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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 1, “the retaining system” is read as “the magnetic retaining system”.
Appropriate correction 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, 20 and 23.
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 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 23-27, 29 and 35-37 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 23 recites “wherein the retaining system is positioned radially inside an outermost layer of the protective garment”. It is unclear “positioned radially inside an outermost layer of the protective garment” is structures or functions of the retaining system as it is shown in fig. 8, the retaining system is not positioned radially inside an outermost layer of the protective garment. For the purpose of applying art, the limitation is interpreted that the retaining system is configured to be positioned radially inside an outermost layer of the protective garment.
Claim 36 recites “an angle formed by the edges with regard to an inseam/outseam and/or grain of a fabric of the piece of expansion material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the edge” in the claim. Further, it is unclear how to define the angle as recited in claim 36, as it is unclear the Applicant wants to mention the angle formed between two outer edges of the piece of expansion material or the angle formed by one of the outer edges and an inseam/outseam/a grain of a fabric of the piece of expansion material?
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 § 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.
Claims 23-24, 26-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collier (US 6374414).
Regarding claim 23, Collier teaches a protective garment (fig. 2, a jacket or a pair of pants) comprising:
a body portion (fig. 2);
an extremity portion (fig. 5, sleeve portion 12) 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. 5, portions 24, 28) 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. 5, when the extensible member 32 is not stretched, and the portion 28 moves toward the portion 24) when the extremity portion forms a relatively smaller fit about the wearer’s leg or arm, and an expanded position (fig. 5, when the extensible element 32 is stretched and the portion 28 moves away from the portion 24) wherein the extremity portion forms a relatively larger fit about the wearer’s leg or arm;
a retaining system (fig. 5, elements 70, 72) configured to releasably retain the piece of expansion material in the retracted position, wherein the retaining system is positioned radially inside an outermost layer of the protective garment (when the element 70 is connected to the element 72, the elements 70 and 72 are covered by the layer 14 of the protective garment); and
a biasing device (fig. 5, extensible element 32) configured to bias the piece of expansion material to the retracted position.
Regarding claim 24, Collier teaches the biasing device is made of or includes elastic material (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 (column 4, lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 26, Collier teaches the biasing device is positioned radially inwardly of the piece of expansion material (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 27, Collier teaches the biasing device extends only partially and less than entirety about a perimeter of the extremity portion (fig. 5), and wherein a portion of the biasing device is stitched to the extremity portion (fig. 5, column 6, lines 59-61, at portion 34).
Regarding claim 29, Collier teaches a portion of the biasing device (fig. 5, the terminal end 34 is stitched to the extremity portion) is directly and non-movably coupled to the extremity portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 8-16, 18-22, 25, 30-31, 34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier (US 6374414).
Regarding claim 1, Collier teaches a protective garment (fig. 2, a jacket or a pair of pants) comprising:
a body portion (fig. 2);
an extremity portion (fig. 5, a sleeve portion 12) 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. 5, portions 24 and 28) coupled to the extremity portion, wherein the piece of expansion material is movable between a retracted position (fig. 5, when the extensible member 32 is not stretched, and the portion 28 moves toward the portion 24) wherein the extremity portion is configured to form relatively smaller fit about the wearer’s leg or arm, and an expanded position (fig. 5, when the extensible element 32 is stretched and the portion 28 moves away from the portion 24) wherein the extremity portion is configured to form a relatively larger fit about the wearer’s leg or arm;
a biasing device (fig. 5, extensible element 32) configured to bias the piece of expansion material to the retracted position (fig. 5, column 4, lines 45-48); and
a retaining system (fig. 5, elements 70, 72) configured to releasably retain the piece of expansion material in the retracted position, wherein at least part of the retaining system (fig. 5, elements 70, 72) is positioned on the piece of expansion material (fig. 5, the element 70 is positioned on the portion 28 and the element 72 is positioned on the portion 24).
Collier does not teach in fig. 5, elements 70, 72 are a magnetic retaining system.
However, Collier teaches in fig. 4, a magnetic pad (64) is coupled to a mating magnetic pad (66) configured to releasably retain the piece of expansion material in the retracted position.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hook and loop fasteners (70, 72) in fig. 5 with a magnetic pads as suggested in fig. 4 for the benefit of providing an alternative way to adjust the dimension of the sleeve to fit snugly on the wearer.
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure Collier teaches when the piece of expansion material (fig. 5, portions 24 and 28) is configured such that when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position, at least two portions of the piece of expansion material overlap in a radial direction (when element 70 is connected to element 72, portion 24 overlaps portion 28 in a radial direction), and when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position (fig. 5, when the extensible element 32 is stretched and the element 70 is not connected to the element 72) the at least two portions of the piece of expansion material do not overlap in the radial direction, or overlap to a lesser extent (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure Collier teaches the piece of expansion material is located at a distal end of the extremity portion (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure Collier teaches the piece of expansion material has a crease or fold therein (annotated fig. 5 below), a first portion (fig. 5, portion 28) located on a first side of the crease or fold and a second portion (fig. 5, portion 24) located on a second, opposite side of the crease or fold, wherein when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position (when the extensible member 32 is not stretched and the element 70 is connected to the element 72), the piece of expansion material is folded about the crease or fold such that the first and second potions of the piece of expansion material are in facial contact or generally facing each other (portion 24 overlaps portion 28), and wherein when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position (when the extensible member 32 is stretched), the first and second portions of the piece of expansion material are not in facial contact and are not generally facing each other (fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
323
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure 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 (column 4, lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure Collier teaches the biasing device is made of or includes elastic material (column 4, lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 10, the modified structure Collier teaches the biasing device is made of or includes elastic material (column 4, lines 62-64) and is configured such that when the 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 (column 4, lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 11, the modified structure Collier teaches the biasing device is made of or includes elastic material (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 (fig. 5, at portion 36), and a second end coupled to the extremity portion on a second, opposite side of the piece of expansion material (fig. 5, at portion 34) such that the biasing device spans the piece of expansion material.
Regarding claim 12, the modified structure Collier teaches the biasing device is positioned on a radially inner surface of the extremity portion (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, the modified structure Collier teaches the retaining system includes a magnet (fig. 4, a magnetic pad 64) and at least one of a supplemental magnet or a piece of magnetizable material (fig. 4, a mating magnetic pad 66).
Regarding claim 14, the modified structure Collier teaches in fig. 5, the fastening element (70) and the mating fastening element (72) are both positioned on the piece of expansion material (fig. 5, elements 70 and 72 are positioned on portions 24 and 28 of the expansion material).
The modified structure Collier also teaches in fig. 4, the fastening elements are magnet (66) and a supplemental magnet or a piece of magnetizable material (66).
Then in combination, the modified structure Collier teaches the magnet, and the at least one of supplemental magnet or a piece of magnetizable material, are both positioned on the piece of expansion material.
Regarding claim 15, the modified structure Collier teaches the piece of expansion material has a crease or fold therein (annotated fig. 5 above), a first portion (fig. 5, portion 28) located on a first side of the crease or fold and a second portion (fig. 5, portion 24) located on a second, opposite side of the crease or fold, and wherein the fastener element (70) is located on one of the first or second portions, and wherein the supplemental fastener (72) is positioned on the other one of the first or second portions.
The modified structure Collier also teaches in fig. 4, the fastening elements are magnet (66) and a supplemental magnet or a piece of magnetizable material (66).
Then in combination, the modified structure Collier teaches the magnet is located on one of the first or second portions, and wherein the supplemental magnet is positioned on the other one of the first or second portions.
Regarding claim 16, the modified structure 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 (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, the modified structure Collier teaches the garment is a pair of trousers (fig. 2), 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 an inseam of the extremity portion (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, the modified structure 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 (fig. 5, when the element 32 is not stretched, the end of the sleeve has a smaller outer perimeter).
Regarding claim 20, Collier teaches a method for manipulating a protective garment comprising:
accessing the protective garment (fig. 2) having a body portion, an extremity portion coupled to the body portion and being shaped and configured to receive a leg or an arm of a wearer therein, and
a piece of expansion material (fig. 5, portions 24, 28) coupled to the extremity portion, wherein the piece of expansion material is movable between a retracted position (fig. 5, when the extensible member 32 is not stretched, and the portion 28 moves toward the portion 24) wherein the extremity portion forms relatively smaller fit about the wearer’s leg or arm, and an expanded position (fig. 5, when the extensible element 32 is stretched and the portion 28 moves away from the portion 24) wherein the extremity portion forms a relatively larger fit about the wearer’s leg or arm,
the protective garment further including a biasing device (fig. 5, extensible element 32) configured to bias the piece of expansion material to the retracted portion (fig. 5, column 4, lines 45-48), and a retaining system (fig. 5, elements 70, 72) 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. 5, the element 70 is positioned on the portion 28 and the element 72 is positioned on the portion 24); and
enabling the piece of expansion material to move between the retracted position and the expanded position (fig. 2, by adjusting the perimeter of the sleeve end).
Collier does not teach in fig. 5, elements 70, 72 are a magnetic retaining system.
However, Collier teaches in fig. 4, a magnetic pad (64) is coupled to a mating magnetic pad (66) configured to releasably retain the piece of expansion material in the retracted position.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hook and loop fasteners (70, 72) in fig. 5 with a magnetic pads as suggested in fig. 4 for the benefit of providing an alternative way to adjust the dimension of the sleeve to fit snugly on the wearer.
Regarding claim 21, the modified method Collier teaches the piece of expansion material is configured to move from the expanded position to the retracted position without any manual interaction (column 4, lines 45-48).
Regarding claim 22, the modified method Collier teaches when the piece of expansion material (fig. 5, portions 24 and 28) is configured such that when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position, portions of the piece of expansion material overlap in a radial direction (when element 70 is connected to element 72, portion 24 overlaps portion 28 in a radial direction), and when the piece of expansion material is in the expanded position (fig. 5, when the extensible element 32 is stretched and the element 70 is not connected to the element 72) the portions of the piece of expansion material do not overlap in the radial direction, or overlap to a lesser extent (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 25, Collier does not teach in fig. 5 the retaining system is a magnetic retaining system.
However, Collier teaches in fig. 4 the retaining system is a magnetic retaining system.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hook and loop fasteners (70, 72) in fig. 5 of Collier with a magnetic pads as suggested in fig. 4 of Collier for the benefit of providing an alternative way to adjust the dimension of the sleeve to fit snugly on the wearer.
Regarding claim 30, the modified structure Collier teaches the biasing device is positioned radially inwardly of the piece of expansion material (fig. 5), wherein the garment is one of a coat or trousers (fig. 2) including a supplemental extremity portion coupled to the body 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 (fig. 2, the adjustment system 10 can be incorporated into sleeve portions of the jacket and leg portions of the pant legs).
Regarding claim 31, the modified structure Collier teaches the biasing device extends only partially and less than entirety about a perimeter of the extremity portion (fig. 5), and wherein a portion of the biasing device (fig. 5, terminal end 34 is stitched to the sleeve portion) is directly and non-movably coupled to the extremity portion.
Regarding claim 34, the modified method Collier teaches the retaining system includes a magnet (fig. 4, a magnetic pad 64) and at least one of a supplemental magnet or a piece of magnetizable material (fig. 4, a mating magnetic pad 66).
Regarding claim 38, the modified structure Collier teaches the piece of expansion material is configured such that when the piece of expansion material is in the retracted position (when the element 70 is connected to the element 72), the piece of expansion material extends from the extremity portion, in a radially inner direction (two portions 24 and 28 are below the outer layer of the sleeve).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier (US 6374414), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burchard (US 3110903).
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure Collier does not clearly teach 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.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Burchard teaches the piece of expansion material (fig. 4, portion 20) is generally triangular in outer view and has a first side coupled to the bottom portion of the skirt and a second generally opposite side coupled to the bottom of the skirt (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Collier with the triangular shape of the piece of expansion material of Burchard for the benefit of providing a fashion look to the garment readily convertible from a form fitting garment to a free action garment (Burchard, column 1, lines 11-15).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier (US 6374414), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Curtis (US 2009/0320176).
Regarding claim 17, the modified structure 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 skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the adjustment system at the distal end of the garment of 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 Collier (US 6374414), as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Curran (US 2020/0229516).
Regarding claim 35, 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, 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 skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the expansion material of 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 Collier (US 6374414), as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Nordstrom (US 2017/0065005).
Regarding claim 36, Collier does not teach the piece of expansion material has a pair of outer edges, and wherein an angle formed by the 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 skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Collier with the teaching that the piece of expansion material has a pair of outer edges, and wherein an angle formed by the 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]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier (US 6374414), as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Eldredge (US 2018/0213868).
Regarding claim 37, 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 skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the retaining system of 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 09/16/2025, 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 09/16/2025, with respect to claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112 (f) have been fully considered, however, they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant arguments, the limitation “biasing device” does not use the word “means”, however, “biasing device” uses a generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with functional language “configured to bias the piece of expansion material to the retracted position” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Therefore, the limitation “biasing device” in claims 1, 20 and 23 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
Applicant’s arguments, dated 09/16/2025, 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 and/or reasonings applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
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 7:30 AM-4:30 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/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights