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
The amendments filed with the written response received on November 7, 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 15, 19 and 20 have been amended; claim 12 is canceled (Examiner notes that, in the marked-up copy of the claims, the text of canceled claim 12 was improperly included; Applicant is suggested to not include the canceled claim text in any future correspondence that may involve a cancellation of any of the claims). Accordingly, claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they introduce new matter into the disclosure. Specifically, the location of the added reinforcement stitching is considered new matter, because nothing in the originally-filed disclosure describes the reinforcement stitching as being spaced away from the edges, the stitching’s visual size, stitching shape, stitching type, as the replacement sheets appear to now show. At best, the originally-filed disclosure describes the reinforcement stitching as being “at the edges” (see ¶ 0012 and 0028 of the Specification and original claim 12). Therefore, the only place for the reinforcement stitching to be appropriately identified in the drawings would be “at the edges” (i.e. coincident with the opposing edges, not spaced inward therefrom), as supported by the original disclosure. Applicant may consider merely pointing a new leading line (114) that points to the bold edge line in the figure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20, Applicant recites the limitation “the tubular structure body”, which lacks clear antecedent basis in the claims. In independent claim 13, from which claim 20 depends, Applicant positively recites “a tubular elastic body” (line 2). Should “the tubular structure body” be interpreted as “the tubular elastic body”? Correction is required. For purposes of examination, “the tubular structure body” in claim 20 is being interpreted as “the tubular elastic body”.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US 2020/0029636) in view of Mullings (US 2018/0271187).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kelly discloses a multipurpose wearable liquid-absorbent sleeve (wristband #10; see Abstract and ¶ 0004 of Kelly which describe moisture absorption functionality; Examiner notes that the adjective “multipurpose” adds no structurally-distinguishing description of the sleeve, and the Kelly wristband is capable of being used for multiple purposes), comprising: a body having a transverse passage forming an accommodation space (see Fig. 5; combination of substrate #12 and shell #14 is a body; there is an open cavity interior of the inner substrate layer #12; this open cavity can accommodate a wrist and/or arm of a user), wherein the body is configured to be worn around a forearm of a user (Fig. 1; ¶ 0004 of Kelly; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense), wherein the body comprises: an outer layer (shell #14); and an inner layer (substrate #12) configured to absorb liquids (¶ 0040 of Kelly describes substrate #12 to be moisture absorbing and hydrophilic) that run down the user's palm during upward hand movements while washing the user's face or moisturizing with an applicant (since the substrate #12 (i.e. inner layer) is configured to absorb liquid, then it is capable of being used in the hypothetical manner described, including during “upward hand movements while washing the user’s face or moisturizing with an applicant”, absent further distinguishing structural limitations in the claim; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense); a fastening assembly disposed between the inner layer and the outer layer (¶ 0043 of Kelly describes that the shell #14 is associated with the outer surface of substrate #12 via adhesives, stitches, hook and loop fasteners, etc. (i.e. adhesives, stitches, hook and loop fasteners are all types of a fastening assembly), wherein the fastening assembly is configured to secure the multipurpose wearable liquid-absorbent sleeve around the forearm or an upper wrist of the user (as shown in Fig. 1 of Kelly, the sleeve is secured around the forearm or an upper wrist of the user), wherein the multipurpose wearable liquid-absorbent sleeve is configured to prevent the liquids from running down the forearm during the upward hand movements while either washing or moisturizing the user's face (since the inner layer is configured to absorb moisture, the wristband #10 is capable of performing this function, absent further distinguishing structural limitations in the claim; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense). Kelly teaches that the sleeve has opposing edges, but is silent to the edges including reinforcement stitching at said opposing edges to prevent fraying of the sleeve over time and enhance durability.
Mullings teaches an arm sleeve with opposing ends #4 and #5, wherein the ends have seamed edges that are sewn in order to limit fraying from wear (¶ 0050 of Mullings).
Kelly and Mullings teach analogous inventions in the field of arm sleeves with open opposed ends. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have applied a sewn seam at the open ends in order to limit fraying from wear, as taught by Mullings, as noted above, wherein the resulting structure would include reinforcement stitching (via the added sewn seams at the edges taught by Mullings and incorporated into Kelly) at the opposed edges, which would be capable of enhancing durability and preventing fraying of the sleeve over time, absent further distinguishing structural limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the modified sleeve of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Mullings, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the outer layer is configured to be infused with moisturizers, scents, or other personal care substances (Examiner notes that claim 3 does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense, as it only describes a function of the outer layer without describing any structural nexus as to how the functionality is actually afforded to the structure; ¶ 0050 of Kelly describes that the substrate #12 and/or shell #14 (i.e. outer layer) can be single or double sidedly dip or spray coated with various agents, or alternatively one or both components may be impregnated with one or more of the agents (i.e. “infused with personal care substances”)).
Regarding claim 4, the modified sleeve of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Mullings, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the outer layer is made of a material having a lower thickness than the inner layer (Fig. 5 of Kelly shows a cross-sectional view, wherein the shell #14 (i.e. outer layer) has a lower thickness than substrate #12 (i.e. inner layer)) and comprises at least one of fabric-based materials, synthetic materials and natural materials (¶ 0044-0049 of Kelly describe various natural (“cotton”, “wool”, “bamboo” to name a few natural examples) and synthetic (“polyester”, “polypropylene”, “spandex” to name a few synthetic examples) materials, as well as fabric-based materials (“polyester knit mesh” to name one)).
Regarding claim 5, the modified sleeve of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Mullings, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the liquids comprise at least one of water, face washes, cleansers, moisturizer and personal care substances (¶ 0015 and claim 3 of Kelly describe water absorption).
Regarding claim 6, the modified sleeve of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Mullings, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the fastening assembly comprises at least one of hook-and-loop fasteners, elastic bands, snap fasteners, zippers, and magnetic fasteners (“hook and loop fasteners”; ¶ 0043 of Kelly).
Regarding claim 7, the modified sleeve of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Mullings, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the body is made of an elastic structure (various elastic materials are recited among ¶ 0043-0049 of Kelly for the substrate and shell layers, such as “elastomeric material” (¶ 0044), “elastane” (¶ 0046), “spandex” (¶ 0049)).
Regarding claim 9, the modified sleeve of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Mullings, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the inner layer has a thickness (see Fig. 5; substrate #12 has a thickness), wherein the inner layer is configured to maximize liquid retention while maintaining user comfort (the substrate is made of hydrophilic, moisture absorbing material, so it can absorb at least some maximum amount of liquid and retain the liquid; Examiner notes that user comfort is subjective and at least some degree of user comfort is obtainable by the substrate #12).
Regarding claim 10, the modified sleeve of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Mullings, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the multipurpose wearable liquid-absorbent sleeve is configured to conform to the user’s forearm for a secure and comfortable fit (Examiner notes that claim 10’s functional language is dependent on the size of the user’s anatomy; the device #10 is made of stretchable materials, which renders the sleeve capable of conforming to a user’s forearm, permitted that the user’s forearm is either of equal or larger circumference than the interior of the sleeve; ¶ 0041 of Kelly describes that the device, while shown as a wristband, is also contemplated for use with armbands).
Regarding claim 11, the modified sleeve of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Mullings, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the body has a tubular structure (Fig. 5 of Kelly) and is designed to cover a substantial portion of the forearm, providing extended protection against liquid runoff (¶ 0041 of Kelly describes that the device, while shown as a wristband, is also contemplated for use with armbands; Examiner notes that the claim has not defined any particular dimensional length for what is considered a “forearm” of the user, and that a single wristband #10 may cover more of a shorter arm’s forearm than a longer arm’s forearm; since the substrate #12 (i.e. inner layer) is absorbent and the outer shell #14 is moisture wicking (¶ 0044 of Kelly), at least some degree of liquid runoff protection is provided, inasmuch as the structure of the claim defines).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Mullings as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mignone (USPN 9,936,751).
Regarding claim 2, the modified sleeve of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Mullings, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. Kelly teaches that the substrate #12 is made of thick absorbent material (Fig. 5; ¶ 0040 of Kelly), but does not specify whether the substrate #12 (i.e. inner layer) is made of at least one of microfiber, foam, terry, and sponge.
Mignone teaches an absorptive arm sleeve (Title of Mignone) that includes a primary absorptive material that can be terry cloth, and utilize other flexible absorptive materials, including sponge material and microfiber cloth (Col. 2, Lines 60-65 of Mignone).
Modified Kelly and Mignone teach analogous inventions in the field of absorptive arm sleeves. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used either of terry cloth, sponge material or microfiber cloth as the moisture-absorbing material of choice for the substrate #12 of Kelly, as taught by Mignone, in order to provide a known alternative material that can perform the desired function of absorbing moisture for the user. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Mullings as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (hereinafter “Smith”) (US 2014/0157475).
Regarding claim 8, the modified sleeve of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Mullings, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but is silent to there being a hanger member integrally attached to the body that is configured to facilitate the suspension of the body on a vertical surface for drying.
Smith teaches an arm sleeve assembly, including a tubular member (see Figs. 3-5 of Smith) that has a hanging loop #6 (see Fig. 5 of Smith) attached to the cuff end “to provide a mechanism for hanging the sleeved glove for drying after use and washing” (¶ 0034 of Smith).
Modified Kelly and Smith teach analogous inventions in the field of arm sleeves. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added the hanging loop of Smith to either of the open ends of Kelly’s device #10 in order to provide a mechanism for hanging the device for drying after use and washing, as taught by Smith, as noted above (i.e. the hanging loop is a “hanger member”).
Claims 13 and 15-20 (claim 20 as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Smith.
Regarding independent claim 13, Kelly discloses a multipurpose wearable liquid-absorbent sleeve (wristband #10; see Abstract and ¶ 0004 of Kelly which describe moisture absorption functionality; Examiner notes that the adjective “multipurpose” adds no structurally-distinguishing description of the sleeve, and the Kelly wristband is capable of being used for multiple purposes), comprising: a tubular elastic body having a transverse passage forming an accommodation space through the multipurpose wearable liquid-absorbent sleeve (see Fig. 5 of Kelly; combination of substrate #12 and shell #14 is a tubular elastic body (¶ 0040 and 0044-0049 of Kelly describe elastic materials for each layer); there is an open cavity interior of the inner substrate layer #12; this open cavity can accommodate a wrist and/or arm of a user), wherein the tubular elastic body is configured to be worn around a forearm of a user (Fig. 1 of Kelly; ¶ 0004 of Kelly; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense), wherein the tubular elastic body includes: an inner layer (substrate #12) made of a thick absorbent material (see Fig. 5 of Kelly; substrate #12 has a thickness; ¶ 0040 of Kelly describes substrate #12 to be moisture absorbing and hydrophilic), which is adapted to capture and hold liquids that run down the user's palm during upward hand movements (since the substrate #12 (i.e. inner layer) is configured to absorb liquid, then it is capable of being used in the hypothetical manner described, including during “upward hand movements” to capture and hold liquids that run down the user’s palm, absent further distinguishing structural limitations in the claim; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense); and an outer layer (shell #14) made of a material that is thinner than the inner layer's thick absorbent material (Fig. 5 of Kelly shows a cross-sectional view, wherein the shell #14 (i.e. outer layer) has a lower thickness than substrate #12 (i.e. inner layer)), which is adapted to being optionally infused with moisturizers, scents, or other personal care substances (¶ 0050 of Kelly describes that the substrate #12 and/or shell #14 (i.e. outer layer) can be single or double sidedly dip or spray coated with various agents, or alternatively one or both components may be impregnated with one or more of the agents (i.e. “infused with personal care substances”); Examiner notes that this language does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense, as it only describes a function of the outer layer without describing any structural nexus as to how the functionality is actually afforded to the structure); a fastening assembly disposed between the inner layer and the outer layer (¶ 0043 of Kelly describes that the shell #14 is associated with the outer surface of substrate #12 via adhesives, stitches, hook and loop fasteners, etc. (i.e. adhesives, stitches, hook and loop fasteners are all types of a fastening assembly)), and wherein the fastening assembly is configured to fasten the multipurpose wearable liquid-absorbent sleeve around the forearm or an upper wrist of the user (as shown in Fig. 1 of Kelly, the sleeve is secured around the forearm or an upper wrist of the user), wherein the multipurpose wearable liquid-absorbent sleeve is configured to prevent the liquids from running down the forearm during the upward hand movements while either washing or moisturizing user's face (since the inner layer is configured to absorb moisture, the wristband #10 is capable of performing this function; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense). Kelly is silent to there being a hanger member integrally attached to the tubular elastic body configured to facilitate the suspension of the tubular elastic body on a vertical surface for drying.
Smith teaches an arm sleeve assembly, including a tubular member (see Figs. 3-5 of Smith) that has a hanging loop #6 attached to the cuff end “to provide a mechanism for hanging the sleeved glove for drying after use and washing” (¶ 0034 of Smith).
Kelly and Smith teach analogous inventions in the field of arm sleeves. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added the hanging loop of Smith to either of the open ends of Kelly’s device #10 in order to provide a mechanism for hanging the device for drying after use and washing, as taught by Smith, as noted above (i.e. the hanging loop is a “hanger member”).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Smith, as applied to claim 13 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13, as set forth above, and teaches that the thinner material of the outer layer comprises at least one of fabric-based materials, synthetic materials and natural materials (¶ 0044-0049 of Kelly describe various natural (“cotton”, “wool”, “bamboo” to name a few natural examples) and synthetic (“polyester”, “polypropylene”, “spandex” to name a few synthetic examples) materials, as well as fabric-based materials (“polyester knit mesh” to name one)).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Smith, as applied to claim 13 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13, as set forth above, and teaches that the liquids comprise at least one of water, face washes, cleansers, moisturizer and other personal care substances (¶ 0015 and claim 3 of Kelly describe water absorption).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Smith, as applied to claim 13 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13, as set forth above, and teaches that the fastening assembly comprises at least one of hook-and-loop fasteners, elastic bands, snap fasteners, zippers, and magnetic fasteners (“hook and loop fasteners”; ¶ 0043 of Kelly).
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Smith, as applied to claim 13 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13, as set forth above, and teaches that the inner layer has a thickness (see Fig. 5 of Kelly; substrate #12 has a thickness), wherein the inner layer is configured to maximize liquid retention while maintaining user comfort (the substrate is made of hydrophilic, moisture absorbing material, so it can absorb at least some maximum amount of liquid and retain the liquid; Examiner notes that user comfort is subjective and at least some degree of user comfort is obtainable by the substrate #12).
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Smith, as applied to claim 13 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13, as set forth above, and teaches that the multipurpose wearable liquid-absorbent sleeve is configured to conform to the user’s forearm for a secure and comfortable fit (Examiner notes that claim 19’s functional language is dependent on the size of the user’s anatomy; the device #10 is made of stretchable materials, which renders the sleeve capable of conforming to a user’s forearm, permitted that the user’s forearm is either of equal or larger circumference than the interior of the sleeve; ¶ 0041 of Kelly describes that the device, while shown as a wristband, is also contemplated for use with armbands).
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Smith, as applied to claim 13 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13, as set forth above, and teaches that the tubular [elastic] body (Fig. 5 of Kelly) is designed to cover a substantial portion of the user’s forearm, providing extended protection against liquid runoff (¶ 0041 of Kelly describes that the device, while shown as a wristband, is also contemplated for use with armbands; Examiner notes that the claim has not defined any particular dimensional length for what is considered a “forearm” of the user, and that a single wristband #10 may cover more of a shorter arm’s forearm than a longer arm’s forearm; since the substrate #12 (i.e. inner layer) is absorbent and the outer shell #14 is moisture wicking (¶ 0044 of Kelly), at least some degree of liquid runoff protection is provided, inasmuch as the structure of the claim defines).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Smith as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Mignone.
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Kelly (i.e. Kelly in view of Smith, as applied to claim 13 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13, as set forth above, but does not specify whether the thick absorbent material of the substrate #12 (i.e. inner layer) is made of at least one of microfiber, foam, terry, and sponge.
Mignone teaches an absorptive arm sleeve (Title of Mignone) that includes a primary absorptive material that can be terry cloth, and utilize other flexible absorptive materials, including sponge material and microfiber cloth (Col. 2, Lines 60-65 of Mignone).
Modified Kelly and Mignone teach analogous inventions in the field of absorptive arm sleeves. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used either of terry cloth, sponge material or microfiber cloth as the moisture-absorbing material of choice for the substrate #12 of Kelly, as taught by Mignone, in order to provide a known alternative material that can perform the desired function of absorbing moisture for the user. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Drawing objections
Applicant contends that no new matter was introduced with their corrected Drawing sheets (Page 2 of Remarks). However, Examiner notes that the specific visual placement of the added reinforcement stitching 114 in the replacement is deemed new matter, for the reasons detailed in the Drawing objection section at the beginning of the present Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner has withdrawn the interpretation of “fastening assembly” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in claims 1 and 13. In light of MPEP 2181(I)(A) citing an example of “connector assembly” as not invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Examiner determines that “fastening assembly” is in the similar form as “connector assembly”. Since Applicant has indicated that “fastening assembly” should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), then the “fastening assembly” in the claim is being interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation without reading the limitations in the Specification into the claim.
Various aspects of Kelly (US 2020/0029636), previously applied as 102 reference
Applicant argues that the claimed invention “is specifically structured to absorb and manage liquid runoff from the hand and arms during personal care routines” (Page 10 of Remarks). Applicant argues that Kelly’s invention is a short wristband intended to be worn “proximate the wrist” and that Kelly would not teach a coverage of “a substantial portion of the forearm to intercept liquids before the drip onto clothing”. Examiner notes, first, that the claim fails to define any specific dimensions for the length of the sleeve, and further fails to define how much coverage would be a “substantial portion”. Second, as explained in the previous Office Action and again above, Kelly teaches that while its present invention is disclosed as a wristband body, it could also be applied in the form of an armband (¶ 0041 of Kelly).
Applicant argues that Kelly disclosing that the outer shell may be associated with the substrate by various fastener examples is not a fastening assembly for securing the device around a limb (Pages 11-12 of Remarks). Examiner notes that the only structural limitation assigned to the fastening assembly in claim 1 is that the fastening assembly is disposed between the inner layer and the outer layer. Since the substrate (i.e. inner layer) and the outer shell (i.e. outer layer) are associated with one another via fastener examples, including hook-and-loop, then one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the hook-and-loop example would be disposed where those layers interface one another, which would be in between those layers, based on the layers’ location with respect to one another in Fig. 5 of Kelly. Applicant has not defined any structural nexus between how the fastening assembly’s structure actually secures the claimed device around a limb of the user. Since Kelly teaches that the hook-and-loop example associates the outer shell with the substrate, then it meets the structural limitations of the claim, absent further distinguishing structural limitations.
Applicant argues that the “outer layer infusion with moisturizers/scents” is a structural adaptation of the claimed invention (Page 12 of Remarks). Examiner notes that the claims do not require moisturizers/scents as structural parts of the claimed invention, but instead recites in claim 3 “wherein the outer layer is configured to be infused with moisturizers, scents, or other personal care substances” and analogously in claim 13 “an outer layer…which is adapted to being optionally infused with moisturizers, scents, or other personal care substances”. These limitations do not positively require the presence of moisturizers/scents, but instead only recite that the outer layer be functionally capable of being infused with “moisturizers, scents, or other personal care substances”. Nevertheless, in Kelly, ¶ 0050 describes that the substrate #12 and/or shell #14 (i.e. outer layer) can be single or double sidedly dip or spray coated with various agents, or alternatively one or both components may be impregnated with one or more of the agents (i.e. “infused with personal care substances”). Regarding Applicant’s comments on Kelly lacking a hanger member or reinforcement stitching, Examiner notes that Kelly is not relied upon for addressing these features in the claim.
