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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 7/13/2026 has been considered and entered into the record. The limitations of claim 22 have been incorporated into independent claims 21, 42, and 43. Claim 22 has been cancelled. Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the indefinite rejection are persuasive. Accordingly, the indefinite rejection of claim 42 is withdrawn. Claims 21, 23–31, 42, and 43 are examined below.
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, 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 fails to teach that the second layer of non-porous fabric or film is UV-transmissive.
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 (i.e., UV-transmissive) 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 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-seal” 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, 31, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhang fails to teach a second material layer “wherein the second material layer is nonporous, UV-transmissive, and configured to be sterilized by UV radiation. In particular, Applicant contends that to be configured to be sterilized by UV radiation, the layer must be UV-transmissive so that UV radiation can penetrate and sterilize it, however, the Zhang film is UV resistant. Applicant also argues that a layer cannot be UV-protective as well as UV-transmissive. As noted by Applicant, the film layer of Zhang prevents the passage of 90% of ultraviolet rays. See Remarks at 7; Zhang ¶ 18. Accordingly, 10 percent of the UV rays pass through the film, while blocking 90 percent of the radiation. As such, the film of Zhang is necessarily UV-transmissive and as such configured to be sterilized by UV radiation, while still blocking the majority of the UV rays.
Applicant then contends that orientation of the layers of fabric preclude the applied prior art from rendering the claimed invention obvious. Applicant also argues the proposed modification would impermissibly change Woods’ principle of operation in that because Woods requires the UV-protective layer to outer layer to protect the underlying UV-sensitive layer. The claimed invention is directed to a two-layered medical garment comprising first and second material layers, wherein the second material layer is an outer layer and the first material layer is an inner layer. Woods provides a garment comprising at a first layer to provide UV protection and a second film layer that is sensitive to ultraviolet radiation. Woods abstract. While Woods teaches that UV protective first layer is the outer layer and the second film layer is the inner layer, the prior art does teach the two material layers recited in the art, wherein the film layer is capable of being sterilized by UV radiation because it is sensitive to ultraviolet radiation. See id. ¶ 21. The relative orientation of the claimed garment is directed to an intended use. In other words, the claimed invention and the garment of the prior art may be inverted or turned-inside out, but still retains the two claimed layers regardless of orientation. As such, the Woods garment renders that claimed invention obvious because the relative orientation of a two-layered garment does not render it patentable.
Applicant next argues that the rejection fails to articulate reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have combined the teachings of Woods and Zhang because replacing the second layer of Woods with the film of Zhang provides desirable water-proof and moisture-permeable functionality along with bacteria and fungi protection.
Finally, Applicant argues that neither Woods nor Zhang teaches or suggests medical sterilization applications. This argument is unpersuasive as the use of a garment for medical purposes and sterilizing the garment using UV radiation are not required by the claimed. The garment of the instant claims merely needs to be capable of being used as a “UV-sterilizable medical garment for being donned by a healthcare practitioner.” Accordingly, because the article of Woods is directed to a garment and is UV-sterilizable, the garment is capable of being used in the claimed manner. See MPEP 2111.02 II.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights