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
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 3/20/2026 (Examiner notes that since the amendment filed 11/5/2025 was not entered, the amendment of 3/20/2026 should have included the markup and changes that Applicant made as compared to the claims filed on 6/16/2025, not changes from the non-entered amendment that was filed on 11/5/2025), claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-17 are amended. Claims 3, 14, 18 remain canceled. Claim 17 remains withdrawn. Claim 19 is new. Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-16, and 19 are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome some of the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b), and it has introduced new ones.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 light of Applicant’s amendment, which has altered the scope of the claims, the search and interpretation of the prior art has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied, as described in the rejections below. Examiner notes that Applicant argues that the addition of limitations from previously presented claim 3 make the 35 USC 103 rejections over Kuelker in view of They moot; however, the claim was not only amended to include the exact previously presented limitations from claim 3. The claim language was altered significantly in addition to adding similar (but not exactly the same) limitations that were previously presented in claim 3, and further consideration of the prior art in light of these amendments has resulted in the determination that Kuelker/They still reads on the claims as described in the rejections below.
Regarding previously indicated allowable subject matter, Examiner notes that the indication was conditional upon the correction of issues under 35 USC 112(b). As described in the rejections below, Applicant’s amendments have not corrected all issues under 35 USC 112(b), and new issues have been introduced. Further, Applicant’s amendments have introduced new and different limitations that have altered the scope of the claims and in some cases broadened the claims (for example, “single-use” is a broader limitation than what was previously presented because anything may be considered “single-use” if it is only used one time; Examiner also notes that no specific language was suggested in the interview, only that the overall concept that the element is supposed to be torn/broken in a way such that it is not reusable should be more specifically defined in the claims). These amendments have required reconsideration and reinterpretation of the prior art, as described in the rejections below. Therefore, no allowable subject matter is currently indicated.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17, 19 objected to because of the following informalities: the claims have the incorrect status identifiers and markup. Since the amendment filed 11/5/2025 was not entered, the amendment of 3/20/2026 should have included the markup and changes that Applicant made as compared to the claims filed on 6/16/2025, not changes from the non-entered amendment that was filed on 11/5/2025.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-2, 10, 13, 16 (and claims 4-9, 11-12, 15 at least for depending from a rejected base claim) 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 1, the claim recites “said outlines” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “outlines” have been previously recited or defined in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “further comprising at least one tab fixed to the fully removable band and configured so that puling on the tab generates pulling on the fully removable band”. This limitation is unclear due to the addition of the limitation “a single pull member” in claim 1. As far as can be determined, the specification describes 2 pull tabs (26), seen on figures 3 and 8. Both the “single pull member” and “at least one tab” appear to be describing these pull tabs, so it is unclear whether there is support for a single pull member and more than one additional tab. Further, the change in language/terminology between claims makes it unclear whether these features are indeed intended to be referring to the pull tabs which are referred to using one term in the specification and one reference number in the drawings. Additionally “the tab” in line 2 is unclear because the limitation was introduced initially as “at least one tab”, so it is unclear which tab of the at least one tab this is referring to.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “the transverse lower edge is fixed to the rest of the suit by a fastener having a breaking point at the crotch”. Claim 1 previously recited “the band is releasably attached to the main portion along the first, second, and transverse lower edges by releasable attachments”. It is therefore unclear whether the “fastener” recited in claim 4 is further limiting the “releasable attachments” of claim 1, or if it requires another fastener in addition to the previously claimed releasable attachments. For the purposes of examination, the fastener will be interpreted as further limiting the releasable attachments of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “the protective suit according to claim 1, which comprises fasteners delimiting the fully removable band”. Claim 1 previously recited “the band is releasably attached to the main portion along the first, second, and transverse lower edges by releasable attachments”. It is therefore unclear whether the “fasteners” recited in claim 6 are further limiting the “releasable attachments” of claim 1, or if it requires more fasteners in addition to the previously claimed releasable attachments. For the purposes of examination, the fasteners will be interpreted as further limiting the releasable attachments of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “for at least one edge of the fully removable band, a flap covering the edge over a greater length of the edge”. The later recitations of “the edge” are confusing because “at least one edge” was introduced first. If there is more than one edge, which edge is being referred to by “the edge”? Further, the limitation “a flap covering the edge over a greater length of the edge” is confusing because “greater length of the edge” introduces a comparison with the term “greater” but doesn’t explain what comparison is being made. The length must be greater than another length. The flap covers a greater length of the edge than what other component?
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “the first and second terminal elements extending at the same distance from one end of the leg and being interposed between the intermediate element and the end”. The phrase “extending at the same distance” is confusing because it is not clear what it means for something to “extend at” a distance, and further “the same distance” is confusing because “same” implies a comparison but no comparison is eventually made. The same distance as what?
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “the edges of the dressing opening coincide with and are bordered by the outlines of the band”. This limitation is unclear because it appears to contradict the previous recitation that “the dressing opening is positioned within and delimited by a portion of the fully removable band”. The edges of the dressing opening do not appear to coincide with the outlines of the band, as the dressing opening is located within the band (as shown in figures 1 and 8, for example, and as previously defined by the claim), so it cannot have the same outlines as the band. For the purposes of examination, if the dressing opening is located within the band, it will be held to read on the claim.
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 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(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, and 15-16, as best as can be understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuelker (US 2014/0325734) in view of They (US 2020/0221802).
Regarding claim 1, Kuelker discloses: A protective suit for a person, the protective suit comprising: a main portion (garment 10) and a single pull member (slider on zipper, see figure 3 and 4).
Kuelker teaches a garment opening (12) with portions that extend from a neck (22) to the lower ends of left (32) and right (42) legs of the suit (see figures 3 and 4), but does not explicitly disclose: a fully removable band that defines predetermined edges of the band along the protective suit, the edges comprising: (i) a first longitudinal edge extending from a neck region of the protective suit to a lower end of a left leg of the protective suit; (ii) a second longitudinal edge extending form the neck region to a lower end of a right leg of the protective suit, and (iii) a transverse lower edge extending between the lower ends of the left and right legs, wherein the band is releasably attached to the main portion along the first, second, and transverse lower edges by releasable attachments disposed along said outlines; a single pull member disposed at the neck region and operatively coupled to the band; and wherein the releasable attachments are configured such that tension applied to the single pull member at the neck region detaches the band from the main portion concurrently along the first and second longitudinal edges from the neck toward the lower ends of the legs, and subsequently opens the transverse lower edge beginning at a crotch region of the suit without any manual actuation at the lower ends of the legs.
However, They teaches a quick release system for a garment comprising a removable zipper (20; see figures 4A-4D showing how the zipper can be removed from the rest of the garment, and see paragraph 51) and covering flaps (10) that run along the length of the removable zipper (see figure 4A and 4D). They also teaches that the garment can be a “coverall” (paragraph 43).
They teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of quick removal systems for garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the closure of the garment opening 12 of Kuelker with the quick release removable zipper closure as taught by They including the covering flaps in order to “protect the worker from injury or death, particularly when operating machinery by allowing quick removal of clothing entangled on machinery” (They, paragraph 39), which will improve safety for the wearer. Examiner notes that, as modified, the fully removable band is the zipper of Kuelker, as modified by They to be fully removable from the rest of the garment (see in particular figure 4D of They showing how the zipper is detached from the garment). An annotated version of figures 3 and 4 of Kuelker outlining where the removable zipper would be located is provided below. Examiner notes that the limitation “the releasable attachments are configured such that tension applied to the single pull member at the neck region detaches the band from the main portion concurrently along the first and second longitudinal edges from the neck toward the lower ends of the legs and subsequently opens the transverse lower edge beginning at a crotch region of the suit without any manual actuation at the lower ends of the legs” is an intended use limitation, and it has been held 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As the combination of Kuelker and They has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written. Examiner notes that sufficient outward directional tension applied to the slider of the zipper of Kuelker would result in the removable band detaching as described in They (see figures 4A-4D showing how the zipper can be removed from the rest of the garment, and see paragraph 51).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figures 3 and 4 of Kuelker
Regarding claim 2 as best understood by Examiner, Kuelker as modified discloses: The protective suit according to claim 1, further comprising the at least one tab (the pull tab of the zipper of Kuelker, as seen in figure 3, can be considered a tab) fixed to the fully removable band and configured so that pulling on the tab generates pulling on the fully removable band (Examiner notes that the italicized limitation is an intended use limitation, and it has been held 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As the combination of Kuelker and They has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written. Further, it can readily be understood that pulling on the pull tab of the zipper of Kuelker would also result in pulling on the removable band as modified because the zipper is attached to the removable band).
Regarding claim 4 as best understood by Examiner, Kuelker as modified discloses: The protective suit according to claim 1, wherein the transverse lower edge is fixed to the rest of the suit by a fastener (as modified by They, the transverse lower edge is fixed to the rest of the suit by a hook and loop fastener; see paragraph 42 and paragraph 51 of They) having a breaking point at the crotch (there is a breaking point at the crotch, as a “breaking point” may be broadly considered to be any point at which the fastener is expected to separate, and the hook and loop fastener is expected to fully separate along the transverse lower edge).
Regarding claim 6 as best understood by Examiner, Kuelker as modified discloses: The protective suit according to claim 1, which comprises fasteners delimiting the fully removable band (as modified by They, there are hook and loop fasteners fully delimiting the removable zipper component; see paragraph 51 of They).
Regarding claim 9, Kuelker as modified discloses: The protective suit according to claim 6, wherein at least one of the fasteners does not have a slider (as modified by They, the fasteners are hook and loop fasteners which do not have a slider).
Regarding claim 10, Kuelker as modified discloses; The protective suit according to claim 1, comprising, for at least one edge of the fully removable band, a flap covering the edge over a greater length of the edge (as modified by They, there are flaps 10 cover the edge of the fully removable band, see figures 4A-4D of They).
Regarding claim 11, Kuelker as modified discloses: The protective suit according to claim 10, wherein the flap is fixed to the fully removable band (as modified the flap as taught by They is fixed to the fully removable band via the hook and loop fasteners, see figures 4A-4D of They).
Regarding claim 15, Kuelker as modified discloses: The protective suit according to claim 1, comprising a dressing opening arranged to allow a person to put on the suit through the dressing opening without at least partially detaching the fully removable band from the main portion (as modified, the zipper of the removable zipper of They can still be operated independently and without removing it from the rest of the garment, so the zipper constitutes a dressing opening as claimed).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood by Examiner, Kuelker as modified discloses: The protective suit according to claim 1, wherein the dressing opening extends entirely into the fully removable band (as modified, the zipper of the removable zipper of They can still be operated independently and without removing it from the rest of the garment, so the zipper constitutes a dressing opening as claimed; the zipper extends entirely into the fully removable band insofar as can be understood).
Claim(s) 5, 7-8, as best as can be understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuelker/They as applied to claims 1, 4 (regarding claim 5) and 6 (regarding claims 7 and 8), and further in view of Takamatsu (US 4000545).
Regarding claim 5, Kuelker as modified does not explicitly disclose: The protective suit according to claim 4, wherein the fastener comprises successions of teeth and is devoid of a tooth in at least one of the successions of teeth.
However, Takamatsu discloses a slide fastening device that is devoid of a tooth in at least one of the successions of teeth (A is an area missing teeth; see figure 1; “several scoops on each stringer tape 10 are absent” column 2, lines 52-53) and reinforcement to prevent accidental opening of the fastening device (15).
Takamatsu teaches art reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor regarding making slide fasteners that are quickly and easily releasable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the slide fastener with emergency opening capabilities as taught by Takamatsu as the fasteners in They as it would have been the simple substitution of one known releasable fastener for another that would have yielded only the predictable result of removably attaching the removable zipper of They to the rest of the garment, and They contemplated the use of various removable fasteners as known in the art (see paragraph 42 of They) Further, the fastener of Takamatsu permits emergency breakaway access without having to use sliders while still guarding against accidental or inadvertent opening during normal use (see Takamatsu column 1, lines 40-44, “the fastener will not open accidentally in its normal use but can nevertheless be readily forced open in an emergency without manipulating its slider”).
Regarding claim 7, Kuelker as modified does not explicitly disclose: The protective suit according to claim 6, wherein each of the fasteners comprises teeth disposed in succession along each fastener.
However, Takamatsu discloses a slide fastening device that comprises teeth disposed in succession along each fastener (see figure 1) and a reinforcement to prevent accidental opening of the fastening device (15).
Takamatsu teaches art reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor regarding making slide fasteners that are quickly and easily releasable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the slide fastener with emergency opening capabilities as taught by Takamatsu as the fasteners in They as it would have been the simple substitution of one known releasable fastener for another that would have yielded only the predictable result of removably attaching the removable zipper of They to the rest of the garment, and They contemplated the use of various removable fasteners as known in the art (see paragraph 42 of They) Further, the fastener of Takamatsu permits emergency breakaway access without having to use sliders while still guarding against accidental or inadvertent opening during normal use (see Takamatsu column 1, lines 40-44, “the fastener will not open accidentally in its normal use but can nevertheless be readily forced open in an emergency without manipulating its slider”).
Regarding claim 8, Kuelker as modified does not explicitly disclose: The protective suit according to claim 6, wherein at least one of the fasteners comprises reliefs profiled in a longitudinal direction of the fastener.
However, Takamatsu teaches teeth for a slide fastener that comprise reliefs profiled in a longitudinal direction of the fastening device (see figure 6E; the teeth shown in the figure have reliefs profiled in a longitudinal direction) and a reinforcement to prevent accidental opening of the fastening device (15).
Takamatsu teaches art reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor regarding making slide fasteners that are quickly and easily releasable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the slide fastener with emergency opening capabilities as taught by Takamatsu as the fasteners in They as it would have been the simple substitution of one known releasable fastener for another that would have yielded only the predictable result of removably attaching the removable zipper of They to the rest of the garment, and They contemplated the use of various removable fasteners as known in the art (see paragraph 42 of They) Further, the fastener of Takamatsu permits emergency breakaway access without having to use sliders while still guarding against accidental or inadvertent opening during normal use (see Takamatsu column 1, lines 40-44, “the fastener will not open accidentally in its normal use but can nevertheless be readily forced open in an emergency without manipulating its slider”).
Claim(s) 12-13, as best as can be understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuelker/They as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Holder (US 4494248).
Regarding claim 12, Kuelker as modified does not explicitly disclose: The protective suit according to claim 1, comprising at least at one end area of at least one edge of the fully removable band, a single-use element for blocking an opening of the edge.
However, Holder teaches two single use elements (16; see figure 2 showing how each fastener has two tabs 16) in the end area of a hook and loop fastener (“alternatively the slide fasteners may be substituted by […] loop pile fastener” column 2, lines 17-18) to block the opening of the edge (“Tabs 16 on an inner side 17 of the garment are each permanently secured by stitching 18 at one end to one of the garment components, the tab bridging the assembled slide fastener and the tab other end being detachably secured by a snap button 19 to an adjacent other component of the garment. Thus as shown in FIG. 2, the tabs (located near a starting end of the slide fastener) will serve to prevent them to accidentally slide open, by blocking the slide 20 from moving past the tab.” Column 2, lines 8-16).
Holder teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of garments with removable parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add two single-use tabs (Examiner notes that ‘single-use’ is an intended use limitation and the tabs are considered to be single use as they are capable of being used only once) to each of the ends of the legs of Kuelker in order to prevent them from accidentally opening (see column 2, lines 8-16 of Holder).
Regarding claim 13, Kuelker as modified does not explicitly disclose: The protective suit according to claim 12, which comprises on each leg: a first terminal single-use element at a lower end area of one of the edges; a second terminal single-use element at a lower end area of the other edge; and an intermediate single-use element at a lower end area of one of the edges, the first and second terminal elements extending at the same distance from one end of the leg and being interposed between the intermediate element and the end.
However, Holder teaches two single use elements (16; see figure 2 showing how each fastener has two tabs 16) in the end area of a hook and loop fastener (“alternatively the slide fasteners may be substituted by […] loop pile fastener” column 2, lines 17-18) to block the opening of the edge (“Tabs 16 on an inner side 17 of the garment are each permanently secured by stitching 18 at one end to one of the garment components, the tab bridging the assembled slide fastener and the tab other end being detachably secured by a snap button 19 to an adjacent other component of the garment. Thus as shown in FIG. 2, the tabs (located near a starting end of the slide fastener) will serve to prevent them to accidentally slide open, by blocking the slide 20 from moving past the tab.” Column 2, lines 8-16).
Holder teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of garments with removable parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add two single-use tabs (Examiner notes that ‘single-use’ is an intended use limitation and the tabs are considered to be single use as they are capable of being used only once) to each of the ends of the legs of Kuelker in order to prevent them from accidentally opening (see column 2, lines 8-16 of Holder). Examiner notes that as modified, each of the legs has two single-use elements (see figure 2 of Holder); therefore, there is a first terminal single-use element at a lower end area of one of the edges; a second terminal single-use element at a lower end area of the other edge; and an intermediate single-use element at a lower end area of both of the edges, satisfying the claim limitations.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuelker, They, and Holder.
Regarding claim 19, Kuelker discloses: A protective suit for a person, the protective suit comprising: a main portion (garment 10).
Kuelker teaches a garment opening (12) with portions that extend from a neck (22) to the lower ends of left (32) and right (42) legs of the suit (see figures 3 and 4), but does not explicitly disclose: a fully removable band having predetermined edges along the suit, the predetermined edges comprising (i) a first longitudinal edge extending from a neck region of the protective suit to a lower end of the left leg, (ii) a second longitudinal edge extending from the neck region of the protective suit to a lower end of the right leg of the protective suit, wherein the fully removable band is detachable from the main portion under the effect of pulling on the fully removable band from the neck continuing to the lower ends of the left and right legs.
However, They teaches a quick release system for a garment comprising a removable zipper (20; see figures 4A-4D showing how the zipper can be removed from the rest of the garment, and see paragraph 51) and covering flaps (10) that run along the length of the removable zipper (see figure 4A and 4D). They also teaches that the garment can be a “coverall” (paragraph 43).
They teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of quick removal systems for garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the closure of the garment opening 12 of Kuelker with the quick release removable zipper closure as taught by They including the covering flaps in order to “protect the worker from injury or death, particularly when operating machinery by allowing quick removal of clothing entangled on machinery” (They, paragraph 39), which will improve safety for the wearer. Examiner notes that, as modified, the fully removable band is the zipper of Kuelker, as modified by They to be fully removable from the rest of the garment (see in particular figure 4D of They showing how the zipper is detached from the garment). An annotated version of figures 3 and 4 of Kuelker outlining where the removable zipper would be located is provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above. Examiner notes that the limitation “the releasable attachments are configured such that tension applied to the single pull member at the neck region detaches the band from the main portion concurrently along the first and second longitudinal edges from the neck toward the lower ends of the legs and subsequently opens the transverse lower edge beginning at a crotch region of the suit without any manual actuation at the lower ends of the legs” is an intended use limitation, and it has been held 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As the combination of Kuelker and They has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written. Examiner notes that sufficient outward directional tension applied to the slider of the zipper of Kuelker would result in the removable band detaching as described in They (see figures 4A-4D showing how the zipper can be removed from the rest of the garment, and see paragraph 51).
Kuelker as modified does not explicitly disclose: at each end area of each of the first and second longitudinal edges, a single-use element for blocking an opening of the edge.
However, Holder teaches two single use elements (16; see figure 2 showing how each fastener has two tabs 16) in the end area of a hook and loop fastener (“alternatively the slide fasteners may be substituted by […] loop pile fastener” column 2, lines 17-18) to block the opening of the edge (“Tabs 16 on an inner side 17 of the garment are each permanently secured by stitching 18 at one end to one of the garment components, the tab bridging the assembled slide fastener and the tab other end being detachably secured by a snap button 19 to an adjacent other component of the garment. Thus as shown in FIG. 2, the tabs (located near a starting end of the slide fastener) will serve to prevent them to accidentally slide open, by blocking the slide 20 from moving past the tab.” Column 2, lines 8-16).
Holder teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of garments with removable parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add two single-use tabs (Examiner notes that ‘single-use’ is an intended use limitation and the tabs are considered to be single use as they are capable of being used only once) to each of the ends of the legs of Kuelker in order to prevent them from accidentally opening (see column 2, lines 8-16 of Holder).
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 BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights