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 (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.
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.
Claims 3-5, 7 10-12, 14 and 17-20 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 3 recites the limitation "cuffs" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "shoulder parts" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "cuffs" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "shoulder parts" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "shoulder parts" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation 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) 1-2, 6, 8, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (US 20180035731) in view of Bjorklund (US 4783854).
As to claim 1, Wolf discloses a method of making and folding an article/gown (Abstract). Wolf discloses that the method comprises of: a first transport process of transporting a first sheet material 3000 for forming a first member that is one of a front body and a back body; a second transport process of transporting a second sheet material for forming a second member 5000 that is the other of the front body and the back body; a first formation process of forming tubular sleeve members by superimposing a transported third sheet material 1000A, 2000A and a transported fourth sheet material 1000B, 2000B, partially joining 1003, 2003 the third sheet material and the fourth sheet material transported in the superimposed state, and cutting them in predetermined positions 1007, 2008, a first superimposition process of superimposing the transported first sheet material and the sleeve members 3003A/B; a second superimposition process of superimposing the transported first sheet material and the transported second sheet material so that the sleeve members superimposed with the first sheet material are disposed between the first sheet material and the second sheet material 3006A/B, 3007; a second formation process of partially joining the first sheet material and the second sheet material transported in the superimposed state, the first sheet material and the second sheet material being transported in the superimposed state; and a separation process 3010 of separating from the first sheet material and the second sheet material the garment that has been formed by the second formation process (Fig. 1-1; Fig. 1-2).
Wolf fails to specifically teach or disclose a step of partially cutting the partially laminated first and second sheets along the outer edge of the garment to be formed. Bjorklund discloses a method of making a folded protective garment (Abstract). Bjorklund discloses it is known and conventional in the art slit a garment along the collar to help facilitate the downward folding of the collar (C4, L56-60). It would have been obvious to include a step of form slits/partial cuts in the collar of the garment of Wolf and would have been motivated to do so because Bjorklund teaches that the formation of slits in the collar helps facilitate the downward folding of said collar.
As to claim 2, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Wolf discloses that the second material may be slit in the transportation direction to form two separate back panel sheets (¶75).
As to claim 6, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Wolf discloses that the sleeves may be bonded to the to the first sheet material prior to bonding the first and second sheet material to one another (Fig. 4-1, 4-2).
As to claim 8, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Wolf discloses a folding process, executed after the second formation process and before the separation process on the first sheet material and the second sheet material transported in a third direction in the superimposed state, in the folding process, the first sheet material and the second sheet material being folded along the third direction so that both end portions of the first sheet material and the second sheet material in a direction orthogonal to the third direction being folded inward (Fig. 4-2).
As to claim 13, the method of claim 2 is taught as seen above. Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 above.
As to claim 15, the method of claim 2 is taught as seen above. Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 3-5, 10-12, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (US 20180035731) and Bjorklund (US 4783854) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Zhou (US 20150096671).
As to claim 3, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Wolf discloses that the gown has sleeves with cuffs 108, 208 which are smaller than the arm holes 102B, 202B at the opposite end of the sleeve (Fig. 6, 7) and that the left and right sleeves are formed from separate stations providing respective third and fourth sheet material (Fig. 1-1, 1-2), but fails to specifically teach or disclose that the third sheet material and the fourth sheet material transported in a first direction in the superimposed state are alternately formed a first sleeve member where the cuff is disposed on one end side in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction and a second sleeve member where the cuff is disposed on the other end side in the second direction. Zhou discloses a method for producing medical oversleeves (Abstract). Zhou teaches that it is known and conventional in the art to make left and right sleeves from a single web laminate by forming sleeves in an alternating pattern (with cuffs disposed on both sides of the laminate) in the web laminate followed by singulation (Fig. 2-6 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the sleeve manufacturing method of Zhou in the method taught by the references as combined because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional method of providing sleeves from a laminate web of material. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claims 4 and 5, the method of claim 3 is taught as seen above. Wolf discloses that the rubber band material 20 is fed at lamination points 16 to both the upper and lower webs of material on both sides of the webs of material (claim 5) so as to reside between the sheets of material that forms the laminate web that the sleeves are formed from (Fig. 1 below; ¶36), wherein said sleeves have elastics in both the cuffs and arm holes of the sleeve.
PNG
media_image2.png
320
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claims 10-12, the method of claim 2 is taught as seen above. Claims 10-12, respectively, are rejected for the same reasons as claims 3-5 above respectively.
As to claim 17, the method of claim 3 is taught as seen above. Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 above.
As to claim 19, the method of claim 3 is taught as seen above. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (US 20180035731) and Bjorklund (US 4783854) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Leger et al. (US 6574800).
As to claim 7, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The above references as combined fail to specifically teach or disclose whether the shoulder portions of the garment may be shaped so as to form a dropped shoulder sleeve attachment/opening. Leger discloses a method of making a garment/gown (Abstract; Fig. 2-3). Leger discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to form a dropped shoulder sleeve opening in a gown so that the helps prevent contact of the armpit of the wearer by the garment and helps maximize the ease of dressing and undressing (C7, L65 – C8, L15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a dropped shoulder sleeve in the garment produced by the above references as combined and would have been motivated to do so because Leger teaches that said dropped shoulder sleeve helps maximize the ease of dressing and undressing the garment from a user.
As to claim 14, the method of claim 2 is taught as seen above. Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 9, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (US 20180035731) and Bjorklund (US 4783854) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Foster et al. (US 5657710).
As to claim 9, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The above references as combined fail to specifically teach or disclose that the sleeve members are reversed to make “the outside in” after formation but prior to attachment to the first material. Foster discloses a method/apparatus for manufacturing garments (Abstract). Foster teaches that it is known and conventional in the art to form sleeves “inside out” in order to make a garment having clean seams when the sleeve is reversed to “outside in” after formation of said sleeve but prior to attachment (C1, L17-28). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to reverse the sleeves of the references as combined to outside in after formation but prior to attachment to the first material and would have been motivated to do so because Foster teaches that this allows for the formation of clean seams in the sleeve.
As to claim 16, the method of claim 2 is taught as seen above. Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 above.
As to claim 20, the method of claim 3 is taught as seen above. Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 above.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (US 20180035731), Bjorklund (US 4783854) and Zhou (US 20150096671) as applied to claims 3-5, 10-12, 17 and 19 above, and further in view of Leger et al. (US 6574800).
As to claim 18, the method of claim 3 is taught as seen above. Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745