Patent Application 17773625 - PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR A CLEAN ROOM OR A - Rejection

Patent Application 17773625 - PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR A CLEAN ROOM OR A

Title: PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR A CLEAN ROOM OR A SANITIZED ENVIRONMENT

Application Information

• Invention Title: PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR A CLEAN ROOM OR A SANITIZED ENVIRONMENT
• Application Number: 17773625
• Submission Date: 2025-04-08T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-05-02T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-05-02T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 002
• National Sub-Class: 456000
• Examiner Employee Number: 97611
• Art Unit: 3732
• Tech Center: 3700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0094005🔗
• US 0093245🔗

Office Action Text

    
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 1/23/2025, claims 5 and 17-24 are canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-16 are amended. Claims 1-4 and 6-16 are presented for examination on the merits.
	Applicant’s amendment has not overcome the previously presented objections to the drawings.
	Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented objections to the specification.
	Applicant’s amendment has overcome some of the previously presented objections to the claims, and it has introduced new ones.
	Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b), and it has introduced new ones.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 
Regarding the objections to the drawings, Applicant states that to overcome the objection that was made because “mutual closure means” is a claimed feature that was not shown in the drawings, Applicant has removed that limitation from the claims. However, it appears that the feature remains in the claims, but Applicant has changed “mutual closure means” to “continuous closure means”. The feature is still not clearly shown or indicated in the drawings. Applicant also states that Figure 7 has been amended to label the features; however, no amendments to the drawings appear to have been filed with the response of 1/23/2025. Both objections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections 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 response to applicant's argument that “the goal of Vanneste is far from the goal of the claimed invention”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.  If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. 
In response to Applicant’s argument that “there is no inclination to adapt the garment [of Vanneste] with a pouch”, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.  See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).  In this case, motivation to integrate the pouch with the garment was found in Romano. Applicant has not provided any arguments regarding the motivation to combine Vanneste with Romano as previously presented by the Examiner. Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to integrate a pouch with the garment of Vanneste, as described in the rejections below.
	Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of the claims over Vanneste in view of Romano, Applicant argues that the amendments made to the claims overcome the rejection for the following reasons:
“Romano teaches a removable pouch rather than a permanently attached one”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Romano specifically states in paragraph 27 “the pouch can be integrated or sewn with the article”. Sewing is a permanent attachment, and is described by Applicant as a possible fastening means. The rejection has been updated in light of Applicant’s amendment to require a permanent attachment, as described below. 
“Neither reference teaches the specific folding configuration that maintains sterility”. Examiner notes that the particular folding configuration is an intended use of the garment that has not further defined any structural differences between the claimed garment and the garment of Vanneste/Romano. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e., folded) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Vanneste as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claims as written. Further, Examiner notes that the folding configuration taught by Vanneste appears to be the same folding configuration described in the instant application.
“[Neither reference teaches] the continuous closure means extending through specific areas”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The zipper 10 of Vanneste clearly extends from the ankle area of one leg, through the crotch area, and down to the ankle area of the other leg (see figures 1 and 2). It is a single continuous zipper. Applicant has not provided any description for how the zipper of Vanneste does not meet the claimed limitations. Examiner maintains that the prior art reads on the claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: 
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “continuous closure means” (claim 8, 12, 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figure 7 illustrates several separate items that are labeled with only one figure number with no indication of how the separate pieces are meant to be connected or interact with each other. See MPEP 602V(u)(1) and 37 CFR 1.84, which states “different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter.” The drawings should be amended so that each separate view of the invention is provided with its own figure label that is denote with a distinct number (or combination of a number and capital letter), or amended to show how the various different items/pieces are intended to interact or be connected with each other.
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
Claims 6-8, 10, 16 objected to because of the following informalities: 
Regarding claim 6, “The Protective” should be “The protective”.
Regarding claim 7, “the inner face of said pouch” in line 13 should be “an inner face of said pouch”.
Regarding claim 8, “(1)” should be deleted, as the other reference characters throughout the claims have been deleted.
Regarding claim 10, “(1)” should be deleted, as the other reference characters throughout the claims have been deleted.
Further regarding claim 10, “7wherein” should be “7, wherein”.
Regarding claim 16, “to form a compact configuration that fits within said pouch” is repeated twice. One instance of the phrase should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.  The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. 
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A)	the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; 
(B)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and 
(C)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. 
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitations are as follows:
“closure means” in claim 1. Examiner notes that page 10 of the Remarks of 1/23/2025 states that “closure means” is further defined as “comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of a zip, hook-and-loop fastener means, a series of press studs, and a flap” in claim 14; however, claim 1 does not depend from claim 14, therefore it cannot be construed to be limited to only those options listed in claim 14.
“fastening means” in claim 7. Examiner notes that page 11 of the Remarks of 1/23/2025 states that “fastening means” is further described as “selected from the group consisting of stitching, welding, and hook-and-loop fasteners” in claim 3; however, claim 7 does not depend from claim 3, therefore it cannot be construed to be limited to only those options listed in claim 3.
“continuous closure means” in claim 8. Examiner notes that page 11 of the Remarks of 1/23/2025 states that “mutual closure means” is further defined as “comprising a single continuous zipper” in claim 13; however, claim 8 does not depend from claim 13, therefore it cannot be construed to be limited to a zipper. The description of the location “extending from an ankle area through a crotch area” in claim 8 does not tie the functional language to any specific structural configurations or types of closures.
“gripping means” in claims 7 and 9-11.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner would also like to note the following claim interpretations:
Regarding claim 9 and its dependents (as well as other claims which recite folded/unfolded positions), the claim recites details of “an unfolded position” and “a folded position”. Examiner has interpreted these limitations as intended use limitations, in which as long as the prior art structure is capable of being folded or unfolded in the manner described in the claim, the prior art meets the limitations of the claim.
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 3-4, 11 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 3, the claim recites the limitation “at least one fastening means selected from the group consisting of stitching, welding, and hook-and-loop fasteners”. This limitation is unclear because claim 1 recites that the pouch is “permanently attached to said inner face of said garment”, but hook-and-loop fasteners are generally considered to be a releasable fastening mechanism. It is unclear whether Applicant intends for hook-and-loop fasteners to be considered a “permanent attachment” or not. For the purposes of examination, hook-and-loop fasteners have not been considered to read on the claim.
	Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “wherein in said unfolded position, said protective equipment comprises at least two gripping means”. This limitation is unclear because it appears to be stating that the protective equipment would only have at least two gripping means when it is in the unfolded position. It is therefore not clear if at least two gripping means would be required if the protective equipment was unfolded, or folded in a different manner than the one claimed as “said folded position”.
	The dependent claims inherit the deficiency by nature of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.

Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. 
Regarding claim 4, the claim merely repeats limitations from claim 3, so it does not further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-4, 6-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanneste (US 2011/0094005) in view of Romano (US 2020/0093245).
Regarding claim 1, Vanneste discloses: A protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment comprising: an outer face intended to be in contact with the surrounding environment (“a clean room suit comprising an outer face provided for being in contact with a surrounding medium” paragraph 52); an inner face arranged to be in contact with or oriented towards an operator (“a clean room suit comprising […] an inner face laid out so as to be in contact with a user or operator” paragraph 52), a garment having a body portion (body section 6) with a trunk portion and a leg portion (see annotated figure 1 below), wherein said protective equipment comprises a reusable and sterilisable pouch that is configured to receive the protective equipment in a packaged configuration (“the thereby folded suit 1 is then conditioned in a casing 18 and sterilized” paragraph 57), said pouch having an opening provided with closure means (”he/she opens the package 18 illustrated in FIG. 4 for example by peeling the upper face” paragraph 58; Examiner notes that in order to open the package, it must first have been closed, thus the “upper face” which must be peeled in order to open the package can be considered the “closure means”).

    PNG
    media_image1.png
    542
    422
    media_image1.png
    Greyscale

Figure 1 of Vanneste showing the trunk portion and leg portion
Vanneste does not explicitly disclose: said pouch being made of fabric, and said pouch is permanently attached to said inner face of said garment.
However, Romano teaches a garment that can be packaged in an integrated pouch. Specifically, Romano teaches a garment (60) with an inner face and an outer face (see paragraph 33 which describes an interior portion; Examiner notes that every garment has an inner face and an outer face inherently), and a pouch (62) made of fabric (“the various wearable articles and pouch can be made of one or more of nylon, polyester, cotton” paragraph 44) and having an opening provided with a closure means (zipper 64; see figure 6A and 6B showing the opening), wherein said pouch is permanently attached to said inner face of said garment (“the pouch can be integrated or sewn with the article” paragraph 27; “the cover up 60 can have a pouch 62 that can be provided in an interior portion of the cover up 60 (inner area) so that it is not visible when worn” paragraph 33; see figure 6A and 6B).
Romano teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of garments foldable into pouches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the pouch of Vanneste with the pouch as taught by Romano, and to attach the pouch to the inner face of the garment, as taught by Romano, in order to ensure that the pouch is not lost and can be kept together with the garment at all times for easy access to storage (see paragraph 3 of Romano which describes how having an easy access to storage make the garment easily and conveniently portable). Further, attaching it on the inside of the garment is preferable as taught by Romano “so that [the pouch] is not visible when worn” (paragraph 33, Romano). Further, since Vanneste is silent as to any particular material being used for the pouch, 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 pouch of Vanneste out of a fabric such as nylon, polyester, or cotton, as taught by Romano, because 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.
Regarding claim 2, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 1, wherein said garment is selected from the group consisting of an overall (Vanneste, clean room suit 1 is an overall, see title, “Overalls for cleanroom and the like”), an apron, a head covering, at least one glove, at least one shoe cover, a shoe, a clog, a mask, goggles, sleeves, an undergarment, and boots.
Regarding claim 3 as best understood by Examiner, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 1, wherein said pouch is connected to said inner face via at least one fastening means selected from the group consisting of stitching (Romano, “the pouch can be integrated or sewn with the article” paragraph 27; sewing the pouch into the article would involve stitching), welding, and hook-and-loop fasteners.
Regarding claim 4, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 3, wherein said pouch is connected to said inner face via said least one fastening means (Romano, “the pouch can be integrated or sewn with the article” paragraph 27; sewing the pouch into the article would involve stitching).
Regarding claim 6, Vanneste as modified discloses: Protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 13, wherein said at least one fastening means is a seam (Romano, “the pouch can be integrated or sewn with the article” paragraph 27; attachment by sewing constitutes a seam) or a weld.
Regarding claim 7, Vanneste as modified discloses: Protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 2, wherein said garment comprises: a first (Vanneste, first sleeve 4) and second sleeve (Vanneste, second sleeve 5) connected to said body portion (Vanneste, “the first sleeve is connected [to the body portion] through a bound end 4a and the second sleeve is connected [to the body portion] through a bound end 5a” paragraph 52), a head passage section in said body portion (Vanneste, “The suit also comprises a section 7 for letting through the head” paragraph 52), at least one gripping means in contact with said inner face in said body portion (Vanneste, first grasping means 16 and second grasping means 17; see figure 2), wherein said pouch is connected to said inner face of said garment via fastening means located on the inner face of said pouch (as modified, the pouch is attached to the inner face of the garment of Vanneste by sewing, see paragraph 27 of Romano; sewing is a fastening means), allowing the inner face of said pouch to be attached to said inner face of the body portion of said garment.
Regarding claim 8, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 7, wherein said garment is an overall (the suit 1 of Vanneste is an overall, see title “Overalls for cleanroom and the like”), wherein said leg portion comprises: a first and a second leg section (Vanneste, first leg section 2, second leg section 3), each leg section comprising a flank (see figure 1), two longitudinal edges on either side of said flank (see figure 1), continuous closure means extending from an ankle area through a crotch area (Vanneste, “crotch area 14 is equipped with a zipper 10 and it comprises a placket (not shown) located below the zipper to avoid any contamination” paragraph 52; see figure 1 which shows the zipper extending from the ankle of one leg through the crotch area and to the ankle of the other leg), said closure means arranged to form substantially tubular leg sections when engaged together (see figure 1 showing the substantially tubular leg sections), wherein said first and second leg sections are connected via a linked end to said body portion (Vanneste, “the first leg section 2 also comprises a bound end 2a and the second leg section 3 also comprises a bound end 3a” paragraph 52; see figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 7, configured to transition between: an unfolded position wherein said outer face of said garment is in contact with the surrounding environment and said inner face is arranged to be in contact with an operator and wherein a first inner face of the pouch is against said inner face of said garment and a second inner face of the pouch is arranged to be in contact with an operator (see figure 1 of Vanneste, showing the suit being unfolded; when worn, the outer face would be in contact with the environment and the inner face would be in contact with the operator, and one of the faces of the pouch would be against the inner face of the garment while the other face of the pouch is in contact with the operator, as the pouch is located on an inner surface of the garment), and a folded position, wherein: said inner face of the leg portion is folded to expose the inner face to the outside, said outer face of the leg portion is folded against the outer face of said body section, forming an access opening to the inside of the trunk portion, said at least one gripping means is exposed adjacent to said closure means of said pouch (Vanneste, “FIG. 2 illustrates the suit in the partly folded-back position. The inner face of the first leg section 2 and of the second leg section 3 are exposed toward the outside. The outer face of the first leg section 2 and the outer face of the second leg section 3 are exposed toward the outer face of the body section 6. Said opening of the crotch 14 provides access to the inside of the body portion 6 through a section called a waist section 15. In this way, the first grasping means 16 and the second grasping means 17 are exposed towards the operator” paragraph 55; see figure 2), and wherein said garment is packaged in a folded position in said pouch (Vanneste, as modified, the garment can be packaged in the pouch in a folded position). Examiner notes that the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e., folded) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Vanneste as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claim 10, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 7, wherein when in said folded position and stored in said pouch, said pouch is configured to transition between: a first closed position wherein said opening of said pouch is closed by said closure means (the pouch of Romano has a zipper which can be closed), and a second open position wherein said opening of said pouch is open and wherein said at least one gripping means is exposed to the operator through said opening (the pouch of Romano has a zipper which can be opened, and if the garment is inside, any part of the garment would become exposed through the opening of the pouch when the pouch is opened). Examiner notes that the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e., whether the pouch is opened or closed) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Vanneste as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claim 11, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 7, wherein, in said unfolded position, said protective equipment comprises at least two gripping means laterally positioned in contact with said inner face, in said body portion (Vanneste, the first and second grasping means 16, 17 are located on the interior of the garment, see figure 2, therefore they are in contact with the inner face of the body portion at least at their attachment point). Examiner notes that the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e., folded) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Vanneste as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written
Regarding claim 12, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 8, wherein in said folded position: said closure means of each leg section are in an open position, forming a crotch opening providing access to the inside of the body portion (Vanneste, “first leg section 2 and second leg section 3 connected to each other through an opening in the crotch area 14 […] said opening of the crotch area 14 is equipped with a zipper 10” paragraph 52; “Said opening of the crotch 14 provides access to the inside of the body portion 6” paragraph 55; see figure 2; the zipper can be opened or closed), and the inner face of the first and second leg sections is exposed to the outside and said outer face of the first and second leg sections is exposed to the outer face of said body section (Vanneste, “the inner face of the first leg section 2 and of the section leg section 3 are exposed toward the outside. The outer face of the first leg section 2 and the outer face of the second leg section 3 are exposed toward the outer face of body section 6. Said opening of the crotch 14 provides access to the inside of the body portion 6” paragraph 55; see figure 2). Examiner notes that the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e., folded) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Vanneste as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claim 13, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 8, wherein said closure means of said first leg section and second leg sections together form a continuous closure extending from an ankle portion through said crotch area (Vanneste, “crotch area 14 is equipped with a zipper 10 and it comprises a placket (not shown) located below the zipper to avoid any contamination” paragraph 52; see figure 1 which shows the zipper extending from the ankle of one leg through the crotch area and to the ankle of the other leg), and comprise a single continuous zipper (Vanneste, zipper 10 is a single continuous zipper which closes the crotch opening 14; see figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 1, wherein said closure means of said pouch comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of a zip (Romano, zipper 64), hook-and-loop fastener means, a series of press studs, and a flap.
Regarding claim 15, Vanneste as modified discloses: Protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 7, wherein: each of the first and second sleeves comprises self-tightening means at a free end, opposite said linked end, wherein said self-tightening means comprises elastic fabric wrist cuffs (Vanneste, “the first sleeve 4 comprises self-tightening means at the free end 4b in the form of cuffs 11 in elastic fabric. The second sleeve also comprises at the free end 5b a cuff 11 in elastic fabric” paragraph 53), and/or each of the first and second leg sections, comprises self-tightening means at a free end, opposite said linked end, wherein said self-tightening means comprises elastic fabric ankle cuffs (Examiner notes that this limitation is not required, because the claim has the conjunction “and/or” which means that only one of the limitations (either the first one regarding the sleeves OR the second one regarding the legs) is required. Since Vanneste as modified teaches the limitation regarding the sleeves as described above, the limitation regarding the legs is not required).
Regarding claim 16, Vanneste as modified discloses: The protective equipment for a clean room or sanitised environment according to claim 8, wherein, in said folded position, said first and second leg sections are folded longitudinally and transversely to form a compact configuration that fits within said pouch (Vanneste, “the first leg section 2 is longitudinally folded back on itself and the second leg section is also longitudinally folded back on itself […] the thereby folded suit 1 according to the invention will then be folded back transversely on itself into all three portions” paragraph 57; see figure 3). Examiner notes that the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e., folded) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Vanneste as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.
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 on 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                                                                                                                                                                                                        
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732