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 amendment filed March 6, 2026, is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the amendments are based on amendments to the Drawings which are similarly objected to as they introduce new matter. Applicants’ amendments to the specification were not based on the specification as originally filed, and Applicants do not provide a basis as to support in the specification as originally filed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The amendment filed March 6, 2026, is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the amendments to the Drawings introduce new matter as they are based on amendments to the specification which are similarly objected to as they introduce new matter. Applicants’ amendments to the Drawings were not based on the specification as originally filed, and Applicants do not provide a basis as to support in the specification as originally filed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 9-19, claims 1 and 12 recite that the article of outerwear stretches as needed based on the wearers movements. Applicants’ specification as originally filed does not recite the aforementioned limitation. Therefore, the limitation constitutes new matter.
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 1-7 and 9-19 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.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 9-19, claim 1 recites the article of outerwear comprising multiple layers made from knit fabric, wherein as the arc rated article of outerwear is made solely from the multiple layers made from knit fabric. The recitation of the article of outerwear comprising multiple layers made from knit fabric entails that additional elements may be added to the outerwear. However, the recitation of “as the arc rated article of outerwear is made solely from the multiple layers made from knit fabric” appears to entail that the requires the outerwear to be made solely from the multiple layers from knit fabric. No limitation is required by the claim. Therefore, it is unclear if the claim is reciting that the outerwear only includes multiple knit layers (i.e. closed language), or if the claim is merely reciting the previously recited structure that the outerwear is made from multiple layers made from knit fabric. Based on the ambiguity, the claim will be interpreted as the latter.
Additionally, claims 1 and 12 recite that the article of outerwear stretches as needed based on the wearers movements. As set forth above, the limitation is not recited in the specification as originally filed. Therefore, it is unclear what the scope of the article stretching as needed based on the wearers movements necessarily entails, as the limitation is subjective and qualitative, in addition to being dependent on the identity and characteristics of a wearer.
Regarding claims 10-19, claims 10-12 recite “warp fibers.” Each of claims 1 and 12 recite that the layers are made from a knit fabric. “Warp fibers” are generally not known in the art as being associated with knit fabrics, although “warp-knits” are known in the art. Note that Applicants’ specification recites that a knit fabric in [sic] made from a single yarn looped continuously to produce a braided look, while a woven fabric is made from multiple yarns crossing each other at right angles to form the grain. Therefore, it is unclear exactly what structure is claimed.
Regarding claims 12-19, claim 12 recites warp fibers in a first layer of the two or more layers are oriented in a different direction that warp fibers in a second layer of the two or more layers. The verbiage of the claim is unclear rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2017/0361567 to Prasad.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 9-19, Prasad teaches a material for arc flash protection comprising a first layer of textile material configured to face an arc flash, the first layer comprising a knitted fabric, and a second layer of textile material (Prasad, Abstract). Prasad teaches that the second layer is formed by quilting a nonwoven fabric to a knitted fabric (Id., paragraphs 0007-0009). Such a structure appears to be within the scope of the claimed multiple layers made from knit fabric. Prasad teaches that the first layer may comprise meta-aramid and para-aramid fibers (Id., paragraph 0028). Prasad teaches that the second layer may comprise meta-aramid and para-aramid fibers (Id., paragraph 0030). Prasad teaches that the textile structure may have a minimum arc rating of 40 cal/cm2 which are PPE Category 4 levels (Id., paragraphs 0023-0026). Prasad teaches that Category 4 materials include treated cotton or cotton/nylon blended fabrics, and aramid/modacrylic/synthetic cellulosic blended fabric combinations (Id., paragraph 0024). Prasad teaches providing arc flash protection in personal protection equipment garments that are comfortable to wear (Id., paragraphs 0006, 0022, 0032-0033).
