DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed August 21, 2025 in which claims 16-20 and 22-32 are presented for examination, claim 21 is withdrawn, and claims 1-15 are canceled.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s First Argument: Rejection of claim 16 under 35 USC 102 US Pub No. 2016/0316825 Cutler or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cutler in view of US Pub No. 2006/0277645 Okajima should be withdrawn at least because neither Cutler nor Okajima teach, suggest, or disclose an overall wherein “said at least a first elongatable portion being inseparably connected to an inner side of the bib section” as currently recited by amended claim 16.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is respectfully asserted that inasmuch as currently claimed, in a fully-assembled configuration of Cutler as depicted in Figures 1-6 of Cutler (as well as in a fully-assembled configuration of Okajima), all portions of the overall of Cutler are considered to be “connected” to all other portions of Cutler regardless of whether the particular portions are configured to be in direct physical contact. As such, it is respectfully maintained that said at least first elongatable portion of the overall of Cutler is “connected” to an inner side of the bib section. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s Second Argument: Newly presented claim 32 is allowable over Cutler and/or Cutler in view of Okajima at least because neither Cutler nor Okajima teach, suggest, or disclose an overall wherein “said at least a first elongatable portion provided behind the bib section” as recited by newly presented claim 32.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. As depicted in Figures 1-6 of Cutler, elongatable portions of the overall of Cutler are located on portions of the overall of Cutler disposed rearward of bib section 14 of Cutler. As such, inasmuch as currently claimed, Examiner asserts that the overall of Cutler properly anticipates the limitation “said at least a first elongatable portion provided behind the bib section” along with the other limitations as currently recited in newly presented claim 32.
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: a two part releasable connection system in claim 27.
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 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 includes the typographical error “bib-section,” which should be amended to recite “bib section” without the hyphen.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 recite the limitation “a left-hand side or right-hand side.” However, for further clarity, it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite, for example, “a left-hand side or a right-hand side.”
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 recite the limitation “a left-hand and right-hand side of the overall.” However, for further clarity, it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite, for example, “a left-hand side and a right-hand side of the overall.”
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites the limitation “said one of the left-hand and right-hand side.” However, for further clarity, it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite, for example, “said one of the left-hand side and the right-hand side.”
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 recite the limitation “a left-hand and right-hand side of the overall.” However, for further clarity, it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite, for example, “a left-hand side and a right-hand side of the overall.”
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3-4 recite the limitation “the left-hand and right-hand side of the overall.” However, for further clarity, it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite, for example, “the left-hand side and the right-hand side of the overall.”
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 7 recites the limitation “said first and second part of the releasable connection system.” However, for further clarity, it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite, for example, “the first part and the second part of the releasable connection system.”
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 8-9 recite the limitation “the first and second part of the releasable connection system.” However, for further clarity, it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite, for example, “the first part and the second part of the releasable connection system.”
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 16-18, 20, 22-25, and 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US Pub No. 2016/0316825 Cutler or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cutler in view of US Pub No. 2006/0277645 Okajima.
To claim 16, Cutler discloses an overall (see Figures 1-6; paras. 0041-0073; the garment of Cutler may properly be considered an “overall” at least due to its one-piece construction having portions configured to cover both the legs and torso of a wearer while leaving the arms of the wearer exposed and including at least one suspender configured to prevent the garment from descending inadvertently during wear) comprising:
a pants section (12a,12b) having a waist edge (11) (see Figures 1-6; para. 0041),
a bib section (14) connected to the pants section at a frontside of the overall (see Figures 1 and 3; para. 0042);
at least a first suspender (13) connected by a first outer end (16a,16b) to the bib section and adapted to be positioned over a shoulder such that the bib section is held in place when worn (see Figures 1-6; para. 0042);
wherein the waist edge is elongatable along at least a first elongatable portion such that a rear portion of the pants section can be lowered over the buttocks of the wearer when the wearer is seating while a front portion of the pants section remains in place together with the connected bib section, said at least a first elongatable portion being inseparably connected to an inner side of the bib section (see Figures 1-6; para. 0051, 0062; elongatable due to stretch material construction; it is respectfully asserted that inasmuch as currently claimed, in a fully-assembled configuration of Cutler as depicted in Figures 1-6 of Cutler, all portions of the overall of Cutler are considered to be “connected” to all other portions of Cutler regardless of whether the particular portions are configured to be in direct physical contact).
As detailed above, Examiner respectfully maintains that the garment of Cutler may properly be considered an “overall” at least due to its one-piece construction having portions configured to cover both the legs and torso of a wearer while leaving the arms of the wearer exposed and including at least one suspender configured to prevent the garment from descending inadvertently during wear. However, in the interest of promoting compact prosecution, because Cutler does not use the term “overall,” it is respectfully noted that Okajima teaches that cycling garments such as the garment of Cutler are known as an “overall” (para. 0006).
Cutler and Okajima teach analogous inventions in the field of one-piece cycling garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the garment of Cutler would be considered an “overall” because Okajima teaches that such garments are known as an “overall” in the cycling garment arts (para. 0006).
To claim 17, Cutler in view of Okajima further teaches an overall wherein a second opposing end (the other of ends 16a,16b of Cutler) of the first suspender is connected to the overall other than to the rear portion of the pants section (see Figures 1-6 and para. 0042 of Cutler).
To claim 18, Cutler in view of Okajima further teaches an overall wherein the overall comprising a second suspender (the other of suspenders 13 of Cutler) connected by a first end to the bib section and adapted to run over a shoulder of the overall user and wherein a second opposing end of the second suspender is connected to the overall other than to the rear portion of the pants section (see Figures 1-6 and para. 0042 of Cutler).
To claim 20, Cutler in view of Okajima further teaches an overall wherein the second, opposing end of the first suspender is connected to the overall to a left-hand side or a right-hand side of the bib section (see Figures 1-6 and para. 0042 of Cutler) and is free of permanent connection to the waist edge (free of permanent connection due to fasteners 16 of Okajima) (see Figures 1-5 and para. 0037 of Okajima).
To claim 22, Cutler in view of Okajima further teaches an overall wherein the first elongatable portion is a portion of the waist edge located behind the bib section (see Figures 1-6 and paras. 0042-0051, 0062 of Cutler).
To claim 23, Cutler in view of Okajima further teaches an overall wherein the first elongatable portion of the waist edge is provided by elastic strips (see Figures 1-6 and para. 0062 of Cutler).
To claim 24, Cutler in view of Okajima further teaches an overall wherein said waist edge further comprises a second elongatable portion being connected to the bib section (see Figures 1-6 and paras. 0042-0051, 0062 of Cutler).
To claim 25, Cutler in view of Okajima further teaches an overall wherein the waist edge further comprises a left-hand side portion and a right-hand side portion, the first elongatable portion of the waist edge being connected at one end to an inner side of the bib section and the other, opposite end of the first elongatable portion of the waist edge being connected to the left-hand side portion of the waist edge, the second elongatable portion of the waist edge being connected at one end to the inner side of the bib section and the other, opposite end of the second elongatable portion of the waist edge being connected to the right-hand side portion of the waist edge (see Figures 1-6 and paras. 0042-0051, 0062 of Cutler).
To claim 27, Cutler in view of Okajima further teaches an overall wherein the first elongatable portion is connected to an inner side of the bib section at one of a left-hand side and a right-hand side of the overall, the waist edge at said one of the left-hand side and the right-hand side of the overall being provided with a first part of a two part releasable connection system (16 of Okajima), the inner side of the bib section being provided with the second part of the releasable connection system, the waist edge is adapted to slide inwards the bib section, the first part and the second part of the releasable connection system being adapted to releasably connect in at least two positions of the first part and the second part of the releasable connection system (see Figures 1-6 and paras. 0042-0051, 0062 of Cutler; see Figures 1-5 and para. 0037 of Okajima).
To claim 28, Cutler in view of Okajima further teaches an overall as workwear or safety clothing (see Figures 1-6 and paras. 0042-0051, 0062 of Cutler; it is respectfully noted that claim 28 is being treated as merely being very broad and/or statement of intended use rather than being indefinite under 35 USC 112(b)).
To claim 29, Cutler in view of Okajima further teaches an overall as casual clothing or sportswear (see Figures 1-6 and paras. 0042-0051, 0062 of Cutler; it is respectfully noted that claim 29 is being treated as merely being very broad and/or statement of intended use rather than being indefinite under 35 USC 112(b)).
To claim 30, Cutler in view of Okajima further teaches an overall as a unisex overall (see Figures 1-6 and paras. 0042-0051, 0062 of Cutler; it is respectfully noted that claim 30 is being treated as merely being very broad and/or statement of intended use rather than being indefinite under 35 USC 112(b)).
To claim 31, Cutler in view of Okajima further teaches an overall wherein said at least a first elongatable portion being directly connected to the bib section (see Figures 1-6 and paras. 0042-0051, 0062 of Cutler).
To claim 32, Cutler discloses an overall (see Figures 1-6; paras. 0041-0073; the garment of Cutler may properly be considered an “overall” at least due to its one-piece construction having portions configured to cover both the legs and torso of a wearer while leaving the arms of the wearer exposed and including at least one suspender configured to prevent the garment from descending inadvertently during wear) comprising:
a pants section (12a,12b) having a waist edge (11) (see Figures 1-6; para. 0041),
a bib section (14) connected to the pants section at a frontside of the overall (see Figures 1 and 3; para. 0042);
at least a first suspender (13) connected by a first outer end (16a,16b) to the bib section and adapted to be positioned over a shoulder such that the bib section is held in place when worn (see Figures 1-6; para. 0042);
wherein the waist edge is elongatable along at least a first elongatable portion such that a rear portion of the pants section can be lowered over the buttocks of the wearer when the wearer is seating while a front portion of the pants section remains in place together with the connected bib section, said at least a first elongatable portion provided behind the bib section (see Figures 1-6; para. 0051, 0062; elongatable due to stretch material construction; as depicted in Figures 1-6 of Cutler, elongatable portions of the overall of Cutler are generally located on portions of the overall of Cutler disposed rearward of bib section 14 of Cutler).
As detailed above, Examiner respectfully maintains that the garment of Cutler may properly be considered an “overall” at least due to its one-piece construction having portions configured to cover both the legs and torso of a wearer while leaving the arms of the wearer exposed and including at least one suspender configured to prevent the garment from descending inadvertently during wear. However, in the interest of promoting compact prosecution, because Cutler does not use the term “overall,” it is respectfully noted that Okajima teaches that cycling garments such as the garment of Cutler are known as an “overall” (para. 0006).
Cutler and Okajima teach analogous inventions in the field of one-piece cycling garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the garment of Cutler would be considered an “overall” because Okajima teaches that such garments are known as an “overall” in the cycling garment arts (para. 0006).
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.
Claims 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutler in view of Okajima (as applied to claims 16-18, above) in further view of USPN 1,409,805 Weaver.
To claim 19, Cutler in view of Okajima teach an overall as recited in claims 16-18, above.
Cutler in view of Okajima do not expressly teach an overall wherein the two suspenders cross at the backside of the overall.
However, Weaver teaches an overall (see Figures 1-4; pg. 1, line 49 – pg. 2, line 3) wherein two suspenders cross at a backside of the overall (see especially Figure 3; pg. 1, line 112 – pg. 2, line 3).
Cutler and Weaver teach analogous inventions in the field of overalls. 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 Cutler such that the suspenders cross at the backside of the overall because such a configuration causes any pull on the suspenders to be transmitted to and counteracted by the waistband (pg. 1, line 112 – pg. 2, line 3).
To claim 26, Cutler in view of Okajima teach an overall wherein the first elongatable portion is connected to an inner side of the bib section at one of the left-hand and right-hand side of the overall, at said one of the left-hand and right-hand side of the overall (see Figures 1-6 and paras. 0042-0051, 0062 of Cutler).
Cutler in view of Okajima do not expressly teach an overall wherein the pants section is provided with a first pocket, the first pocket having an open side and an open top.
However, Weaver teaches an overall (see Figures 1-4; pg. 1, line 49 – pg. 2, line 3) wherein a pants section is provided with a first pocket, the first pocket (22) having an open side and an open top (see Figures 1-4; pg. 1, lines 86-91).
Cutler and Weaver teach analogous inventions in the field of overalls. 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 Cutler such that the pants section is provided with a first pocket, the first pocket having an open side and an open top as taught by Weaver because Weaver teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for allowing the wearer to rest their hand within the pocket (see Figure 1).
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 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