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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a removable temperature adjustment device in claim 1. For purposes of examination: this term is interpreted as comprising, a fan (Applicant Specification Publication [0091]) and its equivalents.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “removable temperature adjustment”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
A reinforcing member in claims 8. For purpose of examination: For purposes of examination system: this term is interpreted as a reinforcing cloth or an interlining (Applicant Specification Publication [0016]) and its equivalents.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “member” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “reinforcing”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 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 1-15 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.
In re Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the rear air-conditioned space” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as a rear air-conditioned space.
In re Claim 4, the claim recites the limitation "the first part in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as a first part.
In re Claim 4,
the claim recites the limitation "the normal mode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as a normal mode.
the claim recites the limitation "the air conditioning mode" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as an air conditioning mode.
In re Claim 4, The term “a normal size” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal size” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is the standard Applicant is using to determine what size is normal and if this size is in reference to other air-conditioning clothing, clothing in general, or average person size. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as a size.
In re claim 15, the phrase " a first temperature adjustment device" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this the same first temperature adjustment device in Claim 14 or a different first temperature adjustment device. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as the first temperature adjustment device.
In re claim 15, the phrase " a second temperature adjustment device" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this the same second temperature adjustment device in Claim 14 or a different second temperature adjustment device. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as the second temperature adjustment device.
Claims 2-15 are rejected at least by virtue of its dependency.
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 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.
Claims 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittaka et al. (US 20180295901 A1) in view of Ichigaya (JP 2025023043 A).
In re Claim 1, Kittaka discloses an air-conditioning clothing (Fig. 1), for air-conditioning an inner space (inside of 2) that exists between a wearer ([0044]: wearer) and the air-conditioning clothing (2) that is worn by the wearer ([0044]), comprising:
a clothing body (2) that is configured to be worn by the wearer ([0044]: wearer), wherein the clothing body (2) includes a front portion (See Fig. 25) located anteriorly to face the wearer's chest and abdomen ([0037] and see also [0055]: front side of clothing), and a rear portion ([0055]: back side of 2) located posteriorly to face the wearer's back (See Fig. 1: back side of 2 is the posterior), in a state worn by the wearer (clothing is necessarily worn by wearer);
an attaching portion (See Fig. 5: 10; [0046]) provided at the rear portion of the clothing body (back side of 2) and having an air-conditioning hole (15) penetrating between the inner and outer surfaces of the clothing body (inside and outside of 2; See [0052] and [0055]: hole 15 of the air-cooled clothing 2), wherein the attaching portion (10) includes a removable temperature adjustment device (1) that takes outside air (35; [0066]) into the air-conditioning clothing (2) through the air-conditioning hole (15); and
a collar portion (3) provided at an upper end of the clothing body (top portion of 2) and covering at least a part of a back of the wearer's neck when worn by the wearer ([0043]), wherein the collar portion (3) has a ventilation space ([0043]: the gap formed between the human body) between the back of the wearer's neck (3) and the inner surface of the collar portion (inside of 3),
wherein, when the air-conditioning clothing (2) is air-conditioned,
an airflow passage (5a) is formed through which the outside air flows ([0044]),
the outside air ([0044]) taken into the clothing body (2) through the air-conditioning hole (15) flows, via the rear air-conditioned space existing between the rear portion of the clothing body (back of 2) and the back of the wearer(back of clothing is necessarily on the back of wearer), toward the ventilation space ([0043]: the gap formed between the human body) between the inner surface of the first portion of the collar portion (top inside of 3) and the neck of the wearer (See all of [0044]).
However, Kittaka does not explicitly teach, has a ventilation space adjustment portion that adjusts a size of a ventilation space ([0043]: the gap formed between the human body) between the back of the wearer's neck (3) and the inner surface of the collar portion (inside of 3).
On the other hand, Ichigaya teaches a ventilation space adjustment portion (50A) that adjusts a size of a ventilation space (113) between the back of the wearer's neck (12) and the inner surface of the collar portion (inside of 2a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Kittaka and to have modified them by having a ventilation space adjustment portion that adjusts a size of a ventilation space of Kittaka between the back of the wearer's neck and the inner surface of the collar portion as taught by Ichigaya, in order to for a wearer to control the opening degree and so a cooling effect of the period can be obtained (See Ichigaya [0041]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 2, Modified Kittaka teaches wherein the collar portion (3) includes;
a first portion that has a lower end (See Fig. 25: lower portion of 3) connected to the upper end of the clothing body (top half of 2), and that extends so as to surround at least a portion of the back of the wearer's neck (Ichigaya Fig. 6) when worn by the wearer (See Fig. 25 and [0071]: intended to surround a wearer's neck); and
a second portion (36) that has a connecting part connected to an upper end of the first portion (See Fig. 25 and [0071]: portions 36 provided in portions of the collar 3 of the air-cooled clothing 2),
wherein the ventilation space adjustment portion (21) is provided in the first part (top of clothing 2), and
wherein, in the collar portion (3), in a state where the outer surface of the second portion of the collar portion (36) is bent outward so as to overlap the outer surface of the first portion of the collar portion ([0071]: 36 are provided on the outer surfaces of the air-cooled clothing 2, and are configured so as to be rarely in contact with the human body. In other words, 36 are portions provided separately on the outer surfaces of the air-cooled clothing 2, and the outside air in the air cooling blowers 1), with the upper end of the first portion (top half of 2) as a border (See [0071]: last sentence), whereby the ventilation space adjustment portion (36) exposed to the outside from the first portion is covered by the second portion (36), so that the ventilation space adjustment portion (36) is not visible from the outside of the air-conditioning clothing (36 is within the collar so it is not visible).
In re Claim 3, Modified Kittaka teaches wherein the ventilation space adjustment portion (Ichigaya 5) of the collar portion (3) includes:
an adjustment string (Ichigaya 21 and See [0049]: the adjustment belt may be made of a string-like member instead of a belt-like member) that is configured to be inserted into a through hole (Ichigaya[0020]: 52b) penetrating the collar portion (3),
wherein the adjustment string (Ichigaya 21) has a first end fixed to a fixing portion (Ichigaya [0009]: a certain degree of opening is automatically secured between the back collar 12 and the back neck) on an inner surface of the collar portion (See Ichigaya inside 12) facing the neck of the wearer ([0009]), and
a second end (Ichigaya L1a) that is exposed on the outer surface of the collar portion (Ichigaya outside of 12) through the through hole (Ichigaya 52b) formed in the collar portion (3; See also Ichigaya 2) and is provided with an adjustment locking part (Ichigaya 512);
a normal locking part (52a) that is provided on the outer surface of the collar portion (3 corresponding to Ichigaya 12) adjacent to the through hole (52b),
wherein the normal locking part (52a) is for fixing the second end of the adjustment string (532) to the outer surface of the collar portion (outside of 3) by engaging with the adjustment locking part (Ichigaya 512);
an air-conditioning locking part (533) that is provided on the outer surface of the collar portion (outer surface of 12) at a position laterally farther from the through hole (52b) than the normal locking part (52a),
wherein the air-conditioning locking part (533) is for fixing the second end of the adjustment string (532) to the outer surface of the collar portion (outside of 12) by engaging with the adjustment locking part (533).
In re Claim 4, Modified Kittaka teaches wherein, in the normal mode of the air-conditioning clothing (2) where the adjustment locking part (512) and the normal locking part (52a) engage, the ventilation space (Kittaka [0043]: the gap formed between the human body) between the inner surface of the collar portion (inside of 3) and the neck of the wearer (See Figs. neck of person wearing) has a normal size (necessarily has a size), and
wherein, in the air conditioning mode of the air-conditioning clothing (2) where the adjustment locking part (512) and the air-conditioning locking part (533) engage, the size of the ventilation space between the inner surface of the collar portion and the neck of the wearer is larger than the normal size (Ichigaya [0008] and [0025]).
In re Claim 5, Modified Kittaka teaches wherein, in a state where the air-conditioning clothing (2) is worn by the wearer (person wearing clothing in Figs.),
the normal mode, in which the adjustment locking part (512) and the normal locking part (52a) are engaged, and the air conditioning mode, in which the adjustment locking part (512) and the air-conditioning locking part (533) are engaged are switched, by the wearer operating the adjustment locking part (512) of the ventilation space adjustment portion (21) of the collar portion (3) from outside the air-conditioning clothing near the outer surface of the collar portion with the wearer's hand (wearer necessarily uses hand to use 21).
In re Claim 8, Modified Kittaka teaches wherein the rear portion of the clothing body (back 2) is provided with a reinforcing member (51) that extends in the lateral direction along the ventilation space adjustment portion of the collar portion near the upper end of the rear portion (See Ichigaya Fig. 6 and [0024]), and the reinforcing member (51) is for maintaining the shape of the ventilation space adjusted by the ventilation space adjustment portion1.
In re Claim 9, Modified Kittaka teaches wherein the reinforcing member (51) is an interlining ([0024]).
In re Claim 12, Modified Kittaka teaches wherein, in the air conditioning mode, the ventilation space ([0043]: the gap formed between the human body) includes an area (See Ichigaya Fig 6: internal circular area) surrounded by the adjustment string of the ventilation space adjustment portion of the collar portion (21) and the inner surface of the rear portion of the clothing body (the rear back of 2).
In re Claim 13, Modified Kittaka teaches wherein a length of the adjustment string of the ventilation space adjustment portion (the length of 21) exposed on the inner surface of the first portion of the collar portion (inside of 3), in the normal mode, is longer than a length of the adjustment string of the ventilation space adjustment portion (the length of 21) exposed on the inner surface of the first portion of the collar portion (inside of 3), in the air conditioning mode.
In re Claim 14, Modified Kittaka teaches wherein the attaching portion (See Fig. 5: 10; [0046])) includes:
a first attaching portion (See Fig. 5: left 10; [0046]) provided at the rear portion of the clothing body (back of 2) and having a first air-conditioning hole (left 15) passing through between the inner and outer surfaces of the clothing body (inside and outside of 2); wherein the first attaching portion (left 10) is removable with a first temperature adjustment device (Fig. 1: 1 left and [0043]: left blower) that takes outside air into the air-conditioning clothing through the first air-conditioning hole ([0043]: outside air that has been drawn into the air-cooled clothing 2 with the air cooling blowers), and
a second attaching portion (See Fig. 5: right 10; [0046])) provided at the rear portion of the clothing body (back of 2) and having a second air-conditioning hole (right 15) penetrating between the inner and outer surfaces of the clothing body (inside and outside of 2); wherein the first attaching portion (See Fig. 5: left 10; [0046]) is removably attached to a second temperature adjustment device (Fig. 1: 1 right and [0043]: right blower) that takes outside air into the air-conditioning clothing (2) through the second air-conditioning hole (left 15).
In re Claim 15, Modified Kittaka teaches a first temperature adjustment device (Fig. 1: 1 left and [0043]: left blower) attached to the first attaching portion (See Fig. 5: left 10; [0046]); and a second temperature adjustment device (Fig. 1: 1 right and [0043]: right blower) attached to the second attaching portion (See Fig. 5: right 10; [0046]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, when taken as a whole, neither anticipates nor render prima facie obvious the claimed invention as currently recited in at least claims 6-7 and 10-11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 The recitation of "for maintaining the shape of the ventilation space adjusted by the ventilation space adjustment portion," recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the 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 limitation. (MPEP 2114).
Prosecution Insights