ARTICLE OF CLOTHING

§102 §103 §112

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 In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 1/27/2026, claims 7,19-22, and 28 are amended. Claims 7-9, 12-28 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding amended claims 20 and 22, Applicant argues that the limitation “an area of each of the three sections between the respective first end and the respective second end is a single layer of the tubular extension” can be seen clearly in the figures. In response, Examiner acknowledges that two layers can be seen in the figures, and as such, there is an area (Examiner notes that “an area” is very broad) of each of the three sections between the first end and the second end that is a single layer (for example, an area that is defined on only one of the two layers). For that reason, a new matter rejection for that limitation has not yet been made because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does have support. However, the narrower interpretation argued and desired by Applicant does not appear to have support. The areas identified by Applicant as “an area of each off the three sections between the respective first end and the respective second end is a single layer” in the annotated figure 7 on page 10 of the Remarks does not sufficiently illustrate a single layer. It cannot be determined based on the line drawings that the area identified by Applicant is only a single layer. The figure actually appears to show two layers that are merely close together/overlapping due to the proximity of that area to a seam. PNG media_image1.png 382 731 media_image1.png Greyscale Zoomed in and annotated figure 7 of instant application Applicant further includes an annotated photograph that was used to draft the figures. Examiner notes that this photograph was not included in the disclosure as originally filed, therefore it cannot be relied upon as evidence that this feature was properly disclosed at the time of filing. Moreover, the photograph also does not adequately show that there is only a single layer in the area indicated by Applicant, as the figure is ambiguous at best and does not clearly and distinctly show that there is only one layer at that area. Regarding the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections over Hedrick, Applicant argues that Hedrick does not teach the newly added limitations. Applicant argues “Hedrick does not disclose three different sections formed of three different pieces of material with each of those three different sections having a first end and a second end, as recited in the proposed claims” (Remarks, page 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the limitation is unclear and introduces numerous issues under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b), described below. Further, Examiner notes that Hedrick teaches in paragraph 28, “the two layers of the inner layer piece can be joined to the two layers of the outer layer piece along vertical centerline 226”, which is a disclosure of at least four layers, or four pieces. It can also be divided into three sections, each section having two pockets, as described in the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections below. Therefore, Hedrick teaches three sections formed of three pieces of material, as claimed, and Examiner maintains that Hedrick reads on the claims as written. Applicant also argues that “Hedrick does not disclose any portion that is formed from ‘two layers of the first portion’ since each double layer of Hedrick is a first layer of an internal circular band and a second layer of an external circular band. Therefore Hedrick does not disclose two layers of the same piece of material, as presently recited” (Remarks, page 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the claims do not require “two layers of the same piece of material” as argued by Applicant. The claims require “two layers of the first portion”. As previously described, the waistband of Hedrick has four layers so there are two layers of the first portion. Examiner maintains that Hedrick reads on the claims as written. Regarding claims 20 and 22, Applicant argues that “Hedrick does not disclose an area of a single layer of material” (Remarks, page 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the term "area" is very broad and merely means "a section, portion, or part". (Defn. No. 3 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). In Hedrick, there is an area (section, portion, or part) of each of the three sections between the first end and the second end that is only a single layer (for example, an area that is defined on only one of the layers). Examiner maintains that Hedrick reads on the claims as written. 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 “three sections formed of three pieces of material” (claim 1, 19, 21) 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. The drawings are objected to because between figures 6 and 7, the components labeled 215’, 219’, and 229” do not appear to be consistent, so it is unclear which position/label for each of the components is correct. 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. Claim Objections Applicant is advised that should claims 8, 9, 12, 14, and/or 16 be found allowable, claims 23, 24, 25, 26, and/or 27, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). As written, claim 23 is an exact duplicate of claim 8, claim 24 is an exact duplicate of claim 9, claim 25 is an exact duplicate of claim 12, claim 26 is an exact duplicate of claim 14, and claim 27 is an exact duplicate of claim 16. Claim 21 is objected to for the following informalities: line 22 recites “between respective the first position and the respective seam” which should likely be “between the respective first position and the respective seam”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 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. Claims 7, 19, 21 (and 8-9, 12-18, 20, 22-28 at least for depending from a rejected base claim) 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. Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the tubular extension comprises three sections formed of three pieces of material”. This limitation has multiple interpretations (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim below), but the specification as originally filed lacks support for either interpretation. Applicant has not provided a clear citation of where the specification as originally filed supports the limitation (MPEP 714.02 states: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”), and a review of the disclosure has found no evidence to suggest that Applicant contemplated specifically using three separate pieces of material to form the three sections (interpretation 1), nor that the Applicant contemplated that each section should be formed of three pieces of material (interpretation 2). The disclosure as originally filed only appears to discuss the structure of the tubular extension in terms of broad “sections”, but does not specifically disclose the use of multiple pieces of material, let alone three pieces in particular. The limitation therefore constitutes new matter. Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “the tubular extension comprises three sections formed of three pieces of material”. This limitation has multiple interpretations (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim below), but the specification as originally filed lacks support for either interpretation. Applicant has not provided a clear citation of where the specification as originally filed supports the limitation (MPEP 714.02 states: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”), and a review of the disclosure has found no evidence to suggest that Applicant contemplated specifically using three separate pieces of material to form the three sections (interpretation 1), nor that the Applicant contemplated that each section should be formed of three pieces of material (interpretation 2). The disclosure as originally filed only appears to discuss the structure of the tubular extension in terms of broad “sections”, but does not specifically disclose the use of multiple pieces of material, let alone three pieces in particular. The limitation therefore constitutes new matter. Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “the tubular extension comprises three sections formed of three pieces of material”. This limitation has multiple interpretations (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim below), but the specification as originally filed lacks support for either interpretation. Applicant has not provided a clear citation of where the specification as originally filed supports the limitation (MPEP 714.02 states: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”), and a review of the disclosure has found no evidence to suggest that Applicant contemplated specifically using three separate pieces of material to form the three sections (interpretation 1), nor that the Applicant contemplated that each section should be formed of three pieces of material (interpretation 2). The disclosure as originally filed only appears to discuss the structure of the tubular extension in terms of broad “sections”, but does not specifically disclose the use of multiple pieces of material, let alone three pieces in particular. The limitation therefore constitutes new matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 7, 19, 21, 28 (and 8-9, 12-18, 20, 22-27 at least for depending from a rejected base claim) 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 claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the tubular extension comprises three sections formed of three pieces of material”. This limitation has multiple possible interpretations. First, that each of the three sections is formed of one piece of material such that collectively there is a total of three pieces of material. Second, that the three sections are all formed of three pieces of material. For the purposes of examination, the second interpretation will be used as it appears to align more closely with the exact language of the claim as written. Examiner notes that the specification could not be relied upon to clear up the discrepancy as neither interpretation appears to be supported by the specification as originally filed (see the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of this claim above). Further regarding claim 7, the claim recites “each of the three sections extending around the upper circumferential edge of the tubular extension”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the upper circumferential edge of the tubular extension” in the claim. The “upper circumferential edge” was previously defined in the claim as a part of the undergarment, not the tubular extension. It is therefore not clear whether the referenced component is referring to part of the undergarment that was previously introduced, or part of the tubular extension that has not yet been defined. Further regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the first portion of each of the three sections is operably attached to a respective second portion of each of the three sections”. This limitation is confusing due to the term “respective”. The instant specification describes “the first portion 221’ is operably attached to the second portion 223” of an adjacent section 213” at a seam 229’. Likewise, the second portion 223’ is operably attached to the first portion 221’’’ of an adjacent section 213’’’ at a seam 229”.” (paragraph 51), which appears to indicate that the first portion of one section is attached to a second portion of a different section, not the same section (as is implied with the term “respective”). Further regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the first portion of each of the three sections extends between the respective first end, to the respective seam, to the respective first position” which is firstly unclear because the phrase “extends between” appears to be missing a second reference point (i.e., the first portion needs to extend between the respective first end and some other reference point in order for the “between” language to make sense) and secondly it appears to contradict the previously recited limitation “a first portion of each of the three sections is offset a first distance from the first end of each of the three sections, respectively”. It is unclear how the first portion can extend from and be offset a distance from the same point of reference (the first end), so it is therefore unclear whether the first portion is supposed to extend between the first end and the first position or be offset a first distance from the first end. The specification and drawings do not provide any additional clarification on how the claim should be interpreted, as the specification only contains the originally recited language (offset a first distance from the first end), not the newly amended language, and the drawings illustrate the offset and include the first distance, so it is unclear how the newly amended language should be interpreted. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted such that the limitation “extends between the first end […] to the respective first position” does not require that the first portion extends directly from the first end, such that an offset of a first distance is still permissible. The prior art drawings will be compared to the Applicant’s drawings to further emphasize similarities in structure in the rejections below. Further regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the second portion of each of the three sections extends from the second end” which appears to contradict the previously recited limitation “a second portion of each of the three sections is offset a second distance from the second end of each of the three sections, respectively”. It is unclear how the second portion can extend from and be offset a distance from the same point of reference (the second end), so it is therefore unclear whether the second portion is supposed to extend from the second end or be offset a second distance from the second end. The specification and drawings do not provide any additional clarification on how the claim should be interpreted, as the specification only contains the originally recited language (offset a second distance from the second end), not the newly amended language, and the drawings illustrate the offset and include the second distance, so it is unclear how the newly amended language should be interpreted. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted such that the limitation “extends from the second end” does not require that the second portion extends directly from the second end, such that an offset of a second distance is still permissible. The prior art drawings will be compared to the Applicant’s drawings to further emphasize similarities in structure in the rejections below. Further regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the second portion of the tubular extension extends from the second end, to the seam, to the second position to form two layers of the second portion of the tubular extension between the second position and the seam”. This limitation is unclear due to the amendments made to the remainder of the claim specifying that there are three sections, each with a second portion, second end, seam, and second position. It cannot be determined which one of the three possible “second portion”, “second end”, “seam”, and “second position” are being referred to in this limitation. Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “the tubular extension comprises three sections formed of three pieces of material”. This limitation has multiple possible interpretations. First, that each of the three sections is formed of one piece of material such that collectively there is a total of three pieces of material. Second, that the three sections are all formed of three pieces of material. For the purposes of examination, the second interpretation will be used as it appears to align more closely with the exact language of the claim as written. Examiner notes that the specification could not be relied upon to clear up the discrepancy as neither interpretation appears to be supported by the specification as originally filed (see the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of this claim above). Further regarding claim 19, the claim recites “each of the three sections extending around the upper circumferential edge of the tubular extension”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the upper circumferential edge of the tubular extension” in the claim. The “upper circumferential edge” was previously defined in the claim as a part of the undergarment, not the tubular extension. It is therefore not clear whether the referenced component is referring to part of the undergarment that was previously introduced, or part of the tubular extension that has not yet been defined. Further regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “the first portion of each of the three sections is operably attached to a respective second portion of each of the three sections”. This limitation is confusing due to the term “respective”. The instant specification describes “the first portion 221’ is operably attached to the second portion 223” of an adjacent section 213” at a seam 229’. Likewise, the second portion 223’ is operably attached to the first portion 221’’’ of an adjacent section 213’’’ at a seam 229”.” (paragraph 51), which appears to indicate that the first portion of one section is attached to a second portion of a different section, not the same section (as is implied with the term “respective”). Further regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “the first portion of each of the three sections extends between the respective first end, to the respective seam, to the respective first position” which is firstly unclear because the phrase “extends between” appears to be missing a second reference point (i.e., the first portion needs to extend between the respective first end and some other reference point in order for the “between” language to make sense) and secondly it appears to contradict the previously recited limitation “a first portion of each of the three sections is offset a first distance from the first end of each of the three sections, respectively”. It is unclear how the first portion can extend from and be offset a distance from the same point of reference (the first end), so it is therefore unclear whether the first portion is supposed to extend between the first end and the first position or be offset a first distance from the first end. The specification and drawings do not provide any additional clarification on how the claim should be interpreted, as the specification only contains the originally recited language (offset a first distance from the first end), not the newly amended language, and the drawings illustrate the offset and include the first distance, so it is unclear how the newly amended language should be interpreted. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted such that the limitation “extends between the first end […] to the respective first position” does not require that the first portion extends directly from the first end, such that an offset of a first distance is still permissible. The prior art drawings will be compared to the Applicant’s drawings to further emphasize similarities in structure in the rejections below. Further regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “the second portion of each of the three sections extends from the second end” which appears to contradict the previously recited limitation “a second portion of each of the three sections is offset a second distance from the second end of each of the three sections, respectively”. It is unclear how the second portion can extend from and be offset a distance from the same point of reference (the second end), so it is therefore unclear whether the second portion is supposed to extend from the second end or be offset a second distance from the second end. The specification and drawings do not provide any additional clarification on how the claim should be interpreted, as the specification only contains the originally recited language (offset a second distance from the second end), not the newly amended language, and the drawings illustrate the offset and include the second distance, so it is unclear how the newly amended language should be interpreted. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted such that the limitation “extends from the second end” does not require that the second portion extends directly from the second end, such that an offset of a second distance is still permissible. The prior art drawings will be compared to the Applicant’s drawings to further emphasize similarities in structure in the rejections below. Further regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “the second portion of the tubular extension extends from the second end, to the seam, to the second position to form two layers of the second portion of the tubular extension between the second position and the seam”. This limitation is unclear due to the amendments made to the remainder of the claim specifying that there are three sections, each with a second portion, second end, seam, and second position. It cannot be determined which one of the three possible “second portion”, “second end”, “seam”, and “second position” are being referred to in this limitation. Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “the tubular extension consists of three sections formed of three pieces of material”. This limitation has multiple possible interpretations. First, that each of the three sections is formed of one piece of material such that collectively there is a total of three pieces of material. Second, that the three sections are all formed of three pieces of material. For the purposes of examination, the second interpretation will be used as it appears to align more closely with the exact language of the claim as written. Examiner notes that the specification could not be relied upon to clear up the discrepancy as neither interpretation appears to be supported by the specification as originally filed (see the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of this claim above). Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites “each of the three sections extending around the upper circumferential edge of the tubular extension”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the upper circumferential edge of the tubular extension” in the claim. The “upper circumferential edge” was previously defined in the claim as a part of the undergarment, not the tubular extension. It is therefore not clear whether the referenced component is referring to part of the undergarment that was previously introduced, or part of the tubular extension that has not yet been defined. Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “the first portion of each of the three sections is operably attached to a respective second portion of each of the three sections”. This limitation is confusing due to the term “respective”. The instant specification describes “the first portion 221’ is operably attached to the second portion 223” of an adjacent section 213” at a seam 229’. Likewise, the second portion 223’ is operably attached to the first portion 221’’’ of an adjacent section 213’’’ at a seam 229”.” (paragraph 51), which appears to indicate that the first portion of one section is attached to a second portion of a different section, not the same section (as is implied with the term “respective”). Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “the first portion of each of the three sections extends between the respective first end, to the respective seam, to the respective first position” which is firstly unclear because the phrase “extends between” appears to be missing a second reference point (i.e., the first portion needs to extend between the respective first end and some other reference point in order for the “between” language to make sense) and secondly it appears to contradict the previously recited limitation “a first portion of each of the three sections is offset a first distance from the first end of each of the three sections, respectively”. It is unclear how the first portion can extend from and be offset a distance from the same point of reference (the first end), so it is therefore unclear whether the first portion is supposed to extend between the first end and the first position or be offset a first distance from the first end. The specification and drawings do not provide any additional clarification on how the claim should be interpreted, as the specification only contains the originally recited language (offset a first distance from the first end), not the newly amended language, and the drawings illustrate the offset and include the first distance, so it is unclear how the newly amended language should be interpreted. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted such that the limitation “extends between the first end […] to the respective first position” does not require that the first portion extends directly from the first end, such that an offset of a first distance is still permissible. The prior art drawings will be compared to the Applicant’s drawings to further emphasize similarities in structure in the rejections below. Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “the second portion of each of the three sections extends from the second end” which appears to contradict the previously recited limitation “a second portion of each of the three sections is offset a second distance from the second end of each of the three sections, respectively”. It is unclear how the second portion can extend from and be offset a distance from the same point of reference (the second end), so it is therefore unclear whether the second portion is supposed to extend from the second end or be offset a second distance from the second end. The specification and drawings do not provide any additional clarification on how the claim should be interpreted, as the specification only contains the originally recited language (offset a second distance from the second end), not the newly amended language, and the drawings illustrate the offset and include the second distance, so it is unclear how the newly amended language should be interpreted. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted such that the limitation “extends from the second end” does not require that the second portion extends directly from the second end, such that an offset of a second distance is still permissible. The prior art drawings will be compared to the Applicant’s drawings to further emphasize similarities in structure in the rejections below. Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “the second portion of the tubular extension extends from the second end, to the seam, to the second position to form two layers of the second portion of the tubular extension between the second position and the seam”. This limitation is unclear due to the amendments made to the remainder of the claim specifying that there are three sections, each with a second portion, second end, seam, and second position. It cannot be determined which one of the three possible “second portion”, “second end”, “seam”, and “second position” are being referred to in this limitation. Regarding claim 28, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the tubular extension consists of an interior surface”. This limitation is unclear because the tubular extension was previously defined in claim 7 as comprising more constituent parts than just an interior surface (for example, a section and a seam, as well as multiple layers). Therefore, it is unclear how the tubular extension can have the parts defined in claim 7 and consist of just the interior surface. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as “wherein the tubular extension further comprises an interior surface”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 7-9, 12-17, 20-27, as best as can be understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hedrick (US 2013/0305433). Regarding claim 7, Hedrick discloses: A garment comprising: an undergarment (outer layer 102 and inner layer 120; the garment can be considered/worn as an undergarment, as described in paragraph 21 which states “the wearer can pull at the edges of openings 132, 134 so as to create a large opening in center portion 124, enabling the wearer to easily relieve themselves when necessary”; see figure 2b), wherein the undergarment comprises an upper circumferential edge (seam 158 defines the upper circumferential edge); and a tubular extension (waistband 150) operably attached around at least a portion of the upper circumferential edge (“waistband 150 may be coupled to garments 102, 120 by seam 158” paragraph 22; a seam is an operable attachment), wherein the tubular extension terminates at a free annular edge (upper end of the waistband is the free annular edge), wherein the tubular extension comprises three sections (each section includes two pockets, and “six pockets may be provided around the circumference of the waistband 160”, for a total of three sections; for illustrative purposes, only one section is annotated in figure 3 below, but it is understood that the other sections have the same construction, as can be seen in for example figure 1 or figure 6 showing the waistband before its addition to the rest of the garment) formed of three pieces of material (“two layers of the inner layer piece can be joined to the two layers of the outer layer piece” paragraph 28; thus all of the sections are formed of three pieces material, two layers of the inner layer piece and one layer of the outer layer piece), each of the three sections extending around the upper circumferential edge of the tubular extension, wherein each of the three sections comprises a first end and a second end (see the first end and the second end in annotated figure 3 below, noting that the first end and second end are defined as areas of the section), wherein a first portion of each of the three sections is offset a first distance from the first end of each of the three sections, respectively (see annotated figure 3 below showing the first distance), and a second portion of each of the three sections is offset a second distance from the second end of each of the three sections, respectively (see annotated figure 3 below showing the second distance), wherein the first portion of each of the three sections is operably attached to a respective second portion of each of the three sections at a seam (see vertical seams 162 shown as dotted lines on the figures and highlighted in the annotated figure 3 below), wherein the first end of each of the three sections is operably attached to the tubular extension at a respective first position, the first distance away from the first portion (see vertical seams 162 shown as dotted lines on the figures and highlighted in the annotated figure 3 below), wherein the second end of each of the three sections is operably attached to the tubular extension at a respective second position, the second distance away from the first portion (see vertical seams 162 shown as dotted lines on the figures and highlighted in the annotated figure 3 below), wherein the first portion of each of the three sections extends between the respective first end, to the respective seam, to the respective first position to form two layers of the first portion of each of the three sections between the respective first position and the respective seam (see annotated figure 3 below which clearly shows two layers of the waistband are formed in the first portion between the first end, seam, and first position; Examiner specifically draws attention to the structural similarity shown between the annotated figure 3 of Hedrick and the annotated figure 7 of the instant application, in particular regarding the location of the “first end”, “seam”, and “first position” in those figures; “pockets may be disposed between inner layer 154 and outer layer 152 of waistband 150” paragraph 24), and wherein the second portion of the tubular extension extends from the second end, to the seam, to the second position to form two layers of the second portion of the tubular extension between the second position and the seam (see annotated figure 3 below which clearly shows two layers of the waistband are formed in the second portion between the second end, seam, and second position; Examiner specifically draws attention to the structural similarity shown between the annotated figure 3 of Hedrick and the annotated figure 7 of the instant application, in particular regarding the location of the “second end”, “seam”, and “second position” in those figures; “pockets may be disposed between inner layer 154 and outer layer 152 of waistband 150” paragraph 24). PNG media_image2.png 524 634 media_image2.png Greyscale Annotated figure 3 of Hedrick showing the first and second ends, first and second portions, and first and second distances PNG media_image3.png 488 685 media_image3.png Greyscale Annotated figure 7 of the instant application, for comparison and to show similarities in structure with the above annotated figure 3 of Hedrick Regarding claim 8 (and claim 23, which is an exact duplicate of claim 8), Hedrick discloses: The garment of claim 7, wherein the tubular extension extends between 2 inches and 12 inches between the upper circumferential edge and the free annular edge (“exemplary measurements for the waistband may be a height of about 6 in.” paragraph 27; Examiner notes that even after folding in half, as later described in paragraph 27, the height would be 3 inches which is still in the range). Regarding claim 9 (and claim 24, which is an exact duplicate of claim 9), Hedrick discloses: The garment of claim 7, wherein the tubular extension extends between 3 inches and 6 inches between the upper circumferential edge and the free annular edge (“exemplary measurements for the waistband may be a height of about 6 in.” paragraph 27; Examiner notes that even after folding in half, as later described in paragraph 28, the height would be 3 inches which is still in the range). Regarding claim 12 (and claim 25, which is an exact duplicate of claim 12), Hedrick discloses: The garment of claim 7, wherein the first distance is substantially the same as the second distance (see figure 6, annotated below to show the same markup as figure 3 above, showing symmetry about the vertical centerline 226). PNG media_image4.png 254 308 media_image4.png Greyscale Annotated figure 6 of Hedrick showing the first and second ends, first and second portions, and first and second distances Regarding claim 13, Hedrick discloses: The garment of claim 7, wherein the first distance is about 0.5 inches to about 10 inches (“for the vertical lines 224, exemplary distances from the vertical centerline 226 of the pattern 220 may include about 4 in.” paragraph 28). Regarding claim 14 (and claim 26, which is an exact duplicate of claim 14), Hedrick discloses: The garment of claim 7, wherein the first distance is about 1 inch to about 5 inches (“for the vertical lines 224, exemplary distances from the vertical centerline 226 of the pattern 220 may include about 4 in.” paragraph 28). Regarding claim 15, Hedrick discloses: The garment of claim 7, wherein the second distance is about 0.5 inches to about 10 inches (“for the vertical lines 224, exemplary distances from the vertical centerline 226 of the pattern 220 may include about 4 in.” paragraph 28). Regarding claim 16 (and claim 27, which is an exact duplicate of claim 16), Hedrick discloses: The garment of claim 7, wherein the second distance is about 1 inch to about 5 inches (“for the vertical lines 224, exemplary distances from the vertical centerline 226 of the pattern 220 may include about 4 in.” paragraph 28). Regarding claim 17, Hedrick discloses: The garment of claim 7, wherein the seam is adjacent a location of the upper circumferential edge (the seam 162 is a vertical seam that is adjacent to the upper circumferential edge, see figure 3 annotated with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above). Regarding claim 20, as best understood by Examiner, Hedrick discloses: The garment of claim 7, wherein an area of each of the three sections between the respective first end and the respective second end is only a single layer of the tubular extension (see annotated figure 3 of Hedrick below showing an area between the first end and second end; Examiner notes that the area as shown has been defined to include only one layer of the outer layer of material, therefore it is a single layer of the tubular extension as claimed). PNG media_image5.png 524 634 media_image5.png Greyscale Regarding claim 21, as best understood by Examiner, Hedrick discloses: A garment consisting of : an undergarment (outer layer 102 and inner layer 120; the garment can be considered/worn as an undergarment, as described in paragraph 21 which states “the wearer can pull at the edges of openings 132, 134 so as to create a large opening in center portion 124, enabling the wearer to easily relieve themselves when necessary”; see figure 2b), having an upper circumferential edge (seam 158 defines the upper circumferential edge); and a tubular extension (waistband 150) operably attached around at least a portion of the upper circumferential edge (“waistband 150 may be coupled to garments 102, 120 by seam 158” paragraph 22; a seam is an operable attachment), wherein the tubular extension terminates at a free annular edge (upper end of the waistband is the free annular edge), wherein the tubular extension consists of three sections formed of three pieces of material (each section includes two pockets, and “six pockets may be provided around the circumference of the waistband 160”, for a total of three sections; for illustrative purposes, only one section is annotated in figure 3 below, but it is understood that the other sections have the same construction, as can be seen in for example figure 1 or figure 6 showing the waistband before its addition to the rest of the garment), each of the three sections extending around the upper circumferential edge of the tubular extension, wherein each of the three sections consists of a first end and a second end (see the first end and the second end in annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above, noting that the first end and second end are defined as areas of the section), wherein a first portion of each of the three sections is offset a first distance from the first end of each of the three sections, respectively (see annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above showing the first distance) and a second portion of each of the three sections is offset a second distance from the second end of each of the three sections, respectively (see annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above showing the second distance), wherein the first portion of each of the three sections is operably attached to a respective second portion of each of the three sections at a seam (see vertical seams 162 shown as dotted lines on the figures and highlighted in the annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the first end of each of the three sections is operably attached to the tubular extension at a respective first position, the first distance away from the first portion (see vertical seams 162 shown as dotted lines on the figures and highlighted in the annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the second end of each of the three sections is operably attached to the tubular extension at a respective second position, the second distance away from the first portion (see vertical seams 162 shown as dotted lines on the figures and highlighted in the annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the first portion of each of the three sections extends between the respective first end, to the respective seam, to the respective first position to form two layers of the first portion of each of the three sections between the respective first position and the respective seam (see annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above which clearly shows two layers of the waistband are formed in the first portion between the first end, seam, and first position; Examiner specifically draws attention to the structural similarity shown between the annotated figure 3 of Hedrick and the annotated figure 7 of the instant application provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above, in particular regarding the location of the “first end”, “seam”, and “first position” in those figures; “pockets may be disposed between inner layer 154 and outer layer 152 of waistband 150” paragraph 24), and wherein the second portion of the tubular extension extends from the second end, to the seam, to the second position to form two layers of the second portion of the tubular extension between the second position and the seam (see annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above which clearly shows two layers of the waistband are formed in the second portion between the second end, seam, and second position; Examiner specifically draws attention to the structural similarity shown between the annotated figure 3 of Hedrick and the annotated figure 7 of the instant application provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above, in particular regarding the location of the “second end”, “seam”, and “second position” in those figures; “pockets may be disposed between inner layer 154 and outer layer 152 of waistband 150” paragraph 24). Regarding claim 22, Hedrick discloses: The garment of claim 21, wherein an area of each of the three sections between the respective first end and the respective second end is a single layer of the tubular extension (see annotated figure 3 of Hedrick provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 20 above; Examiner notes that the portion as shown has been defined to include only one layer of the outer layer of material, therefore it is a single layer of the tubular extension as claimed). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 18 and 28, as best as can be understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedrick, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coffinardi (US 2010/0081984). Regarding claim 18, Hedrick discloses the garment of claim 7, wherein the tubular extension comprises an interior surface (interior surface of inner layer 154), but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the interior surface comprises one or more anti-slip elements. However, Coffinardi teaches a garment with a tubular body (11) wherein the interior surface of the garment comprises one or more anti-slip elements (12; “at least one silicone band 12 on an inner portion of said tubular body that is suitable to prevent the garment from slipping down the limb” paragraph 20). Coffinardi teaches art pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of preventing a tubular garment from slipping off the body of the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the at least one silicone band of Coffinardi to the interior of the waistband of Hedrick in order to “prevent the garment from slipping down” (Coffinardi, paragraph 20). This would be especially advantageous when the pockets of Hedrick are filled, as the weight of the items in the pockets may cause the waistband to have a tendency to slip down, especially during intense athletic activity, so the addition of the silicone band would ensure the garment of Hedrick remains on the wearer’s hips even when the pockets are filled. Regarding claim 28 as best understood by Examiner, Hedrick discloses the garment of claim 7, wherein the tubular extension consists of an interior surface (interior surface of inner layer 154), wherein the interior surface consists of a material (the material of the inner layer 154), but does not explicitly disclose: one or more anti-slip elements. However, Coffinardi teaches a garment with a tubular body (11) wherein the interior surface of the garment comprises one or more anti-slip elements (12; “at least one silicone band 12 on an inner portion of said tubular body that is suitable to prevent the garment from slipping down the limb” paragraph 20). Coffinardi teaches art pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of preventing a tubular garment from slipping off the body of the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the at least one silicone band of Coffinardi to the interior of the waistband of Hedrick in order to “prevent the garment from slipping down” (Coffinardi, paragraph 20). This would be especially advantageous when the pockets of Hedrick are filled, as the weight of the items in the pockets may cause the waistband to have a tendency to slip down, especially during intense athletic activity, so the addition of the silicone band would ensure the garment of Hedrick remains on the wearer’s hips even when the pockets are filled. Claim(s) 19, as best as can be understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedrick in view of Spanopoulos (US 2022/0160066). Regarding claim 19 as best understood by Examiner, Hedrick discloses: A garment system comprising: an undergarment (outer layer 102 and inner layer 120; the garment can be considered/worn as an undergarment, as described in paragraph 21 which states “the wearer can pull at the edges of openings 132, 134 so as to create a large opening in center portion 124, enabling the wearer to easily relieve themselves when necessary”; see figure 2b), wherein the undergarment comprises an upper circumferential edge (seam 158 defines the upper circumferential edge); and a tubular extension (waistband 150) operably attached around at least a portion of the upper circumferential edge (“waistband 150 may be coupled to garments 102, 120 by seam 158” paragraph 22; a seam is an operable attachment), wherein the tubular extension terminates at a free annular edge (upper end of the waistband is the free annular edge), wherein the tubular extension comprises three sections (each section includes two pockets, and “six pockets may be provided around the circumference of the waistband 160”, for a total of three sections; for illustrative purposes, only one section is annotated in figure 3 below, but it is understood that the other sections have the same construction, as can be seen in for example figure 1 or figure 6 showing the waistband before its addition to the rest of the garment) formed of three pieces of material (“two layers of the inner layer piece can be joined to the two layers of the outer layer piece” paragraph 28; thus all of the sections are formed of three pieces material, two layers of the inner layer piece and one layer of the outer layer piece), each of the three sections extending around the upper circumferential edge of the tubular extension, wherein each of the three sections comprises a first end and a second end (see the first end and the second end in annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above, noting that the first end and second end are defined as areas of the section), wherein a first portion of each of the three sections is offset a first distance from the first end of each of the three sections, respectively (see annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above showing the first distance) and a second portion of each of the three sections is offset a second distance from the second end of each of the three sections, respectively (see annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above showing the second distance), wherein the first portion of each of the three sections is operably attached to a respective second portion of each of the three sections at a seam (see vertical seams 162 shown as dotted lines on the figures and highlighted in the annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the first end of each of the three sections is operably attached to the tubular extension at a respective first position, the first distance away from the first portion (see vertical seams 162 shown as dotted lines on the figures and highlighted in the annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the second end of each of the three sections is operably attached to the tubular extension at a respective second position, the second distance away from the first portion (see vertical seams 162 shown as dotted lines on the figures and highlighted in the annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the first portion of each of the three sections extends between the respective first end, to the respective seam, to the respective first position to form two layers of the first portion of each of the three sections between the respective first position and the respective seam (see annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above which clearly shows two layers of the waistband are formed in the first portion between the first end, seam, and first position; Examiner specifically draws attention to the structural similarity shown between the annotated figure 3 of Hedrick and the annotated figure 7 of the instant application provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above, in particular regarding the location of the “first end”, “seam”, and “first position” in those figures; “pockets may be disposed between inner layer 154 and outer layer 152 of waistband 150” paragraph 24), and wherein the second portion of the tubular extension extends from the second end, to the seam, to the second position to form two layers of the second portion of the tubular extension between the second position and the seam (see annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above which clearly shows two layers of the waistband are formed in the second portion between the second end, seam, and second position; Examiner specifically draws attention to the structural similarity shown between the annotated figure 3 of Hedrick and the annotated figure 7 of the instant application provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 7 above, in particular regarding the location of the “second end”, “seam”, and “second position” in those figures; “pockets may be disposed between inner layer 154 and outer layer 152 of waistband 150” paragraph 24). Hedrick does not explicitly disclose: an outer garment; and a secured structure, wherein the secured structure extends between (i) a portion of an interior surface of the outer garment and (ii) the undergarment, and the secured structure extends over an exterior surface of the outer garment. However, Spanopoulos teaches apparel comprising an outer garment (jogger pants 22) and a secured structure (holster), wherein the secured structure extends between (i) a portion of an interior surface of the outer garment and (ii) an undergarment, and the secured structure extends over an exterior surface of the outer garment (“a wearer may slide a holster clip or multiple clips on the upper edge of exterior portion 30 of waistband 20 at a selected position […] such that the holster and the handgun stored therein may fit in between the semi-rigid belt assembly 42 when affixed inside the belt loops and the wearer’s body” paragraph 38; see also figure 7A, showing the clip of the holster outside the joggers and the main part of the holster inside the joggers; Examiner notes that if a person is wearing a garment underneath the joggers, the holster would be in contact with the outside of the undergarment). Spanopoulos teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of apparel for concealed carry of weapons. Hedrick teaches that the garment is an athletic garment, and therefore would be worn when the user is exercising. Spanopoulos teaches “a tactical apparel designed to provide a concealed carry of an object (e.g., a handgun) around a waist of a wearer having an active lifestyle” (paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to wear the athletic garment of Hedrick with the joggers and holster of Spanopoulos in order to safely carry a concealed weapon for protection while exercising and maintaining a healthy, active lifestyle. 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 BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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 Ostrup can be reached at 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. /BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732 /JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732