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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Claims 1-10 and 12 in the reply filed on 08/12/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11 and 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/12/2025. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “include” in line 13 should read “includes”. “of personal” in line 14 should read “of the personal”. “of personal” in line 17 should read “of the personal”. “includes” in line 18 should read “further includes”. Claims 2-10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informality: “method in” in line 1 should read “method of”. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “ dispensing personal ” in line 7 should read “dispensing the personal”. “a personal” in line 8 should read “each personal”. Claims 3, 9, 10, and 12 are objected to because of the following informality: “is further comprised of” in line 2 should read “comprises”. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: “selecting further comprises” in line 2 should read “selecting comprises”. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 and 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the selected personal protective equipment component size and type" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “ a selected personal protective equipment component size and type”. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the size of the personal protective equipment components include small, medium, large, and single sizes " in lines 12-13. It is unclear from this limitation how a single size can possibly include small, medium, large, and single (i.e. multiple ) sizes . For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the size of the personal protective equipment components includes small, medium, large, or single sizes”. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the type of personal protective equipment components includes masks, gloves, head coverings, gowns, and shoe coverings" in lines 14-16. It is unclear from this limitation how a single type can possibly include masks, gloves, head coverings, gowns, and shoe coverings (i.e. multiple types ). For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the type of the personal protective equipment components includes masks, gloves, head coverings, gowns, or shoe coverings”. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the packet" twice in lines 3 and 4. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the packets mentioned in line 2 of the claim the limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the packets ” in both instances the limitation appears in the claim. Claims 2-10 and 12 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 1. 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 of this title, 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. Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carco et al. (US 2005/0000975), hereinafter Carco , in view of Gregory (US 5,934,462) . Regarding claim 1 , Carco discloses a method of bundling and dispensing personal protective equipment (the “gloves” described throughout the specification of Carco) for dispensing by a dispenser (12 in Figures 1-3; or one of the “compartments” of 12 described in Paragraphs 0025, 0030, 0036, and 0037), the method comprising the steps of: selecting personal protective equipment components (the “gloves” described throughout the specification of Carco) based on size and type (because different “sizes” of “gloves” are selected to be placed in the “compartments” of 12, as described in Paragraphs 0030 and 0014); bundling the selected personal protective equipment components (“gloves”) according to the selected personal protective equipment component size and type (because “gloves” of a specific “size” are bundled/stacked together and placed in a packet 19, as described in Paragraphs 0030 and 0031); and forming individual personal protective equipment packets (packets 19) with a predetermined uniform size and shape (Paragraphs 0036 and 0030); wherein the size of the personal protective equipment components (“gloves”) include small (the size “6” gloves described in Paragraph 0030), medium (the size “7.5” gloves described in Paragraph 0030) , or large sizes (the size “9” gloves described in Paragraph 0030) (Paragraph 0030); wherein the type of personal protective equipment components (“gloves”) includes gloves (Paragraphs 0023, 0030, and 0031); and wherein the type of personal protective equipment components (“gloves”) includes disposable, reusable, or both disposable and reusable components (because the “gloves” can be disposed of and/or reused based on a user’s desire). However, Carco does not expressly disclose: vacuum sealing the bundled personal protective equipment components to form the individual personal protective equipment packets. Gregory teaches that it was known to vacuum seal bundled personal protective equipment components (the gloves 38 in packets 20, 30, and 40 in Figure 1) to form individual personal protective equipment packets (20, 30, and 40 in Figure 1), in order to preserve the sanitary condition of the personal protective equipment components (gloves 38) inside the packets (20, 30, and 40) (Col. 3 lines 57-59). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Carco to incorporate the teachings of Gregory by vacuum sealing the bundled personal protective equipment components to form the individual personal protective equipment packets, because doing so would preserve the sanitary condition of the personal protective equipment components inside the packets. Regarding claim 2 , Carco discloses: grouping the personal protective equipment packets (packets 19) according to packet content (because packets 19 containing “gloves” of a specific size are stacked and placed inside one of the “compartments” of 12, as described in Paragraphs 0036 and 0030); loading each group of personal protective equipment packets (packets 19) into its own dispenser (one of the “compartments” of 12) (Paragraphs 0036 and 0030); and dispensing personal protective equipment packets (packets 19) by grasping a personal protective equipment packet (19) from its dispenser (one of the “compartments” of 12) (Paragraph 0037 lines 3-7). Regarding claim 3 , Carco discloses that the step of grouping is further comprised of sorting the personal protective equipment packets (packets 19) based on component size and component type (Paragraph 0036). Regarding claim 4 , Carco discloses that the personal protective equipment packets (packets 19) are planar with a flattened profile (apparent from Figure 1, Paragraph 0030 lines 16-20, Paragraph 0036 lines 6-9). Regarding claim 6 , Carco discloses that the step of selecting further comprises selecting at least a pair of gloves (Paragraphs 0030, 0014, 0023, and 0031). Regarding claim 9 , Carco discloses that the step of selecting is further comprised of selecting disposable components (because the “gloves” are disposable and can be disposed of if desired by a user). Regarding claim 10 , Carco discloses that the step of selecting is further comprised of selecting reusable components (because the “gloves” are reusable and can be reused if desired by a user). Regarding claim 12 , Carco in view of Gregory teaches that the step of bundling is further comprised of stacking the personal protective equipment components (“gloves” of Carco) in a same order prior to the step of vacuum sealing (because Carco discloses in Paragraphs 0030 and 0031 that “gloves” of a particular “size” are stacked together and then placed in a packet 19). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carco in view of Gregory in further view of Maertens (BE 1018465 A3) . Regarding claim 5 , Carco in view of Gregory teaches all the limitations of the claim as stated above except: the personal protective equipment packets have either a tear off strip or a notched edge formed into the packet, whereby the packets are opened by removing the tear off strip or tearing the packet along the notched edge. Maertens teaches that it was known to provide a personal protective equipment packet (3 in Figures 1-3) with a tear off strip (4 in Figures 1-3), whereby the packet (3) is opened by removing the tear off strip (4) (Page 3 lines 32 and 50 of Machine Translation of BE 1018465 A3), in order to allow the packet (3) to be easily opened in a simple manner (Page 3 lines 6-8 and 50 of Machine Translation of BE 1018465 A3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Carco in view of Gregory to incorporate the teachings of Maertens by providing the personal protective equipment packets with a tear off strip, whereby the packets are opened by removing the tear off strip, because doing so would allow the packets to be easily opened in a simple manner. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carco in view of Gregory in further view of Taizhou Dechuan Greening Maintenance Co Ltd ( CN 112061570 A ), hereinafter Taizhou . Regarding claim 7 , Carco in view of Gregory teaches all the limitations of the claim as stated above except: the step of selecting further comprises selecting a mask. Taizhou teaches that it was known to provide a method of bundling (the method of bundling storage box 1 with a temperature detector, disinfectant, gloves and masks) with a selecting step which comprises both selecting a pair of gloves (one of the gloves in glove box 6 in Figure 1) and selecting a mask (one of the masks in mask box 5 in Figure 1) (Page 2 lines 41-44 and Page 1 lines 36-39 of Machine Translation of CN 112061570 A), in order to conveniently provide multiple personal protective measures (i.e. the gloves and the mask) to a user (Page 1 lines 36-39 and Page 2 lines 18-22 of Machine Translation of CN 112061570 A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Carco in view of Gregory to incorporate the teachings of Taizhou by modifying the step of selecting so that it further comprises selecting a mask, because doing so would conveniently provide multiple personal protective measures (i.e. the gloves and the mask) to a user. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carco in view of Gregory in further view of Neal (US 12,036,047) . Regarding claim 8 , Carco in view of Gregory teaches all the limitations of the claim as stated above except: the step of selecting further comprises selecting a gown. Neal teaches that it was known to provide a method of bundling (the method of bundling medical cart 10 with personal protective equipment) with a selecting step which comprises both selecting a pair of gloves (a pair of the “gloves” described in Col. 5 line 57) and selecting a gown (one of the “gowns” described in Col. 5 line 54) (Col. 5 lines 52-59, Col. 11 lines 50-53), in order to allow the gloves and the gown, which are commonly used together, to be kept in an easily accessible location close to where they are needed (Col. 1 lines 33-39, Col. 5 lines 43-59). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Carco in view of Gregory to incorporate the teachings of Neal by modifying the step of selecting so that it further comprises selecting a gown, because doing so would allow the gloves and the gown, which are commonly used together, to be kept in an easily accessible location close to where they are needed . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The patent documents listed on the PTO-892 form teach limitations of the claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2216 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571 -27 2 - 4524 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TANZIM IMAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731