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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 19, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on November 19, 2025, claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2 and 4 were previously canceled. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on November 19, 2025, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated August 21, 2025, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Turkey on February 5, 2022. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the TR2022001488 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicant appears to have attempted to provide an interim copy of the foreign priority document on August 1, 2025, but it does not include the specification, and any drawings or claims upon which the presently filed application is based. See MPEP 1.55(j). Examiner notes that in the response received on November 19, 2025, Applicant stated that a certified copy will be submitted.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because at lines 2-3, “anyone that uses the plurality of electronic devices including” should read “anyone that uses the plurality of electronic devices, the plurality of electronic devices including”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 and 3 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a ground wire connected to the wearable clothing and directed towards an earthing point” at lines 5-6. It is unclear if the limitation is attempting to positively recite an earthing point as part of the wearable clothing structure, or if the limitation is attempting to recite a functional limitation. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a ground wire connected to the wearable clothing, the ground wire configured to be directed towards an earthing point”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 3 is also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,115,140 to Rodriguez (hereinafter, “Rodriguez”) in view of USPN 5,715,536 to Banks (hereinafter, “Banks”).
Regarding claim 1, Rodriguez teaches a wearable clothing comprising fibers configured to resist electromagnetic radiation (See Rodriguez, Fig. 1; apparel (10) made of a textile having fibers with electromagnetic radiation-resistant, shielding coating applied directly thereon; abstract; Col. 2, lines 52-55; Col. 3, lines 22-25; Col. 5, lines 4-11; abstract) wherein the fibers include an element configured to resist the electromagnetic radiation, wherein the element is selected from the group consisting of lead, gold, mercury, or platinum (See Rodriguez, Figs. 1; coated fibers forming apparel (10) includes shielding material comprising gold and is further capable of shielding or resisting electromagnetic radiation; Col. 3, lines 22-25; claim 8).
That said, Rodriguez is silent to wherein the wearable clothing further comprises: a ground wire connected to the wearable clothing and directed towards an earthing point, and the ground wire is configured to direct the electromagnetic radiation away from a body of children, thereby reducing exposure to the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a plurality of electronic devices.
However, Banks, in a related protective garment art, is directed to an electricity dissipation garment (See Banks, Fig. 1; abstract). More specifically, Banks teaches wherein the wearable clothing further comprises: a ground wire connected to the wearable clothing and directed towards an earthing point, and the ground wire is configured to direct the electromagnetic radiation away from a body of children, thereby reducing exposure to the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a plurality of electronic devices (See Banks, Fig. 1; conductive ground wire (72, 74) includes a conductor that connects to a plug connector (74) capable of being connected to an exterior grounding connector/point and is capable of directing electromagnetic radiation away from a hypothetical body of a wearer thereby reducing exposure emitted by a hypothetical plurality of devices; Col. 4, lines 4-10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the conductive grounding wire disclosed by Banks in the wearable clothing of Rodriguez in order to provide a pathway through which accumulated electricity from a garment can be discharged to an appropriate electrical ground (See Banks, Col. 4, lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 3, the modified wearable clothing of Rodriguez (i.e., Rodriguez in view of Banks, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the wearable clothing can be used by the children, teenagers and anyone that uses electronic devices including tablet, mobile phone, laptop, game-net, and/or game-pad (See Rodriguez, Fig. 1; apparel (10) is capable of being worn by hypothetical wearers using hypothetical electronic devices as claimed), wherein all regions of the wearable clothing are resistant to the electromagnetic radiation, and the wearable clothing is flexible (See Rodriguez, Fig. 1; all regions of the modified wearable clothing a resistant to electromagnetic radiation to some extent; apparel (10) is made of fabric which is flexible; Col. 1, lines 50-55; claim 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the wearable garment being made of a single fabric, the absence of traditional fastening mechanisms (e.g., zippers, buttons, hooks), and the need for assistance/external help to tie and secure the wearable garment) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant's argument that the wearable garment is explicitly designed for children, Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Indeed, the modified wearable clothing of Rodriguez as discussed in the current grounds of rejection above is capable of being worn by children. Furthermore, Examiner notes that contrary to Applicant’s argument, Applicant’s own claim 3 recites that the wearable clothing is not limited only to children, but can also be used by “teenagers” and “anyone that uses the plurality of electronic devices”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, CLINTON T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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 R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732