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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: There are several instances where it appears that the word “Stich” is misspelled and should be stitch see ¶ 0006, 0015, 00166 and 00167. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 3-5 and 7 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 3 is unclear and indefinite as it states-“ the facial garment of claim 1, wherein the inner textile includes up to 3-ended cotton ends.” It is not clear what is meant by "up to 3-ended cotton ends". Claim 4 is unclear and indefinite as it states-“ the facial garment of claim 3, wherein the inner textile is a 3-ended cotton textile.” It is not clear what is meant by "a 3-ended cotton textile". Claim 5 is unclear and indefinite as it states-“the facial garment of claim 3, wherein the inner textile includes 3 x cotton textile, and wherein the outer hydrophobic textile 150 includes 2 x super-hydrophobic polyester.” What do the expressions "3 x", "150", "2 x" mean? Claim 7 is unclear and indefinite as it states- “ the facial garment of claim 1, wherein a stich length associated with the outer hydrophobic textile of 0.58 millimeters, and wherein a stitch length associated with the inner textile of 0.61 millimeter s .” The expressions "stich", and "of' introduce ambiguity. Also, what is meant by stitch length? As there is not stitching claimed. Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references at the end of the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 2. 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102015122456 issued to Klinger et al. Regarding Claim s 1 and 1 2 , where Applicant seeks a facial garment comprising: an outer hydrophobic textile for repelling moisture; an inner textile proximal to the outer hydrophobic textile; and an interconnecting structure coupling the outer hydrophobic textile and the inner textile, the interconnecting structure including nylon-wrapped, synthetic elastane fiber, wherein the inner textile includes a natural fiber having one or more neps for increasing an interaction surface area for particles incident on the facial garment and for promoting turbulence among particles incident on the facial garment; Applicant is directed to Klinger et al teach a facial garment [ figure 1 ] comprising: an outer hydrophobic textile (22) [¶ 0032, lines 8-13 "polyester" which is hydrophobic ] ; [¶ 0004 for repelling moisture ] ; an inner textile (26) proximal to the outer hydrophobic textile (22); and an interconnecting structure (24) coupling the outer hydrophobic textile (22) and the inner textile (26 ). T he interconnecting structure (24) includ es a nylon-wrapped, synthetic elastane fiber [¶ 0033, (polyamide ) ]. T he inner textile (26) includes a natural fiber having one or more neps for increasing an interaction surface area for particles incident on the facial garment and for promoting turbulence among particles incident on the facial garment [¶ 0038, " baumwolle " which is a natural cotton fiber derived from the seed hairs and has neps ). As the instant reference teaches that the inner layer is an inner textile, it is considered a final textile in web form. Regarding Claim 2 , where Applicant seeks that the facial garment of claim 1, wherein the natural fiber is devoid of synthetic fibers; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0038, which is a natural fiber ( cotton) that is naturally devoid of synthetic fibers . Regarding Claim 11, where Applicant seeks that the facial garment of claim 1, comprising at least one of a nose bridge device or a chin bridge device for positioning the facial garment to contours of a user's face ; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0028 and 0039, where the instant reference teaches the use of at least one of a nose bridge device (16) or a chin bridge device for positioning the facial garment to contours of a user's face . 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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102015122456 issued to Klinger et al. Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the facial garment of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the combined outer hydrophobic textile and the inner textile being substantially 2.67 millimeters, and wherein an areal mass of the combined outer hydrophobic textile and the inner textile being substantially 0.0245 g/cm2 . Klinger et al . do not disclose the thickness or the weight of layers of their facial mask/garment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have constructed a facial mask/garment having the thickness and weight as sought in this claim. I t has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Having the mask/garment where thickness of the combined outer hydrophobic textile and the inner textile being substantially 2.67 millimeters, and wherein an areal mass of the combined outer hydrophobic textile and the inner textile being substantially 0.0245 g/cm2, would allow the face mask/garment t o still be flexible and less cumbersome and facilitate donning of the face mask/garment . Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102015122456B4 issued to Klinger in view of DE 202020101979U1 issued to Krall. Klinger et al teach what is set forth above but fails to teach that the natural fiber includ es a range of cross-sectional fiber diameter variability in the range of 20 µm. This is remedied by the teachings of Krall. Krall is from the same art of endeavor as they too make protective face masks. Krall discloses a facial garment [ figure 1 ] comprising an outer layer (2) and an inner layer (3) comprising a natural fiber s such as wool or cotton [ ¶ 0031] and at ¶ 0028 they teach a range of cross-sectional fiber diameter variability in the range of 20 µm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the facial garment of Klinger et al., with the dimensions as taught by Krall. One would have been motivated to do so for the natural fiber to be soft, breathable and still absorb moisture. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102015122456B4 issued to Klinger in view of CN212306876U issued to Shengyu et al. Klinger et al. teach what is set forth above but fail to teach that the outer hydrophobic textile being configured to interact with an incident particle at an environment facing surface of the outer hydrophobic textile at a contact angle of substantially 160 degrees. This is remedied by the teachings of Shengyu et al. Shengyu et al are from the same art of endeavor as they too create face masks. Shengyu et al. teach facial garment s (figure 1) comprising an outer hydrophobic textile (110; figure 2, ¶ 0053) configured to interact with an incident particle at an environment facing surface of the outer hydrophobic textile at a contact angle of substantially 160 degrees (with the super-hydrophobic fabric agent; ¶ 0054, the term superhydrophobic is known in the art, and includes a material property whereby the contact angle of a water droplet is extremely high, for example, exceeding 150°). There fore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the facial garment of Klinger et al. with the features taught by Krall in order to obtain a face mask or garment with superhydrophobic properties . Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102007034535A1 issued to Pietsch et al. Klinger et al teach what is set forth above but do not teach that the interconnecting structure drawing moisture in a unitary direction from the inner textile to the outer hydrophobic textile. This is remedied by the teachings of Pietsch et al. who also teach making facial masks/garments. Pietsch et al dis closes a facial garment (figure 1) comprising an interconnecting structure (2) drawing moisture in a unitary direction from the inner textile (1) to the outer textile (3) ( ¶ 0017 - 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modif ied the facial garment of Klinger et al with the features taught by Pietsch et al. motivated the desire to reduce the risk of infection by droplet infections . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1483 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Melvin Mayes can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1234 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /Arti Singh-Pandey/ Primary Patent Examiner Art Unit 1759 asp