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 07/28/25. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended and claims 21-24 have been newly added. Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 21-24 are examined herein. It is noted that claims 8-20 are withdrawn, the text of the withdrawn claims needs to be provided, not just the withdrawn status. Future amendments that do no have the text of the withdrawn claims provided will be held non-compliant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 and the claims that depend therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitations of “a first opaque material” and “a second opaque material” were not originally supported in the originally filed disclosure when referring to the first and second cylindrical portions.
Claim 21 and the claims that depend therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There was no support in the originally filed disclosure for the material of the second cylindrical portion to be a knit material.
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) 1-2, 6-7 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phipps (US 10,602,820) in view of Levy et al. (US 2022/0161001) and Lavin (US 8,689,362).
In regard to claim 1, Phipps teaches a cylindrical fabric apparatus for protecting one or more accessories worn on a limb (device: 10, figures 12A-12F), comprising: a first cylindrical portion composed of a first opaque material (first portion/support cushion: 12, column 6, lines 52-66), the first cylindrical portion configured to cover the limb and slide under the one or more accessories worn on the limb (see figure 12C, column 3, lines 8-20), such that the first cylindrical portion is placed between the limb an the one or more accessories worn on the limb (see figures 12A-12F), the first opaque material forming an outer layer of the second clyindical portion (see figures 1A-1C); and a second cylindrical portion composed of a second opaque material (second portion/protective sheath: 14, column 6, lines 52-66), forming an inner layer of the second cylindrical portion; a first end of the second section being stitched to a first end of the first cylindrical portion via a foldback seam (column 7, lines 52-66), the second cylindrical portion intended to cover the one or more accessories (column 3, lines 8-20 and figures 12C-12F); and wherein the first opaque material is different than the second opaque material (first material/support cushion: 12, column 6, lines 52-56 and second material/protective sheath: 14, column 63-66).
However, Phipps fails to teach a respective second end of each of the first section and the second section being cover stitched, a first inseam of the first cylindrical portion being formed via a four-thread stitch; and a second inseam of the first cylindrical portion being formed using a four-thread stitch, the first inseam and the second inseam being oriented longitudinally along the first cylindrical portion and the second cylindrical portion.
Levy et al. teaches a tubular sleeve article wherein the respective second end of each of the first section and the second sections of the tubular sleeve are cover stitched (cover stitch: 30, bottom of paragraph 0021); further, Levy et al. teaches a first longitudinal inseam (see inseam: 22)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the ends of the tubular sleeve of Phipps with the cover stitched ends as taught by Levy et al., since the ends of the tubular sleeve of Phipps being cover stitched would provide a tubular sleeve with clean finished ends (see bottom of paragraph 0021 of Levy et al.). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the tubular sleeve of Phipps with a stitched longitudinal seam as taught by Levy et al., since the tubular sleeve of Phipps provided with a longitudinal seam would provide a tubular sleeve that can be constructed from flat fabric and not have to be tubularly knit or formed.
Lavin teaches a tubular sleeve, wherein a first inseam of the first cylindrical portion being formed via a four-thread stitch; and a second inseam of the first cylindrical portion being formed using a four-thread stitch, the first inseam and the second inseam being oriented longitudinally along the first cylindrical portion and the second cylindrical portion (figure 23D, column 37, lines 13-33).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the tubular sleeve of Phipps with the first and second inseams of Lavin, since the tubular sleeve of Phipps being provided with first and second inseams would provide a tubular sleeve that can be formed from two pieces of flat fabric material instead of being cylindrically formed or knit.
In regard to claim 2, Phipps teaches wherein the limb is an arm or a leg (arm: figures 12A-12F, column 3, lines 8-20).
In regard to claim 6, Phipps teaches wherein the first cylindrical portion has a first length and the second cylindrical portion has a second length (see figures 12A-12F, column 4, lines 55-62).
However, Phipps fails to specifically teach the length of each cylindrical portion being at least six inches.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art and though routine experimentation to have determined the length of each portion of the cylindrical accessories of Phipps to be six inches in length or greater to cover the arm area of the user’s wrist depending upon the size of the user’s wrist, it is expected that some user would have a wrist size that would need six inches or greater length to cover the area sufficiently.
In regard to claim 7, Phipps teaches wherein the one or more accessories include one or more of a watch or a bracelet (see figures 12A-12F and column 3, lines 8-20).
In regard to claim 21, Phipps teaches wherein the second opaque material is an abrasion resistant knit (column 6, lines 63-67).
In regard to claims 22 and 23, Levy et al. teaches wherein the cover stitch is a turnback cover stitch (bottom of paragraph 0021: folded finish edge that is cover-stitched).
However, Levy et al. fails to teach the turnback coverstitch being 3/8 inch.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art and though routine experimentation to have determined the length of the coverstitch of Levy et al. to be 3/8 inch, since the coverstitch being 3/8 of an inch would provide a stitch that is secure, but does not make the seam uncomfortable or rigid, the garment of Phipps and Levy et al. having a 3/8 inch coverstitch would not impede the use of the tubular sleeve and would be within the range of a stich size on a typical garment article.
In regard to claim 24, Lavin teaches wherein the four-thread stitch is a four-thread overlock stitch(figure 23D, column 37, lines 13-33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Phipps fails to teach an opaque sheath, since Phipps teaches a transparent sheath.
It is noted that Phipps teaches an opaque sheath, one embodiment of Phipps teaches a transparent portion of the sheath, but that is not the embodiment used to reject the claims. Therefore, Phipps teaches the opaque limitations as amended into claim 1 and detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found cited in PTO-892 form submitted herewith. The cited prior art to Pullen et al. (US 11,957,549) is of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
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