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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claim(s) 32-48 is/are currently pending and considered below.
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) 34-35, 40, and 43 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the tie". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the tie” is construed as the elongate length of the sterilized textile material.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the tie". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the tie” is construed as the elongate length of the sterilized textile material
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the sterilized, reusable textile item comprises a textile article used in foodservice". The sterilized textile item is not recited as “reusable” previously, making the limitation confusing. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is construed as “the sterilized textile item comprises a reusable textile article used in foodservice”
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the sterilized, reusable textile item comprises a textile article used in healthcare". The sterilized textile item is not recited as “reusable” previously, making the limitation confusing. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is construed as “the sterilized textile item comprises a reusable textile article used in healthcare”
All dependent claims of the above claims inherit all of the limitations and thus are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 32-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS)” (“Wrapping Surgical Gowns”, a YouTube video posted 5 March 2019; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2PT4XE2iQQ ; hereinafter “FAAS”) in view of Engers Fernandez (“346 Wrapping”, a YouTube video posted 9 May 2013; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHCk3OTqJY ; hereinafter “Fernandez”).
Regarding claim 32, FAAS discloses a method, comprising:
(a) inserting a sterilized textile item (Surgical gown placed on the table on top of the first wrap, considered a bag, in 4:42) through an open end of a bag (first wrap placed below the surgical gown, in 4:42) into an interior space of the bag and closing the open end of the bag such that the bag completely contains the item within the interior space (as shown in 5:24), the bag comprising a sterilized textile material defining the interior space of the bag (the bag is made of sterilized textile material);
(b) folding a sheet of a sterilized textile material (second wrap upon which the bag is placed, in 5:40) about the bag into a configuration such that the folded sheet of textile material defines an envelope that entirely envelops the bag (as shown in 6:27).
PNG
media_image1.png
1134
1473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Timestamp 4:24
PNG
media_image2.png
915
1456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Timestamp 5:24
PNG
media_image3.png
964
1472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Timestamp 5:40
PNG
media_image4.png
966
1461
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Timestamp 6:27
FAAS does not disclose the method comprising
(c) securing the folded sheet of material in the configuration enveloping of the bag using an elongate length of a sterilized textile material.
However, Fernandez discloses the method comprising
(c) securing the folded sheet of material in the configuration enveloping of the bag using an elongate length of a sterilized textile material (see timestamp 2:17 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
1140
1478
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Timestamp 2:17
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed by FAAS, to comprise the step of securing the folded sheet of material in the configuration enveloping of the bag using an elongate length of a sterilized textile material, as taught by Fernandez, with the motivation to further secure the folded sheet of material from unfolding.
Regarding claim 33, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 32, further comprising before said steps (a), (b), and (c), sterilizing the textile item, sterilizing the sheet to be folded to define the envelope, and sterilizing the tie by washing, heating, or washing and heating (it is well known to one having ordinary skill in the art that surgical textile items like those of FAAS and Fernandez is sterilized by washing and heating).
Regarding claim 34, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 33, wherein the sterilizing of the textile item, the sterilizing of the sheet, and the sterilizing of the tie are performed in the same process (it is well known to one having ordinary skill in the art that surgical textile items like those of FAAS and Fernandez can be sterilized in the same process or in separate processes).
Regarding claim 35, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 33, wherein the sterilizing of the textile item, the sterilizing of the sheet, and the sterilizing of the tie are performed in different processes (it is well known to one having ordinary skill in the art that surgical textile items like those of FAAS and Fernandez can be sterilized in the same process or in separate processes).
Regarding claim 36, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 32, further comprising after said steps (a), (b), and (c), and after the textile item has been unpacked and used, sterilizing the textile item, sterilizing the sheet to be folded to define the envelope, and sterilizing the tie by washing, heating, or washing and heating (it is well known to one having ordinary skill in the art that surgical textile items like those of FAAS and Fernandez are to be sterilized after each use).
Regarding claim 37, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 36, wherein the sterilizing of the textile item, the sterilizing of the sheet, and the sterilizing of the tie are performed in the same process (it is well known to one having ordinary skill in the art that surgical textile items like those of FAAS and Fernandez can be sterilized in the same process or in separate processes).
Regarding claim 38, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 36, wherein the sterilizing of the textile item, the sterilizing of the sheet, and the sterilizing of the tie are performed in different processes (it is well known to one having ordinary skill in the art that surgical textile items like those of FAAS and Fernandez can be sterilized in the same process or in separate processes).
Regarding claim 39, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 32.
FAAS does not disclose the method comprising repackaging the textile item, comprising:
(a) inserting the textile item through an open end of a bag into an interior space of the bag and closing the open end of the bag such that the bag completely contains the item within the interior space, the bag comprising a textile material;
(b) folding a sheet of a textile material about the bag into a configuration such that the folded sheet of textile material defines an envelope that entirely envelops the bag; and
(c) securing the folded sheet of material in the configuration enveloping of the bag.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified FAAS to comprise the above steps, as it is a simple repetition of adding another layer of wrapping to provide further protection. FAAS discloses wrapping an item twice, making it obvious to repeat the process once more to provide additional protection.
Regarding claim 40, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 32, wherein the sterilized, reusable textile item comprises a textile article used in foodservice (it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify FAAS’s item, a surgical gown, to be any other item that requires sterile protection, such as a textile article used in foodservice).
Regarding claim 41, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 40, wherein the textile article comprises an apron (it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify FAAS’s item, a surgical gown, to be any other item that requires sterile protection, such as an apron).
Regarding claim 42, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 40, wherein the textile article comprises a head covering (it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify FAAS’s item, a surgical gown, to be any other item that requires sterile protection, such as a head covering).
Regarding claim 43, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 32, wherein the sterilized, reusable textile item comprises a textile article used in healthcare (surgical gown, as shown by FAAS).
Regarding claim 44, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 43, wherein the textile article comprises a gown (surgical gown, as shown by FAAS).
Regarding claim 45, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 43, wherein the textile article comprising a surgical drape (surgical gown, as shown by FAAS).
Regarding claim 46, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 43, wherein the textile article comprises scrubs (surgical gown, as shown by FAAS).
Regarding claim 47, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 43, wherein the textile article comprises a sanitary piece of textile clothing worn by a healthcare provider (surgical gown, as shown by FAAS).
Regarding claim 48, modified FAAS discloses the method of claim 43, wherein the textile article comprises a sanitary piece of textile clothing worn by a healthcare patient (surgical gown, as shown by FAAS).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Himchan Song whose telephone number is (571)272-4142. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/HIMCHAN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3731