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
This in response to amendments received on 05/14/26. Claims 1, 12, and 17 have been amended and claims 2-3 and 8 are canceled. Claims 1, 4-7 and 9-20 are amended herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 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 4, it is unclear if “a maximum lateral dimension across the collar” is different than the maximum lateral dimension previously recited in claim 1. It is unclear if this dimension is referring to another dimension of the collar or if this is the same maximum lateral dimension. For claim interpretation purposes, the examiner is interpreting this to be the same maximum lateral dimension of the collar as recited in claim 1.
Any remaining claims are rejected depending from a rejected base claim.
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 (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 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, 9-10 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nirenberg (US 2,255,362).
In regard to claim 1, Nirenberg teaches a tactical shirt (figures 1 and 2), comprising: a body having a neck opening (see neck openings in figures 1 and 2); a collar that surrounds the neck opening (see collar 22 and 23, 23), the collar defining a height between a first connected edge located at the neck opening and a second free edge opposite the first connected edge (see collar height of 22 and 23, 23 from attached end to free end), the collar comprising: a front portion; a rear portion, wherein a maximum height of the rear portion is at least 1.8 times a maximum height of the front portion (see height of font portion 23 vs. height of rear portion 22); a first transition between the front portion and the rear portion on a first side of the collar (see annotated figure below); and a second transition between the front portion and the rear portion on a second side of the collar (see annotated figure below); wherein the second free edge of the collar defines a first collar point and a first inside corner at the first transition and a second collar point and a second inside corner at the second transition (see annotated figure below), wherein each of the first collar point, the first inside corner (see annotated figure below), the second collar point (see annotated figure below), and the second inside corner define a sharp transition between adjacent portions of the second free edge of the collar (see annotated figure below), and wherein the first collar point and the second collar point are spaced apart from one another in a standing orientation of the collar (see figure 5); wherein the rear portion (22) is configured to be foldable along a notional circumferential fold line between the first inside corner and the second inside corner to define a folded orientation of the collar (see figure 1); wherein, in the folded orientation of the collar, a lateral distance measured as a straight line extending between the first collar point and the second collar point defines a maximum lateral dimension across the collar (see figure 1), which is measured as a linear dimension extending in a direction coincident with or parallel to the straight line (see annotated figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 4, Nirenberg teaches wherein, in the standing orientation a lateral distance between the first collar point and the second collar point is at least 50 percent of a maximum lateral dimension across the collar (see figure 1, with collar standing, not illustrated, the maximum lateral distance between the points would be at least 50 percent the maximum lateral dimension of the collar from the points as illustrated in figure 1 folded).
In regard to claim 9, Nirenberg teaches wherein each of the first and second transitions is limited to no more than about 10% of an overall circumference of the collar (see first and second transitions in annotated figure 1 above, which is about 10% the overall circumference of the collar).
In regard to claim 10, Nirenberg teaches wherein the maximum height of the rear portion is at least about 2 inches (see collar 22, height is about 2 inches).
In regard to claim 14, Nirenberg teaches wherein the front portion includes a right side and a left side (see 23, 23).
In regard to claim 15, Nirenberg teaches wherein the right side and the left side are coupled at a front center of the collar (see figures 1 and 2, identifiers 23, 23).
In regard to claim 16, Nirenberg teaches wherein end portions of the right side and the left side overlap one another (see figures 1 and 2, identifiers 23, 23).
In regard to claim 17, Nirenberg teaches a tactical shirt, comprising: a body having a neck opening (see neck openings in figures 1 and 2); a collar that surrounds the neck opening (see collar 22 and 23, 23), the collar defining a height between a first connected edge located at the neck opening and a second free edge opposite the first connected edge (see collar height of 22 and 23, 23 from attached end to free end), the collar comprising: a front portion; a rear portion, a first transition between the front portion and the rear portion on a first side of the collar (see annotated figure above); and a second transition between the front portion and the rear portion on a second side of the collar (see annotated figure above); wherein the second free edge of the collar defines a first collar point and a first inside corner at the first transition and a second collar point and a second inside corner at the second transition (see annotated figure above), wherein each of the first collar point, the first inside corner (see annotated figure above), the second collar point (see annotated figure above), and the second inside corner define a sharp transition between adjacent portions of the second free edge of the collar (see annotated figure above), wherein the rear portion (22) is configured to be foldable along a notional circumferential fold line extending between the first inside corner and the second inside corner from a standing orientation to a folded orientation of the collar (see figure 1); and wherein the collar is confiture to be wearable in each of the standing orientation and the folded orientation (capable of upstanding collar in figure 1 as desired), where in in the folded orientation of the collar, a lateral distance measured as a straight line extending between the first collar point and the second collar point defines a maximum lateral dimension across the collar (see figure 1), which is measured as a linear dimension extending in a direction coincident with or parallel to the straight line (see annotated figure 1 above); wherein, in a standing orientation of the collar, the lateral distance between the first collar point and the second collar point is at least 50 percent of a maximum width of the collar, which is measured as a linear dimension extending in a direction coincident with or parallel to the straight line (see maximum distance between collar points in annotated figure 1 above vs, the height of the collar 22, 23, which is at least 50%).
In regard to claim 18, Nirenberg teaches wherein the neck opening defines a fixed circumference (see figure 1 and 2).
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.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nirenberg (US 2,255,362).
In regard to claim 11, Nirenberg teaches the maximum width of the rear portion (22) is less than that of the front portion (23, 23).
However, Nirenberg fails to specifically teach the maximum width height of the rear portion is between 2-2.5 inches.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art and through routine experimentation to have provided the dimensions of the rear width maximum depth to be between 2-2.25 inches, since the claimed relative dimensions of the device would not perform differently than the prior art device to Nirenberg and therefore is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). The rear collar maximum width being between 2-2.25 inches would not destroy the garment design of Nirenberg and would be a dimension that would fit some user’s body size and proportions.
In regard to claim 12, Nirenberg teaches wherein a maximum depth of the front portion as measured, with the tactical shirt in a laid flat orientation, by a straight line extending in a direction parallel to a central, vertical centerline of the tactical shirt from a base of the collar at an intersection with a top edge of a shoulder of the tactical shirt to a lowermost extend of the front portion of the collar (see figure 1, front portion 23, 23).
However, Nirenberg fails to specifically teach this depth to be less than or equal to about 7 inches.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art and through routine experimentation to have provided the dimensions of the maximum depth of the front portion to be less than or equal to about 7 inches, since the claimed relative dimensions of the device would not perform differently than the prior art device to Nirenberg and therefore is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). The maximum depth of the front portion to be less than or equal to about 7 inches would not destroy the garment design of Nirenberg and would be a dimension that would fit some user's body size and proportions.
In regard to claim 13, Nirenberg teaches a maximum depth of the front portion (23, 23: figure 1).
However, Nirenberg fails to teach the maximum depth of the front portion being specifically between 4.75-6.5 inches.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art and through routine experimentation to have provided the dimensions of the maximum depth of the front portion to be between 4.75-6.5 inches, since the claimed relative dimensions of the device would not perform differently than the prior art device to Nirenberg and therefore is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). The maximum depth of the front portion being between 4.75-6.5 inches would not destroy the garment design of Nirenberg and would be a dimension that would fit some user's body size and proportions.
In regard to claim 19, Nirenberg teaches the lateral distance between the collar points (see annotated figure 1 above). However, Nirenberg fails to specifically teach wherein the lateral distance is at least 4 inches.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art and through routine experimentation to have provided the dimensions of the lateral distance to be at least four inches, since the claimed relative dimensions of the device would not perform differently than the prior art device to Nirenberg and therefore is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). The lateral distance to be at least four inches would not destroy the garment design of Nirenberg and would be a dimension that would fit some user’s body size and proportions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found cited in PTO-892 form submitted herewith. The cited prior art to Bellot (US 3,434,309) is of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 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, Clinton T 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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights