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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-21) in the reply filed on 4/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 22 is hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 11G shows an exploded view that does not have an associated bracket surrounding the exploded components. The exploded components should be connected by a bracket with an associated reference number.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the final line of the claim, “second portion” is missing an article. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “a second portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 15 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.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the elongated at least one of the first or second portions has a lateral dimension that is greater than a lateral dimension of the other one of the first or second portions”. This limitation is unclear because if both of the first and second portions are elongated (“at least one” includes the possibility that both are elongated), then the later limitation “the other one of the first or second portions” does not make sense. If both the first and second portions are elongated, then the recitation “the elongated at least one of the first or second portions” refers to them both collectively, so in that case the claim would read as “the elongated first and second portions have a lateral dimension that is greater than a lateral dimension of the other one of the first or second portions”. It is not clear what would be considered “the other one” in that case. For the purposes of examination, the claim has been interpreted to require that (1) at least one of the first or second portions is elongated, then separately that (2) one of the first or second portions has a lateral dimension that is greater than a lateral dimension of the other one of the first or second portions.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-12, 15-16, 18-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilliot (US 5991924) in view of Murphy (US 2017/0196280).
Regarding claim 1, Grilliot discloses: A coat system comprising: a protective coat (10); a throat tab (20) coupled to or forming a part of the coat (“near one such end 22, which is the left end in FIGS. 3, 4, and 5, the primary portion 30 of the chinstrap 20 may be fastened in a substantially permanent manner, by sewing 32, to an outwardly facing surface (unnumbered) of the collar portion 16” column 3, lines 12-17), wherein the throat tab is movable between a closed position wherein the throat tab is positioned to generally cover a front of a throat of a wearer of the coat (see figures 1 and 4 showing the throat tab in a closed position), and a retracted position wherein the throat tab is not positioned to generally cover the front of the throat of the wearer (“near the other end 24, the primary portion 30 of the chinstrap 20 is fastened releasably to the collar portion 18, in either condition of the chinstrap 20, by a hook-and-pile fastener 34” column 3, lines 17-20; “the secondary portion 40 of the chinstrap 20 is fastened releasably to the collar portion 16 by a hook-and-pile fastener 54” column 3, lines 35-37, emphasis added; since the second end of the chinstrap is releasably fastened to the collar by a hook-and-pile fastener, it is understood that there is a retracted/open/unattached position in which the chinstrap is not attached to the collar at the end 24 and therefore is not positioned to cover the front of the throat of the wearer); a non-magnetic fastener system configured to retain the throat tab in the closed position (hook-and-pile fastener 54).
Grilliot does not explicitly disclose: a magnetic fastener system configured to retain the throat tab in the retracted position.
However, Murphy teaches a magnetic fastener system (22) configured to retain a face covering in a retracted position (see figures 3B and 3C; “advantageously, when the face section 30 is detached and extended along the side of the base section 20 toward the back of the head of the user, one or more of the plurality of magnets 100 within the face elongated cavity 92 is magnetically attracted along its long edge to the long edge of the corresponding one or more magnets 100 of the fastener 22. Accordingly, the magnetic pairing of one or more magnets 100 in the face elongated cavity 92 with the one or more magnets 100 in the fastener 22 allows the face section 30 to be magnetically secured out of the way in its detached state” paragraph 48).
Murphy teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of magnetic fastening systems for garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the magnetic fastening system of Murphy to the chinstrap of Grilliot in order to allow the chinstrap “to be magnetically secured out of the way in its detached state” (Murphy, paragraph 48). Further, magnets in particular are advantageous for this purpose because the magnets will be attracted to each other once they get close in proximity (see paragraph 48 of Murphy describing the attraction), therefore the user does not need to precisely know where the attachment point is behind their head in order to successfully secure the chinstrap out of the way.
Regarding claim 2, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein at least part of the non-magnetic fastener system is positioned on a collar of the coat (Grilliot, “hook-faced panel 56 sewn or affixed adhesively or otherwise to an outwardly facing surface of the collar portion 18” column 3, lines 38-40).
Regarding claim 3, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 2 wherein at least another part of the non-magnetic fastener system is positioned on the throat tab (Grilliot, “a pile-faced panel 58 sewn or affixed adhesively or otherwise to the chinstrap surface 26” column 3, lines 40-41).
Regarding claim 4, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the coat lacks a magnetizable component positioned on a front of a collar of the coat (as modified, there are only magnets added to the throat tab and the back of the collar, so there is no magnetizable component positioned on a front of the collar).
Regarding claim 5, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the coat lacks a magnet positioned on a front of a collar of the coat (as modified, there are only magnets added to the throat tab and the back of the collar, so there is no magnet positioned on a front of the collar).
Regarding claim 6, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein at least part of the non-magnetic fastener system is positioned closer to an upper edge of a collar of the coat than any part of said magnetic fastener system when the throat tab is in the closed position (see annotated figure 3 of Grilliot below, showing the location of the magnet as modified and how there is a part of the non-magnetic fastener that would be positioned closer to an upper edge of the collar than the magnet when the throat tab is closed).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the magnetic fastener system includes a first magnet located on one of the throat tab or a body of the coat (as modified by Murphy, there is a magnet on the throat tab), and wherein the magnetic fastener system further includes at least one of a second magnet or a magnetizable portion located on the other one of the throat tab or the body of the coat (as modified by Murphy, there is a second magnet on the body of the coat).
Regarding claim 8, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 7 wherein the first magnet, or the second magnet or magnetizable portion, that is located on the throat tab, is located at or adjacent to a distal end of the throat tab, and wherein the first magnet, or the second magnet or magnetizable portion, that is located on a body of the coat, is located on a back of a neck or a collar of the coat.
Regarding claim 11, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the non-magnetic fastener system includes a portion of hook material located on one of the throat tab or a body of the coat (Grilliot, “hook-faced panel 56 sewn or affixed adhesively or otherwise to an outwardly facing surface of the collar portion 18” column 3, lines 38-40) and a portion of loop material located on the other one of the throat tab or the body of the coat (Grilliot, “a pile-faced panel 58 sewn or affixed adhesively or otherwise to the chinstrap surface 26” column 3, lines 40-41).
Regarding claim 12, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the non-magnetic fastener system includes a first portion on one of the throat tab or a body of the coat (Grilliot, “hook-faced panel 56 sewn or affixed adhesively or otherwise to an outwardly facing surface of the collar portion 18” column 3, lines 38-40) and a second portion located on the other one of the throat tab or the body of the coat (Grilliot, “a pile-faced panel 58 sewn or affixed adhesively or otherwise to the chinstrap surface 26” column 3, lines 40-41), and wherein at least one of the first or second portions is elongated (see figures 3 and 5 of Grilliot showing that 56 is elongated).
Regarding claim 15, as best as can be understood, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 12 wherein the elongated at least one of the first or second portions has a lateral dimension that is greater than a lateral dimension of the other one of the first or second portions (see annotated figure 3 of Grilliot below).
PNG
media_image2.png
537
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the throat tab is configured to at least partially wrap around a back of a neck of the coat when the throat tab is in the retracted position (as modified by Murphy, the throat tab would at least partially wrap around the back of the neck of the coat when in the retracted position; see figure 3B and 3C of Murphy showing the magnetic attachment on the back; see paragraph 48 of Murphy).
Regarding claim 18, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the throat tab is configured such that at least part of an upper edge of the throat tab is positioned above at least part of an upper portion of a collar portion of the coat when the throat tab is in the closed position (see annotated figure 4 of Grilliot below showing that at least part of an upper edge of the throat tab is positioned above at least part of an upper portion of a collar portion when the throat tab is closed).
PNG
media_image3.png
414
431
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the throat tab is pivotally coupled to a body portion of the coat (the throat tab is capable of pivoting about the sewing 32, as the other end is releasably attached to the coat).
Regarding claim 21, Grilliot discloses: A coat system comprising: a protective coat (10); a throat tab (20) coupled to or forming a part of the coat (“near one such end 22, which is the left end in FIGS. 3, 4, and 5, the primary portion 30 of the chinstrap 20 may be fastened in a substantially permanent manner, by sewing 32, to an outwardly facing surface (unnumbered) of the collar portion 16” column 3, lines 12-17), wherein the throat tab is pivotable between a closed position wherein the throat tab is positioned to generally cover a front of a throat of a wearer of the coat (see figures 1 and 4 showing the throat tab in a closed position), and a retracted position wherein the throat tab is not positioned to generally cover the front of the throat of the wearer (“near the other end 24, the primary portion 30 of the chinstrap 20 is fastened releasably to the collar portion 18, in either condition of the chinstrap 20, by a hook-and-pile fastener 34” column 3, lines 17-20; “the secondary portion 40 of the chinstrap 20 is fastened releasably to the collar portion 16 by a hook-and-pile fastener 54” column 3, lines 35-37, emphasis added; since the second end of the chinstrap is releasably fastened to the collar by a hook-and-pile fastener, it is understood that there is a retracted/open/unattached position in which the chinstrap is not attached to the collar at the end 24 and therefore is not positioned to cover the front of the throat of the wearer); and a non-magnetic fastener system configured to retain the throat tab in the closed position (hook-and-pile fastener 54), wherein the non-magnetic fastener system includes a first portion located on one of the throat tab or a body of the coat (“hook-faced panel 56 sewn or affixed adhesively or otherwise to an outwardly facing surface of the collar portion 18” column 3, lines 38-40), and wherein the non-magnetic fastener system further includes second portion located on the other one of the throat tab or the body of the coat (“a pile-faced panel 58 sewn or affixed adhesively or otherwise to the chinstrap surface 26” column 3, lines 40-41).
Grilliot does not explicitly disclose: a magnetic fastener system configured to retain the throat tab in the retracted position, wherein the magnetic fastener system includes a first magnet located on one of the throat tab or a body of the coat, and wherein the magnetic fastener system further includes a second magnet or a magnetizable portion located on the other one of the throat tab or the body of the coat.
However, Murphy teaches a magnetic fastener system (22) configured to retain a face covering in a retracted position (see figures 3B and 3C; “advantageously, when the face section 30 is detached and extended along the side of the base section 20 toward the back of the head of the user, one or more of the plurality of magnets 100 within the face elongated cavity 92 is magnetically attracted along its long edge to the long edge of the corresponding one or more magnets 100 of the fastener 22. Accordingly, the magnetic pairing of one or more magnets 100 in the face elongated cavity 92 with the one or more magnets 100 in the fastener 22 allows the face section 30 to be magnetically secured out of the way in its detached state” paragraph 48), wherein the magnetic fastener system includes a first magnet located on one of the face covering or the garment (“one or more of the plurality of magnets 100 within the face elongated cavity 92” paragraph 48), and wherein the magnetic fastener system further includes a second magnet or a magnetizable portion located on the other one of the face covering or the garment (“fastener 22 may comprise one or more magnets 100 attached to base section 20 or alternatively positioned between two layers of base section 20” paragraph 47).
Murphy teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of magnetic fastening systems for garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the magnetic fastening system of Murphy to the chinstrap of Grilliot in order to allow the chinstrap “to be magnetically secured out of the way in its detached state” (Murphy, paragraph 48). Further, magnets in particular are advantageous for this purpose because the magnets will be attracted to each other once they get close in proximity (see paragraph 48 of Murphy describing the attraction), therefore the user does not need to precisely know where the attachment point is behind their head in order to successfully secure the chinstrap out of the way.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilliot/Murphy as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Ghasletwala (US 2019/0110527).
Regarding claim 9, Grilliot as modified does not explicitly disclose: The system claim 7 further comprising a backing member coupled to the one of the throat tab or the body of the coat, wherein the backing member is made of a non-magnetic, magnetizable material, and wherein the backing member is magnetically coupled to the first magnet or the second magnet.
However, Ghasletwala teaches a magnetic coupling system wherein each magnet has an associated backing member made of a non-magnetic, magnetizable material, and the backing member is magnetically coupled to the magnet. Specifically, Ghasletwala teaches “each magnetic fastener typically comprises a magnet […] and a back plate. The magnet may be any material which creates a magnetic field […] A back plate may be made of copper or zinc (or both), or other non-magnetic of weakly-magnetic metals or materials, by themselves or combinations with other metals (including ferromagnetic materials such as iron). A back plate is attached to non-connecting side of the magnet (e.g., the negative side when the connecting side is positive or the positive side when the connecting side is negative) to reduce the amount of magnetic flux emanating behind the back plate. This flux reduction helps to reduce the adaptive apparel from being magnetically attracted to other metals, especially the inside of a washer or drying during laundering. The back plate may be attached to the magnet [...] if the back plate is ferromagnetic, will magnetically couple to the magnet" paragraph 23).
Ghasletwala teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of magnetic coupling systems for garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the backing plates made of a ferromagnetic material which is magnetically attached to the magnets as taught by Ghasletwala to the magnetic coupling system of Grilliot/Murphy in order to "reduce the amount of magnetic flux emanating behind the back plate", which would make it easier to wash and clean the garment since it would be less likely to be stuck to the inside of a laundry machine (see Ghasletwala, paragraph 23).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilliot/Murphy as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Hsu (US 2002/0178551).
Regarding claim 10, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 7 wherein the body of the coat includes a collar (Grilliot, 18) of the coat.
Grilliot as modified does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first magnet is positioned between two plies of a water-tight support strip such that the first magnet is fluidly isolated from the surrounding environment.
However, Hsu teaches a magnetic fastener wherein the magnet (10) is positioned between two plies (21, 22) of a water-tight support strip such that the magnet is fluidly isolated from the surrounding environment (“The magnetic 10 is enclosed by the top layer 21 and the bottom layer 22 so that it is isolated from water and will not get rust” Paragraph 14).
Hsu teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of magnetic fastening systems for garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to position the magnets of Grilliot/Murphy between two plies of a water-tight support strip, as taught by Hsu, in order to protect them from rust (see paragraph 14 of Hsu) and therefore increase the longevity of the garment.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilliot/Murphy as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Steele (US 5692240).
Regarding claim 13, Grilliot as modified is silent as to specific dimensions or proportions of the hook and loop fasteners, and therefore does not explicitly disclose: The system of claim 12 wherein the elongated at least one of the first or second portions has a lateral dimension at least twice as long as its height.
However, Steele teaches a throat tab with a non-magnetic fastener system including a first portion on one of the throat tab or a body of the garment (20) and a second portion located on the other one of the throat tab or the body of the garment (16), and wherein at least one of the first or second portions is elongated (see figure 3 showing 20 is elongated), and wherein the elongated at least one of the first or second portions has a lateral dimension at least twice as long as its height (“a first mating strip of hook and loop fastener, 20, approximately three to three and one half inches in length, by one quarter to one half inches wide” claim 1, lines 53-55).
Steele teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of collars for garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the hook and loop fastener piece 56 of Grilliot specifically 3.5 inches in length by 0.5 inches in height (Examiner notes that 3.5 inches is more than two times 0.5 inches), as taught by Steele, in order to provide an increased degree of adjustability for the size and positioning for the throat tab (Steele, “this would allow the individual to adjust the shirt or other collar to his or her exact size to ensure a comfortable fit”, column 1, lines 23-25). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Grilliot as modified is silent as to specific dimensions or proportions of the hook and loop fasteners, and therefore does not explicitly disclose: The system of claim 12 wherein the elongated at least one of the first or second portions has a lateral dimension of at least two inches.
However, Steele teaches a throat tab with a non-magnetic fastener system including a first portion on one of the throat tab or a body of the garment (20) and a second portion located on the other one of the throat tab or the body of the garment (16), and wherein at least one of the first or second portions is elongated (see figure 3 showing 20 is elongated), and wherein the elongated at least one of the first or second portions has a lateral dimension at least twice as long as its height (“a first mating strip of hook and loop fastener, 20, approximately three to three and one half inches in length, by one quarter to one half inches wide” claim 1, lines 53-55).
Steele teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of collars for garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the hook and loop fastener piece 56 of Grilliot specifically 3.5 inches in length by 0.5 inches in height (Examiner notes that 3.5 inches is more than 2 inches), as taught by Steele, in order to provide an increased degree of adjustability for the size and positioning for the throat tab (Steele, “this would allow the individual to adjust the shirt or other collar to his or her exact size to ensure a comfortable fit”, column 1, lines 23-25). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilliot/Murphy as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Curtis (US 2012/0233748).
Regarding claim 17, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the coat includes two front panels of the coat (Grilliot, 16, 18), and appears to show: a coat fastener configured to releasably couple the two front panels (see figures 1-5, appearing to show snap button fasteners) and wherein the throat tab does not extend across the coat fastener when the throat tab is in the retracted position (as modified, the retracted position is when the throat tab is attached to the magnet at the back of the coat, therefore the throat tab would not extend across the coat fastener when the throat tab is in the closed position).
Since the buttons are discrete, Grilliot does not explicitly disclose: wherein the throat tab extends across the coat fastener when the throat tab is in the closed position.
However, Curtis teaches: a coat including a coat fastener configured to releasably couple two front panels of the coat (“The left front panel 14 and right front panel 16 may be releasably attachable to each other, thus closing the slit 19, by a fastener 20, such as a zipper, snaps, clasps, clips, hook-and-loop fastening material (i.e., VELCROTM), combinations of the forgoing or the like” paragraph 14).
Curtis teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of firefighter garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a zipper to attach the two front panels of the coat of Grilliot, as taught by Curtis, as it would be the simple substitution of one known fastener for another that would yield only the predictable result of releasably fastening the front panels of the coat together. Examiner notes that, as modified, the throat tab would extend across the coat fastener when the throat tab is in the closed position, as the zipper would extend continuously along the opening between the left and right panel, including portions underneath the throat tab as shown in figure 4 of Grilliot, as shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
476
435
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of any claim 1 wherein the coat is a firefighter garment (Grilliot, “protective garment 10 for a firefighter” column 2, lines 43-44).
Grilliot as modified does not explicitly disclose: an outer shell, a thermal liner having a TPP of at least about thirty and configured to be positioned between the outer shell and a wearer of the coat, and a moisture barrier configured to permit moisture vapor to pass therethrough but block liquids from passing therethrough, wherein the moisture barrier is configured to be positioned between the outer shell and a wearer of the coat.
However, Curtis teaches a firefighter garment (10) including an outer shell (26), a thermal liner (30) having a TPP of at least about thirty (“the thermal barrier may have a thermal protection performance (‘TPP’) […] of at least about thirty-five” paragraph 23) and configured to be positioned between the outer shell and a wearer of the coat (“an outer shell 26, a moisture barrier 28 located inside of and adjacent to the outer shell 26, a thermal liner or barrier 30 located inside of and adjacent to the moisture barrier 28” paragraph 16), and a moisture barrier (28) configured to permit moisture vapor to pass therethrough but block liquids from passing therethrough (“the membrane layer 28a may be generally moisture vapor permeable but generally impermeable to liquid moisture” paragraph 19), wherein the moisture barrier is configured to be positioned between the outer shell and a wearer of the coat (“an outer shell 26, a moisture barrier 28 located inside of and adjacent to the outer shell 26, a thermal liner or barrier 30 located inside of and adjacent to the moisture barrier 28” paragraph 16).
Curtis teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of firefighter garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the coat of Grilliot with the outer shell, thermal barrier, and moisture barrier layers as taught by Curtis, in order to provide sufficient protection to a firefighter to ensure their safety while on the job. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Grilliot (US 5167037), Hewitt (US 5638547), and Watkins (US 6934970) teach relevant throat tabs for firefighter garments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights