DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 06/12/2026, in which claims 3-5 were amended, claims 1-2, 6 were cancelled, claims 7-10 were added, has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application KR10-2023-0166651 filed on 11/27/2023 The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application KR10-2023-0166651 has been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application KR10-2023-0166651 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application KR10-2023-0166651 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a terminal 320 as described in paragraph [00039] of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “the predetermined-width regions.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which regions are “predetermined-width regions”.
In addition, the term “predetermined width” or “predetermined-width regions” renders the claim indefinite because “predetermined width” or “predetermined-width regions” can be varied from user to user. “a predetermined width” or “predetermined-width regions” to one user may be not “a predetermined width” or “predetermined-width regions” to another user. See MPEP 2173.05 (b)(II),(IV).
Claims 3-5, 8-10 depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “a wearable device attached to the smart clothing” while the preamble of claim 9 recites “The smart clothing”. It is unclear claim 9 directs to a smart clothing or to an object comprising a smart clothing and a wearable device.
Claim 10 depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 3-5, claims 3-5 fail to contain a reference to a claim previously set forth. See also MPEP 608.01 (n)(III).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In addition, Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 5 of the remarks that “the mere fact that the priority application is in Korean does not, by itself, provide a basis for concluding that all claims are not entitled to the claimed foreign priority date or for requiring a translation to "perfect" the priority claim. To the extent the Examiner is specifically requiring an English-language translation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.55(g)(3)(iii), Applicant respectfully requests clarification of the basis for the requirement, including identification of any intervening reference or other patentability issue for which entitlement to the foreign priority date (November 27, 2023) is material”, Examiner respectfully disagrees because of the following reasons:
37 C.F.R. § 1.55(g)(3)(iii) clearly states “An English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is not required except: (iii) When specifically required by the examiner.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.55(g)(3)(iii) does not require “identification of any intervening reference or other patentability issue for which entitlement to the foreign priority date.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.55(g)(3)(iii) provides the basis for the requirement of providing English translation of the non-English foreign application KR10-2023-0166651 to determine Applicant’s Entitlement to Priority.
PNG
media_image1.png
377
1354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MPEP §216 clearly states even if a translation is on file, whether or not the applicant actually entitled to the priority of the foreign filing date still needs to be determined. “If the certified copy, and translation if necessary, is already in the file when the examiner finds a reference with the intervening effective date, the examiner will study the certified copy, if it is in the English language, to determine if the applicant is entitled to the priority date. If the applicant is found to be entitled to the priority date, the reference is not relied upon as prior art, but may be cited to applicant on form PTO-892. If the applicant is found not entitled to the date, the unpatentable claims are rejected on the reference with an explanation.” Therefore, without English translation on file, Applicant is not actually entitled to the priority of the foreign filing date.
As stated above, the foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). “The foreign application must be examined for the question of sufficiency of the disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 as well as to determine if there is a basis for the claims sought.” MPEP §216. Therefore, if Applicant’s translation does not provide adequately support the claimed subject matter, Applicant is not entitled to the priority of the foreign filing date.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Currently, All Claims Are Not Entitled to Priority Date.
Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
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 SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights