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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 8/11/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 10-13, 15, 16 and 18 have been amended; claims 1-9 have been cancelled, and claim 19 has been added.
Claims 10-19 are pending in this application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In the instant case there does not appear to be any means for language in the claims and/or language to be considered under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 10-18 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailhe US 2607934 A (herein after Bailhe) in view of Beach-Drummond US 20140057510 A1 (herein after Beach-Drummond).
Regarding claim 10, Bailhe discloses a protective garment (Abstract,) to protect against drowning (Col 5, lines 29-34), comprising: an item of clothing comprising a front face (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 2 and 3) intended to cover an abdomen of a user (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 2 and 3), and a rear face (as seen in annotated Figures 6 and 7) intended to cover the back of the user (as seen in annotated Figures 6 and 7); an inflatable bladder (23, 24 and 25) comprising two abdominal floats (22, 23, 24) connected to each other by a cervical portion (25); wherein the front face of the item of clothing (as seen in annotated Figures 1, 2 and 3) comprises a first housing (22, Col 4, lines 40-50 and Col 4, lines 53-65) of the front face shaped to receive the two abdominal floats of the inflatable bladder (Col 4, lines 53-65, as seen in annotated Figures !, 2, 3, 4 and 5), the first housing of the front face opening out via two openings (Col 4, lines 54-60) arranged to allow an assembly of the inflatable bladder to the item of clothing (Col 2 lines 23-52) in a removable manner by inserting each abdominal float into the first housing of the front face through a respective opening (Col 4, lines 51-65), and wherein the rear face of the item of clothing (as seen in annotated Figures 6 and 7) comprises a second housing of the rear face (17) configured to house the cervical portion of the inflatable bladder in a deflated state (Col 4, lines 51-65, as seen in annotated Figures 6 and 7), and to open to release the cervical portion when the inflatable bladder is inflated (as seen in annotated Figures 6 and 7, Col 6, lines 37-46 “… the top openings of the chest pockets communicating with the hollow collar formation by way of said inverted back pocket; and said continuous inflatable element inserted into said chest pockets and the hollow collar formation; said collar formation being adapted to normally lay flat against the neck and shoulder areas of the garment but being further adapted to be turned upwards and 4' to be held in its upturned position when said element is inflated…”; Col. 4. Lines 70-75 “… Collar tab 30 is intended to be normally attached to button, 31 when the collar is in its normally downward position as shown in Fig, 1. When the garment is being worn while the bladder is either fully or partly inflated, the collar may be brought up as shown in Fig. 2…” therefore the cervical portion when deflated is internal to the collar as it is hidden and secured against the garment, however when inflated it is exposed.
.
.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Opening.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bladder)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second housing.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Floats)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
625
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First housing)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second housing.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
625
435
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bailhe fails to disclose an inflator of the inflatable bladder, configured to inflate the inflatable bladder automatically when the inflator is in contact with water, such that the cervical portion is external to the rear face.
Beach-Drummond teaches an inflator of the inflatable bladder (Abstract, paragraph 0010), configured to inflate the inflatable bladder automatically (Abstract, paragraph 0010) when the inflator is in contact with water (Abstract, as seen in annotated Figure 8), such that the cervical portion is external to the rear face (paragraph 0062 and 0063).
PNG
media_image3.png
331
433
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
597
491
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An inflator of the inflatable bladder.)]
PNG
media_image5.png
652
433
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Bailhe is analogous art to the claimed invention as it relates to inflatable protective garments. Beach-Drummond is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to inflatable protective garments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the garment of Bailhe, by including an inflator of the inflatable bladder, exterior to the rear face of the garment and configured to inflate the inflatable bladder automatically when the inflator is in contact with water, as taught by Beach-Drummond in order to deploy the device when the wearer is unable to. The modification would be a simple modification to obtain predictable results, improved lifesaving capabilities. The ability to deploy the bladders positioned on the exterior of the garment, when in contact with water, ensures they will deploy, completely, unrestricted, even if the wearer is rendered incapable to do so.
Regarding claim 11, the modified protective garment of the combined references discloses wherein said each abdominal float (24 of Bailhe) of the inflatable bladder is connected to the cervical portion by a narrowed portion (25 of Bailhe), with a reduced width compared to a width of an abdominal float (as seen in annotated Figure 8 of Bailhe), and a width of each opening of the first housing of the front
face being between the width of the narrowed portion and the width of the abdominal float (Col 2, lines 23-52, as seen in annotated Figure 8 of Bailhe).
Regarding claim 12, the modified protective garment of the combined references discloses wherein the front face of the item of clothing comprises at least two superimposed textile layers (Col 2, lines 23-52, Col 3, lines 66-75 of Bailhe), and the first housing and the first housing of the front face is defined between said at least two superimposed textile layers (Col 2, lines 23-52 of Bailhe).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second housing)][AltContent: textbox (First housing)]
PNG
media_image6.png
280
141
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the modified protective garment of the combined references discloses wherein the first housing of the front face comprises two compartments (22, 23, 24, on the left and right sides, as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 8 of Bailhe), each compartment being shaped to receive an abdominal float of the inflatable bladder (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 8 of Bailhe), said each compartment being delimited by a seam between said at least two superimposed textile layers (Col 5, lines 51-58 of Bailhe).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Two compartments)]
PNG
media_image7.png
217
220
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Compartments)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First housing)]
PNG
media_image8.png
347
303
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the modified protective garment of the combined references discloses wherein the item of clothing (as seen in annotated Figure 1 and 6 of Bailhe) is shaped so that the cervical portion (as seen in annotated Figure 8 of Bailhe) of the inflatable bladder is external to the rear face of the item of clothing in an inflated state (as seen in annotated Figure 6 of Bailhe).
Regarding claim 15, the modified protective garment of the combined references discloses wherein the second housing of the rear face (17 of Bailhe) comprises a removable fastener (26 of Bailhe).
Regarding claim 16, the modified protective garment of the combined references discloses wherein the rear face of the item of clothing (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Bailhe) comprises two superimposed textile layers (as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Bailhe) between which the second housing of the rear face is defined (as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Bailhe).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Two textile layers)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second housing.)]
PNG
media_image9.png
235
291
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, the modified protective garment of the combined references discloses wherein the two superimposed textile layers comprise a bottom textile layer (Col 5, lines 43-50 of Bailhe) and a top textile layer (as seen in annotated Figure 3 of Bailhe) comprising a cutout defining two panels (as seen in annotated Figure 3 of Bailhe), each panel carrying a part of the removable fastener (12 of Bailhe) so that the two panels can be removably joined by the removable fastener (Col 5, lines 48-58 of Bailhe).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A bottom textile layer)][AltContent: textbox (A top textile layer)]
PNG
media_image8.png
347
303
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, the modified protective garment of the combined references discloses wherein the second housing of the rear face (17 of Bailhe) comprises a flange (Col 4, lines 40-50 of Bailhe) shaped to contain the cervical portion (as seen in annotated Figure 6 of Bailhe) of the inflatable bladder when the inflatable bladder is deflated (Col 4, lines 40-50 of Bailhe).
Regarding claim 19, the modified protective garment of the combined references discloses wherein the two panels (as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Bailhe) are configured to separate (as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Bailhe) to release the cervical portion (as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Bailhe) when the inflatable bladder is inflated (as seen in annotated Figure 5, 6 and 7, Col 6, lines 37-46 of Baihle “… the top openings of the chest pockets communicating with the hollow collar formation by way of said inverted back pocket; and said continuous inflatable element inserted into said chest pockets and the hollow collar formation; said collar formation being adapted to normally lay flat against the neck and shoulder areas of the garment but being further adapted to be turned upwards and 4' to be held in its upturned position when said element is inflated…”; Col. 4. Lines 70-75 “… Collar tab 30 is intended to be normally attached to button, 31 when the collar is in its normally downward position as shown in Fig, 1. When the garment is being worn while the bladder is either fully or partly inflated, the collar may be brought up as shown in Fig. 2…” therefore the cervical portion when deflated is internal to the exterior portion of the collar as it is hidden and secured against the garment, however when inflated it is exposed).
PNG
media_image10.png
227
275
media_image10.png
Greyscale
While Bailhle discloses the bladder is exposed when inflated and the collar stands up against the neck, it is silent to being external to the rear face such that the cervical portion is external to the rear face.
Beach-Drummond teaches the cervical portion is external to the rear face (paragraph 0062 and 0063).
Beach-Drummond is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to inflatable protective garments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the garment of Bailhe, by including an inflator of the inflatable bladder, exterior to the rear face of the garment, as taught by Beach-Drummond in order to deploy the device when the wearer is unable to. The modification would be a simple modification to obtain predictable results, improved lifesaving capabilities. The ability to deploy the bladders positioned on the exterior of the
ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not convincing. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards structural elements included in the amended claims and thus do not apply to the combinations of references used to teach the limitations of the amended claims in the current rejection and/or the manner in which prior art has been applied in the current rejection. In view of Applicant's amendments, the search has been updated, and a rejection on the amended claims is applied above.
While the applicant has presented a detailed explanation of the inventive concept in his arguments, the arguments and the language used to define the invention in the claims can be interpreted in many ways. The applicant has written the claims broadly. The applicant has not positively claimed or provided any defining language/ structural limitations in the claims that would prevent the device of the combined references from reading on the claims as written. As it is the claims that define the claimed invention, it is the claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064. The applicant is reminded the prior art is applied with the broadest reasonable interpretation, and the prior art references meet all the structural elements of the claims as written. Further, 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, or function then it meets the claim. Intended use recitations carry little patentable weight as the application is examined as an apparatus with its structural limitations not its function or intended use since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Bailhe fails to teach a housing of the rear face being configured to open to release the cervical portion when the inflatable bladder is inflated such that the cervical portion is external to the rear face, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Beach-Drummond (paragraph 0062 and 0063) is used to teach the cervical portion that is external to the rear face.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that when Bailhe's bladder is empty, the jacket's collar essentially takes the form of a shirt collar, folded in onto itself and attached to the front of the jacket by buttons, similar to button- up dress shirt. While the cervical portion of Baihle when deflated is internal to the collar as it is hidden and secured against the garment, when inflated it is exposed. Beach-Drummond (paragraph 0062 and 0063) is used to teach the cervical portion that is external to the rear face.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Bailhe describes that the collar is raised and that the neck portion merely provides an insulating layer which enhances the warming effect. It is unclear what is being argued here, however, as explained above, while the cervical portion of Baihle when deflated is internal to the collar as it is hidden and secured against the garment, when inflated it is exposed. Beach-Drummond (paragraph 0062 and 0063) is used to teach the cervical portion that is external to the rear face. If flipping the collar upwards provides additional warmth it clearly would not interfere with the bladder inflating. Anything that would prevent the neck region from being exposed to elements would create a warming effect.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Bailhe does not teach the neck portion being housed in the housing located on the back section/rear face of the garment, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Beach-Drummond (paragraph 0062 and 0063) is used to teach the cervical portion that is external to the rear face.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Bailhe's deep chest pockets do not separate to release the neck portion when the bladder is inflated such that the neck portion is external to the back section, the examiner respectfully disagrees. wherein the two panels (as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Bailhe) are configured to separate (as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Bailhe) to release the cervical portion (as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Bailhe) when the inflatable bladder is inflated (as seen in annotated Figure 5, 6 and 7, Col 6, lines 37-46 of Baihle “… the top openings of the chest pockets communicating with the hollow collar formation by way of said inverted back pocket; and said continuous inflatable element inserted into said chest pockets and the hollow collar formation; said collar formation being adapted to normally lay flat against the neck and shoulder areas of the garment but being further adapted to be turned upwards and 4' to be held in its upturned position when said element is inflated…”; Col. 4. Lines 70-75 “… Collar tab 30 is intended to be normally attached to button, 31 when the collar is in its normally downward position as shown in Fig, 1. When the garment is being worn while the bladder is either fully or partly inflated, the collar may be brought up as shown in Fig. 2…” therefore the cervical portion when deflated is internal to the exterior portion of the collar as it is hidden and secured against the garment, however when inflated it is exposed). While Bailhle discloses the bladder is exposed when inflated and as the collar stands up against the neck, it is silent to being external to the rear face such that the cervical portion is external to the rear face. Beach-Drummond teaches the cervical portion is external to the rear face (paragraph 0062 and 0063).
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Beach-Drummond does not cure the aforenoted deficiencies with Bailhe and the combination of references would not produce the claimed invention, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Beach-Drummond teaches an inflator of the inflatable bladder (Abstract, paragraph 0010), configured to inflate the inflatable bladder automatically (Abstract, paragraph 0010) when the inflator is in contact with water (Abstract, as seen in annotated Figure 8), such that the cervical portion is external to the rear face (paragraph 0062 and 0063).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-11975809-B2, US-9139271-B2, US-7150668-B2, US-5759076, US-3441963, US-2950488-A, US-20200189698-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M FERREIRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5916, fax number (571) 270-6916. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 9:00 am- 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS, at (571) 272-3425. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Catherine M. Ferreira/
Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732