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
Applicant’s supplemental amendment filed 11/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 6-9, 11-12, 16 are amended. Claims 1-13, 16-22 are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s supplemental amendment filed 11/28/2025 has overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, these issues were addressed in the supplemental amendment filed 11/28/2025, so the arguments are moot in light of the amendments made to the claims.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections, Applicant first argues that “the anchoring [of Wilkinson] at the elastic waistband does not provide in any way sufficient stability, e.g., for combat missions and the like, let alone the same stability that is provided by the construction according to claim 1” (Remarks, page 9). In response to applicant's argument that Wilkinson is not suitable for use in combat missions, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Wilkinson as modified is fully capable of use during combat missions and has “sufficient stability” insofar as claimed because it satisfies all of the claimed structural limitations, and further notes that 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.
Applicant further argues “Wilkinson with the proposed modification may arrive at Wilkinson’s strap anchored to the stretchable side portions, but not to the end of the non-stretchable rear portion” (Remarks, page 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees, and further notes that the claim does not require that the strap is “anchored to” the end of the non-stretchable rear portion as argued, but rather that it “extends from” one end of the non-elastic rear waistband portion. The different portions of the waistband were defined with respect to Wilkinson in the annotated figure 2, reproduced below with additional arrows pointing out where the straps are attached. As can be seen in the figure, the strap extends from the end of the rear waistband portion, as claimed, and this configuration is very similar to how the instant invention is depicted in figure 4 of the instant application, also copied below. The modification in view of Lee has changed the rear waistband portion and the front waistband portion as already defined on Wilkinson to be non-elastic, therefore the Examiner maintains that the prior art reads on the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
571
931
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues that modifying Wilkinson by Lee would “render the prior art device [of Lee] unsatisfactory and inoperable for its intended purpose and change the principle of operation of the reference of Lee completely” (Remarks, page 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees, and additionally notes that the primary reference in the rejection is Wilkinson, and Lee is the modifying/secondary reference. The allegation that “the non-elastic tensioning system would just pull the elastic and non-elastic portions of the waistband tightly against the body, creating pressure points and pushing out areas of skin above and below the tensioning system” (Remarks, page 10) is merely attorney argument that is not supported by sufficient evidence in the record. Applicant has provided no evidence or reasoning to support the allegation that the tensioning the belt of Wilkinson would necessarily create pressure points and push out areas of the skin. Whether or not something to that effect would occur would depend on how tightly the user tightened the belt, and it cannot be reasonably assumed that the simple action of tightening the belt would necessarily result in the belt being so overtightened to the point of uncomfortable pressure that makes the user’s skin bulge out in unflattering ways, as the combination of Wilkinson and Lee, and in particular the belt of Wilkinson, is capable of being tightened to a lesser degree, or even not at all, depending on the user’s needs and desires (“a further object of this invention is to provide such a garment which has the ability to vary the tension in the garment in accordance with the particular needs and desires of the wearer” Wilkinson, paragraph 3). See MPEP 2145(I) which states, “Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.").” Both Wilkinson and Lee share a common intended purpose of shaping the midsection of the wearer. The combination of Wilkinson and Lee as presented in the rejection would still provide a flattened, slim appearance of the user whether or not the belt of Wilkinson is tensioned, therefore the principle of operation of Lee has not been changed and the modification does not render Lee unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Applicant’s statement that “the trousers recited in claim 1 is not capable of providing a solution that compresses the user’s belly area and provides a neater and slimmer appearance in the front and rear” is acknowledged, but Examiner submits that the rejection provided a clear motivation and rationale for combining the references nonetheless and the reasoning presented by the Examiner for modifying the references does not need to be the same reason that Applicant has arrived at the instant invention. MPEP 2144(IV) states, “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)”. Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper and the prior art reads on the claims.
Applicant further argues that “the modification would also render Wilkinson’s device unsatisfactory or inoperable for its intended purpose and change the principle of operation of the reference” (Remarks, page 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states “in order for the waistband to be additionally tightened in Wilkinson’s design, the material of the waistband must necessarily be elastic, even if it is only described as ‘preferably elastic’ here, otherwise the waistband obviously could not be tightened at all with the tensioning system, but would instead cause wrinkles and material gathering and, as a result, pressure marks on the skin” (Remarks, page 10). Firstly, Wilkinson does not require its waistband to be fully elastic, as a preference is not a requirement or an indication of criticality. Moreover, Wilkinson explicitly states “one of the features of the invention is the provision of an adjustable or non-adjustable wide elastic or non-elastic band which would be located around the waist” (Wilkinson, paragraph 20, emphasis added). Therefore, it is clear from the reference that Wilkinson’s waistband does not need to be fully elastic in order for it to work as intended. Secondly, non-elastic waistbands are commonly tightened with belts (for example, jeans and dress trousers are typically non-elastic and people often wear belts in order to tighten the waistband of those garments to prevent them from falling or sliding down their hips), so the argument that the waistband “obviously could not be tightened at all” if it was non-elastic is again merely attorney argument that is not supported by sufficient evidence in the record, as Applicant has not provided clear evidence as to why a non-elastic or partially non-elastic waistband is not capable of being tightened (See MPEP 2145(I)). The argument that “wrinkles and material gathering and, as a result, pressure marks on the skin” (Remarks, page 10) is also merely attorney argument not supported by sufficient evidence in the record, as again, belts are commonly used and do not necessarily result in pressure marks on the skin in normal use, and Applicant has not provided clear and sufficient evidence to support allegations to the contrary.
Applicant further argues that “modifying Heller according to Wilkinson’s teachings would result in a construction that would lack the desired degree of elasticity throughout the waistband, as the tensioning system would lead to a tightly squeezed waistband with no elasticity” (Remarks, page 11). In response, Examiner notes that a Heller reference was not relied upon in the rejection, therefore the remarks are not commensurate with the scope of the rejection.
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from claim 1; however, as described in the arguments above and rejections below, claim 1 is not allowable over the prior art. Therefore, the dependent claims remain rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8, 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, “two loose belt end portions which is configured to be indirectly fixed…” should be “two loose belt end portions which are [[is]] configured to be indirectly fixed…”.
Regarding claim 8, “a separate middle part to which each of belt end portions of the belt…” should be “a separate middle part to which each of the belt end portions of the belt…”.
Regarding claim 16, “the two parts of the non-elastic front waistband end portion is configured to be connected to each other” should be “the two parts of the non-elastic front waistband end portion are [[is]] configured to be connected to each other”
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. 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.
Claim limitations that are being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) are:
“at least one fastening means” (claim 4)
“at least one coupling element” (claim 4)
“means of a coupling element on a corresponding fastening means” (claim 8)
“interlocking fastening means” (claim 16)
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) 1-3, 6-7, 10, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson (US 2005/0177920) in view of Lee (KR 200471828Y1), a machine translation of which is provided with this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Wilkinson teaches a pair of trousers (10) comprising a waistband system (12) with a circumferential waistband (14) and a non-elastic closable belt (22) wherein the waistband has a rear waistband portion (portion of 14 at rear extending from and between ends of 22 attached to 14; see annotated figure 2 below) that extends across a centre of a rear side of the pair of trousers in a lateral direction (see annotated figure 2 below), the waistband has at least one elastic lateral waistband portion which stretches at least in a longitudinal direction of the waistband and extends from one end of the rear waistband portion towards a front of the pair of trousers (portion of 14 extending from where 22 attaches to 14 to a position towards the front of 10; see annotated figure 2 below), the belt has a main belt portion (portion of 22 extending to 26) that extends from the one end of the rear waistband portion towards the front of the pair of trousers separately from the elastic lateral waistband portion (see figures 1 and 2); the waistband has a front waistband portion in a front region of the pair of trousers which adjoins a front end of the at least one elastic lateral waistband portion (portion of 14 in the front of the trousers; see annotated figure 2 below), a first closed loop is formed when the waistband system is worn, the first closed loop including the rear waistband portion, the at least one elastic lateral waistband portion, and the front waistband portion of the waistband in a circumferential direction of the waistband system when the waistband system is worn as intended (see closed loop formed in figure 2 below), and a second closed loop is formed when the waistband system is worn, the second closed loop including the rear waistband portion of the waistband and the main belt portion of the belt in the circumferential direction of the waistband system separately from the first closed loop when the waistband system is worn as intended (the rear waistband portion and main belt portion of the belt form a second closed loop insofar as can be understood according to the interpretation of this limitation as outlined in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above because they include all the claimed structural limitations of the main belt portion and rear waistband portion, and additionally this loop is considered separate from the first loop insofar as can be understood according to the interpretation of this limitation as outlined in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above because, even though both loops include the rear waistband portion, the straps 22 are different components than the waistband 14 and can be independently manipulated).
PNG
media_image3.png
342
507
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2 of Wilkinson showing the rear, lateral, and front waistband portions
Wilkinson does not explicitly teach the rear waistband portion and front waistband portion being non-elastic.
Lee teaches a pants waistband (20) wherein a rear portion is non-stretchable (21 at rear; “the support member 21 is made of a sheet material that is soft and has little stretchability and functions to support the elastic member 22 by extending upward from the front plate 11 and the back plate 12” paragraph 17), a front portion is non-stretchable (21 at front; “the support member 21 is made of a sheet material that is soft and has little stretchability and functions to support the elastic member 22 by extending upward from the front plate 11 and the back plate 12” paragraph 17), and there are stretchable portions (elastic member 22) on the sides between the front and back (see figure 1).
Lee teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of waistbands for pants. 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 rear portion of Wilkinson non-stretchable, a front portion non-stretchable with stretchable side portions between the front and rear in view of Lee in order to support and compress the user’s belly area (see paragraphs 17, 26 of Lee) which will provide a neater and slimmer appearance in the front and rear without losing the functionality of elasticity at the waist. Examiner notes that, as combined, the at least one elastic lateral waistband portion would be the stretchable side portions.
Regarding claim 2, Wilkinson as modified discloses: The pair of trousers according to claim 1, wherein the waistband has two elastic lateral waistband portions (stretchable side portions of the combined reference) each of which laterally adjoins the non-elastic rear waistband portion-while extending towards the front (as Lee modifies Wilkinson per claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Wilkinson as modified does not explicitly disclose: the elastic lateral waistband portions are formed with a material that is stretchable in the longitudinal direction by at least 30%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the elastic lateral waistband portions from a material that is stretchable in the longitudinal direction by at least 30%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (providing stretchability in the waistband, paragraph 30 of Wilkinson, paragraph 20 of Lee), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). Additionally, stretching in the longitudinal direction by at least 30% allows the waistband to fit a multitude of different sized wearers.
Regarding claim 6, Wilkinson as modified discloses: The pair of trousers according to claim 1, wherein the belt (22) covers the waistband in a front region of the pair of trousers (where a front region is the region under the belt) when the waistband system is worn (see figure 1 of Wilkinson).
Regarding claim 7, Wilkinson as modified discloses: The pair of trousers according to claim 1, wherein the belt has two loose belt end portions (free ends of 22) which is configured to be indirectly fixed with respect to each other in a length-variable manner (see paragraph 25 describing how the length of each strap can be adjustable; the ends are coupled together indirectly insofar as understood (see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above) as they are both coupled to the waistband; further, Examiner notes that they can be (are capable of being) coupled to each other as they both have hook and loop fasteners which are capable of being fastened together).
Regarding claim 10, Wilkinson as modified discloses: The pair of trousers according to claim 1, further comprising multiple waistbelt loop(s) (Wilkinson, 26; see paragraph 25) arranged on the outside along the waistband (Wilkinson, see figure 1), wherein at least one closable waistbelt loop(s) (Wilkinson, at least one of 26, considered to be closable at least because it can be considered closed with a strap extending through it thereby closing the slot vs open when no strap is extending through it) is/are arranged on the outside of the waistband, in a region of outwardly folded, non-elastic belt end portions of the belt (Wilkinson, see figure 1; the loops are arranged in the region of the folded belt ends because they define the pivot where the belt ends fold over).
Wilkinson as modified teaches “the pull could be arranged at any angle” (paragraph 38) but does not explicitly disclose in the previously relied upon embodiment: the at least one, preferably multiple waistbelt loop(s) arranged parallel to one another.
Wilkinson further teaches the anchor members 26 can be in many different positions including parallel to one another on the outside of the waistband (see figure 3 and paragraph 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the at least one, preferably multiple waistbelt loop(s) of the combined reference parallel to one another on the outside along the waistband in view of the embodiment shown in figure 3 because Wilkinson teaches “the pull could be arranged at any angle […] it is preferable that there should be an upwards pull or a sideways pull” (paragraph 38) in order to provide “an anchor for the pants and [help] keep the pants up rather than slipping down” (Wilkinson, paragraph 38) and further to provide more support across the waistband area.
Regarding claim 17, Wilkinson as modified does not explicitly disclose: the elastic lateral waistband portions are formed with a material that is stretchable in the longitudinal direction by at least 35%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the elastic lateral waistband portions from a material that is stretchable in the longitudinal direction by at least 35%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (providing stretchability in the waistband, paragraph 30 of Wilkinson, paragraph 20 of Lee), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). Additionally, stretching in the longitudinal direction by at least 35% allows the waistband to fit a multitude of different sized wearers.
Regarding claim 18, Wilkinson as modified does not explicitly disclose: the elastic lateral waistband portions are formed with a material that is stretchable in the longitudinal direction by at least 40%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the elastic lateral waistband portions from a material that is stretchable in the longitudinal direction by at least 40%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (providing stretchability in the waistband, paragraph 30 of Wilkinson, paragraph 20 of Lee), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). Additionally, stretching in the longitudinal direction by at least 40% allows the waistband to fit a multitude of different sized wearers.
Regarding claim 20, Wilkinson as modified discloses: The pair of trousers according to claim 10, wherein the at least one closable waistbelt loop includes two closable waistbelt loops (Wilkinson, 26, they are considered to be closable at least because each one can be considered closed with a strap extending through it thereby closing the slot vs open when no strap is extending through it) that are arranged on the waistband in the region of the outwardly folded, non-elastic belt end portions of the belt (as modified the loops 26 are arranged parallel; the loops are arranged in the region of the folded belt ends because they define the pivot where the belt ends fold over).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 16, 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson/Lee, and further in view of Miller (US 2012/0030861).
Regarding claim 4, Wilkinson as modified does not explicitly disclose: at least one fastening means suitable for coupling with at least one coupling element is fastened centrally on an outer side of the non-elastic front waistband portion.
However, Miller teaches pants having elastic sides (64; see paragraph 18) and having a fly (see paragraph 18 and figure 1) and at least one fastening means suitable for coupling with at least one coupling elements fastened centrally on an outer side of the non-elastic front waistband portion (button closure 74, paragraph 18; under 112f, a fastening means/coupling element is button or similar protruding element and eyelet, see pages 8-9 of the instant specification).
Miller teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of waistbands for pants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have form the non-elastic front waistband portion of Wilkinson as modified by Lee with a fly and at least one coupling element fastened centrally on an outer side of the non-elastic front waistband portion in view of Miller in order to further facilitate putting on and taking off the pants.
Regarding claim 5, Wilkinson as modified does not explicitly disclose: the circumferential waistband is interrupted in a front region of the pair of trousers by at least one fly.
However, Miller teaches pants having elastic sides (64; see paragraph 18 and figures 1-4) wherein the circumferential waistband is interrupted in a front region of the pair of trousers by at least one fly (see paragraph 18 and figure 1).
Miller teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of waistbands for pants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have interrupted the circumferential waistband of Wilkinson in the front region by a zipped fly in view of Miller in order to further facilitate putting on and taking off the pants.
Regarding claim 16, Wilkinson as modified does not explicitly disclose: the circumferential waistband is interrupted in the front region by at least one fly, wherein the non-elastic front waistband portion of the waistband is in two parts, wherein the two parts of the non-elastic front waistband end portion can be connected to each other by means of interlocking fastening means.
However, Miller teaches pants having elastic sides (64; see paragraph 18) the circumferential waistband is interrupted in the front region by at least one fly (58), wherein the front waistband portion of the waistband is in two parts (on either side of fly), wherein the two parts of the non-elastic front waistband end portion is configured to be connected to each other by means of interlocking fastening means (button closure 74, paragraph 18; under 112f, a fastening means/coupling element is button or similar protruding element and eyelet, see pages 8-9 of the instant specification).
Miller teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of waistbands for pants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have interrupted the circumferential waistband of the combined reference in the front region by at least one fly, wherein the non-elastic front waistband portion of the waistband is in two parts, wherein the two parts of the non-elastic front waistband end portion can-be connected to each other by means of interlocking fastening means in view of Miller in order to further facilitate putting on and taking off the pants.
Regarding claim 19, Wilkinson as modified discloses: The pair of trousers according to claim 4, wherein the at least one fastening means is a trouser button, and the at least one coupling element is a fastening eyelet (Miller, button closure, see paragraph 18, button extending through an eyelet is how buttons work as a closure).
Regarding claim 22, Wilkinson as modified discloses: The pair of trousers according to claim 16, wherein the interlocking fastening means includes a fastening eyelet and a trouser button (Miller, button closure, see paragraph 18, button extending through an eyelet is how buttons work as a closure).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson/Lee, and further in view of Larson et al. (US 2233136) and Choi (US 2008/0282516).
Regarding claim 8, Wilkinson as modified discloses: belt end portions (Wilkinson, ends of each of 22) extend through loops (Wilkinson, 26) to which each of belt end portions of the belt are configured to be indirectly fixed (Wilkinson, “the free end of each strap 22 passes around its respective ring 26 and is folded in a reverse direction back against itself” paragraph 25).
Wilkinson as modified does not explicitly disclose: a separate middle part to which each of belt end portions of the belt is configured to be indirectly fixed, wherein a coupling element is provided on the middle part, a fastening means is provided on the waistband, and the middle part is configured to be coupled to the waistband by means of the coupling element and the fastening means of the waistband (under 112f fastening means/coupling element is button or similar protruding element and eyelet, pgs. 11,12 of spec, and equivalents).
However, Larson teaches a garment adjusting belt (6, 6’, 7, 8, 8’) having a separate middle part (6’, 6, 7) to which each of belt end portions (8, 8) of the belt is configured to be indirectly fixed (pg. 1, col. 1, lines 53-55, col. 2, lines 1-11).
Larson teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of waistbands for pants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the combined reference so that loops 26 of Wilkinson are integrated as part of a separate middle part to which each of belt end portions of the belt can be indirectly fixed with respect to each other in a length-variable manner in view of Larson in order to allow for more even tension and support across the front of the waistband, which would further assist the user in maintaining a slimmed appearance at their front.
Wilkinson as modified does not explicitly disclose: a coupling element is provided on the middle part, a fastening means is provided on the waistband, and the middle part is configured to be coupled to the waistband by means of the coupling element and the fastening means of the waistband (under 112f fastening means/coupling element is button or similar protruding element and eyelet, pgs. 11,12 of spec, and equivalents).
However, Choi teaches a belt having a centrally located part that can be coupled to the waistband by means of a coupling element on a corresponding fastening means of the waistband (see paras. 8, 15, 16 and figure 2).
Choi teaches art pertinent to the problem faced by the Applicant in regards to attaching a belt to a waistband. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the middle part of the combined reference with a coupling element to couple with a corresponding fastening means of the waistband in view of Choi in order to prevent the belt from sagging thereby achieving a neat wearing state (para. 8. Of Choi).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson/Lee/Larson/Choi, and further in view of Miller.
Regarding claim 9, Wilkinson as modified discloses: The pair of trousers according to claim 8, wherein the middle part comprises a number of loops (Larson, 6,6’ and 7, see figure 2) wherein each of the belt end portions is configured to be passed through at least one of the number of loops and thereby indirectly fixed with respect to each other (as modified by Larson, see pg. 1, col. 1, lines 53-55, col. 2, lines 1-11), wherein the number of loops include three loops (Larson, 6’,6,7) linked in the manner of chain links (see fig. 2 of Larson, pg. 1, col. 1, lines 53-55, col. 2, lines 1-11), including a middle fabric loop (Larson, 7) and two outer ring loops (Larson, 6,6’) for the belt end portions to pass through (Larson, fig. 2, pg. 1, col. 1, lines 53-55, col. 2, lines 1-11), wherein the two outer ring loops each enclosed in two lateral subregions of the middle fabric loop (Larson, fig. 2) and the remaining region of the middle fabric loop forms two material layers lying in front of one another (Larson, fig. 2), the middle part has a coupling element on a corresponding fastening means of the waistband (as modified by Choi, see paras. 8, 15, 16 and figure 2).
Wilkinson as modified teaches that the coupling element/corresponding fastening means is a snap connection (see paragraph 15-16 of Choi), but does not explicitly disclose: the coupling element is a fastening eyelet and the fastening means is a trouser button; and one of the two material layers has the fastening eyelet.
However, Miller teaches that snaps and buttons are known alternative fasteners (see paragraph 22).
Miller teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of trousers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have formed snap of Choi as a fastening eyelet on one of the layers of the middle fabric loop and a trouser button on the waistband in view of Miller because doing so would be the simple substitution of one known fastener type for another which would yield only the predictable result of selectively fastening the middle part to the waistband. Further, a button and eyelet fastener has a lower profile than the snap and protrusion fastener, which would allow the belt to sit more closely to the pants for a less bulky appearance.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson/Lee, and further in view of Mueller (US 2020/0032428) and Ferber (US 4807301).
Regarding claim 11, Wilkinson as modified discloses: The pair of trousers according to claim 1, further comprising a back pad (Wilkinson, 36) on an inside of the rear side (Wilkinson, the pad 36 is inside 34, therefore it is inside the rear side of the trousers because the rear side of the trousers includes the pocket 34) in a region of the non-elastic rear waistband portion of the pair of trousers (as modified, the rear waistband portion is non-elastic, so the back pad would be in the region of the non-elastic rear waistband portion; see figures 2 and 4 of Wilkinson), arranged centrally on the rear side at a level of an upper edge of the waistband (see figure 4 of Wilkinson and paragraph 36).
Wilkinson does not explicitly disclose: the back pad comprises at least one knitted spacer fabric, wherein the back pad has a V-shaped cutout arranged centrally on the rear side at a level of an upper edge of the waistband.
However, Mueller teaches knitted spacer fabric being used in garments to provide a soft elastic layer that enables air circulation (paragraph 3).
Mueller teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of elastic garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised the back pad of the combined reference of at least one knitted spacer fabric in view of Mueller in order to provide a soft elastic layer that enables air circulation (see paragraph 3 of Mueller).
Wilkinson as modified does not explicitly disclose: wherein the back pad has a V-shaped cutout arranged centrally on the rear side at a level of an upper edge of the waistband.
However, Ferber further teaches a protective pad for a person’s buttocks with a V-shaped cutout arranged centrally on the pad (see figure 3).
Ferber teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of padded garments for the lower body. 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 V-shaped cutout (19) to the central area of the pad of Wilkinson, as taught by Ferber, in order to “help the shock absorbent pad adapt to the contours of the body” (Ferber, column 4, lines 19-21). Examiner notes that the pad itself is on the rear side at a level of an upper edge of the waistband (see Wilkinson figure 4), therefore the cutout would be arranged centrally on the rear side at a level of an upper edge of the waistband as modified.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson/Lee, and further in view of Goyal (US 6119275)
Regarding claim 12, Wilkinson as modified discloses: The pair of trousers according to claim 1, wherein on the rear side of the pair of trousers the non-elastic rear waistband portion has a
Wilkinson as modified does not explicitly disclose: the back pad having a substantially semicircular shape at a bottom edge of the back pad.
However, Goyal teaches a back pad for use in a lower body garment wherein the back pad has a substantially semicircular shape at a bottom edge of the back pad (the pad “may be in a circle, elliptical or any other shape” column 1, lines 62-64; Examiner notes that a circle has a semicircular shape at a bottom edge).
Goyal teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of lower body garments with pads. 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 pad of Wilkinson in a circle shape, as taught by Goyal, as a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, this shape “conforms to the shape of the wearer’s back, relieving the wearer of any discomfort” (Goyal, column 1, lines 1-2).
Claim(s) 13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson/Lee, and further in view of Simon (US 2010/0192284).
Regarding claim 13, Wilkinson as modified does not explicitly disclose: on the rear side below the belt integrated into the waistband the pair of trousers has a material portion which is configured to stretch at least in a vertical direction of the pair of trousers.
However, Simon teaches trousers wherein on the rear side below the waistband (24; see figure 5), a material portion (elastic yoke 23, see paras. 72, 84 and fig. 5) is integrated into the waistband (see paras. 72, 84 and fig. 5), wherein the material portion is configured to stretch at least in a vertical direction of the pair of trousers (para. 59, 4-way stretch).
Simon teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of trousers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the trousers of the combined reference such that on the rear side below the belt integrated into the waistband the pair of trousers has a material portion which is configured to stretch at least in a vertical direction of the pair of trousers in view of Simon in order to provide greater shaping and an improved silhouette at the rear of the wearer (see paragraph 6 and abstract of Simon).
Regarding claim 21, Wilkinson as modified discloses: The pair of trousers according to claim 13, wherein the material portion is bielastic (paragraph 59 of Simon specifies 4-way stretch, therefore it is bielastic).
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
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732