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 . The claim(s) is being treated on the merits.
A basic Template for helping draft a response to this office action can be found at the following link: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/formatrevamdtprac.pdf
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
In this case, the abstract recites "that reflects most of the radiation effect of sunlight" and "to absorb any remaining sunlight and prevent it from irradiating, back and forth off one's skin, and creating heat" which appear to be referring to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention.
Claim Objections
The claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim(s) is/are not numbered.
"The invention provides" should be removed from the claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claim(s) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being which renders the claim indefinite. for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claim(s) is/are generally narrative in form and replete with indefinite language, failing to conform with 37 C.F.R. 1.75.
First, three sentences are present each ending with a period; however, it is unclear how many claims are there as Applicant does not number the claim(s). In addition, if there are multiple claims, none of the claims refers back to and further limiting another claim or claims in the application. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that three claims are presented in the application, each sentence ending with a period being a claim, and the claims have been interpreted to have the following structures:
Claim 1: A unique cooling function to all types of shirts, coats, pants, and dresses.
Claim 2: A functional change to clothing that is white, pastel or a light color on the outside (to reflect or reduce sunlight from hitting one’s skin), by providing for it to be black on the inside to absorb any remaining sunlight (and prevent it hitting one’s skin and bouncing back and forth and irradiating heat).
Claim 3: The functional change to clothing in claim 2, wherein the unique function of the black interior reduces or prevents any remaining incoming sunlight that enters from the white exterior (as not all white, pastel, or light-colored fabric is solid enough to block all sunlight), and so it prevents the sun’s rays from continuously bouncing off one’s skin (which creates heat).
For examination purposes, claim 1, claim 2 and claim 3 will be referred to in this Office action.
Claims 1 and 3 each recite the term "unique", which renders the claims indefinite. The term "unique" is a relative term. It is unclear how the term "unique" is defined as Applicant does not provide evidence for the claimed "function" being unique. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 2 is indefinite as it is unclear what the "functional change" is. Specifically, it is unclear what is the function before the change and what is the function after the change. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the outside" and "the inside", which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear what are being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitations have been construed to be "an outside of the clothing" and "an inside of the clothing" respectively.
Claim 2 recites text in parentheses, including "(to reflect or reduce sunlight from hitting one’s skin)" and "(and prevent it hitting one’s skin and bouncing back and forth and irradiating heat)" which render the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether anything in parenthesis is part of applicant's intended claim scope or additional commentary on the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "providing for it to be black", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is being referred to by "it". For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "providing for the clothing to be black".
Claim 2 recites the limitation "any remaining sunlight", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is being referred to by "any remaining". For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the color on the outside of the clothing has reflected a portion of sunlight on the clothing, and the limitation refers to the remaining sunlight on the clothing.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "prevent it hitting", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is being referred to by "it". For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "prevent the remaining sunlight hitting".
Claim 3 recites the limitation "[[t]]he unique function", which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what the function is. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the black interior" and "the white exterior", which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitations have been respectively interpreted as the inside that is black and the outside that is white, pastel or a light-colored.
Claim 3 recites text in parentheses, including "(as not all white, pastel, or light colored fabric is solid enough to block all sunlight)" and "(which creates heat)" which render the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether anything in parenthesis is part of applicant's intended claim scope or additional commentary on the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "any remaining incoming sunlight", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is being referred to by "any remaining". For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the color on the outside of the clothing has reflected a portion of sunlight on the clothing, and the limitation refers to the remaining sunlight on the clothing.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "it prevents", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is being referred to by "it". For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "the outside that is white, pastel or a light-colored prevents".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
A claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. However, the claims 1-3 recite "function'" and "function change" which do not fall within any statutory category. See MPEP § 2106, subsection I and MPEP 2106.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collinson-Smith (US 2020/0367578 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Collinson-Smith discloses a unique cooling function (a cooling function under sunlight provided by an outer layer of a swimwear having white color and an inner layer of the swimwear having a black color; paras. 0008, 0015-0016) which can be provided to all types of shirts, coats, pants, and dresses (the function can be provided to any type of garment).
Regarding claim 2, Collinson-Smith discloses a functional change to clothing that is white, pastel or a light color on the outside (to reflect or reduce sunlight from hitting one’s skin), by providing for it to be black on the inside to absorb any remaining sunlight (and prevent it hitting one’s skin and bouncing back and forth and irradiating heat) (different functions provided by an outer layer of a swimwear having white color capable of reflecting sunlight and an inner layer of the swimwear having black color capable of absorbing sunlight; paras. 0008, 0015-0016).
Regarding claim 3, Collinson-Smith discloses the functional change to clothing in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the unique function of the black interior reduces or prevents any remaining incoming sunlight that enters from the white exterior (as not all white, pastel, or light-colored fabric is solid enough to block all sunlight), and so it prevents the sun’s rays from continuously bouncing off one’s skin (which creates heat) (the configuration of a white outer layer and a black inner layer provides the above function).
Claims 1-3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo (CN 202211175 U).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses a unique cooling function (a cooling function provided by an outer layer of a legging having white color and an inner layer of the legging having black color; see English translation; paras. 0007-0009) to all types of shirts, coats, pants, and dresses (the function can be provided to any type of garment).
Regarding claim 2, Guo discloses a functional change to clothing that is white, pastel or a light color on the outside (to reflect or reduce sunlight from hitting one’s skin), by providing for it to be black on the inside to absorb any remaining sunlight (and prevent it hitting one’s skin and bouncing back and forth and irradiating heat) (different functions provided by an outer layer of a legging having white color capable of reflecting sunlight and an inner layer of the legging having black color capable of absorbing sunlight; paras. 0007-0009).
Regarding claim 3, Guo discloses the functional change to clothing in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the unique function of the black interior reduces or prevents any remaining incoming sunlight that enters from the white exterior (as not all white, pastel, or light-colored fabric is solid enough to block all sunlight), and so it prevents the sun’s rays from continuously bouncing off one’s skin (which creates heat) (the configuration of a white outer layer and a black inner layer provides the above function).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references are cited on attached PTO-892 form and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. Luo (CN 112137192 A), Monica (US 2004/0128748 A1) and Richardson (US 5,817,365 A) each can also be a 102 reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. 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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732