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 Amendments
The amendments filed with the written response received on 30 March 2026 have been considered. As directed by the amendment, claim(s) 1 has/have been amended, claim(s) 10-16 is/are canceled, and claim(s) 17-27 has/have been added. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-9 and 17-27 is/are pending in this application with an action on the merits to follow.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed 30 March 2026, are hereby withdrawn:
Objections to the Drawings
Rejections under 35 USC 101
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“cinching mechanisms” in claim 5
“securing mechanisms” in claim 8
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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “wherein the front portion, the back portion, and the first side portion bound a first arm opening configured to receive a first arm of the user, the first side portion being configured to only allow the first arm of the user to be placed in the first arm opening by extending the first arm through the arm opening” which is considered new matter. The written description does not disclose this structure and the structure is not clearly discernable in the drawings. With regards to the written description, there is discussion of “When the one side portion 130 is selectively positioned in an open configuration in which it is uncoupled from the front portion 110 or back portion 120, the head opening 136 and arm opening 140 opposite the one side portion 130 are unaffected, but the arm opening 140 on the same side as the one side portion 130 is “open” in that a lower segment is not defined by the upper edge 142 of the one side portion 130. This configuration of the one side portion 130 allows for ‘side entry’ of the garment 100 which enables the user to put on or take off the garment 100 quickly and easily. For example, to put on the garment 100, the user may extend their head through the head opening 136 while extending one arm through the arm opening 140 opposite the one side portion 130 in one smooth motion before ‘closing’ the arm opening 140 on the same side as the one side portion 130 about the other arm by selectively positioning the one side portion 130 in the closed configuration,” in ¶0014, however these statements do not specifically state that “the front portion, the back portion, and the first side portion bound a first arm opening configured to receive a first arm of the user, the first side portion being configured to only allow the first arm of the user to be placed in the first arm opening by extending the first arm through the arm opening”. Further, the Applicant’s Drawings do not show a user donning the garment and also does not show any structure that would support a limitation of “only allow the first arm of the user to be placed in the first arm opening”.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the removeable coupling of the second side portion to said other of the front portion or the back portion being configured to permit a second arm of the user to be placed in the second arm opening by moving the second arm between the second side portion and said other of the front portion or the back portion when the second side portion and said other of the front portion or the back portion are uncoupled from one another” which is considered new matter. The written description does not disclose this structure and the structure is not clearly discernable in the drawings. With regards to the written description, there is discussion of “When the one side portion 130 is selectively positioned in an open configuration in which it is uncoupled from the front portion 110 or back portion 120, the head opening 136 and arm opening 140 opposite the one side portion 130 are unaffected, but the arm opening 140 on the same side as the one side portion 130 is “open” in that a lower segment is not defined by the upper edge 142 of the one side portion 130. This configuration of the one side portion 130 allows for ‘side entry’ of the garment 100 which enables the user to put on or take off the garment 100 quickly and easily. For example, to put on the garment 100, the user may extend their head through the head opening 136 while extending one arm through the arm opening 140 opposite the one side portion 130 in one smooth motion before ‘closing’ the arm opening 140 on the same side as the one side portion 130 about the other arm by selectively positioning the one side portion 130 in the closed configuration,” in ¶0014, however these statements do not specifically state that “the removeable coupling of the second side portion to said other of the front portion or the back portion being configured to permit a second arm of the user to be placed in the second arm opening by moving the second arm between the second side portion and said other of the front portion or the back portion when the second side portion and said other of the front portion or the back portion are uncoupled from one another”. Further, the Applicant’s Drawings do not show a user donning the garment and also does not show any structure that would support a limitation of “the removeable coupling of the second side portion to said other of the front portion or the back portion being configured to permit a second arm of the user to be placed in the second arm opening by moving the second arm between the second side portion and said other of the front portion or the back portion when the second side portion and said other of the front portion or the back portion are uncoupled from one another”.
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(s) 2-3 and 6 (and claims 7-8 at least for depending from a rejected claim) is/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.
Claim 2-3 and 6 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) a “stretch material”. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill would determine how much stretch a material must/can have to be considered a “stretch material”. The Applicant’s Specification does not provide properties nor further descriptions of “stretch materials” to facilitate in understanding. Further, the Examiner notes that while materials that have stretching properties are well-known in the art, a material that has stretching properties and a “stretch material” are not always the same thing. it is unclear what the Applicant considers a “stretch material”. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as a “stretch material” being any garment material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puco US 5909802.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Puco discloses a garment (Figs. 1-4 #10) comprising: a front portion (Figs. 1-4 #20/30); a back portion opposite the front portion (Figs. 1-4 #12); and a pair of side portions (Figs. 1-4 #18/17/24/34) extending between the front portion and the back portion (Figs. 1-4), the pair of side portions configured to be adjustable to cinch the garment around a user (Col. 3:55-58), wherein the pair of side portions include a first side portion (Figs. 1-4 #24) and a second side portion (Figs. 1-4 #34), the first side portion being integrally coupled to the front portion and the back portion at a first side of the garment (Figs. 1-4 #24 on right side when zipped closed; as for “integral”, the term “integral” is defined simply as “formed as a unit with another part” in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 607 [10th ed. 1999]. And the Federal Circuit has repeatedly found, in the context of particular patents, that the patentee's use of the term “integral” encompassed both a unitary object and an object with multiple attached parts. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 967–68 [C.C.P.A. 1965]; Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc., 887 F.2d 1070, 1073–74 [Fed. Cir. 1989); Henderson v. Grable, 339 F.2d 465, 470 [C.C.P.A. 1964]; In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055–56 [Fed. Cir. 1997]]), and the second side portion being integrally coupled to one of the front portion or the back portion at a second side of the garment (Figs. 1-4 #34 on left side when zipped), and the second side portion being removably coupled to the other of the front portion or the back portion at the second side of the garment (Figs. 1-4; Col. 3:19-47).
Regarding Claim 4, Puco discloses the garment of claim 1, further comprising one or more fasteners (Figs. 1-4 #60/201/202/203/206/207/208/220/221; Col. 3:19-55) configured to removably couple the second side portion to said other of the front portion or the back portion at the second side of the garment (Col. 3:19-55).
Regarding Claim 5, Puco discloses the garment of claim 1, further comprising one or more cinching mechanisms (Applicant's “cinching mechanisms” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Applicant' s “cinching mechanisms” appears to be a structure that may selectively tightened or loosened to facilitate decreasing or increasing the girth of the garment for adjusting a fit of the garment and/or reduce movement of the garment during use [per Applicant Spec ¶0024]; Puco has an adjustable strap with a buckle, which are the same as the Applicant's “cinching mechanisms”; see Figs. 1-4 #55; Col. 3:55-58) extending a distance between corresponding side edges of the front portion and the back portion (Fig. 1), wherein the one or more cinching mechanisms are configured to selectively adjust a girth of the garment (Col. 3:55-58).
Regarding Claim 27, Swendseid discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the garment comprises a vest (Figs. 1-4).
Claim(s) 1, 17-21, and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swendseid US 20110177757.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Swendseid discloses a garment (Figs. 1A-8 #100A; ¶0039) comprising: a front portion (Fig. 8 #108); a back portion opposite the front portion (Fig. 8 #106); and a pair of side portions (Swendseid Annot. Fig. 8, Fig. 8 #112/114) extending between the front portion and the back portion (Fig. 8), the pair of side portions configured to be adjustable to cinch the garment around a user (¶0027), wherein the pair of side portions include a first side portion (Swendseid Annot. Fig. 6, Fig. 6 #112) and a second side portion (Swendseid Annot. Fig. 8, Fig. 8 #114), the first side portion being integrally coupled to the front portion and the back portion at a first side of the garment (Fig. 3 on right side; as for “integral”, the term “integral” is defined simply as “formed as a unit with another part” in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 607 [10th ed. 1999]. And the Federal Circuit has repeatedly found, in the context of particular patents, that the patentee's use of the term “integral” encompassed both a unitary object and an object with multiple attached parts. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 967–68 [C.C.P.A. 1965]; Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc., 887 F.2d 1070, 1073–74 [Fed. Cir. 1989); Henderson v. Grable, 339 F.2d 465, 470 [C.C.P.A. 1964]; In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055–56 [Fed. Cir. 1997]]), and the second side portion being integrally coupled to one of the front portion or the back portion at a second side of the garment (Figs. 3 on left side; see above argument about “integral”), and the second side portion being removably coupled to the other of the front portion or the back portion at the second side of the garment (Figs. 1A-8; ¶0027, 0030, 0037, 0039).
Regarding Claim 17, Swendseid discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the second side portion is integrally coupled to the front portion at the second side of the garment and is removably coupled to the back portion at the second side of the garment (Fig. 8; ¶0027, 0030, 0037, 0039).
Regarding Claim 18, Swendseid discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the second side portion is integrally coupled to the back portion at the second side of the garment and is removably coupled to the front portion at the second side of the garment (¶0027, 0030, 0037, 0039).
Regarding Claim 19, Swendseid discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the front portion is configured to overlie a chest of the user (Fig. 6; ¶0037), the back portion is configured to overlie a back of the user (Fig. 6; ¶0037), the first side portion is arranged to overlie a first side of the user (Figs. 1-6; ¶0037), and the second side portion is arranged to overlie a second side of the user (Figs. 1-6; ¶0037), wherein the first side portion includes a front edge (Swendseid Annot. Fig. 6) and a back edge (Swendseid Annot. Fig. 6), the front edge of the first side portion being integrally coupled to the front portion (Fig. 8) and the back edge of the first side portion being integrally coupled to the back portion (Fig. 8), and wherein the second side portion includes a front edge (Swendseid Annot. Fig. 8) and a back edge (Swendseid Annot. Fig. 8), wherein: the front edge of the second side portion is integrally coupled to the front portion and the back edge of the second side portion is removably coupled to the back portion (¶0030-0039); or the front edge of the second side portion is removably coupled to the front portion and the back edge of the second side portion is integrally coupled to the back portion (¶0030-0039).
Regarding Claim 20, Swendseid discloses the garment of claim 19, wherein the front edge of the second side portion is integrally coupled to the front portion and the back edge of the second side portion is removably coupled to the back portion (Figs. 1A-8; ¶0030-0039).
Regarding Claim 21, Swendseid discloses the garment of claim 19, wherein the front edge of the second side portion is removably coupled to the front portion and the back edge of the second side portion is integrally coupled to the back portion (Figs. 1A-8; ¶0030-0039).
Regarding Claim 24, Swendseid discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the first side portion permanently connects the front portion and the back portion to one another (Figs. 1A-8; ¶0030-0039; as for “permanently”, any two objects bound together are considered attached until they are unattached and therefore “permanent”).
Regarding Claim 25, Swendseid discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the front portion, the back portion, and the first side portion bound a first arm opening configured to receive a first arm of the user (Figs. 1A-8; ¶0030-0039), the first side portion being configured to only allow the first arm of the user to be placed in the first arm opening by extending the first arm through the arm opening (Figs. 1A-8; ¶0030-0039; the Examiner notes that there is no structural feature that would suggest or allow for only a first arm versus a second arm to be placed in the first arm opening. Though unconventional, there is no structural feature that would prevent a user from wearing the garment backwards, thus putting the second arm through the first arm opening).
Regarding Claim 26, Swendseid discloses the garment of claim 25, wherein the front portion, the back portion, and the second side portion bound a second arm opening configured to receive a second arm of the user (Figs. 1A-8; ¶0030-0039), the removeable coupling of the second side portion to said other of the front portion or the back portion being configured to permit a second arm of the user to be placed in the second arm opening by moving the second arm between the second side portion and said other of the front portion or the back portion when the second side portion and said other of the front portion or the back portion are uncoupled from one another (Figs. 1A-8; ¶0030-0039).
Regarding Claim 27, Swendseid discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the garment comprises a vest (Figs. 1A-8 #100A).
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(s) 2-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puco as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McIntire US 20150196077.
Regarding Claim 2, Puco discloses the garment of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the front portion and the back portion are fabricated from a stretch material.
McIntire teaches an activity vest (Figs. 1-3 #100b) with front and back portions (Figs. 1-3 #107/109) made of a stretch material (¶0048 notes “knit textile” which is well-known to stretch).
Both Puco and McIntire teach analogous inventions in the art of vests for activities. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Puco with the teachings of McIntire such that the vest would be made of stretch material so that the vest can be, “tailored to provide maximal protection and maneuverability for the wearer” (McIntire ¶0004).
Regarding Claim 3, Puco discloses the garment of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first side portion and the second side portion are fabricated from a stretch material.
McIntire teaches an activity vest (Figs. 1-3 #100b) with a first side portion and a second side portion (Figs. 1-3 #107/109 left/right) made of a stretch material (¶0048 notes “knit textile” which is well-known to stretch).
Both Puco and McIntire teach analogous inventions in the art of vests for activities. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Puco with the teachings of McIntire such that the vest would be made of stretch material so that the vest can be, “tailored to provide maximal protection and maneuverability for the wearer” (McIntire ¶0004).
Regarding Claim 6, Puco discloses the garment of claim 1, further comprising one or more pocket panels (Figs. 1-4 #60/70) coupled to one or more of the front portion, the back portion, the first side portion, or the second side portion to form one or more pockets (Figs. 1-4).
McIntire teaches an activity vest (Figs. 1-3 #100b) with one or more pocket panels (Figs. 1-3 #201) made of a stretch material (¶0048 notes “knit textile” which is well-known to stretch).
Both Puco and McIntire teach analogous inventions in the art of vests for activities. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Puco with the teachings of McIntire such that the vest components like pockets would be made of stretch material so that the vest can hold a variety of objects as the pockets will stretch.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified garment of Puco discloses the garment of claim 6, further comprising one or more fasteners configured to selectively open or close an opening to a first pocket of the one or more pockets (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4:4-34).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified garment of Puco discloses the garment of claim 6, further comprising one or more securing mechanisms (Applicant's “securing mechanisms” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Applicant' s “securing mechanisms” appears to be a pocket closure [per Applicant Spec ¶0025; Puco has a zippered closures on pockets, which are the same as the Applicant' s “securing mechanisms”; see Figs. 1-4 #60/70/83 closures) configured to secure one or more items in a first pocket of the one or more pockets (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 9, Puco discloses the garment of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the garment further comprising a whistle coupled to one or more of the front portion, the back portion, the first side portion, or the second side portion.
McIntire teaches an activity vest (Figs. 1-3 #100b) with a whistle (¶0009) coupled to one or more of the front portion, the back portion, the first side portion, or the second side portion (¶0046).
Both Puco and McIntire teach analogous inventions in the art of vests for activities. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Puco with the teachings of McIntire such that the vest would have a whistle so that the user can participate, “in the activities can, at times, dictate that some gear must be kept on the person of a participant in the activity,” (McIntire ¶0009) and for safety.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a first embodiment of Swendseid as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of a second embodiment of Swendseid.
Regarding Claim 22, Swendseid discloses the garment of claim 19, wherein the front portion, the back portion, and the first side portion bound a first arm opening configured to receive a first arm of the user (Figs. 1A-8 right arm hole), wherein the front portion, the back portion, and the second side portion bound a second arm opening configured to receive a second arm of the user (Figs. 1A-8 left arm hole), but does not expressly disclose wherein the front edge of the second side portion is closer to a front of the second arm opening than a back of the second arm opening and the back edge of the second side portion is closer to the back of the second arm opening than the front of the second arm opening.
In a second embodiment of Swendseid, the garment (Fig. 12 #100E) has a front edge of the second side portion is closer to a front of the second arm opening than a back of the second arm opening (Swendseid Annot. Fig. 12) and the back edge of the second side portion is closer to the back of the second arm opening than the front of the second arm opening (Swendseid Annot. Fig. 12).
Both the first and second embodiments of Swendseid teach analogous inventions in the art of adjustable, side-entry upper body garments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the first embodiment of Swendseid with the teachings of the second embodiment of Swendseid such that the front edge of the second side portion is closer to a front of the second arm opening than a back of the second arm opening and the back edge of the second side portion is closer to the back of the second arm opening than the front of the second arm opening so that the closure is nearer the front of the chest, allowing for easier access as the user would not have to reach as far to close the garment. Further, it is noted that the closure could be placed in any position on the side of the garment as this is an obvious matter of design choice and within the general skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (Section VI, Subsection C).
Regarding Claim 23, the modified garment of Swendseid discloses the garment of claim 22, wherein the front edge of the second side portion extends from the front of the second arm opening and the back edge of the second side portion extends from the back of the second arm opening (Figs. 1A-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
755
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
765
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
781
735
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) of claims 2-3 and 6, 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1 and 4-5, and 35 USC 103 of claims 2-3 and 6-9 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) of claims 2-3 and 6, Applicant argues,
One of ordinary skill would understand what a “stretch material” is as the phrase “stretch material” is commonly used in the art and has well-established meaning. (Remarks Pg. 7-8)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Stretch material” is unclear as there is no support for what the meets and bounds of the limitation are in the claims nor in the Specification. “Stretch material” could be any number of things, from resistance bands to bread dough. As there is no description nor support for what a “stretch material” is, the recitation therefore remains unclear. See 35 USC 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 of claims 1 and 4-5, Applicant argues,
The amendments to the independent claim to recite, “the first side portion being integrally coupled to the front portion and the back portion at a first side of the garment, the second side portion being integrally coupled to one of the front portion or the back portion at a second side of the garment, and the second side portion being removably coupled to the other of the front portion or the back portion at the second side of the garment” overcome the prior art of record as Puco does not disclose these limitations. Further, both sides of Puco are generally identical, differentiating it from the Applicant’s instant invention. (Remarks Pg. 8-9)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. “integral” only means “formed as a unit with another part” which the structures of Puco clearly are, as seen in Figs. 1-4. Puco discloses the first side portion being integrally coupled to the front portion and the back portion at a first side of the garment (Figs. 1-4 #24 right side), the second side portion being integrally coupled to one of the front portion or the back portion at a second side of the garment (Figs. 1-4 #24 left side), and the second side portion being removably coupled to the other of the front portion or the back portion at the second side of the garment (Figs. 1-4). Further, the fact that the two sides of Puco are similar does not negate the fact that Puco comprises the structures as claimed. See 35 USC 102 rejection above.
Applicant submits that the dependent claims are patentable based on their dependencies from claim(s) 1; however, as discussed in the rejection and in the arguments above, claim(s) 1 is/are not allowable over the prior art. Therefore, these arguments have not been found convincing and the rejections of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 have been maintained.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL M. WEIS whose telephone number is 571-272-6804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS can be reached on 571-272-3425. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAQUEL M. WEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights