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 .
Formal Matters
Applicant’s submission filed 1 August 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-17 are pending and under examination.
Priority/BenefitADS Correction Required
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/395165, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The parent 17/395165 application is claimed as a CONTINUATION on the Application Data Sheet. However, it is noted that the first paragraph of the specification in this application, 18/891765 recites that this application is a CONTINUATION-IN-PART. It has been known that the scroll tool in the online electronic Application Data Sheet (ADS) submission, can sometimes switch between “Continuation” and “Continuation-In-Part”. In order to correct this discrepancy, Applicant is required to submit a corrected Application Data Sheet expressly designating this application (18/891765) as a Continuation-In-Part of parent application 17/395165.
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/395165, filed 5 August 2021, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Applicant is advised that the first paragraph of the Specification correctly recites that this application 18/891765 is a Continuation-In-Part. Correction of the Application Data Sheet (ADS) by resubmission of the ADS including the correct designation of the instant application as a Continuation-In-Part, as described above, is the best way to correct the discrepancy.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 17 recites the word “mechanisms” in the plural followed by the verb “is”. To be grammatically correct, the phrase should read: “mechanism is” or alternatively “mechanisms are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
tensioning mechanism in claims 1, 11, 14, and 17 is interpreted as being operatively connected to the strap (Specification p. 4), configured to tighten the strap around each limb (Specification p. 5), configured to incrementally tightened (Specification p. 5), various buckles (Specification pp. 8, 16-20), button-and-buttonhole (Specification p. 18), twist configurations (Specification pp. 17-18), dials (Specification pp. 17, 22), loop-and-hook, ratcheting mechanisms (Specification pp. 18, 20), levers (Specification p. 18), windlass (Specification p. 22), screws, cables, slots, magnets, clips (Specification p. 16), embodiments recited in Figures 2, 3, 4A, 4B, and 6-13 (see Brief Description of the Drawings), and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rose et al., US 20110270299 (3 November 2011).
Regarding independent claim 17, Rose modified by Levesque teaches a wearable safety tourniquet apparel (¶3), comprising:
a protective garment (FIG 9, pants 1100);
having: multiple elongated leg sections (FIG 9, legs) configured to protect legs of a wearer (FIG 9, legs),
the leg sections having a front face (FIG 9, pants 1100), an inner face (inner surface of the pants 1100, ¶160), and an outer face (¶161, entire circumference of pants 1100);
multiple safety tourniquets (FIG 9), each safety tourniquet (FIG 9) having: a resilient strap (FIG 9, band 140) being circumferentially integrated into the leg sections of the protective garment (¶161, entire circumference of pants 1100),
the strap (band 140) operable to wrap around a portion of each leg of the wearer (FIG 9),
a tensioning mechanism (FIG 9, bar 110; ¶96) being operatively connected to the strap (band 140), the tensioning mechanism (110) being oriented towards the outer face of the leg sections (FIG 9, pants 1100),
wherein the tensioning mechanisms (FIG 9, bar 110; ¶96) is configured to tighten the strap around each limb to stem the flow of blood (FIG 9; ¶98).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al., US 20110270299 (3 November 2011) in view of Levesque, US 20210100298 (8 April 2021, benefit to 8 October 2019).
Regarding claim 1, teaches a wearable safety tourniquet apparel (¶3), comprising:
a protective garment (FIG 9, pants 1100);
having: a cloth layer (fabric, ¶160) and
multiple elongated limb sections (FIG 9, leg) configured to protect limbs of a wearer (FIG 9, legs),
the limb sections having a front face (FIG 9, pants 1100), an inner face (inner surface of the pants 1100, ¶160), and an outer face (¶161, entire circumference of pants 1100);
multiple safety tourniquets (FIG 9), each safety tourniquet (FIG 9) having: a resilient strap (FIG 9, band 140) being circumferentially integrated into the limb sections of the protective garment (¶161, entire circumference of pants 1100),
wherein the resilient strap is disposed between the cloth layer of the protective garment (FIG 9; tourniquet system band 140 positioned or attached within a channel or tunnel formed in the pants 1100, ¶¶160-161); and
a tensioning mechanism (FIG 9, bar 110; ¶96) being operatively connected to the strap (band 140), the tensioning mechanism (110) being oriented towards the outer face of the limb sections (FIG 9, pants 1100),
wherein the tensioning mechanisms (FIG 9, bar 110; ¶96) is configured to tighten the strap around each limb to stem the flow of blood (FIG 9; ¶98).
Rose does not teach an impact resistant layer such that the resilient strap is disposed between the cloth layer and the impact resistant layer.
However, Rose teaches that the tourniquet system allows for utilization of layered garments where each layered garment allows access to one or more embedded tourniquets (¶25).
Levesque teaches protective garments (Abstract; FIGs 1, 2; ¶¶6, 35) having:
multiple elongated limb sections configured to protect limbs of a wearer (FIGs 1-3; abstract; ¶13, Kevlar chaps), with resilient straps (FIGs 8-13 and 15; ¶54 Velcro® straps) being circumferentially and fixedly integrated into the limb sections of the protective garment (FIGs 1, 2, 15-17), the strap operable to wrap around a portion of each limb of the wearer (FIGs 1, 2, 15-17); and a tensioning mechanism being operatively connected to the strap (FIGs 8-13; triglide buckle ¶54; hook and loop fasteners ¶69), and where the garment comprises three or more flexible layers comprising at least two different fabrics that may be abrasion resistant, cut resistant, and penetration resistant (¶¶34-35). Levesque teaches various types of fabric layers including Kevlar at ¶78.
Rose and Levesque teach in the same field of endeavor, that of protective garments. Although Rose discloses the base garment, Rose does not expressly teach wherein the limb sections of the protective garment comprise a cloth layer and an impact resistant layer. Levesque specifically addresses the need for multiple layers of fabric so that the garment may be abrasion resistant, cut resistant, and penetration resistant (¶¶34-35). Because Rose’s base garment includes a fabric layer (¶160) and teaches that the tourniquet system allows for utilization of layered garments where each layered garment allows access to one or more embedded tourniquet strap assemblies (¶25) a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to reduce impact hazards in Rose’s garment architecture (Rose also teaches the need for protective garments related to wounds from battlefield and blast injuries at ¶¶8-9), would reasonably consult Levesque’s abrasion resistant, cut resistant, and penetration resistant garment solution. Levesque’s multi-layer system can be incorporated alongside Rose’s garment construction (same and overlapping garments with integrated resilient tourniquets provided in embedded fabric channels) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rose’s core garment solution.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (providing protective garments for injuries from occupational hazards) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding one or more abrasion resistant, cut resistant, and/or penetration resistant layers to the fabric garment comprising an integrated embedded channel or tunnel for a resilient tourniquet strap assembly), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 2, Rose modified by Levesque teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 1, as set forth above. Rose also teaches wherein the protective garment includes a short-sleeve shirt (¶165), pants (Rose:FIGs 9, 17A, 1100), a jacket (¶21), a sweater, sweatpants, shorts (FIG 18), a vest guard, or a full body suit (FIG 21, wet suit 2100, ¶21).
Regarding claim 3, Rose modified by Levesque teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 1, as set forth above.
Rose does not teach an impact resistant layer.
However, Rose teaches that the tourniquet system allows for utilization of layered garments where each layered garment allows access to one or more embedded tourniquets (¶25).
Levesque teaches protective garments (Abstract; FIGs 1, 2; ¶¶6, 35) having:
multiple elongated limb sections configured to protect limbs of a wearer (FIGs 1-3; abstract; ¶13, Kevlar chaps), with resilient straps (FIGs 8-13 and 15; ¶54 Velcro® straps) being circumferentially and fixedly integrated into the limb sections of the protective garment (FIGs 1, 2, 15-17), the strap operable to wrap around a portion of each limb of the wearer (FIGs 1, 2, 15-17); and a tensioning mechanism being operatively connected to the strap (FIGs 8-13; triglide buckle ¶54; hook and loop fasteners ¶69), and where the garment comprises three or more flexible layers comprising at least two different fabrics that may be abrasion resistant, cut resistant, and penetration resistant (¶¶34-35). Levesque teaches various types of fabric layers including Kevlar at ¶78.
Rose and Levesque teach in the same field of endeavor, that of protective garments. Although Rose discloses the base garment, Rose does not expressly teach wherein the limb sections of the protective garment comprise a cloth layer and an impact resistant layer. Levesque specifically addresses the need for multiple layers of fabric so that the garment may be abrasion resistant, cut resistant, and penetration resistant (¶¶34-35). Because Rose’s base garment includes a fabric layer (¶160) and teaches that the tourniquet system allows for utilization of layered garments where each layered garment allows access to one or more embedded tourniquet strap assemblies (¶25) a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to reduce impact hazards in Rose’s garment architecture (Rose also teaches the need for protective garments related to wounds from battlefield and blast injuries at ¶¶8-9), would reasonably consult Levesque’s abrasion resistant, cut resistant, and penetration resistant garment solution. Levesque’s multi-layer system can be incorporated alongside Rose’s garment construction (same and overlapping garments with integrated resilient tourniquets provided in embedded fabric channels) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rose’s core garment solution.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (providing protective garments for injuries from occupational hazards) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding one or more abrasion resistant, cut resistant, and/or penetration resistant layers to the fabric garment comprising an integrated embedded channel or tunnel for a resilient tourniquet strap assembly), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 4, Rose modified by Levesque teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 3, as set forth above.
Rose does not teach an impact resistant layer such that the resilient strap is disposed between the cloth layer and the impact resistant layer.
However, Rose teaches that the tourniquet system band 140 may be positioned or attached within a channel or tunnel formed in the pants 1100, (FIG 9, ¶¶160-161). Rose also teaches that the tourniquet system allows for utilization of layered garments where each layered garment allows access to one or more embedded tourniquets (¶25).
Levesque teaches protective garments (Abstract; FIGs 1, 2; ¶¶6, 35) having:
multiple elongated limb sections configured to protect limbs of a wearer (FIGs 1-3; abstract; ¶13, Kevlar chaps), with resilient straps (FIGs 8-13 and 15; ¶54 Velcro® straps) being circumferentially and fixedly integrated into the limb sections of the protective garment (FIGs 1, 2, 15-17), the strap operable to wrap around a portion of each limb of the wearer (FIGs 1, 2, 15-17); and a tensioning mechanism being operatively connected to the strap (FIGs 8-13; triglide buckle ¶54; hook and loop fasteners ¶69), and where the garment comprises three or more flexible layers comprising at least two different fabrics that may be abrasion resistant, cut resistant, and penetration resistant (¶¶34-35). Levesque also teaches various types of fabric layers including Kevlar at ¶78. Levesque teaches wherein the impact resistant layer comprises a fibrous material adapted to prevent a flesh penetrating device from cutting or puncturing through the cloth layer (Kevlar, ¶78). Additionally, Levesque teaches abrasion resistance fabrics at ¶79 and cut resistant fabrics at ¶80.
Rose and Levesque teach in the same field of endeavor, that of protective garments. Although Rose discloses the base garment, Rose does not expressly teach wherein the limb sections of the protective garment comprise a cloth layer and an impact resistant layer. Levesque specifically addresses the need for multiple layers of fabric so that the garment may be abrasion resistant, cut resistant, and penetration resistant (¶¶34-35). Because Rose’s base garment includes a fabric layer (¶160) and teaches that the tourniquet system allows for utilization of layered garments where each layered garment allows access to one or more embedded tourniquet strap assemblies (¶25) a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to reduce impact hazards in Rose’s garment architecture (Rose also teaches the need for protective garments related to wounds from battlefield and blast injuries at ¶¶8-9), would reasonably consult Levesque’s abrasion resistant, cut resistant, and penetration resistant garment solution. Levesque’s multi-layer system can be incorporated alongside Rose’s garment construction (same and overlapping garments with integrated resilient tourniquets provided in embedded fabric channels) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rose’s core garment solution.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (providing protective garments for injuries from occupational hazards) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding one or more abrasion resistant, cut resistant, and/or penetration resistant layers to the fabric garment comprising an integrated embedded channel or tunnel for a resilient tourniquet strap assembly), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 5, Rose modified by Levesque teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 4, as set forth above.
Levesque teaches wherein the impact resistant layer comprises a fibrous material adapted to prevent a flesh penetrating device from cutting or puncturing through the cloth layer (Kevlar, ¶78). Additionally, Levesque teaches abrasion resistance fabrics at ¶79 and cut resistant fabrics at ¶80.
Regarding claim 6, Rose modified by Levesque teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 5, as set forth above.
Levesque teaches flesh penetrating devices comprising cutting hazards that are related to a cutting action by a smooth sharp edge across a surface of the material including serrated edges, saw blades and motorized cutting tools (¶80).
Additionally, Applicant is advised that that the devices capable of being used to penetrate the flesh are not related to patentability when the claimed device’s material is configured to be resistant to things penetrating it. In this case, Rose modified by Levesque teaches that the wearable safety tourniquet apparel is configured to be resistant to flesh penetrating devices.
Regarding claim 7, Rose modified by Levesque teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 1, as set forth above. Rose also teaches wherein the strap defines two free ends (FIGs 8A-D) passing out of the protective garment through at least one opening (FIG 9; ¶¶91, 114).
Regarding claim 8, Rose modified by Levesque modified by Levesque teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 1, as set forth above. Rose also teaches wherein the strap has a front side and a back side (FIGs 8A-D).
Regarding claim 9, Rose modified by Levesque teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 1, as set forth above. Rose also teaches wherein the outer face of each limb sections (FIG 9) aligns with an outer region of each limb (FIG 9).
Regarding claim 10, Rose modified by Levesque teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 1, as set forth above. Rose also teaches wherein each limb sections partially encircles each leg of the wearer (¶161).
Regarding claim 11, Rose modified by Levesque teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 1, as set forth above. Rose also teaches wherein the tensioning mechanism (110) includes a lever, a windlass (FIG 8C), a dial, a buckle (FIGs 8A-D, bar 110), a ratchet, a button and button opening arrangement, a flip-up handle, or a twisting ratchet assembly (210, 310, 410).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al., US 20110270299 (3 November 2011) in view of Levesque, US 20210100298 (8 April 2021, benefit to 8 October 2019) and further in view of Sawyer Bleeding Control Kit: Rescue Essentials (www.rescue-essentials.com/sawyer-bleeding-control-kit), Google Search Results 23 March 2018. Last Accessed 12/22/2025 (hereinafter “Sawyer”)).
Regarding claim 12, Rose modified by Levesque teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 1, as set forth above, as set forth above.
Rose does not teach comprising a medical kit removably insertable into a pocket in the protective garment.
However, Rose teaches various garments including pockets (FIG 9, pants 1100).
Sawyer teaches medical first aid kits designed as an add-on pocket. Sawyer teaches that the kit comprises: a bandage, a sterile gauze pad, and a pair of scissors (shears) (images; description, p. 2 of 3).
Rose and Sawyer teach in the same field of endeavor, that of protective equipment. Although Rose discloses the base garment, Rose does not expressly teach a medical kit removably insertable into a pocket in the protective garment. FIG 9 of Rose also shows that pants 1100 have belt loops which could hold a belt and an add-on first aid kit, such as the one taught by Sawyer. Because Rose’s base garment includes pockets and belt loops and Sawyer provides motivation to add a specialty bleeding control first aid kit, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to reduce hazards by wearing tourniquet-embedded garments, such as those taught by Rose, would reasonably consult Sawyer’s commercially available bleeding control medical kit solution that is removably insertable into a pocket in the protective garment. Sawyer’s medical kit system can be incorporated alongside Rose’s garment (in pockets or on a belt looped through the belt loops) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rose’s core garment solution.
Regarding claim 13, Rose modified by Levesque and Sawyer teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 12, as set forth above. Sawyer teaches wherein the medical kit includes at least one of the following: a pair of scissors, a bandage, sterile gauze pads, a splint kit, or a sanitizing agent (images; description p. 2 of 3).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al., US 20110270299 (3 November 2011) in view of Levesque, US 20210100298 (8 April 2021, benefit to 8 October 2019), and further in view of Rapp US 20210177432 (17 June 2021, benefit to 7 October 2016) .
Regarding claim 14, Rose modified by Levesque teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 1, as set forth above.
Rose does not teach wherein an audible and/or visual alarm is coupled to the tensioning mechanism and triggered by the tensioning mechanism when the tensioning mechanism is incrementally tightened. Rapp teaches smart tourniquets adapted for wireless communication (¶64). Rapp teaches wherein an audible and/or visual alarm is coupled to the tensioning mechanism and triggered by the tensioning mechanism when the tensioning mechanism is incrementally tightened (¶¶64-65).
Rose and Rapp teach in the same field of endeavor, that of protective equipment. Although Rose discloses the base garment, Rose does not expressly teach wherein an audible and/or visual alarm is coupled to the tensioning mechanism and triggered by the tensioning mechanism when the tensioning mechanism is incrementally tightened. Rose teaches that the
tourniquet system band 140 is positioned or attached within a channel or tunnel formed in the pants 1100 (FIG 9; ¶¶160-161). Rapp teaches smart tourniquets that are adapted for wireless communication, including visual or audible alarms (¶¶62, 64-65). Because Rose’s base garment an embedded tourniquet, pockets, and belt loops (FIG 9), a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to embed modern communication into the tourniquet devices, such as those taught by Rapp, would reasonably consult Rapp’s solution because it is readily incorporated alongside Rose’s garment construction (communication-embedded tourniquet devices) using known assembly methods without redesigning Rose’s core garment solution. Because the references address the same engineering problem (providing tourniquet devices for occupational hazards) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding one or more communication systems to the tourniquet devices) to the fabric garment comprising an integrated embedded channel or tunnel for a resilient tourniquet strap assembly, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 15, Rose modified by Levesque and Rapp teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 14, as set forth above.
Rapp teaches a wireless transceiver device is coupled to the audible and/or visual alarm (¶62) for transmitting one or more wireless electronic messages when the audible and/or visual alarm is activated (¶¶64-65).
Regarding claim 16, Rose modified by Levesque and Rapp teaches the wearable safety tourniquet apparel of claim 15, as set forth above.
Rapp teaches wherein the wireless electronic messages is sent to a pre-designated phone number or an emergency station via Wi-Fi, satellite network, mobile network, or other wireless network once the alarm is activated (¶¶64-65).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Messenger et al., USDA Tech Tips 5100/6700 0451-2324P-MTDC June 2004 (www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/tech-tip-chaps.pdf), Last Accessed 12/22/2025) teaches chainsaw chaps (FIG 1) comprising two layers of back-coated nylon shell, a pad comprising coated nylon duck, and five layers of Kevlar.
Piccioni, US 20190033043 (31 January 2019) teaches a public safety garments whose components incorporate wires for communication devices enabling a wearer to send and receive data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERIE M POLAND whose telephone number is (703)756-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (9am-9pm CST) and R-F (9am-3pm CST).
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/CHERIE M POLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/SHAUN L DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771