DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after June 27, 2023, claims 1-5, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the two-tie system allows for the robe to be tied in the back instead of the front (claim 2), interior support prevents the robe from opening up when bending over (claim 3), and the sleeves can be unbuttoned to facilitate additional movement (claim 5)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “interior support prevents the robe from opening up when bending over (claim 3), and the sleeves can be unbuttoned to facilitate additional movement (claim 5)”.
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2-4, the claimed limitations do not end with a period.
Regarding claims 2-4, the limitation “The robe comprising of a two-tie system, interior support, and kimono design” lines: 1-2 is indefinite because it is unclear if what is after “comprising” is part of the preamble, or if Applicant is claiming an additional “two-tie system, interior support, and kimono design”. Examiner suggests having the preamble as solely “The robe” since it is before the transitional term “comprising”.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “A robe comprising of a two-tie system, interior support, and kimono design as in A robe comprising of a two-tie system, interior support, and kimono design as in wherein the sleeves can be unbuttoned to facilitate additional movement” in lines: 1-2 is written in independent format, but depends from claim 1. It is unclear if claim 5 is supposed to depend from claim 1, or if claim 5 is supposed to have certain limitations of claim 1. Examiner assumes claim 5 depends from claim 1. In addition, since claim 5 is considered to depend from claim 1, which would encompass the limitation “unbuttonable sleeves” as best understood, it is unclear how the “unbuttonable sleeves” can be “unbuttoned” if they are “unbuttonable”. Examiner assumes the sleeves can be “unbuttoned” while in-use, and remain “unbuttonable” while not in-use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1) as being anticipated by Currier (US Patent 6,059,633).
Regarding claim 1, Currier discloses a robe (10, Fig. 1-5) comprising of a two-tie system (“tie belt” as disclosed in Col. 2, lines: 35-38 and shown around waist in Fig. 1. Examiner notes the “tie belt” is shown as a “two-tie system” because it comprises two ends tied together), interior support (40), unbuttonable sleeves (examiner notes “unbuttonable sleeves” shown in Fig. 1), and a kimono design (examiner notes “kimono” is defined as “a long robe with wide sleeves traditionally worn with a broad sash as an outer garment by the Japanese” as stated by Merriam-Webster. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the robe, 10, in Fig. 1-5 is of a “kimono design” since it’s shown as a long robe, with wide sleeves, and a sash (tie-belt)).
Regarding claim 2, Currier discloses the two-tie system (“tie belt” as disclosed in Col. 2, lines: 35-38 and shown around waist in Fig. 1) allows for the robe to be tied in the back instead of the front (“allows for…front” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Examiner notes the “tie belt” is fully capable of being tied in the back instead of the front since it’s well known in the art to be flexible and to accommodate different sized waists).
Regarding claim 3, Currier discloses interior support (40) prevents the robe (10) from opening up when bending over (“prevents the…over” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Examiner notes since interior support, 40, is stitched to robe (Col. 2 lines: 55-62, and Col. 3, lines: 6-10) and a tie is used, it is fully capable of preventing robe from opening when bending over, when in at least the configuration shown in Fig. 4
Regarding claim 4, Currier discloses the kimono design comes in a short and long length (examiner notes the sleeves are shown as “long length” in Fig. 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the sleeves can also take a “short length” configuration by being rolled up, since they are shown as loose fitting).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currier in view of Christou-Kelly et al. “Christou-Kelly” (US PG Pub. 2010/0050315).
Regarding claim 5, Currier discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Currier does not disclose the sleeves can be unbuttoned to facilitate additional movement.
However, Christou-Kelly teaches yet another robe, wherein Christou-Kelly teaches a robe (as shown in Fig. 1A) with sleeves (30) that can be unbuttoned to facilitate additional movement (Par. 0045, examiner notes the sleeves, 30, are “unbuttonable” through elements 38 and 40 in Fig. 17. In addition, although in Par. 0045 it explains elements 38 and 40 are “hook and loop fasteners” Par. 0075, lines: 4-6 explains it can be replaced with “buttons”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sleeves as disclosed by Currier, by making the sleeves unbuttonable as taught by Christou-Kelly, in order to facilitate quicker removal of the robe (Par. 0045, lines: 6-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISSA TOMPKINS can be reached on (571) 272-3425. 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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHALED ANNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732