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 .
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.
Claims 23 – 25 and 32 recites the limitations referring to an “upper” and/or “lower” portion or region of the suit. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The upper and lower regions are defined by the limitations in claim 22, however claims 23-25 and 32 are dependent on claim 20. It is recommended that the dependency of claims 23-25 and 32 be changed to claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 20, 23, 30-31, and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma (US 5318018) in view of Mah (US 6695762) further in view of Lawson (US 10307622) further in view of Rankin (US 5421326).
Regarding claim 20, Puma discloses A garment configured to protect a user during aircraft flight (abstract “An advanced aircrew protection system”), the garment comprising:
a bladder layer configured to retain a first pressurized fluid and apply pressure to the user (fig. 14, col. 5 line 18-24 “several bladder areas and other pressurized areas within the suite assembly which are labelled as follows: helment (HE); mask (MA); chest bladder (CH); arm bladders (AR); glove bladders (GL); abdomen bladder (AB); leg bladders (LE); and ankela nd boot bladders (BT)”; col. 5 line 62-65 “It provides a structure against which the underlayers, when inflated, will be restrained and constrained from moving, allowing them to give counterpressure to the wearer’s body” )
a first fluid tube formed as part of the bladder layer and configured to deliver the first pressurized fluid to an interior of the bladder layer (column 7, line 65 “Referring to FIG. 5, the gasses to the various functioning portions of the system is conveyed by tubes, hoses or lines 60.”)
a cover layer formed from a fire-retardant fabric (outer shell or restraint layer 116, column 7, line 33 “Because this is the outside of the garment, it is desirable for the fabric to possess good durability and aesthetics, flame resistance, and dimensional stability.”)
the cover layer surrounding an exterior of the bladder layer (column 7, line 14 “The outer shell, or restraint layer 116 of the garment is conformally fitted to restrain the pressure bladders and provide restraint over the unpressurized areas of the body.”),
the cover layer sealed around the first fluid tube (column 12, line 33 “ All pass-throughs are sealed so as to be gas tight.”)
and a pass through device defining a channel through the cover layer and bladder layer, (Figure 3A element 59. Column 6, line 34 “distribution block is attached to the suit, through the impermeable layer and through the restraint layer. This block distributes breathing gas to the chest bladder CH and up to the helmet mask volume HE. The block also acts as a pass-through for demist and sensing lines and communication wires.”)
the channel configured to deliver fluid to an interior of the bladder layer (And column 7, line 65 “Referring to FIG. 5, the gasses to the various functioning portions of the system is conveyed by tubes, hoses or lines 60.”)
However, Puma does not teach that the bladder layer is a semi-permeable layer that is impermeable to both oxygen and nitrogen and permeable to water vapor.
Mah teaches a pressure applying garment with a semi-permeable bladder layer. (paragraph [0047] “The main bladder 12 of the counter pressure garment 10 comprises a water vapour permeable, liquid water and air impermeable bladder.“)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bladder layer in Puma to have the characteristics of the bladder layer in Mah. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is a simple substitution of bladder layers to obtain the predictable results of a pressurized suit that would keep the user cool by being water vapor permeable.
Further, Puma does not teach that the pass through device including a hose barb coupled to the channel and protruding from an exterior of the cover layer.
Lawson teaches a pressurized suit with a passthrough device including a hose barb for connecting hoses. (column 7, line 33 “A hose barb fitting 190 may be connectable to the adapter block 180 to allow the high-pressure gas to be directed through cooling tubes (not shown) within a protective suit 10, which may be used with or in place of air cooling of the protective suit 10 as described relative to FIGS. 3-4. The hose barb fitting 190 may include a barbed end to allow the end of a hose to easily connect to the apparatus 120.” The examiner is modifying the pass through device in Puma to have hose barbs to connect the hoses (60 and 218) which would protrude from the exterior of the cover layer.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have hose barbs in the pass-through device as taught by Lawson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that adding hose barbs to the pass through device would yield the predictable results of having a connection point for tubing for pressurized fluid.
However, Puma, Mah, and Lawson do not teach that the cover layer is sealed around the first fluid tube and allows the first fluid tube to pass therethrough.
Rankin teaches a protective suit with a pocket and opening for a tube. (column 6, line 12 “The pocket 54 thus opens outward to allow the radiators 63 and 64 to exhaust hot air outside the coverall 34 and includes inwardly facing grommets 67 to allow breathing tube 68 to enter the coverall 34.” The examiner is modifying the suit taught by Puma, Mah, and Lawson to have a pocket and opening as taught by Rankin that would allow the first fluid tube to pass therethrough. The examiner notes the grommets would allow the cover layer to be sealed around the tube.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the suit taught by Puma, Mah, and Lawson to have an opening and seal as taught by Rankin to allow for the tubes to be safely stowed during the use of the suit to prevent puncturing of the pressurized system protecting the user.
Regarding claim 23, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach the garment of claim 20, further comprising:
a second fluid tube formed as part of the bladder layer and configured to deliver a second pressurized fluid to the interior of the bladder layer at the upper volume (column 16, line 51 “A second source of fluid P2, preferably oxygen, is fed through a breathing or oxygen regulator 146 (FIG. 2, items A-E and FIG. 15) through hose 218 to the upper portion of the suit assembly”; column 16, line 61 “the output of the anti-gravity valve 150 will provide a signal to the oxygen or breathing regulator for directing the appropriate flow of oxygen from the second fluid source P2 to the upper bladders of the garment CH, AR, HA”),
but fail to teach wherein the cover layer is sealed around the second fluid tube allowing the second fluid tube to pass therethrough
Rankin teaches a protective suit with a pocket and opening for a tube. (column 6, line 12 “The pocket 54 thus opens outward to allow the radiators 63 and 64 to exhaust hot air outside the coverall 34 and includes inwardly facing grommets 67 to allow breathing tube 68 to enter the coverall 34.” The examiner is modifying the suit taught by Puma, Mah, and Lawson to have a second pocket and opening as taught by Rankin that would allow the first fluid tube to pass therethrough. The examiner notes the grommets would allow the cover layer to be sealed around the tube.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the suit taught by Puma, Mah, and Lawson to have an opening and seal as taught by Rankin to allow for the tubes to be safely stowed during the use of the suit to prevent puncturing of the pressurized system protecting the user.
Regarding claim 24, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach the garment of claim 23, wherein Puma further teaches the upper volume is configured to be pressurized up to 50 mmHg (Column 21, line 8 “the sensed pressure of the anti-gravity valve will send a signal to the breathing regulator and upon reaching the force of 4 G's, the breathing regulator will then provide pressure which increases linearly to 1.2 psi maximum at 9 G's according to a second schedule.” The examiner notes 1.2 psi is approximately 62.05 mmHg. Since this is the maximum of the flight suit in the prior art, that means there is an embodiment that can be pressurized up to 50 mmHg. Further, the examiner notes that either the top or lower volume of the suit is supplied air by the breathing regulator as explained in claim 23.)
Regarding claim 30, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach the garment of claim 20, wherein Puma further teaches the fire-retardant fabric of the cover layer is meta-aramid fabric. (column 7, line 21 “The outer shell of the partial pressure suit is preferably constructed of NOMEX/KEVLAR fabric and webbings for dimensional stability, durability, and fire protection.” The examiner notes nomex is a meta-aramid fabric.)
Regarding claim 36, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach the garment of claim 20, wherein further teaches the cover layer includes a plurality of adjustable seals configured to seal the cover layer to the user including: a neck seal (column 5, line 33 “a neck shroud for joining the helmet to the suit in a pneumatically sealed relation to the helmet and to the neck of the wearer.”); and two wrist seals (column 6, line 66 “The impermeable layer or liner 112 terminates at the wrists and is sealed due to an overlap interface with the gloves or rubber wrist seals (not shown)”).
Regarding claim 37, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teachthe garment of claim 20, wherein Puma further teaches the garment comprises a neck region (column 3, line 1 “a neck shroud operatively coupled with the helmet assembly”) and a foot region (column 6, line 10 “bladders (LE) encircle the legs, and connect with the bladders (BT) that go down into the boot, over the feet (FIG. 8)”); and the bladder layer and the cover layer extend an entire length of the garment between the foot region and the neck region (shown in figure 4-9, figures 4-5 are the cover layer, 6-9 are the bladder layer).
Regarding claim 38, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teachthe garment of claim 20, wherein Puma further teaches the garment comprises a neck region (column 3, line 1 “a neck shroud operatively coupled with the helmet assembly”) and a foot region (column 6, line 10 “bladders (LE) encircle the legs, and connect with the bladders (BT) that go down into the boot, over the feet (FIG. 8)”); and the bladder layer terminates proximate a waist region of the garment (figures 8-9 show the bladder layer terminates around the waist region of the garment).
Claim(s) 21, 28, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma in view Mah further in view of Lawson further in view of Rankin further in view of Oliver (US 2013/0174311) .
Regarding claim 21, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach the garment of claim 20, but fails to teach further comprising: a liquid cooling layer positioned on the interior of the bladder layer, wherein the pass through device is configured to connect to an external source via the hose barb to receive a cooling fluid from the external source, and direct the cooling fluid through the channel to the liquid cooling layer.
Oliver teaches an air crew flight suit further comprising a liquid cooling layer positioned on the interior of the bladder layer, wherein the pass through device is configured to connect to an external source via the hose barb to receive a cooling fluid from the external source, and direct the cooling fluid through the channel to the liquid cooling layer (paragraph [0088] “There are also a number of other features that can be included in the undergarment 63. There are "pass throughs". These are a means of making a waterproof connection from an item worn on the inside of the suit to the exterior of the suit. Referring again to FIG. 27, this might include a liquid or air cooling garment 64 worn underneath the undergarment 63 and connected to a power unit worn on the exterior allowing for a cooling capability to the aircrew”. The examiner notes that the undergarment is positioned on the inner side of the bladder layer.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a liquid cooling layer as inside the bladder layer as taught in Oliver. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize for an active cooling mechanism for flight crews that would enhance the cooling evaporative effect occurring due to the water vapor permeable material of the inner layer (as taught in both Puma and Oliver).
Regarding claim 28, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach the garment of claim 20, wherein the bladder layer includes a boot region defined by an air and water impermeable fabric in the shape of boots and the air and water impermeable fabric is urethane-coated nylon (column 6, line 10 “Thus, bladders (LE) encircle the legs, and connect with the bladders (BT) that go down into the boot, over the feet” column 6, line 49 “the suit includes an essentially full coverage, impermeable liner 112 which is preferably constructed of polyurethane coated nylon.” The examiner notes that polyurethan coated nylon is air and water proof.); but fails to teach ultrasonically sealed to the bladder layer at seams connecting the boots to the bladder layer.
However, Oliver teaches that bladders can be ultrasonically welded. (paragraph [005] “ Most bladders are now made of a PU coated fabric type because PU is a thermo-plastic material which can be easily welded using high frequency or radio frequency or ultrasonic welding.”) The examiner is modifying the garment taught in Puma to use ultrasonic welding to connect the boot bladders to the rest of the garment.
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the suit in Puma to ultrasonically seal the seams as taught in Oliver. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize this is a known technique to seal polyurethane coated fabric that are used for high performance activities such as flight suits.
Regarding claim 33, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach the garment of claim 20, but fails to teach wherein the cover layer includes: a first resizing area located below the thigh seals, the first resizing area allowing the cover layer to be tightened above a knee region of the garment; and a second resizing area below the first resizing area, the second resizing area allowing the cover layer to be tightened below the knee region.
Oliver teaches flight suit resizing laces. (Figure 5, shows adjustment laces above the knee (first resizing area with region of the laces located below the thigh seals) and below the knee (second resizing area below the first resizing area). Paragraph [0053] “The lacings 38a, 38b and 44 are tightened to ensure that the jacket 32 and the garment 40 are a close fit around the torso and the lower body portion respectively of the wearer so that, when inflated, the bladders 33, 41 apply a required restriction”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the suit in Puma to use the adjustment laces as taught in Oliver. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize this a suit would need to be adjusted for the size of each flight crew member to maintain the proper amount of restriction to protect them under G-forces.
Claim(s) 22, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma in view of Mah further in view of Lawson further in view of Rankin further in view of Ruseckas (US 2762047).
Regarding claim 22, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach the garment of claim 20, wherein the first fluid tube is configured to deliver the first pressurized fluid to the lower volume (column 20, line 63 “ Pressure source P-1 provides pressurizing fluid to the lower portion of the garment through the anti-gravity valve 150 by line 208.”) but fails to teach further comprising two thigh seals configured to seal the bladder layer to the user such that the bladder layer forms a lower volume and an upper volume,
Ruseckas teaches an inflatable garment for aviators comprising two thigh seals (column 2, line 54 “see Fig. 2, the legs 3 of which 5, are adapted to encircle, above the knees, the upper thighs of the wearer, with the end of each leg 3 terminating in a cuff 4, composed of stretchable material such as sheet rubber.”) configured to seal the bladder layer to the user such that the bladder layer forms a lower volume and an upper volume (column 2, line 65 “see Fig. 2, the legs 3 of which 5, are adapted to encircle, above the knees, the upper thighs of the wearer, with the end of each leg 3 terminating in a cuff 4, composed of stretchable material such as sheet rubber.”),
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have thigh seals to differentiate the pressure areas in the suit as taught in Ruseckas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is a known technique in the art in similar devices and would yield the predictable results of a suit with different pressure levels present depending on the need of compression of the user.
Regarding claim 29, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach that the seals of the garment are a laminated sponge fabric, (column 16, line 27 “In order to achieve a secure seal which will provide protection from gas and liquid entry into the suit, a tight- fitting elastomeric material must be used for cuffs…. The second material is a soft neoprene closed cell sponge rubber with lightweight nylon fabric laminated to one side. It is typically used as wrist, neck and leg seals on divers suits.”) but fails to teach wherein the thigh seals cemented to the blader layer around an outer circumference of each seal.
Ruseckas teaches the thigh seals cemented to the bladder layer around an outer circumference of each seal (column 2, line 55 “the upper thighs of the wearer, with the end of each leg 3 terminating in a cuff 4, composed of stretchable material such as sheet rubber. Therefore, when the garment is put on, the wearer's feet and knees will pass freely through the cuffs 4 and when the garment is finally positioned to bring the junction seam 9 of sheath 1 and sleeve 2 above the waist, as shown in Fig. 1, the cuffs 4 will closely engage the legs of the wearer above the knees where the enlargement of the thighs begins.”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have thigh seals to differentiate the pressure areas in the suit as taught in Ruseckas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is a known technique in the art in similar devices and would yield the predictable results of a suit with different pressure levels present depending on the need of compression of the user.
Claim(s) 25, 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma in view of Mah further in view of Lawson further in view of Rankin further in view of Shepard (US 3751727).
Regarding claim 25, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach the garment of claim 24, but fails to teach wherein the lower volume is configured to be pressurized up to 12 psig.
Shepard teaches a pressurized suit that has a lower volume configured to be pressurized up to 12 psig. (column 14, line 27 "The suit is designed to withstand a burst pressure of not less than 10.0 p.s.i.g.” The examiner notes that if the suit is designed to withstand a burst pressure of more than 10 psig, it can be inflated to 12 psig and not burst. The examiner is modifying the suit taught in Puma to have the pressure as taught in Shepard in the lower region.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the suit in Puma to have the lower volume pressure as taught by Shepard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that a higher pressure is needed in the lower parts of the body to prevent blood from pooling in intense environmental conditions which prevents swelling.
Regarding claims 34-35, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach the garment of claim 20 but fails to teach further comprising a urine evacuation pass through providing a channel from the interior of the bladder layer proximate a groin region of the garment, through the bladder layer and the cover layer, to an exterior of the garment (of claim 34) and urine evacuation tube and a waste container, wherein the urine evacuation tube is configured to deliver urine from a groin region of the garment, through a urine evacuation pass through of the bladder layer, and to the waste container (of claim 35).
Shepard teaches a pressurized suit with a urine evacuation tube. (column 14, line 12 “A transfer hose connected to the internal housing of the urine transfer connector interfaces with it for the transfer of urine to the waste management system of the space craft.” Figure 3, element 94 shows the urine evacuation device with a tube proximate a groin region of the garment The examiner modifies the suit taught by Puma to have the channel go through the bladder and cover layer to the exterior of the garment into a waste container, as taught in Shepard the transfer hose connects to the exterior of the space suit to the waste management system of the craft.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the suit taught by Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin to have a urine collection and transfer system as taught in Shepard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that flight crew should have access to all bodily functions without having to take on and off the suit, especially during longer flight times.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma in view of Mah in view of Lawson further in view of Rankin further in view of Cadogan (US 2017/0216633).
Regarding claim 26, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach the garment of claim 20, but fails to teach the bladder layer is formed from a plurality of separate sections stitched together with thread; and seams of the thread are sealed with tape within the interior of the bladder layer.
Cadogen teaches a pressure suit with bladders that is stitched together with thread and sealed with tape. (paragraph [0033] “The restraint 312 can be sewn from patterned shapes, or woven in three-dimensional shapes. Textile webbings, tapes, or cords 314, 315, may also be applied externally to a simplified restraint shape that approximates the human form… The webbings, tapes or cords 314, 315 are stitched such that the restraint fabric is gathered and provides the excess material to create the convolute.” Figure 12 shows the section containing the bladder 313. The examiner notes since this is sewn that the separate sections are stitched together with thread.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the suit as taught in Puma to be constructed as taught in Cadogan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize by constructing the garment as multiple pieces using thread and tape this would allow the user to maintain mobility and allow for the proper stretch or restraint of the bladder layer to apply the appropriate amount of pressure to the user for safety during flight.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma in view of Mah further in view of Lawson further in view of Rankin further in view of Cadogan further in view of Argentino (US 5941186).
Regarding claim 27, both Puma, Mah, Lawson, Rankin and Cadogen teach the garment of claim 26 but fail to teach wherein the thread is nylon thread.
Argentino teaches a fabric for high security use that is flame resistant that uses nylon thread for stitching. (column 2, line 45 “These extensions 31, 33 are stitched to the assembly as shown on FIGS. 1 and 3 with another nylon thread.”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use nylon threads to sew the bladder layer as taught by Puma and Cadogen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that using nylon thread enhances the strength of the garment because nylon thread has a resistance of approximately 16 pounds and has a thread count of about 10 points/inch. See column 2, line 49 of Argentino.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma in view of Mah further in view Lawson further in view of Rankin further in view of Thiorot (US 2007/0026752).
Regarding claim 31, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach the garment of claim 20, Puma further teaches wherein the cover layer is formed from a plurality of separate sections (column 7, line 21 “A conformal custom fit is provided by sizing panels 122 along the sides, legs, shoulder, and sleeve out seams. The outer shell of the partial pressure suit is preferably constructed of NOMEX/KEVLAR fabric and webbings for dimensional stability, durability, and fire protection.” The examiner notes nomex is a meta-aramid fabric and the webbings can be threads.)
However, Puma does not teach that the sections are stitched together with meta-aramid thread.
Thiorot teaches the use of meta-aramid threads in protective suits. (paragraph [0037] “The threads of type B are preferably threads of the meta-aramid type.”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to use meta-aramid threads as taught by Thiorot. One of ordinary skill would have been able to recognize that this would be a simple substitution of the webbings taught by Puma to yield the predictable results of a strongly bonded fire resistant protective flight suit.
Claim 32 isrejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma in view of Mah further in view of Lawson further in view of Rankin further in view of de Gaston (US 5127896).
Regarding claim 32, Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin teach the garment of claim 20, wherein: the cover layer includes a lower region proximate the lower volume (shown in figs 8-9) and an upper region proximate the upper volume (shown in figs 6-7); and in the upper region, the cover layer includes at least one attachment provision configured to allow an external component to be attached to an exterior of the cover layer (column 5, line 55 “ The outer restraint layer covers the arms, legs, and torso exclusive of the head and neck, and exclusive of the hands and feet. The restraint layer is a non-stretchable fabric having as a primary function the protection of the layers underneath, to protect the crew member with a certain amount of abrasion resistance and from low energy shrapnel. It also houses pockets”) but fails to teach in the lower region, the cover layer is lined with cloth having a low elongation and a higher strength than the cover layer.
Gaston teaches a protective suit with an outer lining made of KEVLAR. (column 5, line 36 “The outer liner 20 may be constructed with a cloth 20a; made from a light, strong, flexible, nondistensible material such as the product sold under the Trademark KEVLAR." The examiner notes that Kevlar is a low elongation fabric and is a stronger fabric than the NOMEX blend as taught in Puma. The examiner is modifying the bottom region of the suit taught in Puma to be lined on the outside with KEVLAR as taught by de Gaston.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the suit taught by Puma, Mah, Lawson, and Rankin to have the lower region lined with KEVLAR as taught in Gaston. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that the lower region needs extra protection in case of accidents, injuries, or changes in environment that may happen to the flight crew.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma in view of Mah further in view of Lawson further in view of Rankin further in view of Joh (US 2019/0374373).
Regarding claim 39, Puma teaches the garment of claim 38 wherein:
the cover layer includes a main entry closure operative to selectively open or seal the cover layer (column 5, line 55 “The outer restraint layer covers the arms, legs, and torso exclusive of the head and neck, and exclusive of the hands and feet. The restraint layer is a non-stretchable fabric having as a primary function the protection of the layers underneath, to protect the crew member with a certain amount of abrasion resistance and from low energy shrapnel. It also houses pockets, zippers and enclosures for crew use.”);
but fails to teach the cover layer is configured to enclose a removable urine collection device connected to the interior of the bladder layer in a groin region of the garment via a pass through opening, the removable urine collection device accessible through the main entry closure.
Joh teaches a wearable urinary collection apparatus with a removable container (paragraph [0070] “receptacle 6 may include a seal which permits the opening 42 to be fluid-tightly closed when desired, e.g., when the receptacle 6 contains urine and is to be removed for replacement or emptying.” ).
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the suit taught in Puma to have a urine collection and transfer system as taught in Joh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that flight crew should have access to all bodily functions without having to take on and off the suit, especially during longer flight times.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 20-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11834182 and provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 11, and 14-22 of copending application 18/677275. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons described below.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected as being unpatentable over patent reference claims 1 and 12 although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of claim 20 is found in reference claim 1 except for the pass through device limitation which is found in dependent reference claim 12. Further this claim is rejected as being unpatentable over application reference claims 1 and 16 although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of claim 20 is found in application reference claim 1 except for the pass through device limitation which is found in dependent reference claim 16.
Regarding claim 21, this claim is rejected as being unpatentable over patent reference claim 12 and application reference 16. All the limitations of claim 21 are found in patent reference claim 12 and application reference claim 16.
Regarding claim 22, all the limitations are recited verbatim in patent reference claim 12 and application reference claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, this claim is verbatim as patent reference and application reference claim 2.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, these claims are not patentably distinct from patent reference and application reference claim 3 as it contains the limitations of both claims.
Regarding claim 26, this claim is verbatim as patent and application reference claim 4.
Regarding claim 27, this claim is not patentably distinct from patent reference claim 4 and application reference claim 13, as the limitation is encompassed in that claim.
Regarding claim 28, this is verbatim as patent and application reference claims 5 and 6..
Regarding claim 29-32, this claim is verbatim as patent reference claim 7-10. Claim 29 is verbatim as application reference claim 11. Claim 32 is encompassed in application reference claims 1 and 14.
Regarding claim 33, this claim is verbatim as patent reference claim 11 and application reference claim 15.
Regarding claim 34-39, these claims are verbatim as patent reference claims 13-18 and application reference claims 17-22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mcgrady (US 5245993) teaches a pressurized flight suit with inflatable bladders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIANA JOY LACAY DECASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-8316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/A.L.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights