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 .
Priority
The present application is a continuation in part of US Application 17/627,897. The parent application fails to provide support for the perforations being a diameter of 0.5 mm to 15 mm, perforations in multiple layers, or the three layer fabric being used in a shirt collar or as a portion of a shirt collar. Thus, claims 1 – 15 are given priority of March 18, 2024, the filing date of the application.
Claims 1 – 15 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (2022/0258450) in view of Kelly et al. (2020/0404996).
Lawrence discloses a three layer moisture wicking article, comprising a first layer, second layer, and third layer (abstract). The first layer can include synthetic yarns with a modified cross-section such as a rectangle, trilobal, dog-bone shape (paragraph 35). The second layer can include have a mesh construction and be formed from synthetic fibers such as nylon (paragraph 40). The third layer can include perforated hole or vent holes (paragraph 42). The holes are formed by a laser (paragraph 42).
While Lawrence discloses the three layers, Lawrence fails to teach the size of the perforations or having the perforation in more than one layer. Kelly et al. is drawn to a composite material for a garment which includes two outer layers, i.e., the first layer and the second layer, and an absorbent layer between the two layers (abstract). Further, Kelly et al. discloses that the first and second layers, which are Kelly et al.’s outer layers, can include perforations to allow ambient air to circulate through the layers (paragraph 25). The perforations can have a minimum diameter of about 0.8 mm to about 0.9 mm, or about 1.0 mm (paragraph 32). Further the perforations can be added to create a perforation pattern (paragraph 48). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add perforations to both the outside layers of the composite of Lawrence to allow air to circulate through the composite. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to choose perforations with a diameter between 0.8 mm to 1.0 mm as taught by Kelly et al. in the composite of Lawrence, since Lawrence discloses these perforations are useful in moisture wicking garment composites. Therefore, claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected.
Additionally, Lawrence fails to disclose adding the perforation in a particular pattern. Kelly et al. discloses that the perforations can be added in a pattern. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art change the design and shape of the perforation to create different perforation patterns, as suggested by Kelly et al., including logos or text with the perforations, in the product of Lawrence. Further, it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). Thus, claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected.
Additionally, as set forth above, it is noted that the second layer is created to have a mesh structure. Thus, the mesh layer is created with a plurality of perforated holes. Therefore, the second layer of Lawrence also includes perforated holes. Thus, all three layers include perforations. Further, it would have been obvious to create the perforation pattern of the mesh layer to be misaligned with the other perforations to create a patterned aesthetic. Therefore, claims 7, and 8 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach of fairly suggest the garment with a collar coupled to the garment wherein the collar includes a first section which is a venting panel, comprising a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer as recited in the claims, and a second section configured to be folded down over the first section. While the prior art discloses that it is know to make collars with ventilated portions like Kenney et al. (2014/0338091) and CN 206699407, or will cooling material in the collar Otsubo (7,043,765), or collars with different fabric sections joined together Du (2023/0000176), the prior art does not teach using a composite material with three layers as recited in claim 9 first portion of the collar. Thus, the combination of the composite fabric with a first layer with a fiber having a modified cross section, a second section having a mesh constriction and a third layer with perforated holes as a portion of a garments collar is allowable over the prior art. Claims 9 – 15 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
jlj
May 15, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights