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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment of 12/17/2025
Applicant’s amendment of 12/17/2025 is acknowledged.
A specification amendment of 12/17/2025 is acknowledged and is entered.
Replacement drawing sheets were received 12/17/2025. These replacement sheets are acceptable and are entered.
Response to Arguments of 12/17/2025
Applicant’s REMARKS of 12/17/2025 are fully considered.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner indicates that a certified copy of the priority French Application 2201967 has not been filed. The applicant resubmits herewith Request that was submitted on September for USPTO to retrieve the priority application based on the priority French Application 2201967's DAS code A48F.
Examiner’s reply:
A request for the USPTO to retrieve the priority document of 12/17/2025 is acknowledged. Attention is drawn to the PRIORITY DOCUMENT EXCHANGE FAILURE STATUS REPORT mailed 12/19/2025.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner indicated that the Replacement Sheets of Drawings filed on September 29, 2025, were not acceptable and entered because they allegedly introduce new matter. Although the applicant disagrees with the Examiner's assertion that those drawings introduce new matter, in order to expedite the prosecution of this application, the applicant amends Fig. 2 to show reversible members 24, 34 cooperating to fastening thereof to one another, which finds support in the Specification at least at paragraphs [0045] - [0047], [0140] - [0142]. Amended Fig. 2 also shows the inner layer covered, at its peripheral edge, with a layer of material 35 configured to stop the contaminating agent, which finds support in the Specification at least at paragraphs [0050] - [0051], [0124]. Further, amended Fig. 2 shows the third layer of material, referred to as an intermediate layer 40, which finds support in the Specification at least at paragraphs [0052] - [0055], [0096] - [0099], [0125] - [01229]. Accordingly, the applicant respectfully requests that these objections to the drawings be withdrawn and solicits the entry of the Replacement Sheets of Drawings.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically: upon review of the amendment of 12/17/2025, upon review of Applicant’s remarks in italics above, and upon further review of the disclosure as filed, the drawings objections set forth in the previous Office action are overcome.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner objected to the Specification because it allegedly introduces new matter. Although the applicant disagrees with the Examiner's assertion, in order to expedite the prosecution of this application, the applicant submits herewith clean and marked-up copies of Substitute Specification. Specifically, the Specification is amended herein, without adding new matter, to delete all references to now canceled Figs. 5-7 and to provide reference numbers for the reversible members 24, 34, the layer of material 35 and the intermediate layer 40 consistent with the amended Fig. 2.
The undersigned hereby states that undersigned has reviewed the substitute specification, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.125(b) and the content of the substitute specification does not contain new matter.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically: upon review of the amendment of 12/17/2025, upon review of Applicant’s remarks in italics above, and upon further review of the disclosure as filed, the specification objections set forth in the previous Office action are overcome.
Applicant argues:
Claims 2, 3 and 5 invoke mean-plus function limitation treatment. Although the applicant disagrees with the Examiner's assertion, to expedite the prosecution of this application, the applicant accepts that the limitations of claims 2, 3 and 5 will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged. The argued limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as set forth hereinbelow.
Applicant argues:
Claims 2-4 and 13-15 have been rejected for indefiniteness. Claims 2, 3 and 13 are amended herein incorporating the Examiner's kind suggestions in clear and definite terms without adding new matter. Accordingly, the applicant respectfully requests that these indefinite rejections be withdrawn.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically: upon review of the amendment of 12/17/2025, upon review of Applicant’s remarks in italics above, and upon further review of the disclosure as filed, the 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in the previous Office action are overcome.
Applicant argues:
Claims 1-15 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. Claim 1 is amended herein incorporating the Examiner's kind suggestions so that claims are not directed to or do not encompass a human organism, without adding new matter. Accordingly, the applicant respectfully requests that these rejections be withdrawn.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically: upon review of the amendment of 12/17/2025, upon review of Applicant’s remarks in italics above, and upon further review of the disclosure as filed, the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous Office action are overcome.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues in p. 7 line 14 – p. 13 line 5 of the reply the propriety of the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments in p. 7 line 14 – p. 13 line 5 of the reply have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment of 03/14/2026
Applicant’s amendment of 03/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-18 are presented.
The present Office action treats claims 1-18 on the merits.
The present Office action is a non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments of 03/14/2026
Applicant’s REMARKS of 03/14/2026 are fully considered.
Applicant argues:
This amendment supplements the Amendment filed on December 17, 2025, in response to the Final Office Action mailed October 17, 2025.
Claims 1 and 13 are further amended herein without adding new matter. New claims 16-18 are added herein without adding new matter. Accordingly, pending claims 1-18 are presented for consideration.
Specifically, claim 13 is amended herein to recite that the peripheral edge of the outer layer remains securely assembled to the peripheral edge of the inner layer along the lower portion of the peripheral edge of the outer layer. Support for this recitation is set forth in the Specification at least at paragraphs [0028], [0030], [0106].
New claims 16-18 substantially corresponds to claims 13-15. New claim 16 additionally recites that the thickness of the hood in a region contacted by the helmet is reduced by folding the outer layer, thereby increasing comfort for the user and improving helmet fit relative to a configuration in which the outer layer is not folded. Additionally, the helmet is worn over the inner layer and protects the user remains protected against Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) contaminating agents because the helmet forms an external protective barrier that functionally replaces the protective role of the outer layer during helmet use. Support for these added recitations in claim 16 is set forth in the Specification at least at paragraphs [0016], [0032], [0154], [0154], [0156].
In the pending Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to or encompassing a human organism and suggested that this § 101 rejection could be overcome by amending claim 1 to recite "the outer layer of the hood has a peripheral edge, which delimits a face opening in the router layer configured to surround the face of the user in a worn position of the outer layer." In the Amendment filed on December 17, 2025, the applicant amended claim 1 without affecting its scope so as not to be directed to or not to encompass a human organism, in accordance with the Examiner's suggestions. However, in the Advisory Action mailed January 16, 2026, the Examiner now asserts that this amendment has allegedly altered the scope of the claimed invention. The applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's new position as set forth in Advisory Action. The scope of claim 1 has not been changed, it still requires that the peripheral edge of the inner layer of hood delimits the face opening.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered. Applicant’s arguments regarding the scope of the claim term “configured to surround the face of the user” are fully considered. As provided for in MPEP 2111.01, pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with and in light of the specification. In the present Office action, the claim term “configured to surround the face of the user” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with and in light of the specification.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner's drawing objections, indefinite and § 101 rejections have already been addressed in the Amendment filed on December 17, 2025, so it will not be addressed herein.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments presented in the amendment of 12/17/2025 are addressed hereinabove in Examiner’s reply to the remarks of 12/17/2025.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues in p. 7 line 14 – p. 13 line 5 of the reply the propriety of the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments in p. 7 line 3 – p. 11 line 3 of the reply have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 03/07/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2201967 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a first tightening system to tighten the opening at the peripheral edge of the inner layer” in claim 2; “a second tightening system to tighten the opening at the peripheral edge of the outer layer” in claim 3; “reversible members cooperating for fastening thereof to one another” in claim 5.
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.
It is noted the claim limitation(s) “the second tightening system comprises an elastic tightening cord” in claim 4 recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Whitaker, US 2020/0093195, newly cited] in view of [Hueting, DE-10308710-A1, previously cited] and [Gstettner, US 2012/0270456, previously cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Whitaker discloses (Figs. 1-3):
A protective garment 12, the protective garment comprising a hood 14 configured to cover a head and a neck of the user, apart from a face of the user, the hood comprising:
in a thickness of the hood, from an external environment in which the user of the protective garment is located towards the body of the user:
a first layer of material 18, referred to as an outer layer;
a second layer of material 16, referred to as an inner layer;
wherein the outer layer of the hood has a peripheral edge (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below), which delimits a face opening in the outer layer configured to surround the face of the user in a worn position of the outer layer;
wherein the inner layer of the hood has a peripheral edge (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below), which delimits a face opening in the inner layer configured to surround the face of the user in a worn position of the inner layer; and
wherein the peripheral edge of the outer layer is securely assembled to the peripheral edge of the inner layer only (as in Figs. 1-3 – a annotated below wherein it is noted peripheral edges are “securely assembled” to each other only along lower portions thereof as evidenced in Fig. 1 and are reversibly assembled above the lower portions via a releasable closure as explained in para 19 such that they are assembled only along lower portions as claimed) along a lower portion (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) of said peripheral edge of the inner layer and along a lower portion (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) of said peripheral edge of the outer layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
1182
1227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Whitaker does not expressly disclose the protective garment is to protect at least an upper portion of a body of a user against effects of a contaminating agent.
Whitaker does not expressly disclose the first layer of material 18, referred to as an outer layer, configured to stop the contaminating agent, in a liquid form, having a hydrophobic and oleophobic dual characteristic.
However, Hueting teaches a hood (Title; Abstract) wherein “the hood may...consist of...oil-and water-repellent knitted fabric” (para 11) further wherein the hood is “lined” by an inner layer such that Hueting teaches a hood outer layer having a hydrophobic and oleophobic dual character. The outer layer of Hueting is therefore configured to stop a contaminating agent, in a liquid form, having a hydrophobic and oleophobic dual characteristic insofar as the oil- and water-repellent outer layer is configured to repel and stop a liquid water contaminating agent and/or a liquid oil contaminating agent.
It 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 to have modified the garment of Whitaker such that its outer layer is configured to stop the contaminating agent, in a liquid form, having a hydrophobic and oleophobic dual characteristic in order to afford oil repellence to the hood and to afford water repellence to the hood, as taught by Hueting (para 11).
In adopting the modification above, the limitation “to protect at least an upper portion of a body of a user against effects of a contaminating agent” would be met insofar as the modified outer layer would render the garment capable of protecting a head of a wearer (it is noted a head is an upper portion of a body of a wearer) user against effects of a contaminating agent via the outer layer being configured to stop the contaminating agent, in a liquid form, having a hydrophobic and oleophobic dual characteristic as explained above.
Whitaker does not expressly disclose the second layer of material 16, referred to as an inner layer, configured to at least one of absorb and adsorb vapors originating from the contaminating agent.
However, Gstettner teaches a “fabric for use in...protective clothing” (Abstract) wherein said fabric “may be used as a layer of fabric on the inside of a garment” (para 75) and “can be used for jackets, coats,...shirts, sweaters and jumpers, sweatshirts, T-shirts,...hoods for head protection other headwear” (para 76). Gstettner further teaches an appropriate material of construction therefor is “cellulosic fibers” which “give enhanced comfort...because cellulosic fibers are hydrophilic and absorb moisture vapour and liquid water” (para 6).
It 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 to have modified the modified Whitaker such that its second layer of material, referred to as an inner layer, is configured to absorb vapors originating from a contaminating agent in order to improve comfort of the garment, as taught by Gstettner (para 6). In adopting the modification, the limitation “configured to at least one of absorb and adsorb vapors originating from the contaminating agent” would be met insofar as the inner layer of the modified Whitaker would be configured to absorb moisture vapor regardless of how said moisture vapor originates; accordingly, the modified Whitaker is capable of absorbing vapor originating from the contaminating agent as claimed.
Regarding claim 5:
Whitaker in view of Heuting and Gstettner teach The protective garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Whitaker further discloses wherein each of the outer layer and the inner layer comprises, at their respective peripheral edge, reversible members (“pair of complementary mating members”; para 19; Fig. 2) cooperating for fastening thereof to one another (para 19).
Regarding claim 8:
Whitaker in view of Heuting and Gstettner teach The protective garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Whitaker further discloses wherein the inner layer and the outer layer are securely bonded together (along lower portions thereof; refer to annotated Figs. 1-3 – a presented in above addressing of claim 1) and configured to be provided behind the head of the user, from their peripheral edges (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9:
Whitaker in view of Heuting and Gstettner teach The protective garment of claim 8, as set forth above.
Whitaker further discloses wherein the inner layer and the outer layer are securely bonded together (along lower portions thereof; refer to annotated Figs. 1-3 – a presented in above addressing of claim 1) and configured to be provided behind the head of the user (Figs. 1-3) at ends of the lower portion of the peripheral edge of the inner layer and at ends of the lower power portion of the peripheral edge of the outer layer (Fig. 2, wherein it is noted the “cross-sectional view” thereof is “at” ends as claimed; it is further noted the term “at” means “In or near the area occupied by; in or near the location of”; “In or near the position of”; at. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved October 14 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/at)
Regarding claim 10:
Whitaker in view of Heuting and Gstettner teach The protective garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Whitaker further discloses wherein, in the worn position of the outer layer, the lower portion of the peripheral edge of the outer layer corresponds to a portion of the peripheral edge of the outer layer that is configured to be located under ears of the user (as in annotated Figs. 1-3 – a presented in above addressing of claim 1), at a submandibular region of the user (as in annotated Figs. 1-3 – a presented in above addressing of claim 1; it is noted the term “at” means “In or near the area occupied by; in or near the location of”; “In or near the position of”; at. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved October 14 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/at).
Regarding claim 11:
Whitaker in view of Heuting and Gstettner teach The protective garment of claim 8, as set forth above.
The modified Whitaker further meets the limitation An individual protection kit 10 comprising the protective garment 12 of claim 1 (see above treatment of claim 1) and a helmet 32 to protect the head of the user which directly covers, at least partially, the inner layer of the hood (Fig. 2).
(It is noted the term “helmet” means “any of various protective head coverings usually made of a hard material to resist impact” (“Helmet.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/helmet. Accessed 14 Oct. 2026) and the helmet 32 of Whitaker is a head covering and is capable of protecting as a result of its ability to cushion as explained in paras 18 and 20 such that element 32 is a helmet as claimed).
Regarding claim 12:
Whitaker in view of Heuting and Gstettner teach individual protection kit of claim 11, as set forth above.
Whitaker further discloses wherein the lower portion of the peripheral edge of the outer layer corresponds to a portion of the peripheral edge of the outer layer that is not protected by the helmet of the user (helmet 32 is provided between inner and outer layers 16 and 18 and spaced a distance from peripheral edges of inner and outer layers 16 and 18 as in Fig. 2 of Whitaker such that the lower portion of the peripheral edge of the outer layer corresponds to a portion of the peripheral edge of the outer layer that is not protected by the helmet of the user).
Claim(s) 2-3, as best understood, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Whitaker, US 2020/0093195], [Hueting, DE-10308710-A1], and [Gstettner, US 2012/0270456] as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of [Rickle, US 2019/0174853, previously cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Whitaker in view of Heuting and Gstettner teach The protective garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Whitaker does not expressly disclose further comprising a first tightening system to tighten the opening at the peripheral edge of the inner layer.
However, Rickle teaches a garment comprising a first tightening system (“drawstring” to tighten an opening at a peripheral edge (“to tighten the hood around the perimeter of the face”) of an inner layer (the “inner hood”; para 12).
It 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 to have modified the modified Whitaker such that it is provided with a first tightening system to tighten the opening at the peripheral edge of the inner layer in order to permit a wearer to tighten the inner layer around a wearer’s face, as taught by Rickle (para 12).
Regarding claim 3:
Whitaker in view of Heuting, Gstettner, and Rickle teach The protective garment of claim 2, as set forth above.
Whitaker does not expressly disclose further comprising a second tightening system to tighten the opening at the peripheral edge of the outer layer.
However, Rickle teaches a garment comprising a second tightening system (“drawstring” to tighten an opening at a peripheral edge (“to tighten the hood around the perimeter of the face”) of an inner layer (the “outer hood”; para 12).
It 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 to have modified the modified Whitaker such that it is provided with a second tightening system to tighten the opening at the peripheral edge of the outer layer in order to permit a wearer to tighten the outer layer around a wearer’s face, as taught by Rickle (para 12).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Whitaker, US 2020/0093195], [Hueting, DE-10308710-A1], [Gstettner, US 2012/0270456], and [Rickle, US 2019/0174853] as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of [Tew, US 2022/0184428, previously cited].
Whitaker in view of Heuting, Gstettner, and Rickle teach The protective garment of claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Whitaker does not meet the limitation wherein the second tightening system comprises an elastic tightening cord.
However, Tew teaches a hood (Title) tightening system comprises an elastic tightening cord (“draw string or cord 513...elasticized draw string or cord......ends of draw string or cord 513 extend through apertures in face lining 512 so that they are can used to tension the draw string or cord 513...draw string or cord 513 can be tied together or connected to a device to maintain tension”; para 30).
It 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 to have modified the modified Whitaker such that its second tightening system comprises an elastic tightening cord in order to permit a wearer to create and maintain tension so as to keep the opening at the peripheral edge of the outer layer tight when the elastic tightening cord tightens the opening, as suggested by Tew (para 30).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Whitaker, US 2020/0093195], [Hueting, DE-10308710-A1], and [Gstettner, US 2012/0270456] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Meunier, US 5,221,572, previously cited].
Regarding claim 6:
Whitaker in view of Heuting and Gstettner teach The protective garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Whitaker does not expressly disclose wherein the inner layer is covered, at its peripheral edge, with a layer of material configured to stop the contaminating agent in the liquid form, having a hydrophobic and oleophobic dual characteristic.
However, Meunier teaches a hood layer 11 covered with (via curing of fluorocarbon as described in col. 2 lines 33-35) a layer of material (“durable fluorocarbon”; col. 2 lines 33-34) configured to stop the contaminating agent in the liquid form (“oil-resistant and water-repellant...provides...liquid chemical protection”; col. 3 lines 34-35), having a hydrophobic and oleophobic dual characteristic (col. 3 lines 33-35). Meunier is silent as to whether the hood layer 11 is covered at its peripheral edge; however, one of ordinary skill would expect the function of liquid chemical protection to be afforded at those locations on which the fluorocarbon layer of material is disposed.
It 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 to have modified the modified Whitaker such that the inner layer is covered, at its peripheral edge, with a layer of material configured to stop the contaminating agent in the liquid form, having a hydrophobic and oleophobic dual characteristic, in order to afford liquid chemical protection, as taught by Meunier (col. 3 lines 34-35), of the inner layer at its peripheral edge. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to adopt the modification so as to protect the inner layer and its peripheral edge from chemicals such as chemical oil originating from biological body oils originating from the wearer’s hands.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Whitaker, US 2020/0093195], [Hueting, DE-10308710-A1], and [Gstettner, US 2012/0270456] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Blake, US 2019/0350290, previously cited].
Regarding claim 7:
Whitaker in view of Heuting and Gstettner teach The protective garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Whitaker does not expressly disclose wherein the hood comprises a third layer of material, referred to as an intermediate layer, configured to stop the contaminating agent in an aerosol form, the intermediate layer being securely bonded to the inner layer.
However, Blake teaches a hood (Title) wherein a third layer of material 206 (i.e. “particle barrier layer 206”; para 50), referred to as an intermediate layer, is configured to stop a contaminating agent in an aerosol form (“for preventing or inhibiting penetration of particulates, including aerosols”; para 2), the intermediate layer 206 being securely bonded to (“inner layer 208...joined to the particle barrier layer 206...across the interior surface 214”; para 52) an inner layer 208 (para 52) wherein the combined intermediate layer 206 and inner layer 208 line an outer layer 202.
It 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 to have modified the modified Whitaker such that its hood comprises a third layer of material, referred to as an intermediate layer, configured to stop the contaminating agent in an aerosol form, the intermediate layer being securely bonded to the inner layer in order to prevent or inhibit the penetration of aerosols, as taught by Blake (para 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
