DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “wherein a first width of the bath cover at the pair of side portions is greater than a second width of the bath cover at the first and second support portions, in claim 9”, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 14-15, could read “the body portion to cover a gonadic portion of the child when is worn”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9, recites “wherein a first width of the bath cover at the pair of side portions is greater than a second width of the bath cover at the first and second support portions”, renders the claim indefinite because such claimed subject matter does not have support in the instant disclosure. Such lack of support makes it very difficult to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. For the purpose of examination and as best understood the limitation is interpreted to mean “wherein a first length of the bath cover at the pair of side portions is greater than a second length of the bath cover at the first and second support portions”.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 12, 14-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCloskey et al. (2003/0213042—hereinafter, McCloskey).
Regarding claim 1, McCloskey discloses a bath cover for use on a child during a bathing process, (fig.1) the bath cover comprising: an absorbent body portion (fig.1 shows a body 2 and made with absorbing material such as cotton material, par [0005]).
But McCloskey does not explicitly disclose the body is made of a machine-washable and reusable material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to recognize that the garment body is made of cotton material is configured to perform as the claimed invention, such modification would be considered a mere design choice involves routine skill in the art.
Furthermore, McCloskey discloses the absorbent body portion having an upper end (at 5, par [0019]) with a contour corresponding to a neck of the child, the body portion being absorbent through a complete thickness thereof (par [0005] stated that the garment body is made of cotton material is configured to provide liquid absorbing when in contacted with water to increase thickness of the body), first and second support portions (8,9) extending outwardly at the upper end of the body portion and positionable over shoulders of the child, the first and second support portions do not include fastening means, and the first support portion comprises a first free end and the second support portion comprises a second free end (upper end near 11 and bottom end near 10); a pair of side portions (6,7) supported at opposite lateral sides of the body portion and positionable over sides of a torso of the child (fig.1); a narrowed portion (near 12) disposed between the pair of side portions and the first and second support portions; and a gonadic portion (fig.1, at area 12/10) supported at a lower end of the body portion to cover a gonadic portion of the child (par [0005]). But McCloskey does not explicitly disclose a functional limitation such as wherein the body portion, the side portions, and the gonadic portion are configured to be wetted with a quantity of bath water and positioned in direct contact with a skin of the child to warm the child during the bathing process. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to recognize to perform as the claimed invention, such modification would be considered a mere of intended use, since fig.1 shows a garment body 2 is configured to use in a bath process and par [0005] body 2 is made with absorbing material such as cotton material, which cotton material can be wetted during bath process.
Regarding claim 2, McCloskey discloses wherein the body portion, the first and second support portions, and the gonadic portion are integrally formed to provide a unitary bath cover (fig.1).
Regarding claims 7-8, McCloskey discloses wherein the first and second free ends extend outwardly, with respect to a longitudinal axis of the body portion, from the upper end; and the side portions comprise opposing convex portions extending outwardly, with respect to the longitudinal axis of the body portion, from the body portion (fig.1); wherein the gonadic portion has a peripheral edge that is positionable between inner legs of the child, the profile of the peripheral edge is different from that of the contour of the upper end (fig.1).
Regarding claim 9, McCloskey discloses wherein a first length of the bath cover at the pair of side portions is greater than a second length of the bath cover at the first and second support portions (see the annotated figure 1A below).
Regarding claim 12, McCloskey discloses wherein, when placed upon the child during the bathing process, the absorbent body portion includes a front surface configured only to face away from the child and a rear surface configured only to be placed against a skin of the child (fig.1).
Regarding claims 14-16, McCloskey discloses wherein the first and second support portions diverge (fig.1); wherein the first free end is configured to rest on a first shoulder of the child during the bathing process and the second free end is configured to rest on a second shoulder of the child during the bathing process (fig.1); wherein the absorbent body portion is made of a chenille material, a flannel material, and/or a terry cloth material (par [0005]).
Claims 4-5, 10, 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCloskey et al. (2003/0213042—hereinafter, McCloskey) in view of Herman (3879762).
Regarding claim 4, McCloskey does not disclose wherein the first and second support portions comprise a material which is heavier than a material of the body portion. However, Herman teaches another similar garment article fig.1 the apron is bounded by a folded over piece of bias tape 36 sewn around the edges of the apron to provide thickness and strength and durability of the apron (col.2, lines 31-39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a folded over piece of bias tape sewn around the edges of the apron to provide thickness and strength and durability of the apron for McCloskey as taught by Herman. (col.2, lines 31-39).
Regarding claim 5, McCloskey does not disclose wherein the first and second support portions are made of a first material and the body portion is made of a second material that is different from the first material. However, Herman teaches another similar garment article fig.1 the apron is bounded by a folded over piece of bias tape 36 sewn around the edges of the apron to provide thickness and strength and durability of the apron (col.2, lines 31-39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a folded over piece of bias tape sewn around the edges of the apron to provide thickness and strength and durability of the apron for McCloskey as taught by Herman. (col.2, lines 31-39).
Regarding claim 10, McCloskey does not disclose a binding disposed around a perimeter of the absorbent body. However, Herman teaches another similar garment article fig.1 the apron is bounded by a folded over piece of bias tape 36 sewn around the edges of the apron to provide thickness and strength and durability of the apron (col.2, lines 31-39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a binding or a folded over piece of bias tape sewn around the edges of the apron to provide thickness and strength and durability of the apron for McCloskey as taught by Herman. (col.2, lines 31-39).
Regarding claim 13, McCloskey does not disclose the bath cover of claim 12, further comprising two additional members disposed on the front surface of the absorbent body portion that form eyes. However, Herman teaches another similar apron garment fig.1 having a front and back surfaces. Fig. shows the front surface having a pocket including an opening 36; and a napkin holder 22 having a button member 46 and an enlarged opening 50 of the ring member (col.2, lines 40-59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide two additional members disposed on the front surface of the absorbent body portion that form eyes for McCloskey as taught by Herman in order to provide more attractive for wearer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
449
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY K TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)270-3495. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/Timothy K Trieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732