DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03 September 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, received 03 September 2025, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a non-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
6, 14, 16, 21-23
Withdrawn
20
Canceled
1-5
Pending
6-23
Presented for Examination
6-19 and 21-23
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
112(b) Rejections
Overcome by the amendments and withdrawn.
102 Rejections
The 102 rejections are overcome by the amendments and withdrawn. The arguments are drawn to newly added subject matter which is addressed in the rejections below.
103 Rejections
Applicant does not separately argue the 103 rejections.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06 December 2024. These drawings are not acceptable.
Fig. 16 filed 12/6/2024 is objected to because it includes improper shading which reduces legibility of the drawing. Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings (MPEP 37 CFR 1.84)(a)(1). The specification recites that fig. 16 is a graphical representation of thermal imaging but it is not clear what part of the garment is shown here. It also appears to contain new matter because it contains different colored parts and lines than appear in the original figure 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 16, 7-9, 14-15, 22-23, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bay et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6263510) in view of Aldridge (US 6845517 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Bay teaches a protective garment (14), comprising: an outer shell (60,61); a moisture barrier (16,66) (col. 2, lines 56-68) disposed adjacent the outer shell (figs. 7,8), wherein the moisture barrier comprises at least one of a substrate layer and a membrane layer (comprises substrate layer, 16 which underlies the outer layer and 66) ; a thermal liner (18,20) (col. 2, lines 59-65) disposed adjacent the moisture barrier (figs. 2,7), wherein the thermal liner comprises a facecloth layer (18) and at least one insulation layer (20) (col. 2, lines 47-65); and at least one vent ( 51’,52’, col. 4, lines 31-38) (fig. 7) is formed in the thermal liner (18,20)(fig. 7), wherein an insert (54’) spans the at least one vent (col. 4, lines 36-38), but does not disclose the insert is substantially liquid-impermeable and substantially heat transferable.
Bay discloses insert/ material 54, 54’ allows air to enter the garment while preventing objects from entering the garment, and also holds together the vent/ opening (col 3 line 50-60 and col 4 line 30-40).
However, Bay does not disclose the insert/ material “is substantially liquid-impermeable and substantially heat transferable.”
Aldridge teaches a similar jacket (FIG 1) including providing a layer (50) of ePTFE (col 2 line 50-60). It is known to provide ePTFE in garments such as jackets for its properties of being “be generally moisture vapor permeable but generally impermeable to liquid moisture.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Bay’s material to be ePTFE, which is a known material that is “substantially liquid-impermeable and substantially heat transferable,” 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 Bay’s material to be ePTFE, which is a known material that is “substantially liquid-impermeable and substantially heat transferable,” for the purpose of providing a material that prevents objects from entering the garment, and also holds together the vent/ opening as intended by Bay and additionally is generally moisture vapor permeable but generally impermeable to liquid moisture as taught by Aldridge which would enhance wearer comfort by ventilating the wearer’s body heat while protecting the wearer from rain.
Regarding claim 7, Bay teaches at least one vent ( 51’,52’, col. 4, lines 31-38) (fig. 7) is formed in the thermal liner (18,20)(fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Bay teaches wherein the at least one vent is an opening formed in at least one of the layers of the thermal liner (col. 4, lines 31-38) (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Bay teaches the insert (54’) spans the opening formed in the at least one of the layers of the thermal liner (col. 4, lines 36-38).
Regarding claim 14, Bay teaches at least a portion of the insert (54’) is substantially water vapor permeable (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 16 above).
As to claim 15, Bay as modified discloses the protective garment of Claim 16, wherein at least a portion of the insert is produced from at least one of a flame-resistant woven material, a flame- resistant nonwoven material, a flame-resistant knit material, an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) material (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 16 above), and a urethane material.
Regarding claim 22, Bay teaches a protective garment (14), comprising: a an outer shell (60,61); a moisture barrier (16,66) (col. 2, lines 56-68) disposed adjacent the outer shell (figs. 7,8), wherein the moisture barrier comprises at least one of a substrate layer and a membrane layer (comprises substrate layer, 16 which underlies the outer layer and 66); a thermal liner (18,20) (col. 2, lines 59-65) disposed adjacent the moisture barrier (figs. 2,7), wherein the thermal liner comprises a facecloth layer (18) and at least one insulation layer (20) (col. 2, lines 47-65); and at least one vent (51,51’) formed in the thermal liner (18,20) and the moisture barrier (16,66) (fig. 7)(col. 5, lines 22-23); wherein an insert spans the at least one vent (54, 54’), but does not disclose the insert is substantially liquid-impermeable and substantially heat transferable.
Bay discloses insert/ material 54, 54’ allows air to enter the garment while preventing objects from entering the garment, and also holds together the vent/ opening (col 3 line 50-60 and col 4 line 30-40).
However, Bay does not disclose the insert/ material “is substantially liquid-impermeable and substantially heat transferable.”
Aldridge teaches a similar jacket (FIG 1) including providing a layer (50) of ePTFE (col 2 line 50-60). It is known to provide ePTFE in garments such as jackets for its properties of being “be generally moisture vapor permeable but generally impermeable to liquid moisture.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Bay’s material to be ePTFE, which is a known material that is “substantially liquid-impermeable and substantially heat transferable,” 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 Bay’s material to be ePTFE, which is a known material that is “substantially liquid-impermeable and substantially heat transferable,” for the purpose of providing a material that prevents objects from entering the garment, and also holds together the vent/ opening as intended by Bay and additionally is generally moisture vapor permeable but generally impermeable to liquid moisture as taught by Aldridge which would enhance wearer comfort by ventilating the wearer’s body heat while protecting the wearer from rain.
Regarding claim 23, Bay teaches the protective garment includes at least one transferal portion (50, fig. 3) and a remainder portion (remainder of 14), and wherein the at least one transferal portion is discretely positioned in at least one predetermined area of the protective garment (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Bay teaches the at least one vent (51,51’) is formed in the at least one transferal portion (50) of the protective garment (figs. 3,6,7).
Claim(s) 16, 10-13, 15, 17-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis (U.S. Patent No. 9526926) in view of Aldridge (US 6845517 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Curtis teaches a protective garment (10), comprising: an outer shell (26); a moisture barrier (28) disposed adjacent the outer shell (col. 2, lines 23-33), wherein the moisture barrier comprises at least one of a substrate layer (28b) and a membrane layer (28a) (col. 2, lines 54-62); a thermal liner (30,32) disposed adjacent the moisture barrier (col. 2, lines 23-33), wherein the thermal liner comprises a facecloth layer (32) and at least one insulation layer (30); and at least one vent formed in at least one of the outer shell, the moisture barrier, and the thermal liner (36,38)(col. 4, lines 34-54, col. 7, lines 37-57), wherein an insert (40) spans the at least one vent (col. 4, lines 34-67, col. 5, lines 1-10 )(fig. 2A), but does not disclose the insert is substantially liquid-impermeable and substantially heat transferable.
However, Curtis does disclose the insert is substantially liquid-impermeable (col 5 line 30-40 describes an insert/ material 40 that is “non-moisture absorbent and/or hydrophobic materials”) OR substantially heat transferable (col 5 line 40-55 describes an insert/ material 40 that is air permeable mesh). Therefore, both properties are known to Curtis, although Curtis does not disclose a single insert with both properties.
Aldridge teaches a similar jacket (FIG 1) including providing a layer (50) of ePTFE (col 2 line 50-60). It is known to provide ePTFE in garments such as jackets for its properties of being “be generally moisture vapor permeable but generally impermeable to liquid moisture.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Bay’s material to be ePTFE, which is a known material that is “substantially liquid-impermeable and substantially heat transferable,” 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 Bay’s material to be ePTFE, which is a known material that is “substantially liquid-impermeable and substantially heat transferable,” for the purpose of providing a material that limits trapping/ absorbing moisture while expelling moisture vapor laden air inside the outer shell as intended by Curtis and additionally is generally moisture vapor permeable but generally impermeable to liquid moisture as taught by Aldridge which would enhance wearer comfort by ventilating the wearer’s body heat while protecting the wearer from rain.
Regarding claim 10, Curtis teaches at least one vent is formed in the moisture barrier (col. 6, lines 64-67, col. 7, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 11, Curtis teaches the moisture barrier (28) comprises a substrate layer (28b) and a membrane layer (28a) (col. 2, lines 54-62), and wherein the at least one vent is an opening formed in at least one of the substrate layer and the membrane layer (col. 6, lines 64-67, col. 7, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 12, Curtis teaches an insert (50a,b) spans (extends across) the opening formed in at least one of the layers of the moisture barrier (col. 7, lines 13-36, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Curtis teaches the at least one vent (36,38) is an opening (38) formed in the at least one of the outer shell, the moisture barrier, and the thermal liner (fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 15, Curtis teaches at least a portion of the insert (40) is produced from at least one of a flame-resistant woven material, a flame-resistant nonwoven material, a flame-resistant knit material, an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) material (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 16 above), and a urethane material.
Regarding claim 17, Curtis teaches at least one of the outer shell, the moisture barrier, and the thermal liner includes at least one transferal portion (portion(s) including the vents 36,38,52)(col. 4, lines 34-54, col. 7, lines 37-57, figs. 1-4) configured to facilitate heat transfer therefrom (col. 5, lines 40-55, col. 4, lines 64-68, col. 7, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 18, Curtis teaches the at least one vent is formed in the at least one transferal portion (per claim 17).
As to claim 21, Curtis discloses the protective garment of Claim 16, wherein the insert comprises two or more layers (col 5, lines 5-10, layered material), and wherein at least one of the layers is substantially water vapor permeable, substantially liquid-impermeable (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 16 above), and/or substantially heat transferable.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis (U.S. Patent No. 9526926) in view of Aldridge (US 6845517 B2) as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Gubler et al. (U.S. 20170043567).
Regarding claim 19, Curtis teaches the moisture barrier (28) being vapor permeable (col. 2, lines 63-67, col. 3, lines 1-15) but doesn’t specifically teach the at least one transferal portion has a Resistance to Evaporation of a Textile (Ret) of less than 20 m2 Pa/W.
Gubler teaches a water vapor permeable material for use in clothing having a water vapor resistance Ret of less than 20 m.sup.2Pa/W (para. 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the at least one transferal portion of Curtis so as to have a Resistance to Evaporation of a Textile (Ret) of less than 20 m2 Pa/W in view of Gubler in order to optimize breathability of the garment.
Conclusion
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