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 .
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 3/2/2026, claims 1, 5, 10, 12-14, 16-17 are amended. Claims 6, 8-9 are canceled. Claims 18-24 are new. Claims 1-5, 7, 10-24 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b), and it has introduced new ones.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented objections to the drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the claim requires that the trousers magnetic coupling component is located “only at a circumferentially outer location” and that limitation is not found in Grilliot. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim as written requires: the trousers magnetic coupling component is located (1) on [a] circumferential position of the trousers, (2) only at a location opposite an inseam of the trousers, or (3) is located only within about 15 degrees of the position opposite the inseam of the trousers. Alternative (1) (located on a circumferential position of the trousers) does not require the component to be located on an outer location of the trousers only. Grilliot teaches a magnetic component located on a circumferential position of the trousers, therefore it meets the limitation of the claim because the limitations are listed in the alternative, so only one is required to meet the limitation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12, 16, and new claims 20, 23, and 24 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. In light of Applicant’s amendment, which has altered the scope of the claims, the search has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied, as described in the rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “circumferential position” in line 8 is missing an article and should likely be “a circumferential position”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “trousers magnetic component” in line 7 should likely be “trousers magnetic coupling component”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “footwear magnetic component” in line 7 should likely be “footwear magnetic coupling component”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “circumferential position” in line 2 is missing an article and should likely be “a circumferential position”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “trousers magnetic component” in line 1 should likely be “trousers magnetic coupling component”.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: “trouser magnetic coupling component” in line 1 should likely be “trousers magnetic coupling component”.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: “trouser magnetic coupling component” in line 1 should likely be “trousers magnetic coupling component”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 12, 16, 19, 21 (and claims 13-15, 17-18 at least for depending from a rejected base claim) 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.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “the circumferential direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation has been interpreted as “a circumferential direction”.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “the circumferential direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation has been interpreted as “a circumferential direction”.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “the circumferential direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation has been interpreted as “a circumferential direction”.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “the thermal liner”. However, the claim from which it depends (claim 20) only recites a thermal liner in an alternative (“at least one of a thermal liner and a moisture barrier”). Therefore, it is unclear if this limitation is now positively requiring a thermal liner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grilliot (US 7051374).
Regarding claim 1, Grilliot discloses: A trousers coupling system comprising: a pair of trousers (70) having a trousers magnetic coupling component (114) positioned at or adjacent to a lower end thereof (see figure 5) and configured to be magnetically coupled to a footwear magnetic coupling component positioned in a footwear to thereby magnetically couple the pair of trousers to the footwear (“when the pair of protective trousers 70 and the protective boot 80 are worn, a distal portion 82 of the leg-covering region 80 of the pair of protective trousers 70 surrounds an ankle-encircling portion of the protective boot” column 5, lines 17-20; see figure 5; “the gaskets 110, 120, […] when drawn together magnetically” column 7, lines 2-3), wherein the trousers magnetic coupling component is positioned between two plies of a water-tight support strip (112) such that the magnet coupling component is fluidly isolated from the surrounding environment (”the gasket 110 comprises a sleeve 112 of a suitable, elastomeric polymer, a magnetic or magnetically attractable strip 114 embedded within the sleeve 112” column 5, lines 25-27; see figure 6, annotated below, showing the magnetic component 114 located within the sleeve 112 such that it is positioned between two layers (plies) of the sleeve 112), and wherein the trousers magnetic component is located on circumferential position of the trousers, only at a location opposite an inseam of the trousers, or is located only within about 15 degrees of the position opposite the inseam of the trousers (“a gasket 110 extends around and inside and is fastened suitably to the leg-covering region 80 of the pair of protective trousers 70” column 5, lines 22-24; since the gasket goes around the circumference of the trousers, the magnetic component is located on a circumferential position of the trousers; the other limitations, which are recited in the alternative, are not required by the claim since the first limitation “the trousers magnetic component is located on circumferential position of the trousers” has been met).
PNG
media_image1.png
559
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 6 of Grilliot showing the plies
Regarding claim 2, Grilliot discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the trousers magnetic coupling component is at least one of a magnet or a magnetizable material (“a given one of the embedded strips 114, 124 of the gaskets 110, 120, is magnetic and may be a magnetized, metallic strip” column 5, lines 63-65).
Regarding claim 4, Grilliot discloses: The system of claim 1 further comprising the footwear in the form of a boot (80) having the footwear magnetic coupling component (124).
Regarding claim 5, Grilliot discloses: The system of claim 4 wherein the one of trousers magnetic coupling component and the footwear magnetic coupling components is a magnet (“a given one of the embedded strips 114, 124 of the gaskets 110, 120, is magnetic and may be a magnetized, metallic strip” column 5, lines 63-65), wherein the other one of the trousers magnetic coupling component and footwear magnetic coupling components is a magnet or a magnetizable material (“the other one of the embedded strips 114, 124 of the gaskets 110, 120 is magnetically attractable and may be a metallic strip” column 5, line 67-column 6, line 2), and wherein the footwear magnetic coupling component is located at a height and circumferential position to be aligned with the trousers magnetic coupling component when the trousers and footwear are worn by a wearer (see figure 5; “a gasket 110 extends around and inside and is fastened suitably to the leg-covering region 80 of the pair of protective trousers 70” column 5, lines 22-24; “when the pair of protective trousers 70 and the protective boot 80 are worn, a distal portion 82 of the leg-covering region 80 of the pair of protective trousers 70 surrounds an ankle-encircling portion of the protective boot” column 5, lines 17-20).
Regarding claim 10, Grilliot discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the trousers magnetic coupling component is positioned in an interior of the trousers and does not form an innermost or outermost surface thereof (“the gasket 110 comprises a sleeve 112 of a suitable, elastomeric polymer, a magnetic or magnetically attractable strip 114 embedded within the sleeve 112” column 5, lines 24-27; since the magnetic component 114 is located within the sleeve, it does not form the innermost or outermost surface of the trousers; see figure 6).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilliot, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Grilliot discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the trousers have a pair of legs (a pair of protective trousers 70 has a pair of legs), and wherein a leg includes a trousers magnetic coupling component positioned at or adjacent to a lower end thereof (“a gasket 110 extends around and inside and is fastened suitably to the leg-covering region 80 of the pair of protective trousers 70” column 5, lines 22-24; “when the pair of protective trousers 70 and the protective boot 80 are worn, a distal portion 82 of the leg-covering region 80 of the pair of protective trousers 70 surrounds an ankle-encircling portion of the protective boot” column 5, lines 17-20; see figure 5).
Grilliot does not explicitly disclose: wherein each leg includes a trousers magnetic coupling component.
However, 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 gasket and magnetic coupling component to the other leg of the trousers and the other boot because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, 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 gasket and magnetic coupling component to the other leg of the trousers and the other boot in order to “provide fluid-tight seals, which impede potentially harmful liquids, particles, and gases from entering […] the pair of protective trousers 70” (Grilliot, column 7, lines 3-6), which will keep the wearer safe in dangerous environments.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilliot as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ghasletwala (2019/0110527).
Regarding claim 7, Grilliot does not explicitly disclose: The system of claim 1 wherein the trousers magnetic coupling component includes a magnetizable backing member coupled to the trousers, and a magnet that is magnetically coupled to the backing member.
However, Ghasletwala teaches a magnetic coupling system wherein each magnet has an associated backing plate made of a non-magnetic, magnetizable material, and a magnet magnetically coupled to an associated backing member. 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 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) 11, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilliot as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Curtis (US 2009/0320176).
Regarding claim 11, Grilliot discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the trousers are a firefighter garment (“the protective ensemble for a firefighter […] comprises a pair of protective trousers 70” column 5, lines 3-5) including an outer shell (72), a thermal liner (76; “an inner, quilted liner 76 providing a thermal barrier” column 5, lines 10-11) and configured to be positioned between the outer shell and a wearer of the trousers (see figure 6 showing the thermal liner 76 is between the outer shell 72 and the wearer of the trousers), and a moisture barrier configured to permit moisture vapor to pass therethrough but block liquids from passing therethrough (74; “an intermediate liner 74 providing a moisture barrier” column 5, line 9), wherein the moisture barrier is configured to be positioned between the outer shell and a wearer of the trousers (see figure 6 showing the moisture barrier 74 is between the outer shell 72 and the wearer of the trousers).
Grilliot does not explicitly disclose: the thermal liner having a TPP of at least about thirty.
However, Curtis teaches a firefighter garment including a thermal liner having a TPP of at least about thirty (“the thermal barrier 30 (and/or the garment 10 as a whole) may have a thermal protection performance (“TPP”) of […] at least about thirty-five” (paragraph 33).
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 thermal liner of Grilliot with a TPP of 35, as taught by Curtis, in order to provide optimal thermal protection for the user and in order to meet NFPA standards for heat and flame resistance (see paragraph 34 of Curtis).
Regarding claim 20, Grilliot discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the trousers further include at least one of a thermal liner (76; “an inner, quilted liner 76 providing a thermal barrier” column 5, lines 10-11) and a moisture barrier, wherein the moisture barrier is configured to permit moisture vapor to pass therethrough but to block liquids from passing therethrough (74; “an intermediate liner 74 providing a moisture barrier” column 5, line 9).
Grilliot does not explicitly disclose: the thermal liner having a TPP of at least about thirty.
However, Curtis teaches a firefighter garment including a thermal liner having a TPP of at least about thirty (“the thermal barrier 30 (and/or the garment 10 as a whole) may have a thermal protection performance (“TPP”) of […] at least about thirty-five” (paragraph 33).
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 thermal liner of Grilliot with a TPP of 35, as taught by Curtis, in order to provide optimal thermal protection for the user and in order to meet NFPA standards for heat and flame resistance (see paragraph 34 of Curtis).
Grilliot as modified does not explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one of a thermal liner or a moisture barrier is positioned radially inside the trousers magnetic coupling component such that the at least one of a thermal liner or moisture barrier is configured to be positioned between the trousers magnetic coupling component a wearer of the trousers when the trousers are worn.
However, there are only a finite number of layers in the trousers, and Curtis further teaches “Although the moisture barrier 28 is shown as being located between the outer shell 26 and the thermal barrier 30, the positions of the moisture barrier 28 and thermal barrier 30 may be reversed such that the thermal barrier 30 is located between the outer shell 26 and the moisture barrier 28. In this case, the orientation of the thermal barrier 30 would be reversed so that the dry layer 30a is the inner-most layer, facing the moisture barrier 28 to prevent wetting out of the moisture barrier 28. Moreover it should be understood that the garment 10 may include various arrangements of liners, barriers and materials, as desired, in which the various layers described herein are included, omitted, and/or rearranged” (paragraph 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to arrange the layers of the trousers such that the at least one of a thermal liner or moisture barrier is configured to be positioned between the trousers magnetic coupling component a wearer of the trousers when the trousers are worn, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Further, having at least one layer of the trousers between the wearer of the trousers and the user would further protect the magnetic component as it would be less exposed, therefore increasing the longevity of the magnetic system and the garment.
Regarding claim 21, as best as can be understood, Grilliot as modified appears to disclose: The system of claim 20 wherein the thermal liner is a single continuous component extending an entire height of the trousers (see figure 6 of Grilliot).
However, assuming arguendo this is not an explicit teaching of the thermal liner being a single continuous component extending an entire height of the trousers, Curtis further teaches “The moisture barrier 28 and thermal barrier 30 may be generally coextensive with the outer shell 26” (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 make the thermal liner of Grilliot as modified explicitly coextensive with the outer shell in order to provide “thermal protection throughout the garment” (Curtis, paragraph 14), which will result in consistent safety and protection for the user in all parts of the trousers.
Regarding claim 22, Grilliot discloses: The system of claim 1 wherein the trousers further include a moisture barrier, wherein the moisture barrier configured to permit moisture vapor to pass therethrough but to block liquids from passing therethrough (74; “an intermediate liner 74 providing a moisture barrier” column 5, line 9).
Grilliot does not explicitly disclose: the moisture barrier positioned radially inside the trousers magnetic coupling component such that the moisture barrier is configured to be positioned between the trousers magnetic coupling component a wearer of the trousers when the trousers are worn.
However, there are only a finite number of layers in the trousers, and Curtis further teaches “Although the moisture barrier 28 is shown as being located between the outer shell 26 and the thermal barrier 30, the positions of the moisture barrier 28 and thermal barrier 30 may be reversed such that the thermal barrier 30 is located between the outer shell 26 and the moisture barrier 28. In this case, the orientation of the thermal barrier 30 would be reversed so that the dry layer 30a is the inner-most layer, facing the moisture barrier 28 to prevent wetting out of the moisture barrier 28. Moreover it should be understood that the garment 10 may include various arrangements of liners, barriers and materials, as desired, in which the various layers described herein are included, omitted, and/or rearranged” (paragraph 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to arrange the layers of the trousers such that the moisture barrier is configured to be positioned between the trousers magnetic coupling component a wearer of the trousers when the trousers are worn, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Further, having at least one layer of the trousers between the wearer of the trousers and the user would further protect the magnetic component as it would be less exposed, therefore increasing the longevity of the magnetic system and the garment.
Claim(s) 19, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilliot as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Thompson (US 10165814).
Regarding claim 19, as best as can be understood, Grilliot contemplates that the magnetic strips can be “either continuous or divided into multiple segments” (column 5, lines 65-66 and column 6, lines 2-3) but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the trousers magnetic component extends less than 30 degrees in the circumferential direction.
However, Thompson teaches a magnetic coupling system for connecting a boot to a pant leg (“Some of the applications for the assembly include […] boot to pant leg” column 3, lines 44-46) wherein the magnets are discrete components distributed around the circumference of the cuff (see figure 15, showing magnets 80 distributed around the cuff), and wherein each magnet extends less than 30 degrees in the circumferential direction (see figure 15 showing each magnet extends less than 30 degrees around the circumference of the cuff).
Thompson 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 divide the magnetic strip of Grilliot into 6 discrete segments as contemplated by Grilliot and taught explicitly by Thompson in order to make it faster and easier to ensure that the positioning of the trousers leg and the boot is correct when they are attached (“the connection members 8, 10 will only mate with each other in a single orientation and such that a glove may only be provided and axially oriented with respect to a sleeve in a preferred or correct arrangement, for example. Such embodiments provide a magnetic resistance if and when a glove is to be connected to a sleeve backwards, or on the wrong arm, for example. Such resistance indicates toa user that the positioning and alignment of the glove is incorrect, and the glove is only ‘accepted’ by the sleeve when provided in the proper position and/or alignment” column 9, lines 43-53). Examiner notes that as modified, only one of the discrete magnetic components is considered to be the “trousers magnetic coupling component” and the one discrete associated magnetic component on the footwear is considered to be the “footwear magnetic coupling component”. This single component extends less than 30° in the circumferential direction as can be seen in the annotated figure 15 of Thompson below.
PNG
media_image2.png
660
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Grilliot contemplates that the magnetic strips can be “either continuous or divided into multiple segments” (column 5, lines 65-66 and column 6, lines 2-3) but does not explicitly disclose: The system of claim 1 wherein the trouser magnetic coupling component is flat and spaced away from any other magnetic or magnetizable components of the trousers.
However, Thompson teaches a magnetic coupling system for connecting a boot to a pant leg (“Some of the applications for the assembly include […] boot to pant leg” column 3, lines 44-46) wherein the magnets are discrete components distributed around the circumference of the cuff (see figure 15, showing magnets 80 distributed around the cuff), and wherein the magnets are flat and spaced away from any other magnetic or magnetizable components (see figure 15 showing the magnets 80 are flat and spaced away from other magnetic components).
Thompson 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 divide the magnetic strip of Grilliot into 6 discrete segments as contemplated by Grilliot and taught explicitly by Thompson in order to make it faster and easier to ensure that the positioning of the trousers leg and the boot is correct when they are attached (“the connection members 8, 10 will only mate with each other in a single orientation and such that a glove may only be provided and axially oriented with respect to a sleeve in a preferred or correct arrangement, for example. Such embodiments provide a magnetic resistance if and when a glove is to be connected to a sleeve backwards, or on the wrong arm, for example. Such resistance indicates to a user that the positioning and alignment of the glove is incorrect, and the glove is only ‘accepted’ by the sleeve when provided in the proper position and/or alignment” column 9, lines 43-53). Examiner notes that as modified, only one of the discrete magnetic components is considered to be the “trousers magnetic coupling component” and the one discrete associated magnetic component on the footwear is considered to be the “footwear magnetic coupling component”. This single component is flat and spaced away from any other magnetic components as can be seen in the annotated figure 15 of Thompson provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 24, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 23 wherein the trouser magnetic coupling component is a discrete component spaced away from any other magnetic or magnetizable components of the trousers (as modified, the magnetic strip of Grilliot is now separated into discrete components and only one of those components is considered to be the trouser magnetic coupling component; as shown in Thompson in figure 15, each magnet is spaced apart from the other magnets).
Grilliot as modified does not explicitly disclose that the trouser magnetic coupling component is spaced away from any other magnetic or magnetizable components of the trousers by at least ½ inch.
However, as shown in figure 15 of Thompson, the modified Grilliot has 6 discrete magnets, spaced around the circumference of the cuff. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that on a normal pair of firefighter trousers, the circumference at the ankle opening must be greater than 2.5 inches (the maximum size for the spacing between the magnets to be ½ inch or less, as there are 5 spaces between the magnets, multiplied by 0.5 inches is 2.5 inches) in order to fit a normal adult foot through the opening. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the spacing between the trousers magnetic coupling component and any of the other magnets of the modified Grilliot must be greater than ½ inch.
Claim(s) 12-14, 16-18, as best as can be understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilliot in view of Thompson (US 10165814).
Regarding claim 12, Grilliot discloses: A trousers coupling system comprising: a pair of trousers (70) having a trousers magnetic coupling component (114) positioned in a lower 33% of a height thereof (see figure 5; see column 5, lines 17-20 describing that the distal end of the trousers overlaps with the boot) and configured to be magnetically coupled to a footwear magnetic coupling component (124) positioned in a footwear (80) to thereby magnetically couple the pair of trousers and the footwear (“when the pair of protective trousers 70 and the protective boot 80 are worn, a distal portion 82 of the leg-covering region 80 of the pair of protective trousers 70 surrounds an ankle-encircling portion of the protective boot” column 5, lines 17-20; see figure 5; “the gaskets 110, 120, […] when drawn together magnetically” column 7, lines 2-3), wherein the trousers magnetic component is positioned in an interior of the trousers in a thickness direction thereof, and does not form an innermost or outermost surface thereof (“the gasket 110 comprises a sleeve 112 of a suitable, elastomeric polymer, a magnetic or magnetically attractable strip 114 embedded within the sleeve 112” column 5, lines 24-27; since the magnetic component 114 is located within the sleeve, it does not form the innermost or outermost surface of the trousers; see figure 6).
Grilliot contemplates that the magnetic strips can be “either continuous or divided into multiple segments” (column 5, lines 65-66 and column 6, lines 2-3) but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the trousers magnetic component extends less than 30 degrees in the circumferential direction.
However, Thompson teaches a magnetic coupling system for connecting a boot to a pant leg (“Some of the applications for the assembly include […] boot to pant leg” column 3, lines 44-46) wherein the magnets are discrete components distributed around the circumference of the cuff (see figure 15, showing magnets 80 distributed around the cuff), and wherein each magnet extends less than 30 degrees in the circumferential direction (see figure 15 showing each magnet extends less than 30 degrees around the circumference of the cuff).
Thompson 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 divide the magnetic strip of Grilliot into 6 discrete segments as contemplated by Grilliot and taught explicitly by Thompson in order to make it faster and easier to ensure that the positioning of the trousers leg and the boot is correct when they are attached (“the connection members 8, 10 will only mate with each other in a single orientation and such that a glove may only be provided and axially oriented with respect to a sleeve in a preferred or correct arrangement, for example. Such embodiments provide a magnetic resistance if and when a glove is to be connected to a sleeve backwards, or on the wrong arm, for example. Such resistance indicates toa user that the positioning and alignment of the glove is incorrect, and the glove is only ‘accepted’ by the sleeve when provided in the proper position and/or alignment” column 9, lines 43-53). Examiner notes that as modified, only one of the discrete magnetic components is considered to be the “trousers magnetic coupling component” and the one discrete associated magnetic component on the footwear is considered to be the “footwear magnetic coupling component”. This single component extends less than 30° in the circumferential direction as can be seen in the annotated figure 15 of Thompson provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 13, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 12 wherein the trousers magnetic coupling component is positioned between two plies of a water-tight support strip (Grilliot, 112) such that the magnet coupling component is fluidly isolated from the surrounding environment (Grilliot, ”the gasket 110 comprises a sleeve 112 of a suitable, elastomeric polymer, a magnetic or magnetically attractable strip 114 embedded within the sleeve 112” column 5, lines 25-27; see figure 6, annotated with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above, showing the magnetic component 114 located within the sleeve 112 such that it is positioned between two layers (plies) of the sleeve 112).
Regarding claim 14, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 12 wherein the trousers magnetic coupling component is located on a circumferential position of the trousers, only at a location opposite an inseam of the trousers, or is located only within about 15 degrees of the position opposite the inseam of the trousers (Grilliot, “a gasket 110 extends around and inside and is fastened suitably to the leg-covering region 80 of the pair of protective trousers 70” column 5, lines 22-24; since the gasket goes around the circumference of the trousers, the magnetic component is located on a circumferential position of the trousers; the other limitations, which are recited in the alternative, are not required by the claim since the first limitation “the trousers magnetic component is located on circumferential position of the trousers” has been met).
Regarding claim 16, Grilliot discloses: A footwear coupling system comprising: a footwear (80) having a footwear magnetic coupling component (124) configured to be magnetically coupled to a trousers magnetic coupling component (114) at or adjacent to a lower end of a pair of trousers (70) to thereby magnetically couple the footwear and the pair of trousers (“when the pair of protective trousers 70 and the protective boot 80 are worn, a distal portion 82 of the leg-covering region 80 of the pair of protective trousers 70 surrounds an ankle-encircling portion of the protective boot” column 5, lines 17-20; see figure 5; “the gaskets 110, 120, […] when drawn together magnetically” column 7, lines 2-3), wherein the footwear magnetic coupling component is positioned between two plies of a water-tight support strip (122) such that the footwear magnet coupling component is fluidly isolated from the surrounding environment (”the gasket 120 comprises a sleeve 122 of a suitable, elastomeric polymer, a magnetic or magnetically attractable strip 124 embedded within the sleeve 122” column 5, lines 45-48; see figure 6, annotated with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above, showing the magnetic component 124 located within the sleeve 122 such that it is positioned between two layers (plies) of the sleeve 122),
Grilliot contemplates that the magnetic strips can be “either continuous or divided into multiple segments” (column 5, lines 65-66 and column 6, lines 2-3) but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the trousers magnetic component extends less than 30 degrees in the circumferential direction.
However, Thompson teaches a magnetic coupling system for connecting a boot to a pant leg (“Some of the applications for the assembly include […] boot to pant leg” column 3, lines 44-46) wherein the magnets are discrete components distributed around the circumference of the cuff (see figure 15, showing magnets 80 distributed around the cuff), and wherein each magnet extends less than 30 degrees in the circumferential direction (see figure 15 showing each magnet extends less than 30 degrees around the circumference of the cuff).
Thompson 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 divide the magnetic strip of Grilliot into 6 discrete segments as contemplated by Grilliot and taught explicitly by Thompson in order to make it faster and easier to ensure that the positioning of the trousers leg and the boot is correct when they are attached (“the connection members 8, 10 will only mate with each other in a single orientation and such that a glove may only be provided and axially oriented with respect to a sleeve in a preferred or correct arrangement, for example. Such embodiments provide a magnetic resistance if and when a glove is to be connected to a sleeve backwards, or on the wrong arm, for example. Such resistance indicates toa user that the positioning and alignment of the glove is incorrect, and the glove is only ‘accepted’ by the sleeve when provided in the proper position and/or alignment” column 9, lines 43-53). Examiner notes that as modified, only one of the discrete magnetic components is considered to be the “trousers magnetic coupling component” and the one discrete associated magnetic component on the footwear is considered to be the “footwear magnetic coupling component”. This single component extends less than 30° in the circumferential direction as can be seen in the annotated figure 15 of Thompson provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 17, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 16 further comprising the trousers (Grilliot, 70) having the trousers magnetic coupling component (Grilliot, 114).
Regarding claim 18, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 16 wherein the footwear magnetic coupling component is located on circumferential position of the footwear, only at a location opposite an inseam of the footwear, or is located only within about 15 degrees of the position opposite the inseam of the footwear (as modified, the single magnetic component on both the footwear and the trousers that are considered to be the “footwear magnetic coupling component” and the “trousers magnetic coupling component” are located at a location opposite the inseam, as shown in the annotated figure 15 of Thompson provided in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 19 above).
Claim(s) 15, as best as can be understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilliot/Thompson as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Curtis.
Regarding claim 15, Grilliot as modified discloses: The system of claim 12 wherein the trousers are a firefighter garment (Grilliot, “the protective ensemble for a firefighter […] comprises a pair of protective trousers 70” column 5, lines 3-5) including an outer shell (Grilliot, 72), a thermal liner (Grilliot, 76; “an inner, quilted liner 76 providing a thermal barrier” column 5, lines 10-11) and configured to be positioned between the outer shell and a wearer of the trousers (see figure 6 of Grilliot showing the thermal liner 76 is between the outer shell 72 and the wearer of the trousers), and a moisture barrier (Grilliot, 74; “an intermediate liner 74 providing a moisture barrier” column 5, line 9) 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 trousers (see figure 6 of Grilliot showing the moisture barrier 74 is between the outer shell 72 and the wearer of the trousers).
Grilliot as modified does not explicitly disclose: the thermal liner having a TPP of at least about thirty.
However, Curtis teaches a firefighter garment including a thermal liner having a TPP of at least about thirty (“the thermal barrier 30 (and/or the garment 10 as a whole) may have a thermal protection performance (“TPP”) of […] at least about thirty-five” (paragraph 33).
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 thermal liner of Grilliot with a TPP of 35, as taught by Curtis, in order to provide optimal thermal protection for the user and in order to meet NFPA standards for heat and flame resistance (see paragraph 34 of Curtis).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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