DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Application filed on December 8, 2025 in which claims 1, 6-7, 9, and 14-16 are presented for examination. Claims 2-5, 8 have been withdrawn. Claims 10-13 have been cancelled.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 6-7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (5,329,638)[Hansen] in view of Santa Cruz et al. (6,092,235)[Santa Cruz].
Regarding claim 1, Hansen teaches, A wearable handkerchief cuff (10, figures 1-4) comprising: a tubular body formed of an absorbent material having a wrist end and finger end, and the finger end comprises a straight end (“As shown in FIG. 1, the present protective wristband is indicated in general by the reference numeral 10. The protective wristband 10 includes as its principal components a band 11 formed of an inner layer 12 and an outer layer 13”, Col. 2 ln. 64-68, “With more particularity, the band 11 is integrally woven such that the inner and outer layers 12, 13 are integrally connected via respective proximal and distal, integral connecting edges 30, 31. The layers 12, 13 and their integral edges 30, 31 form an endless, generally hollow, tubular-like interior 32. The band 11 is typically formed of terry cloth or a terry cloth-like material which is stretchable and elastic, absorbent for absorbing moisture such as perspiration, and breathable. The material forming the band 11 more specifically is 80% cotton, 10% nylon, and 10% rubber knit.”, Col. 3 ln. 12-22, “When in place on the wrist 20, the protective wristband 10 absorbs perspiration. In particular, the inner layer 12 absorbs the perspiration, which is subsequently drawn by capillary action in a wick-like fashion through the integral connecting edges 30, 31 to the outer layer 13 where it is exposed to the air and evaporates. The hollow interior 32 also contributes to a drying of the wristband 10 as it allows ventilation between the layers 12, 13.”, Col. 4 ln. 24-32, therefore, 10 comprising: 11 formed of an absorbent material having a wrist end and finger end, and the finger end comprises a straight end, figures 1-4).
Hansen fails to teach, wherein the wrist end comprises an elastic seam or synch, and the finger end comprises a straight stitched end.
Santa Cruz, an wrist sleeve protector, Abstract, teaches, wherein the wrist end comprises an elastic seam or synch, and the finger end comprises a straight stitched end (“Still further, each protector (12 & 14) may include additional attachment means for attaching palm section (16) to a glove, such as by each palm section (16) having an elastic band (26) which is secured in place by stitching (28), or the like. However, any other suitable attachment means of engineering choice may be used, such as a draw string or the like. Thus, each protector (12 & 14) is substantially adjustable and will fit different sized gloves or mittens while being worn by the user. Each protector (12 & 14) may further include additional adjustment means which provides a secure fit, such as wrist section (18) further includes an elastic band (30), or the like.”, Col. 3 ln. 40-52, therefore, wherein 18 comprises an elastic seam or synch, and 16 comprises a straight stitched end, figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wrist end and the straight finger end of Hansen with an elastic seam or synch and a straight stitched end respectively as taught by Santa Cruz in order to provide a wrist end that “provides a secure fit”, Col. 3 ln. 50-52, and a finger end that is “adjustable and will fit different sized gloves or mittens while being worn by the user.”, Col. 3 ln. 47-49.
Regarding claim 6, the combined references teach, wherein the tubular body is two ply material fabric (Hansen, “With more particularity, the band 11 is integrally woven such that the inner and outer layers 12, 13 are integrally connected via respective proximal and distal, integral connecting edges 30, 31. The layers 12, 13 and their integral edges 30, 31 form an endless, generally hollow, tubular-like interior 32. The band 11 is typically formed of terry cloth or a terry cloth-like material which is stretchable and elastic, absorbent for absorbing moisture such as perspiration, and breathable. The material forming the band 11 more specifically is 80% cotton, 10% nylon, and 10% rubber knit.”, Col. 3 ln. 12-22, therefore, wherein 11 is two ply fabric, figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, the combined references teach, wherein the tubular body is comprised of two different types of material fabric (Hansen, “The material forming the band 11 more specifically is 80% cotton, 10% nylon, and 10% rubber knit.”, Col. 3 ln. 20-22, therefore, wherein 11 is comprised of two different types of material fabric, figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, the combined references teach, wherein the absorbent material comprises terrycloth, microfiber, cotton, or a moisture-wicking textile (Hansen, “The band 11 is typically formed of terry cloth or a terry cloth-like material which is stretchable and elastic, absorbent for absorbing moisture such as perspiration, and breathable. The material forming the band 11 more specifically is 80% cotton, 10% nylon, and 10% rubber knit.”, Col. 3 ln. 17-22, therefore, wherein the absorbent material comprises terrycloth, microfiber, cotton, or a moisture-wicking textile).
Regarding claim 15, the combined references teach, wherein the tubular body includes a two-ply construction with an absorbent inner layer (“Hansen, “With more particularity, the band 11 is integrally woven such that the inner and outer layers 12, 13 are integrally connected via respective proximal and distal, integral connecting edges 30, 31. The layers 12, 13 and their integral edges 30, 31 form an endless, generally hollow, tubular-like interior 32. The band 11 is typically formed of terry cloth or a terry cloth-like material which is stretchable and elastic, absorbent for absorbing moisture such as perspiration, and breathable. The material forming the band 11 more specifically is 80% cotton, 10% nylon, and 10% rubber knit.”, Col. 3 ln. 12-22, “When in place on the wrist 20, the protective wristband 10 absorbs perspiration. In particular, the inner layer 12 absorbs the perspiration, which is subsequently drawn by capillary action in a wick-like fashion through the integral connecting edges 30, 31 to the outer layer 13 where it is exposed to the air and evaporates. The hollow interior 32 also contributes to a drying of the wristband 10 as it allows ventilation between the layers 12, 13.”, Col. 4 ln. 24-32, therefore, wherein 11 includes a two-ply construction with an absorbent inner layer).
Regarding claim 16, the combined references teach, wherein the tubular body is sized to fit snugly around only a user's wrist (Hansen, wherein 11 is sized to fit snugly around only a user's wrist, figure 1, see also Hansen Col. 4 ln. 11-13, and Santa Cruz, Col.3 ln. 50-52).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (5,329,638)[Hansen] in view of Santa Cruz et al. (6,092,235)[Santa Cruz] in view of Rivera (2017/0135426).
Regarding claim 9, the combined references teach, the tubular body (Hansen, 11, figures 1-3).
The combined references fail to teach, further comprising a longitudinal seam that includes ruching to provide additional absorbent material.
Rivera, a wearable towel, Abstract, teaches, further comprising a longitudinal seam that includes ruching to provide additional absorbent material (“an elongated wrist towel 10 is shown having a towel body 11, a distal edge 12, a proximal edge 13, and a longitudinal seam 14. The towel body 11 defines an elongated sleeve sized to be worn around the arm of a wearer. Accordingly, the towel body 11 is hollow, and includes opposing open ends, thereby allowing the towel body 11 to be slid over the wearer's hand onto the wrist and forearm of the wearer.”, [0023], “The longitudinal seam 14 is created along the length of the towel body 11 at the location where the opposing edges of the towel base 11′ are sewn together in said preferred embodiment.”, [0024], “The longitudinal seam 14 is includes by an elastic strip which is operative to reduce the length of the towel body 11 from the size of the underlying towel base 11′ (12 inches in the illustrated embodiment).”, [0029], “It is contemplated that the elasticity of the longitudinal seam 14 is operative to keep folded and tucked portions of the towel body 11 in place until manually untucked and unfolded by a user thereby adapting the elongated wrist towel 10 to be selectively maintained in progressively extended and compacted positions.”, [0032], therefore, further comprising 14 that includes ruching to provide additional absorbent material, figures 1 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tubular body of the combined references with a longitudinal seam that includes ruching as taught by Rivera in order to provide a tubular body that “may be selectively resized while being worn by a user”, [0031], in which “the elasticity of the longitudinal seam 14 is operative to keep folded and tucked portions of the towel body 11 in place until manually untucked and unfolded by a user thereby adapting the elongated wrist towel 10 to be selectively maintained in progressively extended and compacted positions.”, [0032].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 8, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 6-7 and 9 under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the argument do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. In view of Applicant’s amendment, new prior art has been applied. Applicant’s arguments appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations, which have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, see Office Action above.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 9 that:
“recites a longitudinal seam that includes ruching configured to provide additional absorbent material. Neither Marcus nor Detty discloses or suggests such a feature, and Rivera's teachings do not cure this deficiency. Rivera's longitudinal seam is an elastic tensioning structure used to selectively compact or extend a wearable towel sleeve; it is not used to gather or accumulate fabric for increased absorbency, and it certainly does not teach ruching as claimed.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rivera discloses in [0024] that “The longitudinal seam 14 is created along the length of the towel body 11 at the location where the opposing edges of the towel base 11′ are sewn together in said preferred embodiment.”, discloses in [0029] that “The longitudinal seam 14 is includes by an elastic strip which is operative to reduce the length of the towel body 11 from the size of the underlying towel base 11′ (12 inches in the illustrated embodiment).”, and further discloses in [0032] that “It is contemplated that the elasticity of the longitudinal seam 14 is operative to keep folded and tucked portions of the towel body 11 in place until manually untucked and unfolded by a user thereby adapting the elongated wrist towel 10 to be selectively maintained in progressively extended and compacted positions.”, here as disclosed 14 as a is a longitudinal seam with an elastic strip that includes ruching, here, 14 allows for additional material of the tubular body due to the elastic ruching the absorbent material, in which the material of the tubular body to be selectively moved between extended and compacted positions. Therefore, 14 of Rivera meets all of the limitations as claimed, and applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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 JILLIAN PIERORAZIO whose telephone number is (571)270-0553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
/Jillian K Pierorazio/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732