to store the bib in a folded state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a pouch with the Smith 1 bib by providing adhesive and a fold line as taught by Marder, for the purpose of preventing spillage from reaching the floor and storing items (Marder col 3 line 10-20).
As to claim 40, Smith 1 as modified discloses the method of Claim 39, wherein the first surface comprising the liquid resistant material comprises a separate layer from the second surface comprising an absorbent (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 39 above, where Smith 1’s material is modified to be two layers taught by Smith 2), and the folding of the head flap at the base of the head flap down from the series of multiple head flap perforations to cause the portion of the second surface of the bib material comprising the head flap to cover the corresponding area of the first surface of the bib material (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 39 above), allows the first surface to be a liquid resistant top surface over the second surface, becoming an additional layer of protection to catch a dropped liquid (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 39 above).
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.
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 SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights