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
Applicant's amendment filed on October 1, 2025 has been received. Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 1, 2025 have been fully considered but are not deemed to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kerr fails to teach the claimed reflective thread grid because Kerr only discloses wherein the “stiffening yarns” are reflective, and not the primary or secondary yarns (see pages 7-8 of Applicant’s Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that the Non-Final Rejection does not mention the primary yarns (110) at all in its discussion of reflectivity. Instead, the Office Action clearly states that the claimed reflective thread corresponds to “reflective thread forming stiffening yarns 120 of reinforcing structure 105” (see at least page 3 of Non-Final Rejection). As such, Applicant’s argument that the primary yarns (110) are not reflective, are not pertinent to the actual rejection(s) applied against the claims.
Second, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the reflective “stiffening yarns” disclosed by Kerr clearly refer to the secondary yarns 120. See paragraphs 0067, 0076, and 0108-0109 of Kerr, reproduced below for Applicant’s benefit (emphasis added in underlining):
[0067] Referring to FIG. 1, there is illustrated an embodiment of a garment 10 formed from a textile 100 with a reinforced structure 105. The reinforced structure 105 includes primary yarns 110 and secondary yarns 120. The reinforced structure 105 may have a number of reinforced yarns in the warp and/or weft directions with the primary yarns 110 forming more than 50% of the surface area of the textile 100. Secondary yarns 120 may be used to stiffen or provide shape to a textile, and may be the reinforcing elements of the reinforcing structure 105. The reinforced fibres, or secondary yarns 120, may have a relatively thicker denier or a higher stiffness relative to primary fibres 110 of the textile 100.
[0076] The face fabric 130 may be provided with at least one reinforced structure 105 (illustrated as dotted lines) formed from a reinforced fibre or secondary yarn 120 which can increase the stiffness or rigidity of a garment 10.
[0108] Yarns for use in stiffening the textile may include yarns with at least one of; glass, aramid, ceramic, graphite (or carbon) and metal fibres. Yarns for stiffening may be any predetermined yarn which can increase the stiffness of the textile 100 relative to forming the garment 100 exclusively from primary yarns 110.
[0109] Optionally, the stiffening yarn may also be reflective and/or phosphorescent. The stiffening yarn may be formed from a plurality of filaments which may be of uniform construction, or may be formed from different diameters. Optionally, the filaments may include two or more filaments of different construction and/or material.
As can be seen plainly from Kerr’s disclosure, the reinforced structure is formed from primary yarns 110 and secondary yarns 120. Kerr clearly and consistently describes the secondary yarns (120) as having a stiffening and reinforcing function (see paragraph 0067: “Secondary yarns 120 may be used to stiffen or provide shape to a textile, and may be the reinforcing elements of the reinforcing structure 105” and paragraph 0074: “a reinforced fibre or secondary yarn 120 which can increase the stiffness or rigidity of a garment 10”).
Furthermore, Figs. 3-4 (reproduced below for Applicant’s benefit) clearly show wherein the secondary yarns (120) form the grid of the reinforced structure 105, with the reference numeral “120” unambiguously pointing to the vertical and horizontal lines forming the lattice/grid. This is further established by Kerr’s description of the stiffening/reinforcing yarns 120 as extending “in the warp and/or weft directions” of the fabric in paragraph 0067, and paragraph 0074 which states that “reinforced structure 105 (illustrated as dotted lines) [is] formed from a reinforced fibre or secondary yarn 120.”
PNG
media_image1.png
417
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, the Examiner respectfully submits that it would be abundantly clear to one having ordinary skill in the art that the reflective stiffening yarn referred to in paragraph 0109 of Kerr’s disclosure indeed refers to the stiffening yarns 120, and that the reflective stiffening yarns 120 form a grid, as shown in at least Figs. 3-4.
The rejection(s) under Kerr are therefore maintained, as seen below.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: “adjacent first lines of the plurality of second lines” (lines 8-9) should read “adjacent second lines of the plurality of second lines.” See page 2 of Non-Final Rejection. The Examiner notes that Applicant has amended the previous phrase of claim 23 but not the phrase actually indicated in the claim objection; as such, the claim objection is maintained.
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.
Claims 23-30 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.
Claim 23 as amended recites the limitation “a plurality of second lines parallel to each other and angled with respect to each of the plurality of second lines.” The limitation is indefinite, as it is unclear how the second lines are parallel to each other but also angled with respect to each other.
The Examiner notes that it appears that Applicant may have inadvertently amended the wrong phrase in claim 23 (see claim objection above).
As such, for purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: “a plurality of second lines parallel to each other and angled with respect to each of the plurality of first lines.”
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 23, 25, and 30 (regarding claims 23, 25, and 30, as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kerr et al. (herein Kerr)(US PG Pub 2020/0375278).
Regarding claim 1, Kerr discloses a garment (10) comprising:
a first fabric panel (left front panel of 30); and
a second fabric panel (right front panel of 30) joined to the first fabric panel (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0067-0069), the second fabric panel comprising reflective thread (reflective thread forming stiffening yarns 120 of reinforcing structure 105, see Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 0067-0069, 0076-0079, 0100, and 0108-0109), the reflective thread defining a grid pattern (see at least Fig. 4) comprising:
a plurality of first threads (vertical threads of 120) parallel to each other (see at least Figs. 1 and 4); and
a plurality of second threads (horizontal threads of 120) parallel to each other and angled with respect to each of the plurality of first threads (see at least Figs. 1 and 4, second/horizontal threads of 120 are angled at approximately 90 degrees in relation to each of first/vertical threads of 120).
Regarding claim 23, Kerr discloses a garment (10) comprising:
a first fabric panel (left front panel of 30); and
a second fabric panel (right front panel of 30) joined to the first fabric panel (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0067-0069), the second fabric panel comprising a reflective material (reflective stiffening yarns 120 of reinforcing structure 105, see Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 0067-0069, 0076-0079, 0100, and 0108-0109), the reflective thread defining a grid pattern (see at least Fig. 4) comprising:
a plurality of first lines (vertical lines of 120) parallel to each other (see at least Figs. 1 and 4), adjacent first lines of the plurality of first lines separated by a first spacing (see spacing between vertical lines of 120 in at least Figs. 1 and 4); and
a plurality of second lines (horizontal lines of 120) parallel to each other and angled with respect to each of the plurality of first lines (see at least Figs. 1 and 4, second/horizontal lines of 120 are angled at approximately 90 degrees in relation to each of first/vertical lines of 120), adjacent second lines of the plurality of second lines separated by a second spacing (see spacing between horizontal lines of 120 in at least Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 25, Kerr further discloses wherein each of the first spacing and the second spacing is constant (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 30, Kerr further discloses at least one of a rayon material and a polyester material (see at least paragraph 0145).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Martinez et al. (herein Martinez)(US PG Pub 2020/0282243).
Regarding claim 2, Kerr discloses the limitations of claim 1, but fails to further disclose
wherein the garment is a shirt comprising the first fabric panel and the second fabric panel, the shirt further comprising a collar and a yoke. Instead, Kerr discloses a hooded jacket-type garment (see at least Fig. 1).
However, Martinez teaches a protective outerwear garment embodied as a shirt (12, see at least Figs. 3-4), the shirt comprising a first fabric panel (left chest panel), a second fabric panel (right chest panel), a collar (28), and a yoke (35; see Figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 0065-0075), as such a shirt style is known in the art for providing a traditional/formal look, and the incorporation of a yoke provides enhanced shoulder comfort (see paragraphs 0066 and 0071).
Therefore, based on Martinez’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kerr’s jacket-type garment to be a shirt-type garment with a collar and a yoke, as doing so would adapt the garment for a more traditional/formal setting, and would also enhance shoulder comfort for the wearer.
Regarding claim 3, Kerr and Martinez together teach the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and further disclose wherein the yoke (35 of Martinez) comprises a moisture-wicking material (94), defining an exposed inner surface of the yoke (see at least Figs. 15-16 and paragraph 0072), the exposed inner surface positioned to contact or face a wearer of the garment during use (see at least Figs. 15-16 and paragraph 0072).
Martinez fails to specifically teach wherein the moisture-wicking material of the yoke is a mesh material. Martinez merely teaches a moisture-wicking knit (see paragraph 0072).
However, Martinez further teaches wherein other portions (40) of the garment may be crafted from mesh, a moisture-wicking knit, or both (see paragraph 0074), so as to provide both functions of facilitating air flow and wicking moisture (see paragraph 0074).
Therefore, based on Martinez’s own teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Martinez’s moisture-wicking knit yoke to also be formed of a mesh material, as doing so would provide both functions of facilitating air flow and wicking moisture.
Claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gardner et al. (herein Gardner)(US PG Pub 2004/0143882).
Regarding claim 4, Kerr discloses the limitations of claim 1, a discussed above, but fails to further disclose wherein the reflective thread is retroreflective.
However, Gardner teaches an outerwear garment (130) comprising a plurality of enhanced visibility panels (132a-h, see Figs. 12a-12b) formed from retroreflective threads (see at least Figs. 5-8 and paragraphs 0010, 0023, 0026-0033, and 0038-0039), so as to allow the wearer to be highly visible in dark conditions by reflecting incident light back in the general direction from which the light originated, thereby increasing wearer safety (see paragraphs 0004-0006 and 0023-0026).
Therefore, based on Gardner’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kerr’s reflective threads to also be retroreflective, as doing so would allow the wearer to be highly visible in dark conditions by reflecting incident light back in the general direction from which the light originated, thereby increasing wearer safety.
Regarding claim 5, the modified garment of Kerr (i.e., Kerr in view of Gardner) is further disclosed wherein the reflective thread comprises glass beads (see at least paragraphs 0026-0027 of Gardner).
Regarding claim 7, the modified garment of Kerr (i.e., Kerr in view of Gardner) is further disclosed wherein a coefficient of retroreflection of the reflective thread is at least 250 cd/lux/m2 (see paragraph 0026 of Gardner, Gardner teaches wherein a coefficient of retroreflection of the garment can be as high as 500 cd/lux/m2; therefore, the coefficient of retroreflection of the reflective thread itself would be at least 500 cd/lux/m2 in order to produce a corresponding coefficient for the garment).
Gardner fails to specifically teach wherein the reflected light defines an entrance angle of +5.0 degrees and an observation angle of 0.33 degrees. Instead, Gardner teaches an entrance angle of -4.0 degrees and an observation angle of 0.2 degrees (see paragraph 0026).
However, absent a showing of criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to experiment with different entrance and observations angles, in order to achieve an optimal configuration to provide a desired amount of reflective safety, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of reflective entrance and observations angles involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
The Examiner further notes that Applicant’s own specification discusses in paragraph 0046 wherein the coefficient of retroreflection can be measured either at an entrance angle of +5.0 degrees and an observation angle of 0.33 degrees (as claimed) or at an entrance angle of -4.0 degrees and an observation angle of 0.2 degrees (as taught by Gardner). As such, it would appear that the angles taught by Gardner would operate equally well as the claimed angles, which appear to be an obvious matter of design choice which fails to patentably distinguish over Gardner.
Regarding claim 8, the modified garment of Kerr (i.e., Kerr in view of Gardner) is further disclosed wherein a coefficient of retroreflection of the reflective thread is at least 330 cd/lux/m2
when the reflected light defines an entrance angle of -4.0 degrees and an observation angle of 0.2 degrees (see paragraph 0026 of Gardner and note above in rejection of claim 7).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr and Gardner, as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Kanebo (GB 1,329,858).
Regarding claim 6, Kerr and Gardner together teach the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, but fail to further teach wherein: an elongation of the reflective thread measures between 10% and 70%; a breaking strength of the reflective material measures between 140 grams and 2.4 kilograms; and a yield point measures between 15 grams and 100 grams. Kerr and Gardner are silent as to the elongation, breaking strength, and yield point of the reflective material.
However, Kanebo teaches a thread for use in a knitted or woven fabric comprising an elongation between 10% and 70% (see at least page 2, lines 76-86); a breaking strength between 140 grams and 2.4 kilograms (see page 4, line 115 – page 5, line 55, Kanebo teaches a breaking strength of at least 6 g/d and a yarn size of at least 70 denier, thereby resulting in a breaking strength of at least 420 g), and a yield point between 15 grams and 100 grams (see page 2, lines 65-92 and page 4, line 115 – page 5, line 55, Kanebo teaches a yield point of at least 0.6 g/d and a yarn size of at least 70 denier, thereby resulting in a yield point of at least 42 grams), so as to provide a thread that is adapted for use in highly stretchable fabrics without breaking or puckering (see page 1, line 11 – page 2, line 75).
Therefore, based on Kanebo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided Kerr’s reflective thread with an elongation of the reflective thread measuring between 10% and 70%, a breaking strength between 140 grams and 2.4 kilograms; and a yield point between 15 grams and 100 grams, as doing so would allow the reflective thread to be used in highly stretchable fabrics without breaking or puckering.
Claims 9-15, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr and Gardner, as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Porter (US Patent No. 6,148,442).
Regarding claim 9, Kerr and Gardner together teach the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Gardner further teaches wherein the second fabric panel (one of 132a-h) may have a coefficient of retroreflection that is at least 10 cd/lux/m2 and less than or equal to 100 cd/lux/m2 (see paragraph 0026, Gardner teaches wherein the coefficient of retroflection may be at least 10 cd/lux/m2), but fails to specify wherein the coefficient of retroreflection is measured using testing procedures found in ASTM Standards E809 and E810.
However, the Examiner notes that it is known in the art to measure garment properties using known ASTM standards, to allow the garments to obtain certain safety certifications and facilitate marketing of the garment products. For example, Porter teaches wherein it is known in the art to measure the coefficient of retroreflection of a retroreflective textile material according to ASTM E809 and E-810 test methods (see Abstract and column 3, lines 16-45 of Porter).
Therefore, based on Porter’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have measured Gardner’s coefficient(s) of retroreflection using testing procedures found in ASTM Standards E809 and E810, as it is known in the art to measure garment properties using known ASTM standards, to allow the garments to obtain certain safety certifications and facilitate marketing of the garment products.
Regarding claim 10, the modified garment of Kerr (i.e., Kerr in view of Gardner and Porter) is further disclosed wherein the coefficient of retroreflection of the second fabric panel is: at least 10 cd/lux/m2; and less than or equal to 80 cd/lux/m2 (see paragraph 0026 of Gardner).
Regarding claim 11, the modified garment of Kerr (i.e., Kerr in view of Gardner and Porter) is further disclosed wherein the coefficient of retroreflection of the second fabric panel is: at least 10 cd/lux/m2; and less than or equal to 60 cd/lux/m2 (see paragraph 0026 of Gardner).
Regarding claim 12, the modified garment of Kerr (i.e., Kerr in view of Gardner and Porter) is further disclosed wherein the coefficient of retroreflection of the second fabric panel is: at least 20 cd/lux/m2; and less than or equal to 100 cd/lux/m2 (see paragraph 0026 of Gardner).
Regarding claim 13, the modified garment of Kerr (i.e., Kerr in view of Gardner and Porter) is further disclosed wherein the coefficient of retroreflection of the second fabric panel is: at least 30 cd/lux/m2; and less than or equal to 100 cd/lux/m2 (see paragraph 0026 of Gardner).
Regarding claim 14, the modified garment of Kerr (i.e., Kerr in view of Gardner and Porter) is further disclosed wherein the coefficient of retroreflection of the second fabric panel is: at least 40 cd/lux/m2; and less than or equal to 100 cd/lux/m2 (see paragraph 0026 of Gardner).
Regarding claim 15, the modified garment of Kerr (i.e., Kerr in view of Gardner and Porter) is further disclosed wherein the coefficient of retroreflection of the second fabric panel is: at least 50 cd/lux/m2; and less than or equal to 100 cd/lux/m2 (see paragraph 0026 of Gardner).
Regarding claim 21, Kerr and Gardner together teach the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, but fail to specifically teach wherein the reflective thread is one of white and light gray in color.
However, Porter teaches a safety garment (30) comprising a reflective material (34a, 34b) that is silver (i.e., light gray) and reflect white color (see column 3, lines 15-45), so as to provide enhanced visibility and safety (see column 3, lines 16-45).
Therefore, based on Porter’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided Kerr’s reflective thread in a white or light gray color, as doing so would further enhance the visibility and safety of the garment.
Regarding claim 22, the modified garment of Kerr (i.e., Kerr in view of Gardner and Porter) is further disclosed wherein the second fabric panel (right front panel of Kerr) comprises non-reflective thread (primary yarns/threads 110 of Kerr; see Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 0067-0068, 0084, and 0145 of Kerr), the non-reflective thread being one of black and dark gray in color (see paragraph 0145 of Kerr).
Claims 16-20, 24, and 26-29 (regarding claims 24, and 26-29, as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr, as applied to claims 1 and 23 above.
Regarding claims 16-20, Kerr discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a surface area of the second fabric panel (right panel of front panel 30) forms between 10% and 90%, between 10% and 70%, between 10% and 50%, between 10% and 30%, or between 20% and 30%, inclusive of the end points, of a total surface area of the garment. Kerr appears to depict wherein the second fabric panel reasonably forms about 20-30% of the total surface area of the garment (see at least Figs. 1, 6, and 7), but is silent as to the specific dimensions of the garment.
However, absent a showing of criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to experiment with different ranges of second fabric panel size/proportion such that the second fabric panel (right panel of front panel 30) would form between 10% and 90%, between 10% and 70%, between 10% and 50%, between 10% and 30%, or between 20% and 30%, inclusive of the end points, of a total surface area of the garment, in order to achieve an optimal configuration to accommodate a particular user size/proportion (e.g., a user having a broader or narrower chest) or a particular user fit preference (e.g., a looser fit versus a tighter fit), since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of panel size/proportion involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
The Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide any criticality for the claimed ranges, and appears to present the claimed ranges merely as exemplary ranges within a wide spectrum of acceptable surface area percentages.
See paragraph 0036 of the instant specification: “The panel 110b comprising the reflective material 170a can form Y% or less of a total surface area of the garment 100 or any portion thereof. In some aspects, for example, a surface area of the panel 110b comprising the reflective material 170a can form 90% or less of a total surface area of the garment 100 or any portion thereof. In some aspects, a surface area of the panel 110b comprising the reflective material 170a can form 80% or less of a total surface area of the garment 100 or any portion thereof. In some aspects, a surface area of the panel 110b comprising the reflective material 170a can form 70% or less of a total surface area of the garment 100 or any portion thereof. In some aspects, a surface area of the panel 110b comprising the reflective material 170a can form 60% or less of a total surface area of the garment 100 or any portion thereof. In some aspects, a surface area of the panel 110b comprising the reflective material 170a can form 50% or less of a total surface area of the garment 100 or any portion thereof. In some aspects, a surface area of the panel 110b comprising the reflective material 170a can form 40% or less of a total surface area of the garment 100 or any portion thereof. As desired, a surface area of the panel 110b comprising the reflective material 170a can form any combination of X and Y, i.e., any range of X% to Y% of a total surface area of the garment 100 or any portion thereof. For example and without limitation, a surface area of the panels 110b,c comprising the reflective material 170a can be in a range of 20% to 30%, inclusive, i.e., at least 20% and 30% or less, of a total surface area of the garment.”
As such, the claimed range appears to be an obvious matter of design choice which fails to patentably distinguish over Kerr.
Furthermore, a change in size or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 24, Kerr discloses the limitations of claim 23, as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a surface area of the reflective material in a particular repeating pattern on a portion of the garment measures 2.3% or less of the surface area of the portion. Kerr appears to depict wherein the reflective material (120) forms a very small surface area percentage of a portion of the garment (e.g., right front panel of 30, see Figs. 1 and 4), and further discloses wherein the base material forms more than 50% of the surface area of the garment portion (see paragraph 0067), but is silent as to the exact percentage surface area of the reflective material in relation to the base material of the garment.
However, absent a showing of criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to experiment with different sizes or amounts of reflective material within the garment portion, such that the reflective material in a particular repeating pattern on a portion of the garment would measure 2.3% or less of the surface area of the portion, in order to achieve an optimal configuration to provide a desired balance between stiffness and flexibility of the garment portion (see at least paragraphs 0067-0069 and 0072-0073 of Kerr), since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of panel size/proportion involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, a change in size or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 26, Kerr discloses the limitations of claim 25, as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein: at least one of a width and an average width of each of the plurality of first lines measures 15% or less of the first spacing; and at least one of a width and an average width of each of the plurality of second lines measures 15% or less of the second spacing. Kerr appears to depict very thin lines that each have a width that is 15% or less of the respective spacings between adjacent first/vertical lines and adjacent second/horizontal lines (see at least Fig. 4), but fails to explicitly disclose the widths/dimensions of the lines and spacings.
However, absent a showing of criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to experiment with different yarn widths and spacings within the reflective grid, such that at least one of a width and an average width of each of the plurality of first lines would measure 15% or less of the first spacing; and at least one of a width and an average width of each of the plurality of second lines would measure 15% or less of the second spacing, in order to achieve an optimal configuration to provide a desired balance between stiffness and flexibility of the garment portion (see at least paragraphs 0067-0069 and 0072-0073 of Kerr), since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of yarn widths and spacings involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, a change in size or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 27-29, Kerr discloses the limitations of claim 25, as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the first spacing and the second spacing measures at least 3 millimeters and less than or equal to 50 millimeters, at least 5 millimeters and less than or equal to 50 millimeters, or at least 10 millimeters and less than or equal to 50 millimeters. Kerr appears to depict very thin lines that are substantially spaced apart from one another (see at least Fig. 4), but fails to explicitly disclose the dimensions of each spacing.
However, absent a showing of criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to experiment with different yarn spacings within the reflective grid, such that each of the first spacing and the second spacing would measure at least 3 millimeters and less than or equal to 50 millimeters, at least 5 millimeters and less than or equal to 50 millimeters, or at least 10 millimeters and less than or equal to 50 millimeters, in order to achieve an optimal configuration to provide a desired balance between stiffness and flexibility of the garment portion (see at least paragraphs 0067-0069 and 0072-0073 of Kerr), since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of yarn spacings involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, a change in size or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOCELYN BRAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-0581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, 12:00 pm - 4:00 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.
/JOCELYN BRAVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights