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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A1, B1, and C2 in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3, 8-10, 15, 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species A2, B2-B4 and C1, C3, and C4, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/03/2026
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
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 2, 12, 14, 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the at least one textile material” which renders the claim indefinite, as one with ordinary skill in the art would be uncertain what component of the garment is required to be a synthetic textile material.
Regarding Claim 12, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the at least one textile material” which renders the claim indefinite, as one with ordinary skill in the art would be uncertain what component of the garment is required to be a synthetic textile material.
Regarding Claim 14, the term “lattice-like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. Terms such as "-like" are similar to terms such as "or the like" or "and the like" which have been held to be indefinite in a claim since they extend the otherwise definite scope of terms to an indefinite scope. (MPEP §2173.05(b)).
Regarding Claim 19, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the at least one textile material” which renders the claim indefinite, as one with ordinary skill in the art would be uncertain what component of the garment is required to be a synthetic textile material.
Regarding Claim 24, the term “loosely packed” is a subjective term without further definition in the Specification that renders the scope of the claim uncertain and indefinite. (MPEP §2173.05(b)).
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.
Claim 1, 13, 14, 16, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2015/0366281 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Miller teaches garment, jacket or pants, (Paragraph 0011), having at least one component material (Fig. 1A-1D) comprising a convex layer (Item 22), where the convex layer defines a plurality of concave structures (Item 14) and each of the concave structure includes fabric having a thinner width than the surrounding convex layer (Claim 25 of Miller; Fig. 1A-4). Miller teaches each distance between the troughs of two adjacent concave structure can more than 5 mm. (Paragraph 0094). This allows the concave structures to be spacing to overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Miller teaches the concave structures form a grid pattern, where the spacing between each of the concave structure are approximately equal to algin both horizontally and vertically to crate a uniform layout on the component material (Fig 1A, 15, 24)
Regarding Claim 16, Miller teaches the concave structures are formed from woven fabrics (Paragraph 0022); therefore, the concave structures are formed from one more gaps located between interlocking loops of yarn.
Regarding Claim 25, Miller teaches the plurality of concave structure form air pockets that enhance thermal insulating properties of the component. (Paragraph 0026).
Regarding Claim 26, Miller teaches the plurality of concave structures comprise hollow cut outs passing through the component material. (Paragraph 0018).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Kamat et al. (US 4,495,661 A).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Miller teaches the garment can be a jacket (Paragraph 0011). Miller does not specifically teach the garment is a suit jacket wherein a rigid interlining material is disposed on at least a front panel of the suit jacket.
Kamat teaches a suit jacket (Column 2-3) comprising a rigid interlining material attached to a resilient material, where the rigid interlining material is disposed on the front panel of a suit jacket. (Fig. 1-3) Kamat teaches attaching this rigid layer to a resilient layer improves garment durability (Column 3-4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply a rigid interlining material to the component material of Miller in a suit jacket to yield a more durable suit jacket.
Claim 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Stevens et al. (US 2023/0015684 A1).
Regarding Claim 6-7, Miller does not specifically teach the garment includes one or more stretch panels constructed from elastane.
Stevens teaches garments comprising stretch panels formed from elastane. (Paragraph 0030, 0036). Stevens teaches these stretch panels allow for a better fit for the garment. (Paragraph 0003-0005). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply stretch panels of elastane to the garment of Miller to ensure a better fit for the garment.
Claim 11, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Emden et al. (US 2008/0096001 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Miller does not teach a layer of hydrophilic polymers disposed at a surface of the at least one component material.
Emden teaches fabric for garments (Paragraph 0001), where a layer of hydrophilic polymers is applied a component fabric. (Paragraph 0034). Emden teaches this hydrophilic layer acts as a wicking layer and improves the comfort of the garment. (Paragraph 0009-0013). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add a hydrophilic layer onto the component fabric of Miller to ensure wicking occurs and improves the garment’s comfort.
Regarding Claim 20, Miller does not specifically teach the at least one component material is treated with a chemical formulation configured to improve wrinkle resistance.
Emden teaches fabric for garments, (Paragraph 0001), where a fabric component is treated with hydrophobic polymers. (Paragraph 0038-0040). Emden teaches this combination of hydrophilic coatings ensures proper wicking of moisture away from the users body, which improves the user’s comfort. (Paragraph 0038-0040). In addition, hydrophobic coatings inherently will improve wrinkle resistance. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply a hydrophobic coating that improves wicking and improves wrinkle resistance as taught by Emden to further improve comfort of the garment.
Regarding Claim 21, Miller does not teach the at least one component material is treated with a chemical formula configured to improve breathability.
Emden teaches fabric for garments, (Paragraph 0001), where a fabric component is treated with hydrophobic polymers to make the fabric more breathable (Paragraph 0058). Emden teaches this chemical treatment of improved breathability aids in the comfort of the garment. (Paragraph 0009-0011, 0058). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply a chemical coating to improve breathability in order to increase the comfort of the garment.
Claim 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Teijin (NPL)
Regarding Claim 22-23, Miller does no specifically teach the component is a warp knit mesh waffle structure, where the convex layer is formed from rib stitches.
Teijin teaches a fabric suitable for garments comprising a warp knit mesh waffle structure with rib stitches. Teijin teaches this fabric provides the advantage of good water repellency with high durability. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed fabric type in Miller for a durable and water repellent fabric to yield a water repellent and durable fabric.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights