Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/343,688

Concealment Garment

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 28, 2023
Examiner
HOEY, ALISSA L
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allow Rate
454 granted / 1022 resolved
-25.6% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+31.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1072
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.9%
-35.1% vs TC avg
§103
35.9%
-4.1% vs TC avg
§102
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1022 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 This is in response to amendment received on 08/04/25. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 have been amended, claims 4-5, 8-13 and 15-18 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, 6-7 and 14 are examined herein. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carie (US 2016/0366961) in view of Stephens et al. (US 11,213,077). In regard to claim 1, Carie teaches a concealment garment comprises: at least one blurring layer (front panel: 18 and rear panel: 19); at least one flat layer (inner garment layer: 30); the at least one blurring layer being cylindrical in shape and having an exterior surface (front and back panels: 18 and 19), an interior surface, an upper opening and a lower opening (see figure 3); the at least one flat layer being cylindrical in shape and having a top opening and a bottom opening (see figures 3 and 4, flat layer: 30); the interior surface of the at least one blurring layer further comprises a first seam (paragraph 0032); and the top opening of the at least one flat layer being connected to the interior surface of the at least one blurring layer along the first seam (paragraph 0032 and 0033). However, Carie fails to teach at least one panel; and the at least one panel being attached to the at least one flat layer. Stephens et al. teaches a carry and conceal flat panel that comprises at least one panel (flat panel is body portion: 102 and panel is protective layer: 112, column 6, lines 30-41); and the at least one panel being attached to the at least one flat layer (column 9, lines 4-11). It would have been obvious before the effective date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the inner garment layer/flat panel of Carie with the flat panel/corset with additional panel of Stephens et al., since the garment layer/flat panel of Carie being the flat panel/corset of Stephens et al. would provide a pocket to store the firearm and also provides an additional panel to conceal the firearm being contained therein. Further, Carie fails to teach at least one panel is removably attached to the at least one flat layer. In regard to claim 3, the combined references teach whereby the at least one panel is removably attached to the at least one flat layer (Stephens et al.: column 6, lines 14-29). It would have been obvious before the effective date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the inner garment layer/flat panel of Carie with the flat panel/corset with a removably attached additional panel of Stephens et al., since the garment layer/flat panel of Carie being the flat panel/corset of Stephens et al. would provide a pocket to store the firearm and also provides an additional removable panel to conceal the firearm being contained therein. Additionally, Carie fails to teach whereby the at least one panel is comprised of eight panels. In regard to claim 6, the combined references teach whereby the at least one panel is comprised of multiple panels (Stephens et al: column 4, lines 38-50). Stephens et al. teaches the panels being multiple panels but does not state a specific number, including eight (column 4, lines 38-50 and column 9, lines 50-57). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art and through routine experimentation to have provided the multiple additional panels being eight based upon the number of pockets and the accessories being held therein, Stephens et al. does not limit the number of pockets and eight pockets would be a reasonable number of pockets each having the additional protection layer to accommodate eight accessories for storage based upon desired end use. Finally, Carie fails to teach the at least one panel being attached to the internal surface of the at least one flat layer. In regard to claim 7, the combined references teach wherein the at least one flat layer having of an internal surface and an external surface (Stephens: body portion 102 has internal and external surfaces); and the at least one panel being attached to the internal surface of the at least one flat layer (Stephens: column 6, lines 14-29). Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carie (US 2016/0366961) and Stephens et al. (US 11,213,077) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung (US 5,628,064). Carie and Stephens et al. teach a carry and conceal garment as described above in claim 1. However, Carie and Stephens et al. fail to teach the seam attaching the flat layer to the blurring layer being releasable. In regard to claim 14, Chung teaches seams in a garment that are attached via releasable fasteners (column 1, lines 16-25). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the stitched seam of Carie and Stephens et al. as a releasable seam as taught by Chung, since the stitched seam of Carie attaching the flat panel to the blurring layer would provide a means to remove the blurring layer from the flat panel as desired to change the garment’s appearance. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant remarks that Carie teaches the inner layer being form fitting and a carried article concealed between the outer and inner layer. It is unclear to the examiner how this has to do with the claimed limitations. Carie teaches all the claimed limitations as presented and provided above. Applicant remarks that Stephens is non-analogous art in relation to the present invention. Both the instant application and that of Stephens are upper torso body garments to be worn by a user and therefore are analogous art. Applicant argues that Carie and Stephens teach garments with different functions than that of the claimed invention. It is noted that the claims require a garment structure and all the limitations as claimed are taught by Carie in view of Stephens as detailed above. Applicant argues that there would be no motivation to combine Carie and Stephens. In KSR, the Supreme Court indicated that "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007).Carie and Stephens both teach concealed holster tubular structures. Caire teaches a concealed holster attached to a shirt garment so that a gun would be placed between the outer layer and the inner layer and Stephens teaches a concealed holster tubular structure with layers creating a pocket to retain a firearm therein for a more secured attachment. Here, we are replacing the inner garment layer/flat panel of Carie with the flat panel/corset with additional panel of Stephens et al., since the garment layer/flat panel of Carie being the flat panel/corset of Stephens et al. would provide a pocket to store the firearm and also provides an additional panel to conceal the firearm being contained therein. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached on (571)272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. ALISSA L. HOEY Primary Examiner Art Unit 3732 /ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 28, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 04, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12538950
Facemasks and Method for Manufacturing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12538952
Personal Protective Devices With Carrying Bags
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12538953
REDUCED FABRIC OUTDOOR PROTECTIVE GARMENT-LIKE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12527369
Safety Vest with Protection Plates
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12478115
Bath Robe Towel Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
44%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+31.8%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1022 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month