DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 5/11/26 in which claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/11/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 8 delete “back” and substitute –rear—for consistency in terminology and for proper antecedent basis with Claim 1 Line 2
Claim 19 Line 7 before “lower” add –the--
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Beginning in Claim 1 Lines 7-8 the term “lower edge” is considered new matter. The term is not found in the original disclosure. The closest recitation is in [22] which recites “As shown, the back portion 117 includes a strap attachment mechanism 310, which includes multiple slots 320 disposed along the hem or edge of the back portion 117,” referring back to Fig. 3 ([21]). There is no recitation of a lower edge.
Claim 12 Line 4 the term “lower edge” is new matter for reasons similarly aforementioned.
Claim 19 Line 6 the term “lower edge” is new matter for reasons similarly aforementioned.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “lower edge” in Claim 1 Lines 7-8 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the 112(a) new matter rejection, it is unclear what structure constitutes “lower,” and therefore the metes and bounds of the term. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as the strap attachment mechanism is along an edge of the inner surface of the rear/back portion of the garment, wherein being along an edge and also of an inner surface is lower relative to the uppermost section of the edge.
The term “lower edge” in Claim 12 Line 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly aforementioned for Claim 1 Lines 7-8.
The term “lower edge” in Claim 19 Line 6 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly aforementioned for Claim 1 Lines 7-8.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. Specifically:
Claim 6 “each back end of each strap includes a hook that is configured to attach the strap to any opening of the multiple openings” does not further limit from Claim 1 Lines 7-8 “multiple openings to removably receive the back end of each strap of the multiple straps”. On the contrary, Claim 6 is broader, as it allows for any opening while Claim 1 allows for every opening (with each strap).
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.
Examiner may recommend:
Claim 1 Line 8 before “strap” delete “each” and substitute –any--, such that Claim 6 further narrows
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) 1-3, 5, 6, 10-15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noreen (WO 01/03525) in view of Walsh (US Publication 2013/0084776).
Regarding Claim 1, Noreen teaches an article of clothing (it is noted 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; see Fig. 1; page 3 Line 13 "bra 2"; ), comprising:
a garment having a front portion and a rear portion (see Fig. 1 for inside of front/rear; page 2 Line 19 "Fig. 1 shows the inside of an outspread bra");
multiple straps (see Fig. 1; page 3 Line 14 "pairs of shoulder straps 4"),
wherein each strap includes a front end and a back end (see Fig. 1), and
wherein the front end of each strap of the multiple straps is permanently fixed to the front portion (see Fig. 1; page 3 Lines 14-19 “shoulder straps 4…capable of detachable connection to the bra component 3 itself with the help of fasteners 5 arranged on the shoulder straps 4 and attachment devices 6 on the aforementioned bra 2, comprises a set of laterally and vertically distributed connecting attachments 7 on the aforementioned bra 2”, wherein Fig. 1 illustrates the example of one strap fixed as recited, but both straps are disclosed as being fixed/fixable--page 3 Lines 5-6 “permit lateral adjustment of the shoulder straps both at the front and at the rear of the bra”; Noreen teaches a fixable position for each strap which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the configuration of being permanent/without further changes); and
a strap attachment mechanism (see Fig. 1; page 3 Lines 18-19 "laterally and vertically distributed connecting attachments 7 on the aforementioned bra 2"),
disposed on an inner surface of the rear portion of the garment (page 2 Line 19 "Fig. 1 shows the inside of an outspread bra", wherein the outermost 6/7s are on the rear),
which includes multiple openings to removably receive the back end of each strap of the multiple straps (see Fig. 1 outermost 6/7s),
wherein the strap attachment mechanism is disposed on along a hem or a lower edge of the inner surface of the rear portion of the garment such that each strap attaches to the rear portion in a hidden manner (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 1 for edge as recited, wherein the aforementioned already indicated the strap attachment mechanism is at the inner surface of the rear portion, and therefore along a lower edge; Noreen teaches the strap attachment mechanism along the inner surface of the rear portion/lower edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being hidden).
Noreen does not explicitly teach the garment being a bodice.
Walsh teaches the garment being a bodice ([0021] "The brassiere may also be halter top, tank top or any garment utilized to hold the wearer's breasts in place"; wherein a tank top comprises a bodice at least based on applicant’s Claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s garment to be a tank top as taught by Walsh, and therefore have a bodice, as a simple substitution of one type of breast-holding garment for another, in order to be effective in holding the breasts in place ([0021]), based on aesthetic design choice.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen further teaches wherein the multiple openings of the strap attachment mechanism include slots or slits (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen further teaches wherein the multiple openings of the strap attachment mechanism are disposed in a regularly spaced configuration along the inner surface of the rear portion of the bodice (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen further teaches wherein the multiple openings of the strap attachment mechanism are disposed as a group of openings on each side of the inner surface of the rear portion of the bodice (see Fig. 1, wherein columns constitute a group and/or wherein rows constitute groups).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen further teaches wherein each back end of each strap includes a hook that is configured to attach the strap to any opening of the multiple openings of the strap attachment mechanism (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen further teaches wherein the article of clothing is an athletic bra (Noreen teaches the bra which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being utilized athletically).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Noreen further teaches wherein the article of clothing is a tank top (see rejection of Claim 1, wherein Walsh teaches the garment as a tank top).
Regarding Claim 12, Noreen teaches an athletic bra (it is noted 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; see Fig. 1; page 3 Line 13 "bra 2"; Noreen teaches the bra which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being utilized athletically), comprising:
a garment (page 3 Line 13);
multiple straps that are permanently fixed to a front portion of the garment (see Fig. 1; page 3 Lines 14-19 “pair of shoulder straps 4…capable of detachable connection to the bra component 3 itself with the help of fasteners 5 arranged on the shoulder straps 4 and attachment devices 6 on the aforementioned bra 2, comprises a set of laterally and vertically distributed connecting attachments 7 on the aforementioned bra 2”, wherein Fig. 1 illustrates the example of one strap fixed as recited, but both straps are disclosed as being fixed/fixable--page 3 Lines 5-6 “permit lateral adjustment of the shoulder straps both at the front and at the rear of the bra”; Noreen teaches a fixable position for each strap which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the configuration of being permanent/without further changes); and
multiple openings disposed on a hem or a lower edge of an inner surface of a back portion of the garment and configured to removably attach a strap of the multiple straps such that each strap attaches to the back portion in a hidden manner (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 1, especially for edge as recited; page 3 Lines 14-19, wherein Fig. 1 illustrates the example of one strap fixed as recited, but both straps are disclosed as being fixed/fixable--page 3 Lines 5-6 “permit lateral adjustment of the shoulder straps both at the front and at the rear of the bra”; for lower edge of an inner surface of a back portion-- page 2 Line 19 "Fig. 1 shows the inside of an outspread bra", wherein the outermost 6/7s are on the inner surface of the rear, and therefore a lower edge; Noreen teaches the rear-adjustable straps and multiple openings on the inner surface of the rear portion/lower edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of removably attaching in a hidden manner).
Noreen does not explicitly teach the garment being a bodice.
Walsh teaches the garment being a bodice ([0021] "The brassiere may also be halter top, tank top or any garment utilized to hold the wearer's breasts in place"; wherein a tank top comprises a bodice at least based on applicant’s Claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s garment to be a tank top as taught by Walsh, and therefore have a bodice, as a simple substitution of one type of breast-holding garment for another, in order to be effective in holding the breasts in place ([0021]), based on aesthetic design choice.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Modified Noreen further teaches wherein a number of openings of the multiple openings on the back portion of the bodice is greater than a number of straps of the multiple straps (Noreen page 5 Lines 9-10 "shoulder strap 4…which is part of a set 27"; see Figs. 4 and 8 for embodiments of sets; see Fig. 1 wherein the rear slots are 3 columns with 3 rows on each side, resulting in 9 slots on each side; this is greater than the set of 6 or 8 straps in Figs. 4 and 8).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Modified Noreen further teaches wherein the multiple openings are disposed on an inner surface of the edge of the back portion of the bodice (see Noreen Fig. 1; page 2 Line 19 "Fig. 1 shows the inside of an outspread bra", wherein the outermost 6/7s are on the inner surface of the back).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Noreen further teaches wherein each strap of the multiple straps includes an attachment end having a hook (see Fig. 1; page 5 Lines 17-18 "hooks 5 in the shoulder straps 4"),
and wherein each opening of the multiple openings includes a slot configured to receive the hook (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Noreen teaches an athletic bra (it is noted 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; see Fig. 1; page 3 Line 13 "bra 2"; Noreen teaches the bra which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being utilized athletically), comprising:
a garment (page 3 Line 13);
multiple straps that are permanently fixed to a front portion of the garment (see Fig. 1; page 3 Lines 14-19 “pair of shoulder straps 4…capable of detachable connection to the bra component 3 itself with the help of fasteners 5 arranged on the shoulder straps 4 and attachment devices 6 on the aforementioned bra 2, comprises a set of laterally and vertically distributed connecting attachments 7 on the aforementioned bra 2”, wherein Fig. 1 illustrates the example of one strap fixed as recited, but both straps are disclosed as being fixed/fixable--page 3 Lines 5-6 “permit lateral adjustment of the shoulder straps both at the front and at the rear of the bra”; Noreen teaches a fixable position for each strap which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the configuration of being permanent/without further changes); and
an attachment section disposed on an inner surface of a rear portion of the garment that is configured to receive each strap of the multiple straps at multiple attachment areas of the attachment section via multiple slots disposed along a hem or a lower edge of the rear portion of the garment (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 1, especially for edge as recited; page 3 Lines 14-19, wherein Fig. 1 illustrates the example of one strap fixed as recited, but both straps are disclosed as being fixed/fixable--page 3 Lines 5-6 “permit lateral adjustment of the shoulder straps both at the front and at the rear of the bra”; for inner surface-- page 2 Line 19 "Fig. 1 shows the inside of an outspread bra", wherein the outermost 6/7s are on the interior of the rear portion and therefore at a lower edge; each slot represents an attachment area of the attachment section, and therefore multiple slots/attachment areas);
wherein a number of the multiple slots disposed along the hem or lower edge of the rear portion of the garment is greater than a number of the multiple straps (page 5 Lines 9-10 "shoulder strap 4…which is part of a set 27"; see Figs. 4 and 8 for embodiments of sets; see Fig. 1 wherein the rear slots are 3 columns with 3 rows on each side, resulting in 9 slots on each side; this is greater than the set of 6 or 8 straps in Figs. 4 and 8).
Noreen does not explicitly teach the garment being a bodice.
Walsh teaches the garment being a bodice ([0021] "The brassiere may also be halter top, tank top or any garment utilized to hold the wearer's breasts in place"; wherein a tank top comprises a bodice at least based on applicant’s Claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s garment to be a tank top as taught by Walsh, and therefore have a bodice, as a simple substitution of one type of breast-holding garment for another, in order to be effective in holding the breasts in place ([0021]), based on aesthetic design choice.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noreen (WO 01/03525) in view of Walsh (US Publication 2013/0084776), further in view of Fildan et al (USPN 7431631), herein Fildan.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple openings of the strap attachment mechanism are disposed in an irregularly spaced configuration along the inner surface of the rear portion of the bodice.
However, Noreen teaches the opposite,
wherein the multiple openings of the strap attachment mechanism are disposed in a regularly spaced configuration along the inner surface of the rear portion of the bodice (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen to be irregularly spaced based on a finite number of solutions and aesthetic design choice.
Nevertheless, Fildan teaches wherein the multiple fastenings of the strap attachment mechanism are disposed in an irregularly spaced configuration along the inner surface of the rear portion of the garment (see Fig. 2 for D-ring and snaps being irregular spaced; Col. 4 Lines 61-64 "row of snap fasteners 42, 43, 44 ...D-ring fastener 47").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s fastenings/openings to be irregularly spaced as taught by Fildan as known for adjustable fastenings (Col. 1 Lines 17-18), especially to provide a desired comfort and/or fit (see extrinsic evidence Garson USPN 2782418 Col. 3 Lines 3-7).
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noreen (WO 01/03525) in view of Walsh (US Publication 2013/0084776), further in view of May (USPN 6155906).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen at least suggests wherein each strap includes a slider mechanism that adjusts a length of the strap (see Fig. 1, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Fig. 1 illustrates a slider mechanism).
Nevertheless, May further teaches wherein each strap includes a slider mechanism that adjusts a length of the strap (Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 6-10 "strap set 40c shown at Fig. 2 discloses the use of an adjustment means 46 in conjunction with the straps…to adjust the overall length of the straps").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s strap with the slider mechanism of May in order to adjust the overall strap length (Col. 4 Lines 6-10).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Noreen at least suggests wherein each strap of the multiple straps includes a slider mechanism that adjusts a length of the strap (see Fig. 1, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Fig. 1 illustrates a slider mechanism).
Nevertheless, May further teaches wherein each strap includes a slider mechanism that adjusts a length of the strap (Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 6-10 "strap set 40c shown at Fig. 2 discloses the use of an adjustment means 46 in conjunction with the straps…to adjust the overall length of the straps").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s strap with the slider mechanism of May in order to adjust the overall strap length (Col. 4 Lines 6-10).
Claim(s) 8, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noreen (WO 01/03525) in view of Walsh (US Publication 2013/0084776), further in view of Cushman (USPN 0201597).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Noreen teaches wherein the multiple straps include two straps that are permanently fixed to a first side of the front portion of the bodice and two straps that are fixed to a second side of the front portion of the bodice (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Noreen page 5 Lines 9-10 "shoulder strap 4…which is part of a set 27"; see Figs. 4 and 8 for embodiments of sets; Noreen teaches at least four straps and at least two fixable positions on a first side and at least two fixable positions on a second side which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the configuration recited, especially permanently/without further changes).
Nevertheless, Cushman teaches wherein the multiple straps include two straps that are permanently fixed to a first side of the front portion of the garment and two straps that are fixed to a second side of the front portion of the garment (see Figs. 2, 5, especially permanently/without further changes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s sets to be of the configuration recited especially as Cushman teaches such a configuration is known in the art for effectively suspending a garment over a wearer’s shoulders.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
The body of Claim 17 is the same as the body of Claim 8. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 8 for the rejection of the body of Claim 17.
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noreen (WO 01/03525) in view of Walsh (US Publication 2013/0084776), further in view of Hengy (USPN 1032901).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Noreen teaches wherein the multiple straps include three straps are permanently fixed to a first side of the front portion of the bodice and one strap that is fixed to a second side of the front portion of the bodice (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Noreen page 5 Lines 9-10 "shoulder strap 4…which is part of a set 27"; see Figs. 4 and 8 for embodiments of sets; Noreen teaches at least four straps and at least three fixable positions on a first side and at least one fixable positions on a second side which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the configuration recited, especially permanently/without further changes).
Nevertheless, Hengy further teaches wherein the multiple straps include three straps are permanently fixed to a first side of the front portion of the garment and one strap that is fixed to a second side of the front portion of the garment (see Fig. 1, Lines 24-38 "shoulder straps 5 which have…tabs 7 for engaging the front buttons of trouser and the tabs 8 for engaging the front portions of drawers"; as such, the front has 3 on each side, and is capable of the recited configuration, especially permanently/without further changes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s sets to be of the configuration recited especially as Hengy teaches such a configuration is known in the art for effectively suspending a garment over a wearer’s shoulders (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
The body of Claim 18 is the same as the body of Claim 9. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 9 for the rejection of the body of Claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification--
Pertaining to remarks on page 6 that Noreen is referring to an “upper part” of each cup component and is not along a specific lower edge—examiner respectfully disagrees. Especially in light of the U.S.C. 112 issues, remarks seem to desire a much narrower (and unclear) interpretation to the current broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “edge” than is currently supported or claimed. Noreen teaches an edge of an inner surface which meets the recitation. For compact prosecution—even if the claims were narrowed to recite that the strap attachment mechanism is at a hem, attention is directed to Puliafico (USPN 2882907), previously indicated as pertinent art. For compact prosecution, it is noted that the current claim term “along” in Claim 1 and Claim 19 is broader than claiming the term “on” in Claim 12.
Pertaining to remarks on pages 6, 7 that Noreen does not teach a permanent fixing—examiner respectfully disagrees. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Noreen teaches the fastener which is capable of being in a permanent configuration. Claims would have to specify the type of permanent fixing (ex. stitching, sewing) in order to further narrow the interpretation. However, it is noted that no support is found for any specific examples of permanent fastenings in the original disclosure, whether in the drawings or the specification. Even if such were disclosed, it is well known in the art for there to be a structurally-permanent fixing in the front portion of a garment while the rear/back portion is adjustable—attention is directed to Jones (USPN 6857936), Mabon (USPN 10238160), Bailey (US Publication 2015/0004877), Sanchez (USPN 5024628), all previously indicated as pertinent art. There is no criticality to alleged permanence or non-permanence/adjustability, and there is no teaching away in Noreen to a modification.
Pertaining to remarks on page 7 that the rejection utilizes hindsight—examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Furthermore, pertaining to the 112(d) rejection herein—this language was already rejected on page 4 of the office action 4/16/25. No remarks have been presented herein to indicate why the language has been re-presented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Newmar (USPN 3935865), Fenske (US Publication 2009/0126084), Azan et al (WO 2020/076978) directed to utilizing multiple straps on each garment side.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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 on 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights