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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 12/5/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
It is noted that Applicant has canceled all of the non-elected claims. As such, the restriction requirement is withdrawn and no longer relevant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 21, and 22 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 1: "microplastic attraction and capture middle layer" is indefinite as it is unclear what the required structure is to meet the requirement of this limitation.
Claim 1: "water resistant" is indefinite as it is unclear what structure is required to meet the requirement of this limitation.
Claim 2: "swimwear lining" is indefinite as it is unclear what the required structure is to meet the requirement of this limitation.
Claim 4: "spacer fabric" is indefinite as it is unclear what the required structure is to meet the requirement of this limitation.
Claim 6: "athletic mesh" and "sport mesh" are indefinite as it is unclear what the required structure is to meet the requirement of this limitation.
Claims 6 and 7 recites “wherein the water resistant inner layer…and capture middle layer;” but do not describe any additional feature of the layers in the “wherein” clause. It is unclear if there is intended to be another limitation or if this clause is simply redundant. For claim interpretation purposes it is interpreted as redundant and included mistakenly.
Claim 10: "microplastic attraction and capture middle layer" is indefinite as it is unclear what the required structure is to meet the requirement of this limitation.
Claim 10: "water resistant" is indefinite as it is unclear what structure is required to meet the requirement of this limitation.
Claim 11: "swimwear lining" is indefinite as it is unclear what the required structure is to meet the requirement of this limitation.
Claim 13: "spacer fabric" is indefinite as it is unclear what the required structure is to meet the requirement of this limitation.
Claim 15: "athletic mesh" and "sport mesh" are indefinite as it is unclear what the required structure is to meet the requirement of this limitation.
Claim 21: "water resistant" is indefinite as it is unclear what structure is required to meet the requirement of this limitation.
Claim 22: “and 45 wt.% of a polyester microfiber cloth” is indefinite as it is unclear from the claim what portion of the claimed “garment” comprises this limitation. The grammar makes it unclear if this is an additional layer or if this is part of one of the inner layer, middle layer, or outer layer.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carpenter (US Pub. No. 2022/0160552).
Claims 1 and 10: Carpenter teaches a water resistant inner layer (Fig. 7B, 702), a microplastic attraction and capture middle layer (Fig. 7B, 704B), and a microplastic collection outer layer, wherein the microplastic collection outer layer contains a plurality of openings (Fig. 7B, 706).
Claims 2, 3, 11, and 12: the water resistant inner layer is swimwear lining made of spandex (Fig. 7B, 702).
Claims 4 and 13: the microplastic attraction and capture middle layer is made from terry cloth (Fig. 7B, 704B).
Claims 5 and 14: the material is made from polyester fibers [0046].
Claims 6 and 15: the outer layer is made from mesh [0043].
Claims 7 and 16: the mesh is made of cellulose which is a natural material [0043].
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.
Claims 8, 9, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nordness et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0139720).
Claims 8 and 17: Carpenter does not teach the opening size of the mesh openings.
Nordness et al. teach a bathing suit material comprising a mesh outer layer wherein the mesh size comprises from about 147.3-5810 microns (converts to 0.1473mm-5.81mm). The mesh is sized to prevent certain materials from passing through [0073]. The size of a mesh opening is a result effective variable that is routinely optimized as needed to control passing or retaining of desired elements.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 9 and 18: Carpenter teaches that the layers are bonded using sewing, adhesive, tape [0039], bonding [0034], or “other techniques” [0034]. Carpenter does not teach that the layers are bonded using ultrasonic bonding specifically.
Nordness et al. teach ultrasonic bonding as an obvious alternative type of bonding to sewing and other types of bonding [0081]. The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Claim 21: Carpenter teaches a water resistant inner layer (Fig. 7B, 702), a microplastic attraction and capture middle layer (Fig. 7B, 704B), and a microplastic collection outer layer, wherein the microplastic collection outer layer contains a plurality of openings (Fig. 7B, 706). The water resistant inner layer is swimwear lining made of spandex (Fig. 7B, 702). The microplastic attraction and capture middle layer is made from terry cloth (Fig. 7B, 704B). The material is made from polyester fibers [0046]. The outer layer is made from mesh [0043]. The mesh is made of cellulose which is a natural material [0043].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22 is indicated as allowable as none of the prior art discloses the specific combination of materials and percentages of materials as recited in Claim 22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON FITZSIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 2:00 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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
ALLISON FITZSIMMONS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/ALLISON G FITZSIMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773