Prasad does not appear to specifically teach that the article of outerwear stretches as need based on the wearers movements. However, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. Prasad teaches that the garments are comfortable to wear. Prasad teaches that Category 4 materials include treated cotton or cotton/nylon blended fabrics, and aramid/modacrylic/synthetic cellulosic blended fabric combinations. Additionally, Prasad teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, for use in arc flash protection having an overlapping arc rating. Therefore, the claimed properties appear to be inherent to or naturally flow from the teachings of Prasad. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Additionally, although Prasad teaches the claimed arc rating, Prasad does not appear to specifically teach the article meeting the claimed standards. However, Prasad teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, for use in arc flash protection having an overlapping arc rating. Therefore, the claimed properties appear to be inherent to or naturally flow from the teachings of Prasad. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 16, and 17, Prasad teaches providing arc flash protection in personal protection equipment garments that are comfortable to wear. Although Prasad does not appear to teach the claimed coat, jacket or bib, the personal protection equipment garments that are worn would appear to be within the scope of the claimed coat, jacket or bib. Additionally, Prasad establishes that was known to use protective clothing systems called arc flash suits to protect works at risk of exposure to arc flashes while performing work (Prasad, paragraph 0005). It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that suitable personal protection equipment garments that are comfortable to wear include coats, jackets or bibs, as one of ordinary skill would recognize suitable garments to be worn while performing work. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the arc flash protection garment of Prasad, formed into a coat, jacket or bib, to predictably protect the portions of the wearer while performing work.
Regarding claims 9-19, Prasad teaches that the first layer may comprise a fabric comprising approximately 55% Meta-Aramid, approximately 25% Lenzing Ry, approximately 15% PET, and approximately 5% Para-Aramid (Prasad, paragraph 0028). Prasad teaches that the second layer may comprise a fabric comprising approximately 55% Meta-Aramid, approximately 25% Lenzing Ry, approximately 15% PET, and approximately 5% Para-Aramid (Id., paragraph 0030). Since Prasad teaches that the fabrics may be woven or knit, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the fibers compositions are similarly applicable to both fabrics. Based on the disclosure of Prasad, the layers appear to be the same fabric. Additionally, since the textile structure has a minimum arc rating of 40 cal/cm2, and since the layers comprise similar compositions, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that each layer has a minimum arc rating of 40 cal/cm2.
Regarding claims 10-19, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what structure is claimed. However, although Prasad does not appear to specifically teach warp fibers oriented in different directions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the arc flash protection garment of Prasad, wherein the fabric and warp fibers of the fabrics are oriented as claimed, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine a suitable orientation of the fabrics based at least on the desired aesthetics of the resulting garment. Note that the resulting structure would appear to naturally provide the properties claimed.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad, as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-19, in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0176146 to Böhringer.
Regarding claims 10-19, the teachings of Prasad set forth above are incorporated herein. As best Examiner can determine, orienting the layers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Alternatively, Böhringer teaches protective clothing having preferably textile fragment protection equipment, comprising outerwear (Böhringer, Abstract), including at least one knitted textile fabric (Id., paragraph 0087), in particular a warp-knitted fabric and/or weft-knitted fabric (Id., paragraph 0091). Böhringer teaches that the knitted fabric material may comprise fire and/or flame-retardant properties (Id., paragraph 0104). Böhringer teaches that the clothing may include a plurality of plies of the knitted textile fabric (Id., paragraph 0134), wherein at least two successive plies are arranged and/or aligned at an angle in the range of 45º to 90º (Id., paragraph 0136). Böhringer teaches that forming the knitted fabric improves the wearing comfort and properties of the clothing (Id., paragraph 0091). Note that a warp-knitted fabric and a weft-knitted fabric would be structurally similar to the claimed warp fibers in a layer being oriented perpendicular to the warp fibers in another layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the arc flash protection garment of Prasad, wherein the knit fabrics comprise a warp and a weft-knitted fabric which are oriented as claimed, as taught by Böhringer, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional garment having a structure and knit fabric orientation known in the art to predictably improve properties including comfort. Note that the resulting structure would appear to naturally provide the properties claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 6, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the use of only knit layers and the orientation of the knit layers are not taught or suggested by Prasad. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Prasad teaches a material for arc flash protection comprising a first layer of textile material configured to face an arc flash, the first layer comprising a knitted fabric, and a second layer of textile material including a knitted fabric. Such a structure appears to be within the scope of the claimed multiple layers made from knit fabric. Additionally, regarding the orientation of the knit layers, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, although Prasad does not appear to specifically teach warp fibers oriented in different directions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the arc flash protection garment of Prasad, wherein the fabric and warp fibers of the fabrics are oriented as claimed, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine a suitable orientation of the fabrics based at least on the desired aesthetics of the resulting garment. Note that the resulting structure would appear to naturally provide the properties claimed.
Additionally, the claimed structure is rendered obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights