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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I, Garment 920 (Figures 12-15) is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed July 29, 2025. Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) for being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities: Paragraph 00020, line 5 recites the word “apartment,” which upon information and belief should be amended to recite “compartment.”
The disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities: Paragraph 00030, line 9 recites “In implementations garment 20 comprises stitching or seams…” which upon information and belief should be amended to recite, for example, “In implementations where garment 20 comprises stitching or seams…”
The disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities: Paragraph 00059, line 6 recites the word “apartment,” which upon information and belief should be amended to recite “compartment.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “24” (see at least paragraphs 00029-00032 of the specification).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “60” (see at least paragraph 00033 of the specification).
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. 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 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: “closing mechanism” in claims 16-17 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.
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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 recite the limitation “a first panel,” which should be amended to recite “the first panel” for purposes of proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites “The garment of claim 1 wherein …” which should be amended to recite “The garment of claim 1, wherein …” with a comma following “1.”
Applicant is respectfully advised that should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 12-14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub No. 2015/0359269 Rapp.
To claim 1, Rapp discloses a garment (10) (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0024-0028) comprising:
at least one panel (20) forming an interior having an opening (38) facing in a sideways direction (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0024, 0026-0027);
a first compartment (24) within the interior, the first compartment having a first mouth (either of 34 or 36) opposite the opening and facing in the sideways direction (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0024, 0027);
a second compartment (26) within the interior, the second compartment having a second mouth (either of 34 or 36) opposite the opening and facing in the sideways direction (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0024, 0027);
a zipper (40) extending along the opening and opposite to the first mouth and the second mouth (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0026-0027); and
a passage from the first mouth to the second mouth between the opening and the first mouth and the second mouth (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0024-0028).
To claim 2, Rapp further discloses a garment wherein the zipper comprises a tape and a row of teeth along the tape, wherein the first compartment comprises a floor having first end distant the opening and a second end proximate the opening, and wherein the tape is sandwiched between the row of teeth and the second end of the floor (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0024-0028).
To claim 3, Rapp further discloses a garment wherein the second end of the floor is adjacent an edge of the tape (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0024-0028).
To claim 12, Rapp further discloses a garment wherein the opening comprises a slit through a face of a panel of the at least one panel (see Figures 1-5; para. 0024).
To claim 13, Rapp further discloses a garment wherein the at least one panel comprises a first panel and a second panel and wherein the opening extends along and between the first panel and the second panel (see Figures 1-5; para. 0024).
To claim 14, Rapp further discloses a garment wherein the interior comprises a floor forming a third compartment (28) (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0024, 0027).
To claim 16, Rapp further discloses a garment wherein a front of the garment is split into a first lateral front side and a second lateral front side releasably joined to the first lateral front side by a closing mechanism and wherein the first compartment extends from the opening towards the split (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0024-0028).
To claim 17, Rapp further discloses a garment wherein a front of the garment comprises: a split (not numbered) separating the front into a first lateral front side and a second lateral front side (see especially Figure 1); and a closing mechanism (e.g., a zipper) releasably joining the first lateral front side and the second lateral front side, wherein the first compartment extends from the first mouth away from the split (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0024-0028; first compartment 24 extends from first mouth 34 away from the split).
To claim 19, Rapp further discloses a garment wherein a front of the garment comprises: a split (not numbered) separating the front into a first lateral front side and a second lateral front side (see especially Figure 1); and a closing mechanism (e.g., a zipper) releasably joining the first lateral front side and the second lateral front side, wherein the first compartment extends from the first mouth away from the split (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0024-0028; first compartment 24 extends from first mouth 34 away from the split).
ALTERNATE REJECTION: Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 10,973,270 Marshall.
To claim 1, Marshall discloses a garment (100) (see Figures 1-7; col. 2, line 49 – col. 5, line 31) comprising:
at least one panel (301,303) forming an interior (305) having an opening facing in a sideways direction (see at least Figures 3-4; col. 3, lines 27-46; garment 100 is capable of being worn such that the opening faces in a sideways direction; it is respectfully noted that the claim does not recite, for example, “at least one panel forming an interior having an opening facing in a sideways direction when the garment is being worn in a traditional sense”);
a first compartment (401) within the interior, the first compartment having a first mouth (605) opposite the opening and facing in the sideways direction (see Figures 3-4 and 6; col. 3, lines 27-46; col. 4, lines 39-60; garment 100 is capable of being worn such that the first mouth faces in the sideways direction; it is respectfully noted that the claim does not recite, for example, “a first compartment within the interior, the first compartment having a first mouth opposite the opening and facing in the sideways direction when the garment is being worn in the traditional sense”);
a second compartment (401) within the interior, the second compartment having a second mouth (605) opposite the opening and facing in the sideways direction (see Figures 3-4 and 6; col. 3, lines 27-46; col. 4, lines 39-60; garment 100 is capable of being worn such that the second mouth faces in the sideways direction; it is respectfully noted that the claim does not recite, for example, “a second compartment within the interior, the second compartment having a second mouth opposite the opening and facing in the sideways direction when the garment is being worn in the traditional sense”);
a zipper (307) extending along the opening and opposite to the first mouth and the second mouth (see Figures 3-4; col. 3, lines 27-36); and
a passage from the first mouth to the second mouth between the opening and the first mouth and the second mouth (see Figures 3-4 and 6; col. 3, lines 27-46; col. 4, lines 39-60).
This ALTERNATE REJECTION under 35 USC 102 over Marshall has been limited to independent claim 1 in the interest of brevity. It is respectfully noted however that Marshall may be relied upon, alone or in combination, to reject additional claim(s) in future office action(s).
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.
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.
Claim 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapp.
To claim 4, Rapp discloses a garment as recited in claim 1, above.
Rapp does not explicitly disclose a garment wherein the passage has a width no greater than 3 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the garment of Rapp with a passage having a width no greater than 3 cm based on variables such as the size of the potential wearer (i.e., a garment configured to be worn by a small child may require a much smaller passage than a garment configured to be worn by a large adult) as a matter of routine optimization. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
To claim 5, Rapp further teaches a garment wherein the first mouth is above the second mouth and wherein the first compartment has a floor having a first portion proximate the first mouth and a second portion lower than the first portion (annotated Figure 3, see below; inasmuch as currently claimed, either of the walls 30,32 of first compartment 24 can be considered a floor; it is further respectfully noted that the term “portion” is very broad and merely means “a part of a whole;” see https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
898
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To claim 7, Rapp further teaches a garment wherein the second portion is stepped from the first portion (annotated Figure 3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapp in view of USPN 8,522,367 French.
To claim 10, Rapp discloses a garment as recited in claim 1, above.
Rapp does not disclose a garment further comprising a secondary pocket having an upward facing mouth along and adjacent a floor of the first compartment.
However, French teaches a garment further comprising a secondary pocket (304) having an upward facing mouth along and adjacent a floor of a first compartment (see especially Figure 6; col. 10, lines 3-51).
Rapp and French teach analogous inventions in the field of garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the garment of Rapp to include a secondary pocket as taught by French because French teaches that this configuration is known in the art and capable of receiving the barrel of a firearm (see Figure 6).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapp in view of USPN 8,793,815 Kelley-Mozsy.
To claim 11, Rapp discloses a garment as recited in claim 1, above.
Rapp does not disclose a garment wherein a bottom of the first compartment and a top of the second compartment share a single seam.
However, Kelley-Mozsy teaches a garment wherein a bottom of a first compartment and a top of a second compartment share a single seam (see for example Figures 3A-4B).
Rapp and Kelley-Mozsy teach analogous inventions in the field of garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the garment of Rapp such that a bottom of the first compartment and a top of the second compartment share a single seam as taught by Kelley-Mozsy because Kelley-Mozsy teaches that this known in the art. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that separate garment structures which share a seam require fewer seams than separate garment structures which each include their own separate seams.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapp in view of US Pub No. 2025/0302128 Phillips et al.
To claim 15, Rapp discloses a garment as recited in claim 1, above.
Rapp does not expressly disclose a garment wherein the zipper comprises a first slider for closing the opening in response to upward movement of the first slider and a second slider above the first slider for closing the opening in response to downward movement of the second slider.
However, Phillips teaches a garment (100) comprising a zipper (201a) including a first slider (201b) for closing an opening (201) in response to upward movement of the first slider and a second slider (201b) above the first slider for closing the opening in response to downward movement of the second slider (see for example Figures 1-3; para. 0033).
Rapp and Phillips teach analogous inventions in the field of garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the zipper of the garment of Rapp to include first and second sliders as taught by Phillips because Phillips teaches that this configuration is known in the art. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that garment openings with zippers having first and second sliders as claimed provide a user with additional levels of control over accessing the opening compared to garment openings with zippers having single sliders.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8-9 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Additional garments with pocket configurations analogous to the instant invention (see form PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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, 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.
/F Griffin Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights