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 9/22/2025, claims 1-2, 9, 11, 13-14, 17 are amended. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13-15, 17 are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 101.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented objections to the specification.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome some of the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and it has introduced new ones.
Applicant’s amendment has introduced new objections to the drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the amendment to figure 2 introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Applicant has added an additional line to represent a “coupling device” that was not previously depicted in the drawings, therefore the amendment adds structure that wasn’t present in the original drawings. The term “coupling device” and reference number 7 was also added in the specification to allegedly refer to this newly added structure in particular, and while the added line in figure 2 might represent a “cord” it is unclear if it is truly intended to be a cord or possibly a “sewing closure” or “similar” or something else entirely since the specification now reads “a closure device 7 (FIG. 2) such as a sewing closure or cord or similar”, which further does not clearly define that the “closure device” must be one of the alternatives listed, as the phrase “such as” is exemplary and not a clear definition. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: “left flap side edge” in line 4 should be “the left flap side edge”, and “right flap side edge” in line 5 should be “the right flap side edge”.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: “left flap side edge” in line 4 should be “the left flap side edge”, and “right flap side edge” in line 5 should be “the right flap side edge”.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first engagement device” in claim 1.
“a second engagement device” in claim 1.
“a coupling device” in claim 10.
“an engagement device” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13-15, 17 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 1, the claim recites the limitation “wherein said front opening extends substantially from the bottom flap side edge to the top flap side edge”. This limitation is unclear because the term “substantially” is defined in paragraph 35 of the specification as “The sizes and the terms “substantially” and “about” mean plus or minus 15-20%, more preferably plus or minus 10%, even more preferably plus or minus 5%, most preferably plus or minus 1-2%.” It is unclear what a percentage range like “plus or minus 15-20%” would mean in regards to the phrase “from the bottom flap side edge to the top flap side edge”, which has no numerical value and thus no percentage can be calculated.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “the top front opening portion side edge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “top front opening portion side edge” has been previously defined in the claim or claim 1, from which this claim depends. The limitation has been interpreted as “a top front opening portion side edge”.
Further regarding claim 2, the claim recites multiple instances of the phrase “substantially adjacent”. These limitations are unclear because the term “substantially” is defined in paragraph 35 of the specification as “The sizes and the terms “substantially” and “about” mean plus or minus 15-20%, more preferably plus or minus 10%, even more preferably plus or minus 5%, most preferably plus or minus 1-2%.” It is unclear what a percentage range like “plus or minus 15-20%” would mean in regards to “adjacent”, which has no numerical value and thus no percentage can be calculated.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “wherein said front opening extends substantially from the bottom flap side edge to the top flap side edge, and substantially from the first flap side edge to the second flap side edge to be substantially the same size as said flap”. This limitation is unclear because the term “substantially” is defined in paragraph 35 of the specification as “The sizes and the terms “substantially” and “about” mean plus or minus 15-20%, more preferably plus or minus 10%, even more preferably plus or minus 5%, most preferably plus or minus 1-2%.” It is unclear what a percentage range like “plus or minus 15-20%” would mean in regards to the phrase “from the bottom flap side edge to the top flap side edge”, “from the first flap side edge to the second flap side edge”, and “the same size as said flap”, as none of those phrases have a numerical value and thus no percentage can be calculated.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “the top front opening portion side edge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “top front opening potion side edge” has been previously defined in the claim or claim 13, from which this claim depends. The limitation has been interpreted as “a top front opening portion side edge”.
Further regarding claim 14, the claim recites multiple instances of the phrase “substantially adjacent”. These limitations are unclear because the term “substantially” is defined in paragraph 35 of the specification as “The sizes and the terms “substantially” and “about” mean plus or minus 15-20%, more preferably plus or minus 10%, even more preferably plus or minus 5%, most preferably plus or minus 1-2%.” It is unclear what a percentage range like “plus or minus 15-20%” would mean in regards to “adjacent”, which has no numerical value and thus no percentage can be calculated.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “said top flap side edge extends substantially continuously with a waist band of said pants”. This limitation is unclear because the term “substantially” is defined in paragraph 35 of the specification as “The sizes and the terms “substantially” and “about” mean plus or minus 15-20%, more preferably plus or minus 10%, even more preferably plus or minus 5%, most preferably plus or minus 1-2%.” It is unclear what a percentage range like “plus or minus 15-20%” would mean in regards to the term “continuously”, which has no numerical value and thus no percentage can be calculated.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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) 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama (JP 1998018102), a machine translation of which is provided with the Office action mailed 3/26/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Hirayama discloses: Pants comprising: a front portion having a front opening (hole H is in the front of the pants; see English abstract which states “an opening hole H for urination on its front face”) defining a left front opening portion with a left front opening portion side edge, a right front opening portion with a right front opening portion side edge, and a bottom opening portion with a bottom front opening portion side edge (see figure 19 annotated below); a flap (front hanging member 15) having a square or rectangular shape with a left flap side edge, a right flap side edge opposite the left flap side edge, a top flap side edge, and a bottom flap side edge (see figure 19 annotated below); a first engagement device (hook and loop fastener attached to the side 156; “a hook and loop fastener may be attached to both sides 155 and 156” paragraph 40; see figure 19) for releasably coupling the left front portion side edge and the first flap side edge; and a second engagement device (hook and loop fastener attached to the side 155; “a hook and loop fastener may be attached to both sides 155 and 156” paragraph 40; see figure 19) for releasably coupling the right front portion side edge and the second flap side edge.
The embodiment previously relied upon does not appear to explicitly disclose (insofar as the limitation can be understood by Examiner): wherein said front opening extends substantially from the bottom flap side edge to the top flap side edge.
However, the embodiment shown in figure 6A of Hirayama teaches a more vertically extending front opening (see figure 6A; “in FIG. (a), the [hole] H2 is formed in a vertically long shape” paragraph 26), in which the front opening would extend substantially from the bottom flap side edge to the top flap side edge.
Hirayama teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of lower body garments with crotch openings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to alter the shape of the hole H in the embodiment of Figure 19 to be the shape H2 shown in figure 6A, as Hirayama considers, “FIGS. 6 A to 6 C illustrate a modification of the shape of the [hole] […] the outer shape, the size, the forming direction, and the like of the [holes] H1 to H4 can be variously selected while taking a design effect or the like into consideration” (paragraph 26). Further, making the hole in a vertically long shape like the one shown in FIG. 6A of Hirayama would provide increased access to the user’s crotch and make it easier, especially for a person with limited mobility or dexterity, for the user to access their own body through the opening. Moreover, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the hole of Hirayama in whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
368
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 19 of Hirayama, modified to show the opening shape shown in figure 6a, showing the side edges of the opening and flap
Regarding claim 2 as best understood by Examiner, Hirayama as modified discloses: The pants of claim 1, wherein the bottom flap side edge is substantially adjacent the bottom front opening portion side edge (see annotated figure 19 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, showing the bottom flap side edge is next to (adjacent) the bottom front opening portion side edge), the top flap side edge is substantially adjacent to the top front opening portion side edge (see annotated figure 19 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, showing the top flap side edge is next to (adjacent) the top front opening portion side edge), left flap side edge is substantially adjacent the left front opening portion side edge (see annotated figure 19 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, showing the left flap side edge is next to (adjacent) the left front opening portion side edge), and right flap side edge is substantially adjacent the right front opening portion side edge (see annotated figure 19 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, showing the right flap side edge is next to (adjacent) the right front opening portion side edge).
Regarding claim 3, Hirayama as modified discloses: The pants of claim 1, wherein the bottom flap side edge extends from the left front portion to the right front portion of said front portion (see figure 19; the bottom flap side edge extends from the left front portion to the right front portion).
Regarding claim 5, Hirayama as modified discloses: The pants of claim 1, wherein said flap has a closed position in which the first and second engagement devices are closed (see figure 19 showing the closed position) and said top flap side edge extends continuously with a waist band of said pants (see figure 19 annotated below showing the waistband and how the top flap edge is continuous with the waistband; Examiner notes that the modification to the shape of the front opening has not changed the structure of the flap or waistband).
PNG
media_image2.png
293
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 19 of Hirayama showing the waistband and top flap side edge
Regarding claim 8, Hirayama as modified discloses: The pants of claim 1, wherein the bottom flap side edge is coupled with the bottom front portion side edge (see figure 19; hook and loop fastener 157 couples the bottom flap side edge with the bottom front portion side edge).
Regarding claim 9, Hirayama as modified discloses: The pants of claim 1, wherein the top flap side edge extends at the waistband (see figure 19 annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 5 above, showing the top flap side edge being (extending) at the waistband).
Regarding claim 11, Hirayama as modified discloses: The pants of claim 1, wherein the opening and flap are positioned to be aligned with male genitalia (the opening hole H and the front hanging member 15 are on the front of the garment, and the hole H is described as “for urination” (see English abstract), therefore it is understood that the opening hole H and front hanging member 15 are configured to be aligned with male genitalia when worn by a person with said genitalia).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama in view of Hall (US 4991233).
Regarding claim 10, Hirayama as modified does not explicitly disclose: The pants of claim 1, further comprising a coupling device engaged with the first and second engagement devices for simultaneously uncoupling the left and right front portion side edges and the first and second flap side edges, respectively.
However, Hall teaches a flap (21) with a coupling device (34) engaged with first and second engagement devices (31/28, 32/29) for simultaneously uncoupling the first and second engagement devices (see figure 1 showing the first and second engagement devices engaged, and compare to figure 2 showing the first and second engagement devices disengaged).
Hall teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of garments with flaps, and art pertinent to the problem faced by the Applicant regarding making flaps easier to pull and disengage from garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the coupling device as taught by Hall to the flap of Hirayama to engage with the first and second engagement devices of Hirayama in order to make it easier and more convenient to open the flap, and to provide a more clear indicator of where specifically the user should pull in order to open the flap (“preferably the lanyard is of a different color than the flap 21 so as to be readily visible thereagainst” Hall, column 2, lines 31-33).
Claim(s) 13-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama in view of Park (KR 101525577 B1), a machine translation of which is provided with this Office action.
Regarding claim 13, Hirayama discloses: Pants comprising: a front portion having a front opening (hole H is in the front of the pants; see English abstract which states “an opening hole H for urination on its front face”) defining a left front portion with a left front portion side edge, a right front portion with a right front portion side edge, and a bottom portion with a bottom front portion side edge (see figure 19 annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above); a flap (front hanging member 15) having a square or rectangular shape with a first flap side edge, a second flap side edge opposite the first flap side edge, a top flap side edge, and a bottom flap side edge, the bottom flap side edge coupled with the bottom front portion side edge (see figure 19 annotated with the 35 USC 103) rejection of claim 1 above),; and an engagement device (“a hook and loop fastener may be attached to both sides 155 and 156” paragraph 40; see figure 19) for releasably coupling the left front portion side edge and the first flap side edge, and releasably coupling the right front portion side edge and the second flap side edge (hook and loop fasteners are releasable fasteners, and they are found on both sides 155 and 156).
Hirayama does not explicitly disclose: wherein said front opening extends substantially from the bottom flap side edge to the top flap side edge, and substantially from the first flap side edge to the second flap side edge to be substantially the same size as the flap.
However, Park teaches pants with an opening and a flap covering the opening, wherein the opening extends substantially from the bottom flap side edge to the top flap side edge, and substantially from the first flap side edge to the second flap side edge to be substantially the same size as the flap (see figure 2 showing the opening and the flap being opened which shows how the opening is substantially the same size as the flap insofar as the term can be understood by the Examiner).
Park teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of lower body garments with openings covered by flaps. Hirayama also teaches “the shape of the hole is not particularly limited” (paragraph 9) and “the outer shape, the size, the forming direction, and the like of the [holes] H1 to H4 can be variously selected while taking a design effect or the like into consideration” (paragraph 26). 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 hole of Hirayama substantially the same size as the flap of Hirayama, as taught by Park, in order to maximize the open area and make it easier for the user or a doctor/caregiver to access their crotch area through the open hole. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the hole of Hirayama in whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. 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. See annotated figure 19 of Hirayama below showing the modified size of the front opening.
PNG
media_image3.png
287
337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Hirayama as modified discloses: The pants of claim 13, wherein the bottom flap side edge is substantially adjacent the bottom front portion side edge, the top flap side edge is substantially adjacent the top front portion side edge, left flap side edge is substantially adjacent the left front portion side edge, and right flap side edge is substantially adjacent the right front portion side edge (as modified, the opening of Hirayama is substantially the same size as the flap, therefore all four of the side edges of the flap are substantially adjacent to the respective side edges of the opening; see figure 19 of Hirayama annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 13 above showing the modified front opening).
Regarding claim 15, Hirayama as modified discloses: The pants of claim 13, wherein the bottom flap side edge extends from the left front portion to the right front portion of said front portion (see figure 19 of Hirayama annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 13 above showing the modified front opening; the bottom flap side edge extends from the left front portion to the right front portion).
Regarding claim 17, Hirayama as modified discloses: The pants of claim 13, wherein said flap has a closed position in which the engagement device is closed (see figure 19 of Hirayama showing the closed position) and said top flap side edge extends substantially continuously with a waist band of said pants (see figure 19 annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 5 above showing the waistband and how the top flap edge is substantially continuous with the waistband; Examiner notes that the modification changing the size of the front opening has not changed the structure of the flap or waistband).
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