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
Claims filed on January 6th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1- 19 are pending in the application. Claims 8, 18 and 19 remain withdrawn for being drawn to an nonelected invention. The amendments to claims 1, 4, and 11 overcome the previous claim objections and the amendments to claims 1 and 10 overcome the previous 112b rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al. (US 11,160,560) in view of Dimino et al. (US 2021/0204962).
Regarding claim 1, Rose (Rose et al.) teaches an integrated swimgear tourniquet arrangement (abstract)(Fig. 20) comprising: an item of swimgear (2000) to be worn by a user during aquatic activities comprising a surrounding swimgear portion configured to surround a portion of a limb of the user (Column 21, Lines 27- 29; When a user is wearing the swimsuit, it would surround their limbs.);
at least one tourniquet device (100) comprising an elongated sheath and a tie (see annotated Fig. 20 below);
said elongated sheath being disposed on an outer surface of said surrounding swimgear portion and comprising a first sheath end and a second sheath end (see annotated Fig. 20 below);
said elongated sheath is configured to extend over a substantial portion of said surrounding swimgear portion such that said first sheath end is adjacent but apart from said second sheath end (see annotated Fig. 20 below);
said tie comprising a strip (band 140) and a head (bar 110, anti-pinch plate 120)(Column 7, Lines 58- 60);
said elongated sheath being configured and disposed to contain a substantial portion of said strip (see annotated Fig. 20 below);
said head being disposed on top of the outer surface of said surrounding swimgear portion adjacent to said second sheath end in the space between said first sheath end and said second sheath end (see annotated Fig. 20 below);
a distal end and an adjacent strip portion of the strip being disposed to project out of said first sheath end a distance sufficient to permit the distal end and the adjacent strip portion to be inserted into the head to encircle a portion of a limb of user inside said surrounding swimgear portion (see annotated Fig. 20 below); and
said tie being configured to be tightened onto a portion of a limb of a user inside said surrounding swimgear portion to create an emergency tourniquet and restrict the flow of blood to a wounded portion of the limb (In Column 1, Lines 26- 33, Rose teaches that a tourniquet is known to restrict blood flow, therefore when the tourniquet that is on the leg of a user that is wearing the swimgear is tightened, it would act as an emergency tourniquet and restrict blood flow.).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
526
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
526
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rose does not teach a zip tie, the zip tie comprising a locking head, a tapered tail, and a toothed strip connecting said locking head to said tapered tail, said locking head including a channel extending through said locking head, said toothed strip being engaged when said toothed strip is inserted into said channel through an entry side of said channel, said elongated sheath being configured and disposed to contain a portion of said toothed strip; said locking head being disposed on top of the outer surface of said surrounding swimgear portion adjacent to said second sheath end in the space between said first sheath end and said second sheath end, said entry side of said channel facing said swimgear portion; said tapered tail and an adjacent strip portion of said toothed strip being disposed to project out of said first sheath end a distance sufficient to permit said tapered tail and said adjacent strip portion to be inserted into said locking head through said entry side and out of an exit side of said channel facing away from said swimgear to encircle a portion of the limb of the user inside said surrounding swimgear portion.
Dimino (Dimino et al.) teaches a zip tie tourniquet (10)(Figs. 1-6)(abstract) comprising a locking head (2), a tapered tail (narrowed distal end/tail 11), and a toothed strip (strap body) connecting said locking head to said tapered tail (Paragraph 0051), the locking head including a channel extending through the locking head (see annotated Fig. 3 below), the toothed strip being engaged when the toothed strip is inserted into the channel through an entry side of the channel (Paragraph 0051).
PNG
media_image4.png
343
724
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the tie tourniquet of Rose that restricts blood flow to a limb (Rose, Column 1, Lines 26- 33), for the zip tie tourniquet of Dimino since these mechanisms perform the same function of restricting blood flow to a limb (Rose, Column 1, Lines 26- 33; Dimino, Paragraph 0054). Simply substituting one tourniquet for another would yield the predicable result of preventing blood flow to a limb. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding the entry side of the channel facing the swimgear portion, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the entry side of the channel as taught by the combination to face the swimgear portion. Domino teaches the channel extending longitudinally from the top to the bottom of the locking head (see annotated Fig. 3 below). Therefore, the tourniquet can either have the entry side of the channel face away from the swimgear portion or face the swimgear portion. Thus, the entry side of the channel facing the swimgear portion would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp”, and one of ordinary skill would only have two options, the entry side of the channel facing away or facing towards the swimgear portion. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
PNG
media_image5.png
343
724
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding the adjacent strip portion inserted into the locking head through the entry side and out of an exit side of the channel facing away from the swimgear, within the combination, when the entry side of the channel faces the swimgear and the adjacent strip portion is inserted into the locking head through the entry side and out of an exit side of the channel, it would face away from the swimgear since the entry side would face the swimgear portion (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
375
584
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rose and Dimino make obvious the integrated swimgear tourniquet as discussed above.
Rose does not teach in the current embodiment wherein: said item of swimgear comprises a full-body wetsuit that comprises two long arm sections and two long leg section; said at least one tourniquet device comprises eight tourniquet devices; and said eight tourniquet devices comprise: two armpit tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at an armpit section; two forearm tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at a forearm section; two groin tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long leg sections at a groin section; and two calf tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long leg sections at a calf section.
Rose teaches in a second embodiment an integrated swimgear tourniquet (Fig. 21) comprising an item of swimgear, wherein: said item of swimgear comprises a full-body wetsuit (2100) that comprises two long arm sections and two long leg sections; said at least one tourniquet device comprises eight tourniquet devices; and said eight tourniquet devices comprise: two armpit tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at an armpit section; two forearm tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at a forearm section; two groin tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long leg sections at a groin section; and two calf tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long leg sections at a calf section (see annotated Fig. 21 below)(Column 21, Lines 42- 56).
PNG
media_image7.png
774
583
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
774
583
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 swimgear of the combination to be a full-body wetsuit as taught by Rose, since Rose teaches that the tourniquet system can be used “in conjunction with any garment” (Column 7, Line 42) and that it is an obvious design choice to choose a different piece of swimgear and customize the amount of tourniquets integrated within it (Column 21, Lines 53- 56).
Regarding claim 5, Rose and Dimino make obvious the integrated swimgear tourniquet as discussed above.
Rose further teaches wherein: said item of swimgear comprises a pair of swim shorts (2000) that comprises two short leg sections; said at least one tourniquet device comprises two tourniquet devices; and said two tourniquet devices comprise two groin tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two short leg sections at a groin section (see annotated Fig. 20 below)(Column 21, Lines 35- 37).
PNG
media_image9.png
526
786
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Rose and Dimino make obvious the integrated swimgear tourniquet as discussed above.
Regarding wherein said tapered tail and said adjacent strip portion of said toothed strip are inserted into said locking head in locking engagement prior to the user putting on said item of swimgear to prevent said zip tie from being inadvertently removed from said elongated sheath prior to use; and said tapered tail and said adjacent strip portion are inserted a minimal amount to maximize the diameter of the locked zip tie to permit the user to insert the limb therethrough, this recitation in the claims is merely an intended use. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structure difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. In this case, as Dimino teaches that the tapered tail and adjacent strip portion can be inserted into the head of the device (Paragraph 0051), and Rose teaches a tourniquet integrated into a piece of swimwear (Column 21, Lines 27- 29), before putting on the swimwear, a user can insert the tapered tail and adjacent strip portion into the locking head a minimal amount so that the user can insert their limb into the swimwear. Therefore, it is clear that the device of the combination would be capable of performing the intended use presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP.
Regarding claim 12, Rose and Dimino make obvious the integrated swimgear tourniquet as discussed above.
Rose does not teach in the current embodiment wherein: said item of swimgear comprises a full-body wetsuit that comprises two long arm sections and two long leg section; said at least one tourniquet device comprises eight tourniquet devices; and said eight tourniquet devices comprise: two armpit tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at an armpit section; two forearm tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at a forearm section; two groin tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long leg sections at a groin section; and two calf tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long leg sections at a calf section.
Rose teaches in a second embodiment an integrated swimgear tourniquet (Fig. 21) comprising an item of swimgear, wherein: said item of swimgear comprises a full-body wetsuit (2100) that comprises two long arm sections and two long leg sections; said at least one tourniquet device comprises eight tourniquet devices; and said eight tourniquet devices comprise: two armpit tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at an armpit section; two forearm tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at a forearm section; two groin tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long leg sections at a groin section; and two calf tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long leg sections at a calf section (see annotated Fig. 21 below)(Column 21, Lines 42- 56).
PNG
media_image7.png
774
583
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
774
583
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 swimgear of the combination to be a full-body wetsuit as taught by Rose, since Rose teaches that the tourniquet system can be used “in conjunction with any garment” (Column 7, Line 42) and that it is an obvious design choice to choose a different piece of swimgear and customize the amount of tourniquets integrated within it (Column 21, Lines 53- 56).
Regarding claim 15, Rose and Dimino make obvious the integrated swimgear tourniquet as discussed above.
Rose further teaches wherein: said item of swimgear comprises a pair of swim shorts (2000) that comprises two short leg sections; said at least one tourniquet device comprises two tourniquet devices; and said two tourniquet devices comprise two groin tourniquet device disposed one on each of said two short leg sections at a groin section (see annotated Fig. 20 below)(Column 21, Lines 35- 37).
PNG
media_image9.png
526
786
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3, 4, 7, 13, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al. (US 11,160,560) in view of Dimino et al. (US 2021/0204962), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Hunter (US 6,526,584).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Rose and Dimino make obvious the integrated swimgear tourniquet as discussed above.
The combination does not teach wherein said item of swimgear comprises a short wetsuit that comprises two short arm sections and two short leg sections; said at least one tourniquet device comprises four tourniquet devices; and four tourniquet devices comprise two armpit tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two short arm sections at an armpit section; and two groin tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two short leg sections at a groin section.
Hunter teaches an item of swimgear (abstract)(Figs. 2A- 2B) comprising a short wetsuit that comprises two short arm sections and two short leg sections (see annotated Fig. 2A below)(Column 2, Lines 13- 17).
PNG
media_image10.png
728
446
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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 swimgear of the combination to be a short wetsuit as taught by Hunter, since Rose teaches that the tourniquet system can be used “in conjunction with any garment” (Column 7, Line 42) and that it is an obvious design choice to choose a different piece of swimgear and customize the amount of tourniquets integrated within it (Column 21, Lines 53- 56).
Regarding the four tourniquet devices and wherein the four tourniquet devices comprise two armpit tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two short arm sections at an armpit section; and two groin tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two short leg sections at a groin section, the combination of Rose, Dimino, and Hunter would have the tourniquets positioned at these sections as the short wetsuit covers the armpit section and the groin section and Rose teaches that the number and placement of the tourniquet systems is “based upon the desired appearance and/or functionality of the wetsuit” (Column 21, Lines 57- 63).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Rose and Dimino make obvious the integrated swimgear tourniquet as discussed above.
The combination does not teach wherein said item of swimgear comprises a legless wetsuit that comprises two long arm sections and two short leg sections; said at least one tourniquet device comprises six tourniquet devices; and said six tourniquet devices comprise: two armpit tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at an armpit section, two forearm tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at a forearm section; and two groin tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two short leg sections at a groin section.
Hunter teaches an item of swimgear (abstract)(Figs. 4A- 4B) comprising a legless wetsuit that comprises two long arm sections and two short leg sections (see annotated Fig. 4A below)(Column 2, Lines 34- 39).
PNG
media_image11.png
776
525
media_image11.png
Greyscale
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 swimgear of the combination to be a legless wetsuit as taught by Hunter, since Rose teaches that the tourniquet system can be used “in conjunction with any garment” (Column 7, Line 42) and that it is an obvious design choice to choose a different piece of swimgear and customize the amount of tourniquets integrated within it (Column 21, Lines 53- 56).
Regarding the six tourniquet devices and wherein the six tourniquet devices comprise two armpit tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at an armpit section, two forearm tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at a forearm section; and two groin tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two short leg sections at a groin section, the combination of Rose, Dimino, and Hunter would have the tourniquets positioned at these sections as the legless wetsuit covers the armpit section, the forearm section, and the groin section and Rose teaches that the number and placement of the tourniquet systems is “based upon the desired appearance and/or functionality of the wetsuit” (Column 21, Lines 57- 63).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Rose and Dimino make obvious the integrated swimgear tourniquet as discussed above.
The combination does not teach wherein said item of swimgear comprises a swim jacket that comprises two long arm sections, said at least one tourniquet device comprises four tourniquet devices, and said four tourniquet devices comprise two armpit tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at an armpit section, and two forearm tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at a forearm section.
Hunter teaches an item of swimgear (abstract)(Fig. 3) comprising a swim jacket that comprises two long arm sections (see annotated Fig. 3 below)(Column 2, Lines 18- 19).
PNG
media_image12.png
428
487
media_image12.png
Greyscale
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 swimgear of the combination to be a swim jacket as taught by Hunter, since Rose teaches that the tourniquet system can be used “in conjunction with any garment” (Column 7, Line 42) and that it is an obvious design choice to choose a different piece of swimgear and customize the amount of tourniquets integrated within it (Column 21, Lines 53- 56).
Regarding the four tourniquet devices and wherein four tourniquet devices comprise two armpit tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at an armpit section, and two forearm tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at a forearm section, the combination of Rose, Dimino, and Hunter would have the tourniquets positioned at these sections as the swim shirt covers the armpit section and the forearm section and Rose teaches that the number and placement of the tourniquet systems is “based upon the desired appearance and/or functionality of the wetsuit” (Column 21, Lines 57- 63).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al. (US 11,160,560) in view of Dimino et al. (US 2021/0204962), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Van De Merwe (AU 2010100527).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Rose and Dimino make obvious the integrated swimgear tourniquet as discussed above.
The combination does not teach wherein said item of swimgear comprises a swim shirt that comprises two short arm sections, said at least one tourniquet device comprises two tourniquet devices and said two tourniquet devices comprise two armpit tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at an armpit section.
Van De Merwe teaches an item of swimgear (abstract)(Figs. 1- 4) comprising a swim shirt (10) that comprises two short arm sections (13, 14)(Page 3, Lines 23- 26).
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 swimgear of the combination to be a swim shirt as taught by Van De Merwe, since Rose teaches that the tourniquet system can be used “in conjunction with any garment” (Column 7, Line 42) and that it is an obvious design choice to choose a different piece of swimgear and customize the amount of tourniquets integrated within it (Column 21, Lines 53- 56).
Regarding the two tourniquet devices and wherein the two tourniquet devices comprise two armpit tourniquet devices disposed one on each of said two long arm sections at an armpit section, the combination of Rose, Dimino, and Hunter would have the tourniquets positioned at these sections as the swim shirt covers the armpit section and Rose teaches that the number and placement of the tourniquet systems is “based upon the desired appearance and/or functionality of the wetsuit” (Column 21, Lines 57- 63).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al. (US 11,160,560) in view of Dimino et al. (US 2021/0204962), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Horbatuck (US 2023/0292864).
Regarding claim 9, Rose and Dimino make obvious the integrated swimgear tourniquet as discussed above.
Rose further teaches wherein said elongated sheath comprises a material (flap 2055) configured to hold said tourniquet in place to minimize or prevent inadvertent removal of said tourniquet (In Column 21, Lines 30- 37, Rose teaches that the flap, which is herein interpreted as a part of the elongated sheath, covers and protects the tourniquet. Therefore, when the flap is disposed on the tourniquet, it prevents the inadvertent removal of the tourniquet.).
Rose does not teach in the current embodiment wherein said elongated sheath comprises a resilient elastic material.
Horbatuck teaches an item of swimgear (20)(abstract)(Fig. 17) made of a resilient elastic material (Paragraph 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the item of swimgear as taught by the combination to be made of a resilient elastic material as taught by Horbatuck, since Horbatuck teaches that having an elastic material improves “blood circulation and breathing” (Paragraph 0069).
Regarding wherein said elongated sheath comprises a resilient elastic material, as the material of the item of swimgear as taught by the combination is a resilient elastic material and the elongated sheath is comprises of the same material as the shorts as it is a part of them (see annotated Fig. 20 of Rose below), the elongated sheath would be made of the same material.
PNG
media_image13.png
526
786
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al. (US 11,160,560) in view of Dimino et al. (US 2021/0204962), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Gadler (US 9609899).
Regarding claim 10, Rose and Dimino make obvious the integrated swimgear tourniquet as discussed above.
Regarding said locking head is larger than the opening in said first sheath end to prevent said locking head from being inadvertently pushed or pulled into said elongated sheath, Rose teaches that the opening in the first sheath end is smaller than the head of the tourniquet device (see annotated Fig. 20 of Rose below), therefore with the combination’s tourniquet having a cubed head (see Fig. 3 of Dimino) in comparison to the head of the original tourniquet of Rose, the locking head would be larger than the opening in said first sheath end and this size prevents the locking head from being inadvertently pushed or pulled into the elongated sheath.
PNG
media_image14.png
526
786
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding said tapered tail is bent at an angle to help minimize said tapered tail from being inadvertently pushed or pulled into said elongated sheath and to facilitate insertion into said locking head, since this language is functional, the structure only needs to have the ability to complete the function, as the combination teaches that the tapered tail is bent at an angle (see Fig. 3 of Dimino, Paragraph 0055), the structure would have a similar function of helping minimize said tapered tail from being inadvertently pushed or pulled into said elongated sheath and facilitating insertion into the locking head.
The combination does not teach wherein said elongated sheath comprises a rubber or plastic.
Gadler teaches an item of swimgear (abstract) that are swim shorts (10) made of neoprene (Column 3, Lines 37- 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the material of the item of swimgear of the combination to be made of neoprene as taught by Gadler, since Gadler teaches that this material is “suitable for wear while swimming or surfing” and “assists with buoyancy in the water when a wearer is swimming or surfing” (Column 3, Lines 37- 42).
Regarding wherein said elongated sheath comprises a rubber or plastic, as the material of the item of swimgear as taught by the combination is neoprene and the elongated sheath is comprised of the same material as the shorts as it is a part of them (see annotated Fig. 20 of Rose below), the elongated sheath would be made of neoprene and therefore would comprise a rubber.
PNG
media_image13.png
526
786
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments Regarding applicant’s arguments that one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to combine the references and make the modification to teach the limitations of claim 1, these arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As discussed above, Dimino (Dimino et al.) teaches a zip tie tourniquet (10)(Figs. 1-6)(abstract) comprising a locking head (2), a tapered tail (narrowed distal end/tail 11), and a toothed strip (strap body) connecting said locking head to said tapered tail (Paragraph 0051), the locking head including a channel extending through the locking head (see annotated Fig. 3 below), the toothed strip being engaged when the toothed strip is inserted into the channel through an entry side of the channel (Paragraph 0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the tie tourniquet of Rose that restricts blood flow to a limb (Rose, Column 1, Lines 26- 33), for the zip tie tourniquet of Dimino since these mechanisms perform the same function of restricting blood flow to a limb (Rose, Column 1, Lines 26- 33; Dimino, Paragraph 0054). Simply substituting one tourniquet for another would yield the predicable result of preventing blood flow to a limb. See MPEP 2143. Regarding the entry side of the channel facing the swimgear portion, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the entry side of the channel as taught by the combination to face the swimgear portion. Domino teaches the channel extending longitudinally from the top to the bottom of the locking head (see annotated Fig. 3 below). Therefore, the tourniquet can either have the entry side of the channel face away from the swimgear portion or face the swimgear portion. Thus, the entry side of the channel facing the swimgear portion would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp”, and one of ordinary skill would only have two options, the entry side of the channel facing away or facing towards the swimgear portion. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143. Regarding the adjacent strip portion inserted into the locking head through the entry side and out of an exit side of the channel facing away from the swimgear, within the combination, when the entry side of the channel faces the swimgear and the adjacent strip portion is inserted into the locking head through the entry side and out of an exit side of the channel, it would face away from the swimgear since the entry side would face the swimgear portion (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
343
724
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
343
724
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
375
584
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 LINDSEY R. RIVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272- 4696. 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.
/L.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771