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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 17, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 17, 2025 have been fully considered but are not deemed to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed “base sleeve layer” is necessarily integral to the article of clothing and necessarily forms the singular layer of the sleeve itself (see pages 10-11 of Applicant’s remarks filed on November 17, 2025).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and continues to note that the claims as currently recited do not require the base sleeve layer to be integral to the article/sleeve (see at least page 6 of the Final Rejection mailed on July 18, 2025). The claims also do not preclude the article from including additional layers underneath the base layer.
Applicant is reminded that, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) See MPEP 2145 (VI).
In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. Because Applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow."); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
The Examiner respectfully maintains that Mariland’s base layer (10) is indeed a base layer, since it forms the bottom layer of the pocket compartment and also forms a support for the hook and loop fasteners (30). See definition 1 of “base” via dictionary.com: “the bottom support of anything; that on which a thing stands or rests.” As such, Mariland’s base layer would form a base sleeve layer when integrated into an athletic sleeve as contemplated in the Final Rejection (and in the updated rejections below).
Applicant also argues that the use of a sleeve as opposed to other garment types is not merely a matter of design choice, since the location of the pocket on the sleeve requires different body mechanics. Applicant further asserts that the specification’s inclusion of multiple different garment types is merely exemplary and not evidence of design choice (see pages 12-15 of Applicants remarks filed November 17, 2025).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner notes that the Final Rejection does not rely purely upon the concept of design choice to provide a showing of obviousness. Rather, the Final Rejection clearly explains on pages 11-12 that athletic sleeves with storage pockets are well known in the art (e.g., as shown by Rivera as cited), so as to allow the wearer to easily access items during athletic activities (see paragraphs 0001-0014 and 0018 of Rivera). As such, Applicant’s observation that the sleeve pocket is easier to reach, while astute, does not disprove the fact that such pockets (and benefits associated thereto) are already known in the art, and that it would’ve been obvious to integrate Mariland’s pocket structure into such an athletic sleeve, for the aforementioned reason.
Second, the Examiner respectfully notes that while Applicant has identified various advantages of a pocket location on the sleeve, as discussed above, the instant specification is silent regarding such advantages. Rather, as discussed on page 12 of the Final Rejection, “Applicant discloses on page 13 of the instant specification wherein "the article of clothing may be any article of clothing, such as but not limited to: a T-shirt, a long-sleeved shirt, a pair of pants, a pair of shorts, a hat, a sock, etc."; and Applicant's Figs. 1-2 explicitly show an upper body garment similar to the upper body garments of Mariland.” As such, the Examiner respectfully maintains that Applicant’s specification does not establish the exact garment type as a critical feature of Applicant’s invention.
The rejections set forth in the Final Rejection are therefore maintained and repeated below.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: the period at the end of line 5 should be a semicolon.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: “pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system” in claims 9 and 19.
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. See page 21, lines 17-23 of the specification: “…the pull-release corrosion-proof coupling systems (see Fig. 5, items 518 and 526) may be any corrosion-proof coupling system for coupling the base clothing layer 602 to the flap of flexible material 604. For instance, the pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system may include hook and loop, plastic snaps, plastic buckles, buttons with eyelets and/or snaps, etc.”
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 § 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, 5-9, 11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariland et al. (herein Mariland)(US Patent No. 6,820,281), in view of Rivera (US PG Pub 2007/0000196), further in view of Pierce (US Patent No. 11,019,860).
Regarding claim 1, Mariland discloses an article of clothing (20) configured to store a tourniquet (see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, lines 4-39; article 20 is configured to store a towel 40 and is therefore capable of storing a tourniquet; see also note below), the article of clothing comprising:
a base clothing layer (10, the Examiner notes that claim 1 does not require the base clothing layer to be integrally formed with the rest of the garment), including:
a first plurality of hook and loop attachment regions (fasteners 30 on layer 10) arranged in a U-shape, the U-shape having an open top end and a closed bottom end (see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, lines 14-25);
a flap of flexible material (15) fixedly coupled to the base clothing layer adjacent to the top end of the U-shape, and extending downwardly coextensive with the first plurality of hook and loop attachment regions (at least in closed configuration of Fig. 2; see also column 2, line 66 – column 3, line 13), and including:
a second plurality of hook and loop attachment regions (fasteners 30 on flap 15) arranged and configured to mate with the first plurality of hook and loop attachment regions (see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, lines 14-25); and
wherein, when the flap of flexible material is fully coupled to the base clothing layer by mating of the first plurality of hook and loop attachment regions and the second plurality of hook and loop attachment regions, a storage cavity is formed (storage cavity formed between base layer 10 and flap 15, in which towel 40 is configured to be stored; see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, lines 4-39).
Mariland further discloses an alternate embodiment having the storage pocket(s) located on one or more sleeves (8, 9) of the garment (see at least Fig. 3 and column 3, lines 40-50), but fails to disclose wherein the article of clothing itself is an athletic sleeve, such that the base clothing layer is a base sleeve layer.
However, the Examiner notes that athletic sleeves with storage pockets are well-known in the art. For example, Rivera teaches an athletic compression sleeve (100) comprising at least one storage pocket (106) storing various items (see paragraph 0018), so as to allow the wearer to easily access items during athletic activities (see paragraphs 0001-0014 and 0018).
Therefore, based on Rivera’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated Mariland’s storage pocket within an athletic sleeve, such that the base clothing layer would form a base sleeve layer, as doing so would allow the wearer to easily access items during athletic activities.
Furthermore, such a modification would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known garment type for another (i.e., an athletic sleeve instead of a T-shirt), to provide storage capabilities during athletic activities. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06. The Examiner further notes that the exact garment type does not appear to be a critical feature of Applicant’s invention, as Applicant discloses on page 13 of the instant specification wherein “the article of clothing may be any article of clothing, such as but not limited to: a T-shirt, a long-sleeved shirt, a pair of pants, a pair of shorts, a hat, a sock, etc.”; and Applicant’s Figs. 1-2 explicitly show an upper body garment similar to the upper body garments of Mariland. As such, the exact garment type appears to be an obvious matter of design choice which fails to patentably distinguish over Mariland and Rivera.
Mariland also fails to disclose a tab protruding beyond the second plurality of hook and loop attachment regions.
However, Pierce teaches a garment (10) comprising a base layer comprising a first U-shaped hook-and-loop fastener arrangement (58), and a flap (36) comprising a second U-shaped hook-and-loop fastener arrangement (60; see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, line 41 – column 4, line 14), wherein the flap further comprises a tab (45) protruding beyond the second plurality of hook and loop attachment regions (see Fig. 2 and column 3, lines 59-66), so as to facilitate opening and closing of the flap (see column 3, lines 59-66).
Therefore, based on Pierce’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mariland’s flap to further include a tab protruding beyond the second plurality of hook and loop attachment regions, as doing so would facilitate opening and closing of the flap.
Regarding the limitation “configured to store a tourniquet,” as discussed above, Mariland, Rivera, and Pierce together teach a pocket that is configured to store a towel (40, 41, and/or 42 of Mariland) and is therefore capable of storing a tourniquet (see Figs. 1-3 and column 3, lines 4-50). The Examiner notes that tourniquets come in various sizes, but are generally similarly-sized or smaller than a towel. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114 (II).
Regarding claim 5, the modified sleeve of Mariland (i.e., Mariland in view of Rivera and Pierce) is further disclosed wherein the athletic sleeve (100 of Rivera) is a compression sleeve (see at least Title and paragraphs 0012-0014 of Rivera).
Regarding claim 6, the modified sleeve of Mariland (i.e., Mariland in view of Rivera and Pierce) is further disclosed wherein the athletic sleeve (100 of Rivera) is comprised of spandex and nylon (see paragraph 0014 of Rivera, note that Cordura fabrics are typically formed of nylon).
Regarding claim 7, the modified sleeve of Mariland (i.e., Mariland in view of Rivera and Pierce) is further disclosed wherein the athletic sleeve (100 of Rivera) is comprised of spandex and polyester (see paragraph 0014 of Rivera).
Regarding claim 8, the modified sleeve of Mariland (i.e., Mariland in view of Rivera and Pierce) is further disclosed wherein the hook and loop attachment regions (30 of Mariland) each include three patches:
a first patch positioned vertically along a side of the U-shape,
a second patch positioned horizontally along a base of the U-shape; and
a third patch positioned vertically along a side of the U-shape opposite the first patch (see three patches forming each attachment region 30 in Figs. 1-2 of Mariland).
Regarding claim 9, Mariland discloses an article of clothing (20) configured to store a tourniquet (see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, lines 4-39; article 20 is configured to store a towel 40 and is therefore capable of storing a tourniquet; see also note below), the article of clothing comprising:
a base clothing layer (10, the Examiner notes that claim 1 does not require the base clothing layer to be integrally formed with the rest of the garment), including:
a first pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system (fasteners 30 on layer 10; note that “pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system” is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to include hook and loop fasteners, plastic snaps, plastic buckles, buttons with eyelets and/or snaps; see page 21, lines 17-23 of instant specification) arranged in a U-shape, the U-shape having an open top end and a closed bottom end (see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, lines 14-25);
a flap of flexible material (15) fixedly coupled to the base clothing layer adjacent to the top end of the U-shape, and extending downwardly coextensive with the pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system (at least in closed configuration of Fig. 2; see also column 2, line 66 – column 3, line 13), and including:
a second pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system (fasteners 30 on flap 15) arranged and configured to mate with the first pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system (see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, lines 14-25); and
wherein, when the flap of flexible material is fully coupled to the base clothing layer by mating of the first pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system and the second pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system, a storage cavity is formed (storage cavity formed between base layer 10 and flap 15, in which towel 40 is configured to be stored; see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, lines 4-39).
Mariland further discloses an alternate embodiment having the storage pocket(s) located on one or more sleeves (8, 9) of the garment (see at least Fig. 3 and column 3, lines 40-50), but fails to disclose wherein the article of clothing itself is an athletic sleeve, such that the base clothing layer is a base sleeve layer.
However, the Examiner notes that athletic sleeves with storage pockets are well-known in the art. For example, Rivera teaches an athletic compression sleeve (100) comprising at least one storage pocket (106) storing various items (see paragraph 0018), so as to allow the wearer to easily access items during athletic activities (see paragraphs 0001-0014 and 0018).
Therefore, based on Rivera’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated Mariland’s storage pocket within an athletic sleeve, such that the base clothing layer would form a base sleeve layer, as doing so would allow the wearer to easily access items during athletic activities.
Furthermore, such a modification would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known garment type for another (i.e., an athletic sleeve instead of a T-shirt), to provide storage capabilities during athletic activities. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06. The Examiner further notes that the exact garment type does not appear to be a critical feature of Applicant’s invention, as Applicant discloses on page 13 of the instant specification wherein “the article of clothing may be any article of clothing, such as but not limited to: a T-shirt, a long-sleeved shirt, a pair of pants, a pair of shorts, a hat, a sock, etc.”; and Applicant’s Figs. 1-2 explicitly show an upper body garment similar to the upper body garments of Mariland. As such, the exact garment type appears to be an obvious matter of design choice which fails to patentably distinguish over Mariland and Rivera.
Mariland also fails to disclose a tab protruding beyond the second plurality of hook and loop attachment regions.
However, Pierce teaches a garment (10) comprising a base layer comprising a first U-shaped hook-and-loop fastener arrangement (58), and a flap (36) comprising a second U-shaped hook-and-loop fastener arrangement (60; see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, line 41 – column 4, line 14), wherein the flap further comprises a tab (45) protruding beyond the second plurality of hook and loop attachment regions (see Fig. 2 and column 3, lines 59-66), so as to facilitate opening and closing of the flap (see column 3, lines 59-66).
Therefore, based on Pierce’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mariland’s flap to further include a tab protruding beyond the second plurality of hook and loop attachment regions, as doing so would facilitate opening and closing of the flap.
Regarding the limitation “configured to store a tourniquet,” as discussed above, Mariland, Rivera, and Pierce together teach a pocket that is configured to store a towel (40, 41, and/or 42 of Mariland) and is therefore capable of storing a tourniquet (see Figs. 1-3 and column 3, lines 4-50). The Examiner notes that tourniquets come in various sizes, but are generally similarly-sized or smaller than a towel. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114 (II).
Regarding claim 11, the modified sleeve of Mariland (i.e., Mariland in view of Rivera and Pierce) is further disclosed wherein the flap of flexible material (15 of Mariland) is fixedly coupled toward a top of the sleeve and releasably coupled toward a bottom of the article of clothing (see at least Figs. 1-2 and column 3, lines 4-39 of Mariland and Figs. 1-4 of Rivera).
Regarding claim 15, the modified sleeve of Mariland (i.e., Mariland in view of Rivera and Pierce) is further disclosed wherein the athletic sleeve (100 of Rivera) is a compression sleeve (see at least Title and paragraphs 0012-0014 of Rivera).
Regarding claim 16, the modified sleeve of Mariland (i.e., Mariland in view of Rivera and Pierce) is further disclosed wherein the athletic sleeve (100 of Rivera) is comprised of spandex and nylon (see paragraph 0014 of Rivera, note that Cordura fabrics are typically formed of nylon).
Regarding claim 17, the modified sleeve of Mariland (i.e., Mariland in view of Rivera and Pierce) is further disclosed wherein the athletic sleeve (100 of Rivera) is comprised of spandex and polyester (see paragraph 0014 of Rivera).
Regarding claim 18, the modified sleeve of Mariland (i.e., Mariland in view of Rivera and Pierce) is further disclosed wherein the pull-release corrosion-proof coupling systems (30 of Mariland) each include three arrays:
a first array positioned vertically along a side of the U-shape,
a second array positioned horizontally along a base of the U-shape; and
a third array positioned vertically along a side of the U-shape opposite the first patch (see three array forming each coupling system 30 in Figs. 1-2 of Mariland).
Regarding claim 19, Mariland discloses a tourniquet storage device (20, note that garment is configured to store a towel 40 and is therefore capable of storing a tourniquet; see also note below), the tourniquet storage device comprising:
an article of clothing (T-shirt of 20) including:
a first pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system (fasteners 30 on layer 10; note that “pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system” is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to include hook and loop fasteners, plastic snaps, plastic buckles, buttons with eyelets and/or snaps; see page 21, lines 17-23 of instant specification) disposed along an inner surface of a base layer (see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, lines 14-25);
a flap layer (15) fixedly coupled to and disposed over the article of clothing, wherein the flap layer is a flexible layer (see at least column 3, lines 1-39) including:
a second pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system (fasteners 30 on flap 15) positioned and configured to mate with the first pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system (see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, lines 14-25); and
wherein, when the flap layer is fully coupled to the base clothing layer by mating of the first pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system and the second pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system, a storage cavity is formed (storage cavity formed between base layer 10 and flap 15, in which towel 40 is configured to be stored; see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, lines 4-39).
Mariland further discloses an alternate embodiment having the storage pocket(s) located on one or more sleeves (8, 9) of the garment (see at least Fig. 3 and column 3, lines 40-50), but fails to disclose wherein the article of clothing itself is an athletic sleeve.
However, the Examiner notes that athletic sleeves with storage pockets are well-known in the art. For example, Rivera teaches an athletic compression sleeve (100) comprising at least one storage pocket (106) storing various items (see paragraph 0018), so as to allow the wearer to easily access items during athletic activities (see paragraphs 0001-0014 and 0018).
Therefore, based on Rivera’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated Mariland’s storage pocket within an athletic sleeve, as doing so would allow the wearer to easily access items during athletic activities.
Furthermore, such a modification would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known garment type for another (i.e., an athletic sleeve instead of a T-shirt), to provide storage capabilities during athletic activities. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06. The Examiner further notes that the exact garment type does not appear to be a critical feature of Applicant’s invention, as Applicant discloses on page 13 of the instant specification wherein “the article of clothing may be any article of clothing, such as but not limited to: a T-shirt, a long-sleeved shirt, a pair of pants, a pair of shorts, a hat, a sock, etc.”; and Applicant’s Figs. 1-2 explicitly show an upper body garment similar to the upper body garments of Mariland. As such, the exact garment type appears to be an obvious matter of design choice which fails to patentably distinguish over Mariland and Rivera.
Mariland also fails to disclose a tab protruding beyond the second pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system.
However, Pierce teaches a garment (10) comprising a base layer comprising a first U-shaped hook-and-loop fastener arrangement (58), and a flap (36) comprising a second U-shaped hook-and-loop fastener arrangement (60; see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, line 41 – column 4, line 14), wherein the flap further comprises a tab (45) protruding beyond the second plurality of hook and loop attachment regions (see Fig. 2 and column 3, lines 59-66), so as to facilitate opening and closing of the flap (see column 3, lines 59-66).
Therefore, based on Pierce’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mariland’s flap to further include a tab protruding beyond the second pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system, as doing so would facilitate opening and closing of the flap.
Regarding the limitation “torniquet storage device,” as discussed above, Mariland, Rivera, and Pierce together teach a storage device that is configured to store a towel (40, 41, and/or 42 of Mariland) and is therefore capable of storing a tourniquet (see Figs. 1-3 and column 3, lines 4-50). The Examiner notes that tourniquets come in various sizes, but are generally similarly-sized or smaller than a towel. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114 (II).
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariland, Rivera, and Pierce, as applied to claims 1, 9, and 19 above, in view of Earley (US PG Pub 2011/0099682).
Regarding claim 2, Mariland, Rivera, and Pierce together teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Mariland further teaches a cloth object (i.e., towel 40, 41, and/or 42, see Figs. 1-3) disposed within the storage cavity, but fails to teach wherein the cloth object is a tourniquet.
However, Earley teaches an article of clothing (10) comprising at least one pocket (12) configured to be secured by hook and loop fasteners (see paragraph 0016), wherein a tourniquet is disposed within a storage cavity of the pocket (see paragraph 0016), wherein the article of clothing is configured to allow the user to easily and rapidly access equipment or medication needed during an emergency (see paragraphs 0001-0005 and 0016).
Therefore, based on Earley’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mariland’s pocket to store a tourniquet, as Mariland already teaches wherein the pocket is configured to store a cloth object, and doing so would allow the user to easily and rapidly access the tourniquet during an emergency.
Regarding claim 3, the modified sleeve of Mariland (i.e., Mariland in view of Rivera, Pierce, and Earley) is further disclosed wherein the tourniquet (40 of Mariland as modified above) is not fixedly coupled to the base clothing layer (see Figs.1-2 and column 3, lines 4-39; tourniquet 40 is removably coupled to the base clothing layer via hook and loop members 45/50 and therefore not fixedly coupled thereto).
Regarding claim 12, Mariland, Rivera, and Pierce together teach the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above. Mariland further teaches a cloth object (i.e., towel 40, 41, and/or 42, see Figs. 1-3) disposed within the storage cavity, but fails to teach wherein the cloth object is a tourniquet.
However, Earley teaches an article of clothing (10) comprising at least one pocket (12) configured to be secured by hook and loop fasteners (see paragraph 0016), wherein a tourniquet is disposed within a storage cavity of the pocket (see paragraph 0016), wherein the article of clothing is configured to allow the user to easily and rapidly access equipment or medication needed during an emergency (see paragraphs 0001-0005 and 0016).
Therefore, based on Earley’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mariland’s pocket to store a tourniquet, as Mariland already teaches wherein the pocket is configured to store a cloth object, and doing so would allow the user to easily and rapidly access the tourniquet during an emergency.
Regarding claim 13, the modified sleeve of Mariland (i.e., Mariland in view of Rivera, Pierce, and Earley) is further disclosed wherein the tourniquet (40 of Mariland as modified above) is not fixedly coupled to the base clothing layer (see Figs.1-2 and column 3, lines 4-39; tourniquet 40 is removably coupled to the base clothing layer via hook and loop members 45/50 and therefore not fixedly coupled thereto).
Regarding claim 20, Mariland, Rivera, and Pierce together teach the limitations of claim 19, as discussed above. Mariland further teaches a cloth object (i.e., towel 40, see Figs. 1-2) disposed within the storage cavity, but fails to teach wherein the cloth object is a tourniquet.
However, Earley teaches an article of clothing (10) comprising at least one pocket (12) configured to be secured by hook and loop fasteners (see paragraph 0016), wherein a tourniquet is disposed within a storage cavity of the pocket (see paragraph 0016), wherein the article of clothing is configured to allow the user to easily and rapidly access equipment or medication needed during an emergency (see paragraphs 0001-0005 and 0016).
Therefore, based on Earley’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mariland’s pocket to store a tourniquet, as Mariland already teaches wherein the pocket is configured to store a cloth object, and doing so would allow the user to easily and rapidly access the tourniquet during an emergency.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariland, Rivera, and Pierce, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, in view of Carnaghi et al. (herein Carnaghi)(US Patent No. 4,327,447).
Regarding claim 4, Mariland, Rivera, and Pierce together teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, but fail to further teach wherein the flap of flexible material includes a hole disposed therethrough disposed near a top end of the U-shape.
However, Carnaghi teaches a pocket structure for a garment (20), wherein the pocket structure includes a flap of flexible material having at least one hole (42, 44) disposed therethrough near at least one end of the pocket structure (see Figs. 1-3; column 4, lines 31-61; and column 7, line 18 – column 8, line 37), so as to allow water or fluid to be drained away during washing or dry cleaning of the garment (see column 8, lines 17-37).
Therefore, based on Carnaghi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mariland’s flap to include a hole disposed therethrough disposed near an end of the flap, as doing so would allow water or fluid to be drained away during washing or dry cleaning of the garment.
Mariland, Pierce, and Carnaghi fail to specifically teach wherein the hole is disposed near a top end of the U-shape.
However, the Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide any criticality for the specific placement of the hole. For example, page 16, lines 3-10 of the instant specification state: “As shown, the flap of flexible material 204 includes a hole 212 disposed therethrough. The illustrated hole 212 is disposed near a top of the article of clothing 200 but may be placed anywhere along the flap of flexible material 204. In one embodiment, the hole 212 may function as a port or a drain for the storage cavity 208. The hole 212 is disposed near an end of the flap of flexible material 204. The hole 212 may include a grommet, such as an eyelet placed through the hole 212. The hole 212 may provide the storage cavity 208 with ventilation and/or draining.”
Absent a showing of criticality for the specific location of the hole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have rearranged the location of Carnaghi’s hole(s) such that the hole would specifically be disposed near a top end of the U-shape, as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The Examiner notes that Carnaghi teaches a hole location at an end of the flap, for the function of draining fluid, and would appear to provide the same function (and a substantially similar location) as Applicant’s disclosed hole. The claimed location near a top end of the U-shape appears to be an obvious matter of design choice which fails to patentably distinguish over Mariland, Pierce, and Carnaghi. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Regarding claim 14, Mariland, Rivera, and Pierce together teach the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above, but fail to further teach wherein the flap of flexible material includes a hole disposed therethrough disposed near a top end of the U-shape.
However, Carnaghi teaches a pocket structure for a garment (20), wherein the pocket structure includes a flap of flexible material having at least one hole (42, 44) disposed therethrough near at least one end of the pocket structure (see Figs. 1-3; column 4, lines 31-61; and column 7, line 18 – column 8, line 37), so as to allow water or fluid to be drained away during washing or dry cleaning of the garment (see column 8, lines 17-37).
Therefore, based on Carnaghi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mariland’s flap to include a hole disposed therethrough disposed near an end of the flap, as doing so would allow water or fluid to be drained away during washing or dry cleaning of the garment.
Mariland, Pierce, and Carnaghi fail to specifically teach wherein the hole is disposed near a top end of the U-shape.
However, the Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide any criticality for the specific placement of the hole. For example, page 16, lines 3-10 of the instant specification state: “As shown, the flap of flexible material 204 includes a hole 212 disposed therethrough. The illustrated hole 212 is disposed near a top of the article of clothing 200 but may be placed anywhere along the flap of flexible material 204. In one embodiment, the hole 212 may function as a port or a drain for the storage cavity 208. The hole 212 is disposed near an end of the flap of flexible material 204. The hole 212 may include a grommet, such as an eyelet placed through the hole 212. The hole 212 may provide the storage cavity 208 with ventilation and/or draining.”
Absent a showing of criticality for the specific location of the hole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have rearranged the location of Carnaghi’s hole(s) such that the hole would specifically be disposed near a top end of the U-shape, as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The Examiner notes that Carnaghi teaches a hole location at an end of the flap, for the function of draining fluid, and would appear to provide the same function (and a substantially similar location) as Applicant’s disclosed hole. The claimed location near a top end of the U-shape appears to be an obvious matter of design choice which fails to patentably distinguish over Mariland, Pierce, and Carnaghi. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariland, Rivera, and Pierce, as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Schickel (US PG Pub 2022/0039498).
Regarding claim 10, Mariland, Rivera, and Pierce together teach the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above, but fail to further teach wherein the first pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system and the second pull-release corrosion-proof coupling system comprises a plurality of plastic snaps. Instead, Mariland teaches hook and loop fasteners (30, see Figs. 1-2 and column 3, lines 4-39).
However, the Examiner notes that hook and loop fasteners and plastic snaps are both well-known garment fasteners that generally provide the same function of removable fastening, and it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known fastener for another. For example, Schickel teaches an article of clothing (100) comprising a plurality of pockets (112) including a fastener (114) that may be embodied as any suitable known fastener such as plastic snaps, magnets, hook and loop fasteners, studs, eyelets, or buttons (see paragraph 0028).
Therefore, based on Schickel’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted Mariland’s hook and loop fasteners for plastic snaps, as such a modification would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known garment fastener for another (i.e., plastic snaps instead of hook and loop fasteners), to provide an identical function of removable fastening. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JOCELYN BRAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-0581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, 12:00 pm - 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.
/JOCELYN BRAVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights