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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed December 31, 2025 has been received, Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 15-17 are currently pending.
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.
1. Claims 10-12 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the cover" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the cover" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 南舘 正樹 (JP 3121497 U), herein after Minamidate, in view of Ryoko (KR 20080044161 A).
Regarding Claims 1, Minamidate discloses a garment (1) including an integrated pocket (2), wherein the pocket comprises: a first zipper (4) comprising an associated first slider (4a), a first end of the first zipper and a second end of the first zipper (para.13), and a second zipper (3) comprising an associated second slider (3a), a first end of the second zipper and a second end of the second zipper (para.13), wherein the first zipper and the second zipper are not arranged in parallel in such a manner that the first ends of the first zipper and the second zipper are adjacent to each other and that the second ends of the first zipper and the second zipper are not adjacent to each other (as seen in Fig.3), wherein the pocket is opened and closed by means of the first zipper and the second zipper (para.12-13), wherein, in a fully closed state of the pocket, the first slider is disposed at the first end of the first zipper and the second slider is disposed at the first end of the second zipper in a fully closed state of the pocket (para.13; as seen in Fig.4), wherein the pocket has a common coherent opening area (i.e. pocket opening & inner void) over the entire length of the first zipper and the second zipper (as seen in Fig.3). Minamidate does not disclose the garment is a jacket, wherein an outer side of the pocket is integrally formed with at least part of an outer side of the jacket; and wherein the second zipper extends away from the first zipper at an obtuse angle when the jacket is worn by a standing person; wherein the first zipper extends substantially vertically when the jacket is worn by a standing person, and wherein the second zipper extends linearly and defines an angle of more than 90 degrees with the first zipper. However, Ryoko teaches a jacket (Fig.1) having an integrated pocket (7) with a zipper (12), wherein an outer side (17) of the pocket is integrally formed with at least part of an outer side of the jacket (as seen in Fig.1); the zipper having a first portion (11B) and a second portion (11A), and wherein the second portion extends away from the first zipper at an obtuse angle of more than 90 degrees when the jacket is worn by a standing person (as seen in Fig.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the garment substrate of Minamidate for the jacket substrate of Ryoko, as a simple substitution of one well known garment with pockets for another, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a garment with a zippered pocket. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle of the first and second zippers of Minamidate to be at an obtuse angle, as taught by Ryoko, in order to provide a pocket with the desired shape and opening to access the contents of the pocket. When in combination, Minamidate and Ryoko teach wherein the second zipper extends away from the first zipper at an obtuse angle. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct Minamidate with the zippers being at an obtuse angle of more than 90 degrees, since applicant has not disclosed that this solves any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a pocket of the desired size. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966). When in combination, Minamidate and Ryoko teach wherein the first zipper extends substantially vertically when the jacket is worn by a standing person, and wherein the second zipper extends linearly and defines an angle of more than 90 degrees with the first zipper.
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Minamidate discloses a jacket according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first slider (4a) and the second slider (3a) are not disposed at the first end of the associated zipper in a partially opened state of the pocket (i.e. only one of 3 or 4 can be opened while the other is closed and the respective slider of the open zipper would not be disposed at the first end).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Minamidate discloses a jacket according to claim 1, wherein the first slider (4a) is disposed at the second end of the first zipper (4) and the second slider (3a) is disposed at the second end of the second zipper (3) in a fully opened state of the pocket (as seen in Fig.3).
Regarding Claim 17, Ryoko further teaches a jacket according to claim 1, further comprising a second pocket (left 12), which is a mirror image of the first pocket (right 12)(as seen in Fig.1).
3. Claim(s) 10-12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 南舘 正樹 (JP 3121497 U), herein after Minamidate, and Ryoko (KR 20080044161 A), in view of Flaum (US 4,112,556).
Regarding Claim 10, Minamidate and Ryoko disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Minamidate does not disclose the zippers having a cover, wherein the cover is elastic. However, Flaum teaches zippers having a cover (20,22) provided on the zipper (15)(as seen in Fig. 1 & 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second
zipper of Minamidate to have a cover, as taught by Flaum, in order to provide a zipper
with a cover that protects other materials being worn by the user from abrading due to contact with the zipper teeth. While Flaum does not disclose the cover being elastic, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of modified Minamidate to be elastic in order to provide a snug cover closure over the zippers so that the cover protects other materials being worn by the user from abrading due to contact with the zipper teeth. 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. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Minamidate discloses a jacket according to claim 1, wherein both sliders respectively comprise a slider handle (3b,4b) and in that both slider handles or extensions of the slider handles have an access position in which they are not fully covered by a cover in the fully closed state of the pocket (as seen in Fig.1, 3 & 4; i.e. the slider handles of Minamidate can be left to hang outside of the cover by the user in an “access position’). Minamidate does not disclose the zippers having a cover. However, Flaum teaches zippers having a cover (20,22) provided on the zipper (15)(as seen in Fig. 1 & 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second
zipper of Minamidate to have a cover, as taught by Flaum, in order to provide a zipper
with a cover that protects other materials being worn by the user from abrading due to contact with the zipper teeth.
Regarding Claim 12, Modified Minamidate discloses a jacket according to claim 11, wherein the access positions of the slider handles (3b,4b) or of the extensions of the slider handles are taken when the jacket worn by a standing person and the slider handles or the extensions of the slider handles are directed vertically downwards (i.e. as seen in Fig.1, 3 & 4 of Minamidate the slider handles would be oriented vertically downwards when worn by a standing person).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Minamidate discloses a garment (1) including an integrated pocket (2), wherein the integrated pocket of the garment comprises: a zipper assembly configured to allow access to a pocket interior and to reduce moisture penetration from above (i.e. in a closed configuration, moisture penetration would be reduced), a first zipper (4) comprising an associated first slider (4a), a first end of the first zipper and a second end of the first zipper (para.13), and a second zipper (3) comprising an associated second slider (3a), a first end of the second zipper and a second end of the second zipper (para.13), wherein the zippers are linear and arranged in such a manner that the first ends of the zippers are adjacent to each other and that the second ends of the zippers are not adjacent to each other (as seen in Fig.3), wherein the integrated pocket of the jacket can be opened and closed by means of the zippers (para.12-13), wherein, in a fully closed state of the integrated pocket of the jacket, the first slider is disposed at the first end of the first zipper and the second slider is disposed at the first end of the second zipper in a fully closed state of the integrated pocket of the jacket so that the sliders are adjacent to each other in the fully closed state of the integrated pocket (para.13; as seen in Fig.4), wherein the integrated pocket of the jacket has a coherent opening area (i.e. pocket opening & inner void) over the entire length of the zippers (as seen in Fig.3); wherein an outer side of the pocket is substantially foldable away from the jacket along a conceived axis (i.e. line connecting point seen at 3a & point seen at 4a in Fig.3) connecting a second end of the first zipper with a second end of the second zipper when the zippers are in a fully opened state (as seen in Fig.3). Minamidate does not disclose the garment is a jacket, wherein an outer side of the pocket is integrally formed with at least part of an outer side of the jacket; and wherein the zippers are arranged at an obtuse angle to each other; wherein the first zipper extends substantially vertically when the jacket is worn by a standing person, and wherein the second zipper extends linearly and defines an angle of more than 90 degrees with the first zipper. However, Ryoko teaches a jacket (Fig.1) having an integrated pocket (7) with a zipper (12), wherein an outer side (17) of the pocket is integrally formed with at least part of an outer side of the jacket (as seen in Fig.1); the zipper having a first portion (11B) and a second portion (11A), and wherein the second portion extends away from the first zipper at an obtuse angle of more than 90 degrees when the jacket is worn by a standing person (as seen in Fig.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the garment substrate of Minamidate for the jacket substrate of Ryoko, as a simple substitution of one well known garment with pockets for another, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a garment with a zippered pocket. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle of the first and second zippers of Minamidate to be at an obtuse angle, as taught by Ryoko, in order to provide a pocket with the desired shape and opening to access the contents of the pocket. When in combination, Minamidate and Ryoko teach wherein the second zipper extends away from the first zipper at an obtuse angle. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct Minamidate with the zippers being at an obtuse angle of more than 90 degrees, since applicant has not disclosed that this solves any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a pocket of the desired size. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966). When in combination, Minamidate and Ryoko teach wherein the first zipper extends substantially vertically when the jacket is worn by a standing person, and wherein the second zipper extends linearly and defines an angle of more than 90 degrees with the first zipper.
Minamidate and Ryoko disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Minamidate does not explicitly teach wherein a cover is provided for the second zipper. However, Flaum teaches zippers having a cover (20,22) provided on the zipper (15)(as seen in Fig. 1 & 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second zipper of Minamidate to have a cover, as taught by Flaum, in order to provide a zipper with a cover that protects other materials being worn by the user from abrading due to contact with the zipper teeth. When in combination, modified Minamidate and Flaum teach wherein the cover for the second zipper also covers a space between the adjacent first zipper and the second zipper (i.e. the cover would extend past the end of the second zipper, which is a space between the first and second zippers), and also partially covers the first zipper (i.e. the cover would partially cover the first zipper when the second zipper is modified to be in an obtuse angle orientation).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but, as they are drawn solely to the newly amended limitations, are moot in view of the newly modified ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant appears to argue that none of the cited references teach an obtuse angle over 90 degrees. Examiner notes that Ryoko clearly shows a zippered pocket opening with an obtuse angle over 90 degrees in Fig.1.
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 MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732