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 .
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 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.
Priority
US National Stage of PCT
Acknowledgment is made that this application is the US national phase of international application PCT/US2021/058796 filed 11/10/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 05/08/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information (JP-2017063899-A and IGIN x 2) referred to therein has not been considered.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the Applicant on an IDS or by the Examiner on form PTO-892, said references have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because unlabeled non-descriptive representations are impermissible under 37 CFR 1.83(a) which states (bold for emphasis):
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
The drawings are correspondingly objected to for failing to comply with PCT Rule 11 as catchwords are indispensable to the understanding of the unlabeled non-descriptive representations, wherein PCT Rule 11.11 Words in Drawings states (bold for emphasis):
(a) The drawings shall not contain text matter, except a single word or words, when absolutely indispensable, such as "water," "steam," "open," "closed," "section on AB," and, in the case of electric circuits and block schematic or flow sheet diagrams, a few short catchwords indispensable for understanding.
(b) Any words used shall be so placed that, if translated, they may be pasted over without interfering with any lines of the drawings.
Non-descriptive representation(s) 1, 3, 9, 5, 11 in fig. 1, 1, 3, 9, 5, 11, 12 in fig. 2, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29 in fig. 3, 31, 33, 35 in fig. 4, 41, 45 in fig. 5, all numbered elements in figs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, & 13, 1, 3, 9, 5, 11, 201 in fig. 10, 21, 28, 101, 29, 23, 27 in fig. 11 need (an) appropriate legend(s) in the form of descriptive text label(s) in addition to any reference character(s) already present. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes and non-descriptive representations of features are not descriptive, and therefore incomplete. The Examiner emphasizes that the requested text matter is indispensable for proper understanding. The descriptive text labels should contain as few words as possible. See also 37 CFR 1.84(n) (conventional symbols), 1.84(o) (required descriptive legends), & 1.84(p) (standards for the text labels), MPEP 608.02(b)(II)(¶ 6.22) (“descriptive text label”), and MPEP Appendix T Rule 11.11. The Appropriate Correction is required.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), and correspondingly for PCT 11.13(l), because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “14” (at least figs. 3 & 11).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language, and/or format for an abstract of the disclosure:
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Additionally the Examiner notes that 37 CFR 1.438 is summarized as:
Preferably 50-150 words. Should contain:
(A) Indication of field of invention.
(B) Clear indication of the technical problem.
(C) Summary of invention’s solution of the problem.
(D) Principal use or uses of the invention.
(E) Reference numbers of the main technical features placed between parentheses.
(F) Where applicable, chemical formula which best characterizes the invention.
Should not contain:
(A) Superfluous language.
(B) Legal phraseology such as “said” and “means.”
(C) Statements of alleged merit or speculative application.
(D) Prohibited items as defined in PCT Rule 9.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
superfluous language that can be implied (“This technology may relate to” and “The technology disclosed”, and “The technology disclosed may also relate to”); and
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to
because of the following informalities:
In table III. Non-Patent Literature, the last entry should start with “www”;
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
The Examiner objects to the inconsistent use of the leading dash having or omitting a space thereafter (“-“ versus “- “) throughout the claims.
As to independent claim 1,
“computer- readable media” has an extraneous space.
As to independent claim 13,
the limitation (emphasis in italics) “activity, such as an action, a decision, an indication, or an instruction” is unnecessary exemplary language. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Dependent claim(s) of objected to claim(s) is/are likewise objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner acknowledges the definition(s) at least in/on [0311] of the PgPub (utilized for convenience of paragraph numbering; especially pertaining to detecting, detection system, and detector). MPEP § 2111 states that “the specification must provide a clear and intentional use of a special definition for the claim term to be treated as having a special definition”. Where Applicant’s definitions are optional or non-limiting the definitions are not considered special definitions and claim terms referencing such definitions will instead be considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. If Applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the Examiner’s interpretation of the definitions or to identify missed definitions, Applicant should clearly identify the special definitions and corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. Examples should be clearly delineated from required features.
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(s) 6 is/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 claim 6,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "said don threshold trigger" in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Kawaski* et al (JP 2017181126 A; hereafter “Kawaski”) in view of newly cited Egawa* et al (TW 201534897 A; hereafter “Egawa”) and in further view of Applicant cited Hampe (US 20100263695 A1; hereafter “Hampe”).
*machine translations provided by Examiner with foreign documents and utilized for English citations
Regarding independent claim 7,
Kawaski teaches an elastomeric, protective garment (glove) pre-containment testing system (Title “Glove Tester”; Abstract “glove tester which can detect a breakage of a work glove and the state of a degraded part which can break, regardless of whether the glove tester is equipped to a glove port, and can accurately confirm the location of a breakage or degradation” and “light applying means for applying a light to the inside of the work glove from the inside of the closed space”; second to last paragraph of page 2 “at the boundary between the containment isolator device and the outside, in order to protect the worker from contamination with chemical substances and microorganisms that affect the human body, the airtightness of the work gloves is considered to be particularly important. Damage to the work glove body, such as holes (pinholes) and tears, and airtightness breaks down, causing chemical substances and microorganisms that affect the human body to leak into the external environment and contaminate workers”) comprising:
an elastomeric, protective garment (glove) light transmission defect detection system (system comprising light source 42) (third paragraph from bottom of page 3 “part of a work glove attached to a glove port of an isolator device”; about third paragraph from bottom of page 2 “damage such as a hole (pinhole) or a tear”), said defect detection system comprising
a light source (fig. 9, light source 42);
a pressure differential garment inflation chamber (see fig. 8, isolator device 30; pressurized pump and compressed air not shown) (about middle of page through next couple of paragraphs on page 6 “a pressure pump (not shown)”; second full paragraph on page 7 “Thus, in a state where the closed space 43 is formed, the pressure pump is operated by the switch. Then, compressed air is supplied into the closed space 43 through the supply pipe and the discharge port. As a result, the entire work glove 20 made of synthetic resin expands, the arm root (hem) 21, arm 22, palm 23, and fingertip 24 swell, and the finger crotch 25. Is open”),
wherein said light source (fig. 9, light source 42) shines within said pressure differential garment inflation chamber (see fig. 8, isolator device 30).
Kawasaki also teaches a manual method performed by an operator of responding to the defect detection system, wherein the operator comprises a light detector (eyes), and the operator is knowledgeable/trained to be triggered by (i.e., respond to) the defect detection system (light through gloves reaches operator eyes) and to accept-or-reject in response thereto, wherein the accept-or-reject is sorting the garment into accepted or rejected (towards middle of page 7 “light leaking from the surface of the work glove 20 can be confirmed”; past middle of page 7 “the location where the light on the inner surface of the working glove 20 leaks is a damaged portion such as a pinhole or tear, and the size and shape can be specified” and “it is possible to confirm a place brightened by the internal light. It is conceivable that the portion where the brightness is abnormally strong is being deteriorated, and if it is used as it is, it can be specified that there is a possibility of breakage during use”; the Examiner further notes that the camera used by the shown photographs is a light detecting device, and that an ordinary artisan would at once envisaged that the photographs could also likewise be evaluated).
Kawaskai does not teach an automated defect detection system, including items: 1) a trigger control configured to respond to said elastomeric, protective garment light transmission defect detection system, and an accept-or-reject sorting function that automatically responds to said trigger control; and 2) wherein said accept-or-reject sorting function automatically accepts-or-rejects a garment.
Regarding item 1):
It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(III) and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that (generically) automating the operator based visual detection of defects with a computer vision based detection of defects is within ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, and factually supporting the above assertions, Egawa teaches an inspection object testing system (fig. 1, inspection apparatus 1) (Title “Sheet Inspection Device”; Abstract “sheet inspection device capable of inspecting an abnormal spot on an inspected object in a sheet form and the kind of abnormality of the abnormal spot. The sheet inspection device includes a first light source” and “a first imaging sensor arranged to capture images of the inspected object” and “the visible light irradiated from the third light source and transmitting through the inspected object” and “a processing part configured to identify an abnormal spot on the inspected object and the kind of abnormality of the abnormal spot based on a first image of the inspected object captured by the first imaging sensor”; bottom of page 3 through top of page 4 “the type of pinhole defect occurring in the target position may be determined” and “the arrangement of the light source and the image sensor of the present invention and the determination conditions based thereon, the pinhole defect can be determined with high precision. This function is particularly useful in the case of a product in which the pinhole is one of the major defects”) comprising: a light transmission defect detection system (defect detection system comprising light source 33 and camera 41), wherein the light transmission defect detection system (defect detection system comprising light source 33 and camera 41) comprises
a light detection device (fig. 1, camera 41) (third paragraph of page 6 and bottom paragraph of page 11 through top of page 12 “image obtained by the visible light camera 41”),
a light source (fig. 1, light source 33) (second to last paragraph of page 6 “the visible light source 33 for transmission may be formed by irradiating the test object 2”),
wherein said light source (fig. 1, light source 33) shines through the inspection object (fig. 1, inspection object 2),
wherein said light detection device (fig. 1, camera 41) is positioned to detect light as a result of said light source (fig. 1, light source 33), and
wherein said light detection device (fig. 1, camera 41) measures light transmission through the inspection object (fig. 1, inspection object 2);
a trigger control (control portion of processing device 5 comprising abnormality detecting unit 56) configured to respond to said light transmission defect detection system (defect detection system comprising light source 33 and camera 41) (second full paragraph of page 8 “the processing device 5 includes an abnormality detecting unit 56 that detects an abnormality included in the test object 2, and a detection threshold storage unit 56A that stores the threshold value used for the abnormality determination” and “an abnormality is determined in the case where the degree of change in the pixel value of the image obtained from the visible light camera 41 is as large as a certain degree. Therefore, in the detection threshold storage unit 56A, the threshold value of the degree of change in the pixel value at which the abnormality should be determined is stored. This threshold is determined based on the type of the object 2 to be inspected, the inspection standard set by the user, and the like”; second to last paragraph of page 10 “the abnormality detecting unit 56 detects the abnormality”); and
an accept-or-reject function that automatically responds to said trigger control (function of processing device 5 comprising determination unit 57 and output unit 58) (about middle of page 11 “the determination unit 57 compares the luminance value of the detected abnormality with the luminance value of the normal state”; about middle of page 8 “The type of the abnormality is determined by determining the type of the change in the pixel value”; paragraph after middle of page 8 “The output unit 58 has a function of outputting information on the abnormality” and “a result output screen that the output unit 58 outputs to the display device. On this screen, information 580 indicating the type of abnormality detected and determined (in the case of FIG. 3, "pinhole defect")”; second paragraph of page 12 “the output unit 58 outputs information on the abnormality” and “it is possible to output a warning or an alarm”),
wherein said accept-or-reject function automatically determines acceptance-or-rejection of the inspection object (fig. 1, inspection object 2) (third paragraph of page 12 “the abnormality which affects the quality of the product can be strictly distinguished”) (Examiner acknowledges the lack of an automatic sorting function; i.e., Egawa does not physically automatically sort the accepted from the rejected).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Egawa’s automated light inspection system with Kawasaki’s manual light inspection, thereby providing the expected benefits of decreased human labor, lower wage costs, elimination of human errors, increased accuracy/precision, and more reliably controllable standards. Complimentarily, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kawasaki’s inflation means for light inspection of gloves with Egawa’s inspection system, thereby increasing the versatility and utility of Egawa’s inspection system by conveniently enabling thereby use with gloves.
Kawasaki as modified by Egawa still does not explicitly teach item 2).
Regarding item 2):
It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(III) and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that (generically) automating the operator based sorting function and acceptance/rejection of a garment with a computer & robotic based sorting function with acceptance/rejection means is within ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, and factually supporting the aforementioned assertion, Hampe teaches an elastomeric, protective garment (gloves) pre-containment testing system (Glove Reprocessing Unit) (Title “SYSTEM FOR THE PROCESSING OF REUSABLE GLOVES”; Abstract “a testing station for testing the integrity of the gloves; an unloading station for unloading the gloves”; [0056] “a series of linked processing stages 3 encapsulated in a single enclosure 1 that together automatically perform all the procedures necessary to resolve the individual and cumulative problems previously described in glove reprocessing. The automatic and computer-controlled machine, integrating a horizontal conveyor belt, formed by links which are themselves also glove-holders, moving forward horizontally (in the best case), and along which the successive steps of manual glove placing, automatic glove returning, washing, rinsing, drying, sterilizing, testing, packaging are performed”) comprising: an elastomeric, protective garment (gloves) defect detection system (fig. 2, pinhole control 43) ([0064] “The result is that the glove hangs, held only by the vacuum pipe. The glove is then transferred to pinhole control 43. Here the glove undergoes any one of a number of pinhole tests. These tests may be conventional tests as would be known to the skilled person”; [0072] “presence of pinhole is detected” and “"defect" signal thus a glove reject due to pinhole presence”; [0088] “method of testing leaks 115 in gloves, also called pinholes. This method located along the conveyor, which may automatically perform the test”; Examiner acknowledges silence to conventional light transmission method for defect detection); a trigger control (portion of computer control system for triggering) configured to respond to said elastomeric, protective garment (gloves) defect detection system (fig. 2, pinhole control 43; and an accept-or-reject sorting function (portion of computer control system for sorting) that automatically responds to said trigger control, wherein said accept-or-reject sorting function automatically accepts-or-rejects a garment ([0078] “After the leak test, the glove deflates and is sucked by a vacuum plate. The glove is then packed 45 in its respective size box or rejected by instructions given by the control system. The boxes, when full and automatically closed, are printed with lot and customer information and conveyed to a container for manual filling of appropriate cartons”; [0103] “The system then analyzes the results of the data collected during operation in and the process data received during the processing operations, decides and instruct the control system to pack or reject the gloves”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hampe’s automated glove reprocessing unit (GRU) having automated sorting function with Kawasaki’s manually labor requiring sorting function thereby providing the expected benefits of decreased human labor, lower wage costs, elimination of human errors, increased accuracy of sorting, and more reliably controllable standards and throughput, as well as additional advantages of further ancillary features of Hampe’s GRU including ability to convey, wash, identify, perform additional testing, unload, pack, etc. Complimentarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kawaski & Egawa’s light transmission pinhole testing as one of Hampe’s glove pinhole testing thereby further increasing the thoroughness and the reliability of the pinhole testing, the Examiner further noting that Egawa’s light inspection recognizes additional visually identifiable defects, classifies, and discriminates by thresholding.
The Examiner acknowledges that the above combination does not explicitly teach that the trigger control is necessarily a distinct and separate element from the accept-or-reject sorting function.
However, the Examiner notes that it has been held that: constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144(V)(C), Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (BPAI. 1969), and In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961); and that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B), Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893), and In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In the present case, only ordinary skill in the art is required to reallocate computation/control operations to specialized circuitry components of a computer/processor/controller as convenient, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so allocate with the expected benefits that the circuitry for each task can then be more specialized and more easily replaced and/or repaired/updated.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 7,
Kawasaki as previously modified (see analysis of independent claim, which notably automates the operator manual visual detection with Egawa’s camera based detection) suggests wherein said elastomeric, protective garment light transmission defect detection system comprises:
a light detection device (Egawa: fig. 1, camera 41);
a light source (Kawasaki: fig. 9, light source 42. Egawa: fig. 1, light source 33 );
a pressure differential garment inflation chamber (Kawasaki: see fig. 8, isolator device 30; pressurized pump and compressed air not shown) (Kawasawki: about middle of page through next couple of paragraphs on page 6 “a pressure pump (not shown)”; second full paragraph on page 7 “Thus, in a state where the closed space 43 is formed, the pressure pump is operated by the switch. Then, compressed air is supplied into the closed space 43 through the supply pipe and the discharge port. As a result, the entire work glove 20 made of synthetic resin expands, the arm root (hem) 21, arm 22, palm 23, and fingertip 24 swell, and the finger crotch 25. Is open”)
wherein said light detection device (Egawa: fig. 1, camera 41) is positioned to detect light as a result of said light source (Kawasaki: fig. 9, light source 42. Egawa: fig. 1, light source 33 ), and
wherein said light detection device (Egawa: fig. 1, camera 41) measures light transmission through an inflated (Kawasaki teaches the inflation via pressurized pump) garment (Kawasaki, glove).
A POSTERIORI REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I: claim(s) 1-12 & 13-27,
drawn to an apparatus & process pertaining to the technical feature(s) of garment doffing/removing, threshold contaminant detection, and containment.
Group II: claim(s) 7-8,
drawn to an apparatus pertaining to the
technical feature(s) of light transmission defect detection.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention
because even though the inventions of these groups require some shared technical features, this Office Action establishes a posteriori (i.e., after having taken the prior art into consideration) that all of the shared technical features between Groups I and II are known in the art and therefore fail to form technical feature(s) that define a contribution over the prior art.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features as put forth above. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, the Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
The Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be further examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, the Applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should the Applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), the Applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. The Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by the Applicant, if the Examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-27 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is the Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The Reasons for Allowance are substantially the same as previously indicated in the International Preliminary Report on Patentability (PCT Chapter II) dated 17MAR2024, with the notable divergences that dependent claim 6 comprises a lack of antecedence issue requiring correction, and that newly found prior art has been applied to claims 7-8.
The Examiner suggests, but does not require, that Applicant elect Invention I. Additionally, the following claim(s) is/are drafted by the Examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application as well as have Unity of Invention with Invention I, and is/are presented to Applicant for consideration:
7. (Examiner Proposed Amendment)
An elastomeric, protective garment pre-containment testing system comprising:
- a garment doffing system;
- a threshold contaminant detection system;
- a contaminant notification control configured to respond to said threshold contaminant detection system;
- a containment system configured to automatically respond to said contaminant notification control, wherein said containment system is triggered by said contaminant notification control to automatically contain a contaminated garment for further testing, as said garment doffing system removes said contaminated garment from a user;
- an elastomeric, protective garment light transmission defect detection system;
- a trigger control configured to respond to said elastomeric, protective garment light transmission defect detection system; and
- an accept-or-reject sorting function that automatically responds to said trigger control, wherein said accept-or-reject sorting function automatically accepts-or-rejects a garment.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 04APR2026
Prosecution Insights