Applicant’s argument on Page 16 of the Remarks again attacks Kelly’s teaching of infusion of moisturizers, scents or other personal care substances. Again, claim 3 does not require these substances as being present, only that the outer layer be “configured to be” infused with such items. Kelly clearly teaches that the outer shell or substrate can be dip or spray coated with various agents. An antimicrobial or antifungal agent would be recognized as an example of a personal care substance. Regardless, Applicant has not structurally defined their claimed invention in any distinguishing manner as it pertains to how it would structurally differ from the Kelly material with respect to being “configured to” being infused with moisturizers, scents or other personal care substances.
Applicant argues (Page 17 of Remarks) that Kelly does not explicitly disclose a designated thickness differentiation between the inner and outer layers as a structural feature” and contents that Kelly’s Fig. 5 illustration is not to scale. Examiner maintains that Kelly’s depicted cross-section in Fig. 5 shows that substrate #12 (i.e. inner layer) has a greater thicker than the outer shell #14 (i.e. outer layer).
Applicant argues (Page 18 of Remarks) that Kelly does not teach or suggest that the liquids absorbed by its inner layer (substrate #12) would include face washes, cleansers, moisturizers, or other personal care substances, even though Kelly discloses that the inner substrate may be hydrophilic or water-absorbing (¶ 0015 of Kelly). This argument by Applicant is confusing, because claim 5 lists “water” as an example of an acceptable one of the “liquids” referenced in independent claim 1. Moisture-absorbing and hydrophilic materials for the inner substrate would be able to absorb water.
Applicant argues (Page 19 of Remarks) that Kelly does not teach the subject matter of claim 6. As explained above, Kelly teaches that a hook-and-loop fastener can be used to associate the substrate with the outer shell. Since the only place where these layers are associated with one another is at their interface (i.e. inner surface of outer shell #14; outer surface of substrate #12), which is between the layers, then Kelly teaches that hook-and-loop fasteners can be present in between the layers. Applicant’s claims have not structurally differentiated how their claimed fastening assembly examples of “hook-and-loop fasteners” recited in claim 6 would be structurally different from the hook-and-loop fasteners of Kelly. Since the sleeve of Kelly is secured on the arm, and the hook-and-loop fasteners are present between the layers, then all of the structural limitations of the product claim are met.
Applicant argues (Pages 20-21 of Remarks) regarding claim 7, that claim 7 expressly recites “a body formed entirely of an elastic structure”. Examiner notes that claim 7 recites “wherein the body is made of an elastic structure”. Examiner further notes that “elastic structure” is a very broad term. Further, ¶ 0044 of Kelly discloses that the shell #14 (i.e. outer layer of body) is formed of elastomeric material. ¶ 0049 of Kelly discloses that substrate can be a blend of at least two of various materials, including cotton and spandex, both of which have degrees of elasticity, especially when blended. Therefore, the body of Kelly is, in fact, made of an elastic structure, wherein (even though not recited in the claim) it is “entirely” elastic, to some degree.
Applicant argues (Pages 21-22 of Remarks) that “Kelly does not disclose nor suggest the specific thickness-based configuration of the inner layer recited in claim 9”. Claim 9 recites “the inner layer has a thickness, wherein the inner layer is configured to maximize liquid retention while maintaining user comfort”. The only structural limitation of claim 9 is that the inner layer has a thickness. The functional language of “wherein the inner layer is configured to maximize liquid retention while maintaining user comfort” is not defined with any nexus directed to the thickness. Further, “user comfort” is subjective. Further, the claim does not define what is considered to be “maximize[d] liquid retention”. Kelly teaches that the substrate is formed of hydrophilic, water-absorbing material, so it can retain at least some maximum level of liquid therein. If such additional support were present in the originally-filed disclosure, Applicant would be suggested to further define specific thickness dimensions and specific material types, along with specific quantifiable absorbency criteria (mass of water absorbed by specific volume or area of a fabric unit, for example) in order to overcome the prior art. However, Applicant’s disclosure does not appear contain such support.
Applicant argues (Pages 22-23 of Remarks) that Kelly does not teach “specific dimensional tailoring” required in claim 10. Claim 10 recites “the multipurpose wearable liquid-absorbent sleeve is configured to conform to the user’s forearm for a secure and comfortable fit”. Kelly teaches that its device can be in the form of an armband. Further, the depicted device in Fig. 1 is shown to conform to the user’s forearm. The wrist and parts of the arm covered in Fig. 1 are part of the forearm. Examiner notes that the boundary of “forearm” has not been dimensionally defined in the claims. Since Kelly teaches that the wristband can be an armband (as explained above), then Kelly’s device is capable of conforming to the user’s forearm for a secure and comfortable fit.
Similarly, with respect to claim 11, (Pages 23-24 of Remarks), Applicant again argues about the size and coverage of the device of Kelly with respect to a hypothetical user’s forearm. The same response that applies to claim 10 above applies to this argument regarding claim 11. The claims fail to clearly define any particular quantifiable dimensions for what Applicant considers a “substantial portion of a forearm”.
35 U.S.C. 103 related arguments
Claim 2: Applicant argues (Pages 25-27 of Remarks) that substituting a terry cloth, sponge or microfiber cloth from Mignone as the material of choice for the substrate of Kelly would contradict Kelly’s focus on lightweight, elastic sports performance apparel. This is not found persuasive because Kelly never mentions a desire for “lightweight” material. Also, terry cloth, sponge and microfiber cloth, which are known absorbent materials, would serve the same desired purpose for the inner substrate of Kelly, which is to be absorbent. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that terry cloth, sponge material and microfiber cloth would be acceptable substitutions for a known purpose of absorbing moisture, as desired by Kelly.
Kelly in view of Smith: Applicant argues (Pages 27-32 of Remarks) against the incorporation of Smith’s hanging loop into Kelly’s sleeve. Applicant argues that since Smith is directed to a heavy-duty impermeable protective equipment used in industrial or hazardous environments, that such a hanging loop would not be applicable to Kelly’s device used for sweat absorption. This is not found persuasive because both Kelly and Smith involve arm sleeves. The addition of a hanging loop from Smith into Kelly’s device would provide an added benefit of permitting the Kelly sleeve to be hanged up for drying, as taught by Smith in ¶ 0018, 0034.
Claim 15: Applicant argues (Pages 33-34 of Remarks) that Kelly’s disclosure of polyester knit mesh, elastane, cotton, and bamboo (examples of shell #14 in ¶ 0049 of Kelly) are apparently not examples of “fabric-based, synthetic, or natural materials” as required for the outer layer to comprise in claim 15. This argument is confusing. Cotton is a natural material. Bamboo is a natural material. Polyester and elastane are synthetic materials. Further, polyester knit mesh is a fabric material (¶ 0024, 0048 of Kelly, which states as such as one example usable for the shell).
Claims 16-20: Applicant’s relevant arguments on Pages 34-40 were already addressed above, under the “Various aspects…” heading.
Kelly in view of Mullings: Applicant argues (Pages 41-42 of Remarks) that adding reinforcement stitching from Mullings to the opposing edges of Kelly would add bulk, rigidity, and discomfort contrary to Kelly’s intended use. This argument is based on speculation, and Examiner maintains that the additional reinforcement edge stitching would provide more of an improvement to the prevention of fraying than it would add such alleged bulk, rigidity or discomfort to Kelly’s device. Applicant also argues that their own reinforcement stitching at the edge is structurally tailored specifically to enhance durability and prevent fraying during repeated liquid absorption and drying cycles in personal care routines. Examiner notes that Mullings does, in fact, teach that the reinforcement edge stitching is for the purpose of preventing fraying. Applicant’s repeated identification of the intended use of their own device being for personal care routines does not patentably distinguish their claimed product invention over the structure of the applied prior art. Applicant is suggested to add actual structurally-distinguishing features to the claims in order to overcome the combinations of prior art applied, not merely identify that the claimed invention is intended for certain uses of personal care routines. Applicant also argues that Kelly’s device “already contemplates durable elastomeric blends…that inherently resist fraying”. This comment is found speculative, as Kelly never mentions “fraying” or “durability” as being solved by its device’s component materials.
Claim 14 (applicability of Mignone reference): Applicant’s substantive relevant arguments on Pages 43-45 were already addressed above, with respect to claim 2.
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 JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732