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 .
The amendments filed with the written response received on 07/22/2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 4, and 8 have been amended; claims 2-3, 6-7, and 10 are canceled; claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-5, 8-9 and 11-20 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1, 4-5, and 8-9.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed 04/24/2025, are hereby withdrawn: the prior objection to the claims, and the prior rejection of claims under 35 USC § 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, filed 07/22/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4-5, and 8-9 under 35 USC § 102 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. Applicant's arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,419,332 A to Walker in view of US 2013/0318683 A1 to Blakely and US 2,544,983 A to Morehouse.
For claim 1, Walker discloses a vertical double French cuff (4) of a shirt sleeve (page 1, lines 15-21).
With respect to the recitation “of a shirt sleeve,” MPEP 2111.02 (II) provides “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” In this case, this part of the preamble is not considered a structural limitation of the cuff because the complete cuff structure is fully and intrinsically set forth in the claim body, and the preamble portion “of a shirt sleeve” is only used to state a purpose or intended use for the invention. Therefore, this portion of the preamble is not considered as structurally limiting for purposes of applying prior art.
Walker continues to discloses the vertical double French cuff comprises: a double French cuff (4) having a first portion and a second portion separated by a folding line; wherein said folding line extends across opposing longitudinal edges of said double French cuff; wherein said opposing longitudinal edges extend along said first portion and said second portion (see annotated fig. 2 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
1000
1114
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein said second portion is configured to be in a folded back position along said folding line to overlap and cover said first portion (see fig. 2 wherein the illustrated shown surface of the “second portion” is configured to be folded back and cover the matching surface of the illustrated “first portion”); wherein said second portion covers said first portion in the folded back position (see fig. 2, and page 1, lines 64-72); wherein said first portion is configured to be integrally attached to the shirt sleeve (2) and is configured to extend between the shirt sleeve (1) and said folding line (see fig. 2 and page 1, lines 64-80); and wherein said second portion extending from said folding line to a terminal edge of said second portion (see annotated fig. 2 above) wherein said first portion comprises a first pair of holes (hole 8 and its opposite hole, fig. 2) and a second pair of holes (hole 9 and its opposite hole, fig. 2); wherein said second portion having a third pair of holes (hole 6 and its opposite hole, fig. 2) and a fourth pair of holes (hole 7, and its opposite hole, fig. 2); wherein said third pair of holes are positioned to overlap and align with said second pair of holes and said fourth pair of holes are positioned to overlap and align with said first pair of holes (see figs. 2 (and fig. 3, as an example) and page 1, lines 64-80).)
It is further noted that claim limitations including, but not limited to: “wherein said first portion integrally attached to the shirt sleeve and extending between the shirt sleeve and said folding line” has been fully considered and is being interpreted as a statement of intended use. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114(II)). Examiner notes italicized limitations in the prior art rejection are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform. Since Walker discloses a cuff, there would be a reasonable expectation for the prior art to perform the claimed intended use of being configured to integrally attach to a shirt sleeve.
Walker does not specifically disclose the vertical double French cuff comprises a first and second cuff link, each cuff link comprising a top face, a swivel member, and a hinged bar connecting the top face to the hinged bar; and wherein each of the pair of holes are cuff link holes, wherein the second and third pair of holes accommodate the first cuff link, and wherein the first and fourth pair of holes accommodate a second cuff link.
However attention is directed to Blakely teaching an apparatus for a convertible garment cuff (Abstract of Blakely). Specifically, Blakely teaches a link cuff may include buttonholes on both sides of the cuff that may be closed with a linking member, such as a cuff link, silk knot, and a French style cuff may be about twice as long as a single cuff and may be worn folded back on itself and closed with a linking member and in other embodiments, the garment includes cuffs including a combination of buttons, cuff links, and other linking members (para 0042 of Blakely). Therefore, Blakely teaches buttons and cuff links are similar cuff securing means having the same function and are known in the art as such. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Walker would be modified to further comprise a first cuff link and a second cuff link for securing each of the pair of holes since the modification would amount to a simple substitution of known components for a predictable result. In this case, the substitution of buttons for cuff links would yield the predictable result of linking holes in a cuff of a garment without requiring more than ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). As a result, the modified Walker would be considered as comprising a first and second cuff link, and wherein each of the pair of holes are cuff link holes, wherein the second and third pair of holes accommodate the first cuff link, and wherein the first and fourth pair of holes accommodate a second cuff link.
As modified, Walker does not specifically disclose each cuff link comprises a top face, a swivel member, and a hinged bar connecting the top face to the hinged bar.
However, attention is directed to Morehouse teaching a cuff link with movable head (fig. 1). Specifically, Morehouse teaches the cuff link comprise a top face (15), a swivel member (20), and a hinged bar connecting the top face to the hinged bar (11 and 12) so that the tiltable head may be aligned with the body portion of the link for easy insertion through the buttonhole of a cuff (col. 1, lines 1-6 of Morehouse). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein each cuff links comprises a top face, a swivel member, and a hinged bar connecting the top face to the hinged bar so that the tiltable swivel member may be aligned with the body portion of the link for easy insertion through the buttonhole of a given cuff, as taught by Morehouse (col. 1, lines 1-6 of Morehouse).
For claim 4, the modified Walker discloses the vertical double French cuff of a shirt sleeve of claim 1, wherein said second pair of cuff link holes are longitudinally aligned to said first pair of cuff link holes (see fig. 2 wherein hole 9 and its opposite hole is longitudinally aligned to hole 8 and its opposite hole).
For claim 5, the modified Walker discloses the vertical double French cuff of a shirt sleeve of claim 4, wherein each hole of said first pair of cuff link holes and each hole of said second pair of cuff link holes proximal to said opposing longitudinal edges (see annotated fig. 2 in the discussion for claim 1 above wherein the hole 8, the hole 9, and their complementary opposite holes are proximal to the illustrated longitudinal edges).
For claim 8, the modified Walker discloses the vertical double French cuff of a shirt sleeve of claim 5, wherein said fourth pair of cuff link holes are longitudinally aligned to said third pair of cuff link holes (see fig. 2 wherein hole 7 and its opposite hole is longitudinally aligned to hole 6 and its opposite hole).
For claim 9, the modified Walker discloses the vertical double French cuff of a shirt sleeve of claim 8, wherein each hole of said third pair of cuff link holes and each hole of said fourth pair of cuff link holes proximal to said opposing longitudinal edges (see annotated fig. 2 in the discussion for claim 1 above wherein the hole 6, the hole 7, and their complementary opposite holes are proximal to the illustrated longitudinal edges).
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 ERICK I LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3262. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:30pm 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at (571) 272-4888. 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.
/ERICK I LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732