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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is 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.
Specifically, the phrase “placing over the main body” is unclear. What is placed over the main body?
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stackhouse (4942987) in view Army Packing Hack (www.youtube.com).
In regards to Claim 1, Stackhouse teaches a method for aseptically folding a garment (Detail 12) having a main body (Detail 14) and a garment sleeve (Detail 16) having an inner side and an outer side, the method comprising:
with the garment in an outside-out configuration (Figure 1):
tucking a first portion into an unrolled second portion of the garment sleeve (Figure 2); and
after tucking, turning a portion of the main body inside-out (Figures 3 and 4).
While Stackhouse essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach rolling a first portion of the garment sleeve prior to tucking. Army Packing Hack however, teaches that when folding a garment it is well known to roll up part of the garment (Picture 1) prior to tucking the rolled part into an unrolled part (Picture 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rolled the first portion of the garment sleeve prior to tucking into the second unrolled part of the garment sleeve, so as to make the sleeve compact and easy to open. Stackhouse teaches the invention but only tucks the first portion of the sleeve into the second portion of the sleeve. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated the ease of unrolling a sleeve portion versus pushing the tucked portion out the entire way, and known to roll as taught.
In regards to Claim 2, Stackhouse teaches the garment sleeve has a proximal end (at the shoulder) at the main body portion and a distal end (at Detail 22) spaced from the proximal end, and
wherein the first portion is disposed distally of the second portion (Figure 1).
In regards to Claim 3, Stackhouse teaches folding the main body portion after turning the portion of main body inside out (Figure 5).
In regards to Claim 4, the combination teaches repeating the rolling and the tucking for at least one additional garment sleeve of the garment insomuch as Stackhouse teaches in Figure 2 repeating the same steps for both sleeves.
In regards to Claim 5, Stackhouse teaches folding at least one of a hood or a bootie attached to the garment (Figure 6).
In regards to Claim 8, Stackhouse teaches a method for donning an aseptically folded garment (Figures 9-15) having a main body (Detail 14) and a sleeve (Detail 16) having an inner side and an outer side, the sleeve having a first portion tucked into an unrolled second portion (Figure 2), where a portion of the main body is inside out (Figures 3, 4), and the main body and the sleeve are folded (Figure 8).
While Stackhouse essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach rolling a first portion of the garment sleeve prior to tucking. Army Packing Hack however, teaches that when folding a garment it is well known to roll up part of the garment (Picture 1) prior to tucking the rolled part into an unrolled part (Picture 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rolled the first portion of the garment sleeve prior to tucking into the second unrolled part of the garment sleeve, so as to make the sleeve compact and easy to open. Stackhouse teaches the invention but only tucks the first portion of the sleeve into the second portion of the sleeve. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated the ease of unrolling a sleeve portion versus pushing the tucked portion out the entire way, and known to roll as taught.
The combination of Stackhouse and Army Packing Hack would teach the method comprising:
while contacting only the inner side of the garment, inserting a limb into the unrolled second portion of the sleeve (Stackhouse, Figure 12); and
pushing on the rolled first portion of the sleeve to unroll the first portion of the sleeve thereby allowing the limb to move through the first portion of the sleeve (Figure 14 of Stackhouse shows pushing the first portion of the sleeve through the second portion of the sleeve, and the first portion of the sleeve would be rolled as taught by Army Packing Hack.
In regards to Claim 9, Stackhouse teaches unfolding at least one of the main body or the sleeve before inserting the limb (Figures 9-11 shows unfolding the main body).
In regards to Claim 10, Stackhouse teaches the aseptically folded garment includes at least one additional sleeve (Detail 18), and the method further comprises repeating the inserting and the pushing for the at least one additional sleeve of the aseptically folded garment (the method would be performed for both sleeves, as Figure 2 shows both sleeves being tucked as claimed.
In regards to Claim 11, Stackhouse teaches unfolding at least one of the main body or each sleeve before inserting the limb (Figures 9-11 shows unfolding the main body).
In regards to Claim 12, Stackhouse teaches an aseptically folded garment (Detail 12) comprising:
a main body (Detail 14); and
a sleeve (Detail 16) extending from the main body,
wherein the sleeve has a first portion (wrist end half) and a second portion (top half), wherein the first portion is tucked into the unrolled second portion (Figure 2).
While Stackhouse essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach rolling a first portion of the garment sleeve prior to tucking. Army Packing Hack however, teaches that when folding a garment it is well known to roll up part of the garment (Picture 1) prior to tucking the rolled part into an unrolled part (Picture 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rolled the first portion of the garment sleeve prior to tucking into the second unrolled part of the garment sleeve, so as to make the sleeve compact and easy to open. Stackhouse teaches the invention but only tucks the first portion of the sleeve into the second portion of the sleeve. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated the ease of unrolling a sleeve portion versus pushing the tucked portion out the entire way, and known to roll as taught.
In regards to Claim 13, Stackhouse teaches the sleeve and the main body are folded (Figure 8 shows the entirety being folded together multiple times, including the sleeve and main body).
In regards to Claim 15, Stackhouse teaches the main body and the sleeve have an inner side and an outer side, wherein a portion of the main body is in an inside-out configuration (Figure 4).
In regards to Claim 16, Stackhouse teaches at least one of a hood attached to the main body or a bootie attached to the sleeve (Detail 20).
In regards to Claim 17, Stackhouse teaches the hood is folded over at least one of the body or the sleeve (Figure 6).
In regards to Claim 19, Stackhouse teaches the garment includes a plurality of the sleeves extending from the main body (Details 16, 18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 14, 18, and 20 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.
Specifically, Stackhouse teaches a method that does not fold the sleeve, which would be detrimental to the method of donning the garment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record.
Specifically, at least Mithani et al (2021113575) Figures, Wang et al (EP 3386328) Figures, Lu et al (WO 2017124205) Figures, and Czajka et al (20150135398) Figures teach elements similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights