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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
The specification does not describe “the biasing device…is entirely positioned inside the extremity portion” in claim 9.
Correction of the following is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “biasing device” in claims 1, 23 and 48.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites “the biasing device … is entirely positioned inside the extremity portion”, which is not described in the specification and the drawings do not show the limitation.
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.
Claims 9 and 23-26, 29, 35-37, 40 and 43-47 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.
Claim 9 recites “the biasing device … is entirely positioned inside the extremity portion”. It is unclear how the biasing device is entirely positioned inside the extremity portion when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position (see fig. 8 of the invention).
For the purpose of applying art, the limitation of claim 9 is interpreted that the biasing device is entirely positioned inside the extremity portion when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position.
Claim 23 recites “the portions of the piece of expansion material” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the portions” in the claim.
Claim 36 recites “the at least one of the outer edges” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites “the retaining system is in the expanded position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the expanded position” in the claim. It is unclear the expanded position of the retaining system is the same or different from the expanded position of the piece of expansion material.
Claim 40 recites “the radial direction” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 43 recites “the retaining system is in the expanded position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the expanded position” in the claim. It is unclear the expanded position of the retaining system is the same or different from the expanded position of the piece of expansion material.
Claim 45 recites “the portions” in line 5 and “both portions” in line 6, while claim 23 recites “at least two portions”. It is unclear there are two or more than two portions in the claims.
Claim 47 recites “the two portions” in line 1 and “both portions” in line 3, while claim 23 recites “at least two portions”. It is unclear there are two or more than two portions in the claims.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-15, 18-19, 23-26, 29-30, 38-39, 41-42 and 44-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freese (US 2967308) in view of Collier (US 6374414).
Regarding claim 1, Freese teaches a protective garment comprising:
a body portion (fig. 1, leg portion);
a generally tubular extremity portion (fig. 1, leg end) coupled to the body portion and being shaped and configured to receive a leg or an arm of a wearer therein;
a piece of expansion material (fig. 2, piece 16) coupled to the extremity portion, wherein the piece of expansion material is movable between a retracted position (fig. 3) wherein the extremity portion is configured to form relatively smaller fit about the wearer’s leg or arm, and an expanded position (fig. 2) wherein the extremity portion is configured to form a relatively larger fit about the wearer’s leg or arm, wherein the piece of expansion material is configured to be positioned radially inside the extremity portion when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position (fig. 3);
a retaining system (fig. 2, fastener members 18, 20) configured to releasably retain the piece of expansion material in the retracted position, wherein at least part of the retaining system is positioned on the piece of expansion material (fig. 2).
Freese does not teach a biasing device configured to bias the piece of expansion material to the retracted position; and the retaining system is a magnetic retaining system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Collier teaches a biasing device (fig. 4, extensible element 32) configured to bias the piece of expansion material (fig. 4, portion 28) to the retracted position; and the retaining system is a magnetic retaining system (fig. 4, magnetic pads 64, 66).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Freese with magnetic fasteners instead of snap fasteners as taught by Collier for the benefit of adjusting the length of the material and such replacement is well known in the art; and to combine Freese with the biasing device as taught by Collier for the benefit of providing a biasing force that moves portions of the expansion material towards one another even absent external forces, such that the cuff fits snugly around the user’s leg (Collier, column 4, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the piece of expansion material is configured such that when the piece of expansion material in the retracted position, at least two portions of the piece of expansion material overlap in a radial direction (Freese, fig. 3), and when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position the at least two portions of the piece of expansion material do not overlap in the radial direction (Freese, fig. 2), or overlap to a lesser extent, wherein the extremity portion forms a tube at its distal end when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position (Freese, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the piece of expansion material is located at a distal end of the extremity portion, and wherein the piece of expansion material is made of a separate piece of material relative to the extremity portion, and is coupled to the extremity portion (Freese, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the piece of expansion material has a crease or fold therein, a first portion located on a first side of the crease or fold and a second portion located on a second, opposite side of the crease or fold, wherein when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position, the piece of expansion material is folded about the crease or fold such that the first and second portions of the piece of expansion material are in facial contact or generally facing each other (Freese, fig. 3), and wherein when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position, the first and second portions of the piece of expansion material are not in facial contact and are not generally facing each other (Freese, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the piece of expansion material is generally triangular in outer view and has a first side coupled to the extremity portion and a second, generally opposite side coupled to the extremity portion (Freese, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches an outer layer of the piece of expansion material is made of a same material as an outer layer of the extremity portion (Freese, column 2, lines 7-8, the triangular piece 16 has the same material as outer facing 6).
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the biasing device is made of or includes elastic material (Collier, column 4, lines 62-64), and is entirely positioned inside the extremity portion (Collier, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the biasing device is made of or includes elastic material (Collier, column 4, lines 62-64) and is configured such that when piece of expansion material is in the expanded position the biasing device is in tension, and when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position the biasing device is not in tension or is in lesser tension (Collier, column 4, lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 11, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the biasing device is made of or includes elastic material (Collier, column 4, lines 62-64) and has a first end coupled to the extremity portion on a first side of the piece of expansion material, and a second end coupled to the extremity portion on a second, opposite side of the piece of expansion material such that the biasing device spans the piece of expansion material (Collier, fig. 4), and wherein the biasing device is positioned on a radially inner surface of the extremity portion (Collier, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the magnetic retaining system includes a magnet (Collier, fig. 4, pad 64), and at least one of a supplemental magnet or a piece of magnetizable material (Collier, fig. 4, a mating pad 66).
Regarding claim 14, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the magnet, and the at least one of a supplemental magnet or a piece of magnetizable material, are both positioned on the piece of expansion material (Freese, fig. 2, the fasteners are on the piece of expansion material).
Regarding claim 15, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the piece of expansion material has a crease or fold therein, a first portion located on a first side of the crease or fold and a second portion located on a second, opposite side of the crease or fold (Freese, figs. 2-3), and wherein the magnet is located on one of the first or second portions (Freese, fig. 2, one fastener is on the first portion), and wherein the supplemental magnet or piece of magnetizable material is positioned on the other one of the first or second portions (Freese, fig. 2, the mating fastener is on the other portion; and Collier teaches the fasteners are magnetic fasteners).
Regarding claim 18, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the garment is a pair of trousers, wherein the piece of expansion material is coupled to the extremity portion along an edge of the extremity portion that is positioned at an angle relative to at least one of an inseam of the extremity portion (Freese, fig. 2 or Collier, fig. 2), or at an angle relative to a grain of fabric of the extremity portion
Regarding claim 19, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the garment is configured such that when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position the extremity portion has a smaller effective outer perimeter as compared to when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position (Freese, figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 23, Freese teaches a protective garment comprising:
a body portion (fig. 1, leg portion);
an extremity portion (fig. 1, leg end) coupled to the body portion and being shaped and configured to receive a leg or arm of a wearer therein;
a piece of expansion material (fig. 2, piece 16) coupled to the extremity portion located at or adjacent to a distal end thereof, wherein the piece of expansion material is movable between a retracted position (fig. 3) wherein the extremity portion forms a relatively smaller fit about the wearer’s leg or arm, and an expanded position (fig. 2) wherein the extremity portion forms a relatively larger fit about the wearer’s leg or arm, wherein the piece of expansion material is configured such that when the piece of expansion material in the retracted position, at least two portions of the piece of expansion material overlap in a radial direction (fig. 3), and when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position the at least two portions of the piece of expansion material do not overlap in the radial direction (fig. 2), or overlap to a lesser extent, wherein both of the portions of the piece of expansion material are configured to be in different radial positions, relative to the extremity portion, when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position compared to when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position (figs. 2-3);
a retaining system (fig. 2, fastener members 18, 20) configured to releasably retain the piece of expansion material in the retracted position, wherein the retaining system is to be positioned radially inside an outermost layer of the protective garment (fig. 3).
Freese does not teach a biasing device configured to bias the piece of expansion material to the retracted position.
However, Collier teaches a biasing device (fig. 4, extensible element 32) configured to bias the piece of expansion material (fig. 4, portion 28) to the retracted position.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Freese with the biasing device as taught by Collier for the benefit of providing a biasing force that moves portions of the expansion material towards one another even absent external forces, such that the cuff fits snugly around the user’s leg (Collier, column 4, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 24, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the biasing device is made of or includes elastic material (Collier, column 4, lines 62-64) and is configured such that when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position the elastic material is in tension, and when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position the elastic material is not in tension or is in lesser tension (Collier, column 4, lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 25, the modified structure Freese-Collier does not teach the retaining system is a magnetic retaining system.
However, Collier teaches the retaining system is a magnetic retaining system (fig. 4, magnetic pads 64, 66).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Freese with magnetic fasteners instead of snap fasteners as taught by Collier for the benefit of adjusting the length of the material and such replacement is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 26, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the biasing device is positioned radially inwardly of the piece of expansion material (Collier, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 29, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches a portion of the biasing device (Collier, fig. 4, the terminal end 34 is stitched to the extremity portion) is directly and non-movably coupled to the extremity portion.
Regarding claim 30, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the biasing device is positioned radially inwardly of the piece of expansion material (Collier, fig. 4), wherein the garment is one of a coat or trousers including a supplemental extremity portion coupled to the body portion (Freese, fig. 1, the trousers has another leg portion) and being shaped and configured to receive a leg or an arm of a wearer therein, the garment including a supplemental piece of expansion material coupled to the supplemental extremity portion, wherein the supplemental piece of expansion material is movable between a retracted position wherein the supplemental extremity portion is configured to form relatively smaller fit about the wearer’s leg or arm, and an expanded position wherein the supplemental extremity portion is configured to form a relatively larger fit about the wearer’s leg or arm, the garment further including a supplemental biasing device configured to bias the supplemental piece of expansion material to the retracted position, and a supplemental magnetic retaining system configured to releasably retain the supplemental piece of expansion material in the retracted position (Freese, figs. 1-3 in view of the biasing device and magnetic retaining system of Collier, the adjustment system can be incorporated into leg portions of the pant legs).
Regarding claim 38, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the piece of expansion material is configured such that when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position, the piece of expansion material extends from the extremity portion, in a radially inner direction (Freese, figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 39, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the garment is configured such that extremity portion is tubular when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position (Freese, fig. 3), and wherein the garment is configured such that an entirety of the piece of expansion material is positioned radially inside an entirety of the extremity portion when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position (Freese, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 41, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the garment is configured such that when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position, no portion of the extremity portion is positioned radially inside the piece of expansion material (Freese, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 42, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the garment is configured such that no portion of the piece of expansion material overlaps with any portion of the extremity portion in the circumferential direction with the piece of expansion material moves from the expanded position to the retracted position (Freese, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 44, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the piece of expansion material is foldable such that the at least two portions of the piece of expansion material are in facial contact or generally facing each other when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position (Freese, fig. 3), and wherein the at least two portions of the piece of expansion material are not in facial contact and are not generally facing each other when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position (Freese, fig. 2); wherein the distal end of the extremity includes a pair of end points in end view, wherein the garment is configured such that when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position the end points of the extremity are relatively spaced away from each other in the circumferential direction (Freese, fig. 2), and the piece of expansion material extends generally between the end points in the circumferential direction, and wherein the garment is configured such that when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position the end points of the extremity are immediately adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction, and wherein no portions of the expansion material are positioned between the end points in the circumferential direction when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position (Freese, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 45, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches, wherein the fastener is positioned in a perimeter of one portion of the piece of expansion material when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position, and wherein the supplemental fastener is positioned in a perimeter of another one of the portions of the piece of expansion material when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position (Freese, fig. 2), wherein both portions of the piece of expansion material are positioned radially inside the extremity portion when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position (Freese, fig. 3).
The modified structure Freese-Collier does not teach the retaining system includes a magnet, and a supplemental magnet or piece of magnetizable material.
However, Collier teaches the retaining system includes a magnet, and a supplemental magnet or piece of magnetizable material (fig. 4, magnetic pads 64, 66).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Freese with magnetic fasteners instead of snap fasteners as taught by Collier for the benefit of adjusting the length of the material and such replacement is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 46, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the piece of expansion material is made of a separate piece of material relative to the extremity portion, and is coupled to the extremity portion (Freese, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 47, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the two portions of the piece of expansion material are coupled along a crease or fold (Freese, figs. 2-3), and wherein the piece of expansion material is configured such that both portions of the piece of expansion material pivot around the crease or fold toward each other when the piece of expansion material moves from the expanded position to the retracted position (Freese, fig. 3), and wherein the crease or fold moves radially inwardly when the piece of expansion material moves from the expanded position to the retracted position (Freese, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 48, Freese teaches a protective garment comprising:
a body portion (fig. 1, leg portion);
an extremity portion (fig. 1, leg end) coupled to the body portion and being shaped and configured to receive a leg or arm of a wearer therein;
a piece of expansion material (fig. 2, piece 16) coupled to the extremity portion located at or adjacent to a distal end thereof, wherein the piece of expansion material is movable between a retracted position (fig. 3) wherein the extremity portion forms a relatively smaller fit about the wearer’s leg or arm, and an expanded position (fig. 2) wherein the extremity portion forms a relatively larger fit about the wearer’s leg or arm, wherein the piece of expansion material has a first portion and a second portion, and wherein the piece of expansion material is foldable such that the first and second portions of the piece of expansion material are in facial contact or generally facing each other when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position (fig. 3), and wherein the first and second portions of the piece of expansion material are not in facial contact and are not generally facing each other when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position (fig. 2), wherein both portions of the piece of expansion material are triangular or generally triangular (fig. 2), and wherein the piece of expansion material is made of a separate piece of material relative to the extremity portion (fig. 2), and is coupled to the extremity portion (fig. 2); and
a retaining system (fig. 2, fastener members 18, 20) configured to releasably retain the piece of expansion material in the retracted position (figs. 2-3).
Freese does not teach a biasing device configured to bias the piece of expansion material to the retracted position.
However, Collier teaches a biasing device (fig. 4, extensible element 32) configured to bias the piece of expansion material (fig. 4, portion 28) to the retracted position.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Freese with the biasing device as taught by Collier for the benefit of providing a biasing force that moves portions of the expansion material towards one another even absent external forces, such that the cuff fits snugly around the user’s leg (Collier, column 4, lines 45-50).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freese (US 2967308) and Collier (US 6374414), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Curtis (US 2009/0320176).
Regarding claim 17, the modified structure Freese-Collier teaches the extremity portion is generally tubular and is configured to cover at least about 90% of the arm or leg of a wearer (Freese, fig. 3, column 2, lines 14-15, the end portion of the pants fits snugly around the ankle).
The modified structure Freese-Collier does not teach the garment is one of a firefighter coat or trousers including an outer shell, a thermal barrier and a moisture barrier.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Curtis teaches a firefighter coat or trousers including an outer shell (fig. 1, outer shell 26) that resists igniting, burning, melting, dripping, or separation when exposed to a temperature of 5000 F for five minutes (para. [0034]), a thermal barrier (fig. 1, thermal barrier 30) having a thermal protection performance of at least about thirty five (para. [0033], [0034]) and configured to be positioned between the outer shell and a wearer of the coat or trousers (fig. 1), and a moisture barrier (fig. 1, moisture barrier 28a) configured to permit moisture vapor to pass therethrough but block liquids from passing therethrough (para. [0015]), wherein the moisture barrier is configured to be positioned between the outer shell and a wearer of the coat or trousers (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the adjustment system at the distal end of the garment of Freese-Collier with the firefighter garment of Curtis for the benefit of providing a firefighter garment which provides freedom of action and enhanced comfort to the user and the garment is used in a variety of industries and settings to protect the wearer from hazardous conditions such as heat, smoke, cold, sharp objects, chemicals, liquids, fumes (Curtis, para. [0003]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freese (US 2967308) and Collier (US 6374414), as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Curran (US 2020/0229516).
Regarding claim 35, the modified structure Freese-Collier does not teach the piece of expansion material is made of fabric having a grain, and wherein the grain is positioned at an angle relative to an inseam of the extremity portion such that the piece of expansion material has a natural tendency, when in the expanded position, to move to the retracted position.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Curran teaches the piece of expansion material is made of fabric having a grain (para. [0269]), and wherein the grain is positioned at an angle relative to an inseam of the extremity portion (fig. 3A) such that the piece of expansion material has a natural tendency, when in the expanded position, to move to the retracted position (para. [0269], as the panel 22C is elastic, the panel 22C has a natural tendency, when in the expanded position, to move to the retracted position).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the expansion material of the modified structure Freese-Collier with the fabric having a grain as suggested by Curran for the benefit of a form fitting garment which prevents the hems from entangling or interfering with movement of the wearer when cycling, performing yoga, rock climbing, swimming, running, dancing or undertaking other activities (Curran, para. [0004]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freese (US 2967308) and Collier (US 6374414), as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Nordstrom (US 2017/0065005).
Regarding claim 36, the modified structure Freese-Collier does not teach the piece of expansion material has a pair of outer edges, and wherein an angle formed by the at least one of the outer edges with regard to an inseam/outseam and/or grain of a fabric of the piece of expansion material is between five degrees and twenty degrees.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nordstrom teaches the expansion material is within a range of angles from vertical (e.g. less than 45, 30, 20, 10 or 5 degrees from vertical) (para. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Freese-Collier with the teaching that the piece of expansion material has a pair of outer edges, and wherein an angle formed by the at least one of the outer edges with regard to an inseam/outseam and/or grain of a fabric of the piece of expansion material is between five degrees and twenty degrees as suggested by Nordstrom so that orientation of the piece of expansion material is optimized to utilize gravity to least partially drive closure of the piece of expansion material (Nordstrom, para. [0063]).
Claims 37, 40 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freese (US 2967308) and Collier (US 6374414), as applied to claims 1 and 23 above, and further in view of Eldredge (US 2018/0213868).
Regarding claim 37, the modified structure Freese-Collier does not clearly teach an entirety of the retaining system is positioned radially inside an outermost layer of the piece of expansion material, and wherein the retaining system is positioned radially outside an innermost layer of the piece of expansion material such that the retaining system is positioned inside a thickness of the piece of expansion material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eldredge teaches magnetic elements (fig. 3, elements 16) are sandwiched between an outermost layer (fig. 3, layer 14) and an innermost layer (fig. 3, layer 12) of the piece of material such that the magnetic elements are positioned inside a thickness of the piece of material (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the retaining system of the modified structure Freese-Collier to be sandwiched between two layers of the piece of expansion material as suggested by Eldredge for the benefit of storing and securing the magnetic elements inside the piece of expansion material.
In combination, the modified structure Freese-Collier-Eldredge teaches an entirety of the retaining system is positioned radially inside an outermost layer of the piece of expansion material, and wherein the retaining system is positioned radially outside an innermost layer of the piece of expansion material such that the retaining system is positioned inside a thickness of the piece of expansion material.
Regarding claim 40, the modified structure Freese-Collier does not teach the magnetic retaining system is configured to be positioned radially inside an outermost layer of the protective garment in a thickness direction, when the retaining system is in the expanded position such that the piece of expansion material does not overlap itself in the radial direction.
However, Eldredge teaches magnetic elements (fig. 3, elements 16) are positioned radially inside an outermost layer (fig. 3, layer 14) in a thickness direction.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the retaining system of the modified structure Freese-Collier to be positioned radially inside an outermost layer in a thickness direction as suggested by Eldredge for the benefit of storing and securing the magnetic elements inside the piece of expansion material.
Regarding claim 43, the modified structure Freese-Collier does not teach the magnetic retaining system is configured to be positioned radially inside an outermost layer of the protective garment in a thickness direction, when the retaining system is in the expanded position such that the piece of expansion material does not overlap itself in the radial direction.
However, Eldredge teaches magnetic elements (fig. 3, elements 16) are positioned radially inside an outermost layer (fig. 3, layer 14) in a thickness direction.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the retaining system of the modified structure Freese-Collier to be positioned radially inside an outermost layer in a thickness direction as suggested by Eldredge for the benefit of storing and securing the magnetic elements inside the piece of expansion material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 01/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 01/23/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 102/103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims, as the limitations have not been previously presented. Thus, the amended limitations have been addressed as analyzed above.
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 UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights