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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 12/19/2025 has been considered and entered into the record. Claims 32–41 have been cancelled and new claims 42 and 43 have been added. Claims 21–31, 42, and 43 are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21–31 under 35 USC 103 over Woods et al. regarding Woods et al.’s lack of teaching of a second, non-porous layer have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
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.
Claim 42 is 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 42 requires a garment body …“to self-seal when heated.” The claim is indefinite because it is unclear as to what degree the garment is to be heated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24–26, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods (US 2004/0067706 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 102757637 A).
Woods teaches the formation of a garment comprising a first fabric layer that provides UV protection and a second layer of fabric or film that is sensitive to UV radiation. Woods abstract. The first layer may have UV protection of up to UPF 1000. Id. ¶ 27. The Examiner takes the position that a fabric with UPF 1000 is “UV-opaque” because it provides effective solar UV protection. See id. ¶¶ 19, 21. The first fabric layer and second film layer may be laminated together. Id. ¶ 29. The garment may be a shirt, pants, shorts, or a hat. Id. ¶ 10.
Woods fail to teach that the second layer of fabric or film that is sensitive to UV radiation is non-porous.
Zhang teaches a degradable thin polyurethane film with water-proof and moisture-permeable functionality for use in garment textile fabrics. Zhang abstract, technical field, ¶ 18. The thin film blocks some ultra-violet rays and is non-porous, and effectively protects against bacteria and fungi. Id. ¶ 18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the second layer of Woods with the film of Zhang as the film provides desirable water-proof and moisture-permeable functionality along with bacteria and fungi protection.
Accordingly, because the film layer of Zhang is non-porous and may be sterilized by UV radiation, the combined teachings of render the claimed medical garment obvious.
Claim 22 is rejected as the UV-sensitive second layer allows the transmission of ultraviolet light. See Zhang ¶ 18. Claim 26 is rejected as when the pants and shirt of Woods are used together, they form a body suit that encloses a wearer’s torso, arms, and legs.
Claim 42 is rejected as the materials of the Woods and Zhang inventions are thermoplastic polymers, which would melt and “self-heal” when heated. See Woods ¶ 12 and Zhang abstract.
Claim(s) 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods and Zhang as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Hughes (US 5,414,913).
Woods fails to teach that the UV protection garment is a glove, body suit, or mask.
Hughes teaches the formation of a UV protective fabric, wherein the fabric may be used to make shirts, pants, hats, gloves, hoods, neck gators, which may be pulled up to at least partially enclose one’s face, and the like. Hughes abstract, 4:36–48.
As such, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have used the laminate of Woods to make gloves and neck gators as Hughes shows that it was known to make these additional garment articles with UV protective material.
Claim(s) 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods and Zhang as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Lalgadi (US 2011/0053275 A1).
Woods fails to teach configuring the first layer to fluoresce or a third layer that fluoresces under UV radiation to indicate a hole being formed in the second layer.
Lalgadi teaches the use of a corrosion detection product in the form of a film forming material and a complexing agent, wherein the agent fluoresces when exposed to UV radiation. Lalgadi abstract, ¶ 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have added the complexing agent to the first layer of Woods laminate or added a film between the first and second layers of Woods in order to detect a hole being formed in the second layer.
Claim(s) 30 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods and Zhang as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Conolly (US 2012/0276332 A1).
Woods fails to teach an antibacterial film disposed over the second layer.
Conolly teaches a composite material for use in creating UV protective garments and footwear Conolly abstract, ¶¶ 185–187. The composite material may further comprise an antibacterial film. Id. ¶¶ 130, 133, 185–187.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have disposed the antibacterial film of Conolly over the second material layer to make a garment that prevents the presence of bacteria.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786