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 .
Claim Interpretation
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 limitations are:
“adjustable fitment mechanism” in claims 1 & 4, which is/are interpreted in light of “Elastic 22 maybe sewn into the belly portion 14 of the coat 10 to better conform to the body of the dog D.” in ¶0095 of the instant specification. However, the instant specification is completely silent to which element the inventor views as being the recited “adjustable fitment mechanism”.
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
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
The amended claim language reciting “the adjustable fitment mechanism comprises at least one component other than elastic bands,” is not supported by the originally filed specification. As noted in the outstanding 112f analysis amounting to a 112b rejection, Applicant must state exactly what component is being recited from the specification. The only element which is acting in the recited capacity, and which is illustrated in the provided drawings, is the elastic elements 22, Fig. 2. It is possible that the fold-over elastic 32, ¶0099 is another element, but it is unclear what structures are mapped one-to-one on the claimed invention. A review of the supplied remarks does not enlighten. Additionally, “configured for selective positioning on different portions of the garment” seems to require an additional component to the garment which reinforces, and then can be moved around the garment by the user. Nothing of the sort is found in the originally filed disclosure. Claims 2-10 are rejected as ultimately dependent from claim 1, rejected above.
Claims 11-14 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.
The originally filed disclosure is further silent to what inventor considers “stretch-resistant seam construction”, and fails to note what stitch or stitches would suffice such resistance. Claims 12-14 are rejected as ultimately dependent from claim 11, rejected above.
Claims 15-20 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.
The originally filed disclosure is silent to “at least one illumination portion formed integrally from the garment material, comprising a pocket… wherein the pocket includes a transparent or translucent material…” While portions of the limitation appear to be supported (a clear pocket, ¶0100), this is contradictory to the requirement that the pocket be implicitly made from the same material as the remainder of the garment. How, for example, can cotton (disclosed as a possible material for both the interior and exterior surfaces) be clear? These concepts require far more explanation than a mere listing of possibly combinable materials, in order for the device to operate in the manner discussed. Claims 16-20 are rejected as ultimately dependent from claim 15, rejected above.
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 1-10, 16, & 19 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.
For Claim 1, the claim limitation “adjustable fitment mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification alludes to elastic as being adjustable, it does not explicitly state what is intended by “adjustable” or “fitment mechanism” to fully define the scope of the instant invention. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the adjustable fitment mechanism” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further RE Claim 1, “other than elastic bands” is not supported by the original specification (note the above rejection), and contradicts the drawings. It is not clear by the original disclosure what structural element specifically is being recited.
Further RE Claim 1, it is unclear what “configured for selective positioning on different portions of the garment” amounts to structurally. The language seems to require an additional component to the garment which reinforces, and then can be moved around the garment by the user. Nothing of the sort is found in the originally filed disclosure.
Further RE Claim 4, the recitation of “elastic sections” is unclear whether this is inclusive or preclusive of the 112f interpretation of elastic elements as the recited “adjustable fitment mechanism”. The amendments to claim 1 are not in line with the originally filed specification, making the elements even more unclear.
RE Claim 9, the recitation of “the third portion of the animal garment is configured to provide additional coverage of the animal and includes a lining disposed on an interior side of the animal garment that selectively engages the exterior surface of the animal and a logo portion” is unclear. Is, and how is, the recited “a logo portion” included? It appears that structural relationship is lacking. Is the logo portion intended to be an aspect of the claimed “third portion”? It is recommended to include punctuation and further indentations to better delineate which elements further limit one another.
Claims 2, 3, 5-8, & 10 are rejected as ultimately dependent from claim 1, rejected above.
RE Claim 16, the scope of the claim is unclear. Since the illumination device is only required in a functional sense in claim 15, how is the illumination device then further limited?
RE Claim 19, do the newly recited “one or more pockets” include or preclude the pocket of the illumination portion defined in claim 15?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partipilo (US 20230232785 A1) in view of Lim (KR 102412065 B1) and McCabe (WO 2018094442 A1).
For Claim 1, Partipilo discloses an animal garment (“bodysuit, garment or covering 110”) comprising:
an exterior surface formed of a water-repellent, polyurethane-based fabric (“The bodysuit, covering or garment 110 is preferably manufactured from a fabric material such as, but not limited to: vinyl, canvas, cashmere, chenille, chiffon, cotton, damask, jersey, lace, linen, wool, modal, polyester, satin, silk, spandex, suede, tweed, twill, velvet, acrylic, modacrylic, nylon, polypropylene, polyurethane, polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, vinylidene, benzoate, aramid, rayon, acetate, triacetate or any combination thereof.” ¶0025);
an interior surface formed of a cotton fabric (“polyurethane,” and “cotton,” in combination, as discussed in ¶0025 or “nylon”);
at least one fastening device configured to secure the animal garment to the animal (“at least one primary fastener 170” ¶0028);
a collar portion (135) that engages and overlaps both a back portion and a belly portion of the garment ¶0028; and
wherein the adjustable fitment configured for selective positioning on different portions of the garment1 (“The opening 142 has at least one internal elastic band 150 which secures the hood 140 around the head 16 of the animal 10 using a compressive or elastic force. At least one internal elastic band 150 may further be found around or within the openings 192 of the legs 190 of the bodysuit, covering or garment 110 to secure the bodysuit, covering or garment 110 to the legs 14 of the animal 10 in the same manner.” ¶0027).
Partipilo is silent to the fabric specifically being polyurethane coated;
a flap portion configured to isolate the fastening device from contact with the animal’s fur, and
the fitment mechanism comprising at least one component other than elastic.
Lim, like prior art above, teaches an animal coat (title, disclosure) further comprising a nylon fabric layer (page 3, paragraph 5) coated with a polyurethane waterproof film (page 3, paragraph 8: “The waterproof film layer may be, for example, a polyester-based film, a polyurethane-based film, a polyolefin-based film, a polyamide-based film, or a fluorine-based film such as PVDF. In addition, the thickness of the waterproof film layer may be 0.01 mm ~ 10 cm, more preferably 10 ~ 20㎛. When the thickness of the waterproof film layer exceeds 20 μm, it is not easy to attach to the fabric layer, or it can be easily peeled off by the shape change of the fabric after it is attached.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the nylon fabric of Partipilo with a polyurethane film as taught by Lim, in order to provide a waterproof layer which increases the comfort of the animal and the user experience, yielding predictable results.
McCabe, like prior art above, teaches an animal garment (title, disclosure), further comprising a flap portion configured to isolate the fastening device from contact with the animal’s fur (the flap corresponding to and behind any one of the zipper tracks, see, e.g. Figs. 4-7), and a fitment mechanism comprising at least one component other than elastic (Velcro, hook and loop, fastened band 78 around the garment, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify both:
the zipper of Partipilo with a flap as taught by McCabe in order to protect the animal and the longevity of the device, and
the garment of Partipilo to further include a compression member as taught by McCabe in order to prevent the animal from reaching the zipper,
…as is well known in the art and yielding predictable results.
For Claim 2, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 1, and Partipilo further discloses wherein the exterior surface of the animal garment comprises a nylon fabric (wherein at least a portion of the exterior surface is nylon in the combination discussed in ¶0025).
For Claim 3, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 1, and Partipilo as modified above further teaches wherein the exterior surface of the animal garment comprises a water-repellent, polyurethane-coated nylon fabric (Partipilo, ¶0025 in view of Lim).
For Claim 4, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 1, and Partipilo further discloses wherein the animal garment is structured to accommodate various animal body types through the selective use elastic sections and adjustable fasteners (elastic sections as discussed in ¶0027 of Partipilo and the compressive band 78 of McCabe).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partipilo in view of Lim and McCabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hansen et al. (US 20170215385 A1, “Hansen”).
For Claim 5, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 1, and Partipilo further discloses further comprising two halves forming a first portion of the animal garment configured to conform to the back of the animal (the left side of upper portion of the garment 110, associated with the illustrated pocket 130, for example).
Partipilo as modified above teaches is silent to wherein the first portion of the animal garment includes reinforced stitching for durability.
Hansen, like prior art above, teaches an animal garment (title, disclosure) further comprising reinforced stitching for durability (¶¶0023 & 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify at least the back portion of the garment of Partipilo as modified above with reinforced stitching as taught by Hansen, and as well-known in the art to increase the ability of garments to hold up to wear and tear, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 6, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 5, and Partipilo further discloses further comprising a second portion of the animal garment configured to conform to the belly of the animal (the right side of the bottom portion of the garment 110), wherein the second portion of the animal garment is selectively attachable to the first portion of the animal garment (adjoined by the zipper or other attachment means, ¶0028).
For Claim 7, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 6, and Partipilo further discloses wherein the first portion of the animal garment and the second portion of the animal garment are joined together by a fastening device selected from the group comprising2 zippers (“zipper,” ¶0028), snaps (“snap-button” ¶0028), buttons (“snap-button” or “button and loop,” ¶0028), and hook-and-loop fasteners (“hook and loop,” ¶0028).
For Claim 8, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 6, and Partipilo further discloses wherein the first portion of the animal garment and the second portion of the animal garment are joined together by a fastening device (¶0028) and further include an insulating lining disposed between the interior surface and exterior surface of the animal garment (“one embodiment of the bodysuit, covering or garment 110 may feature an insulating fabric to keep the animal 10 warm in colder climates,” ¶0025).
For Claim 9, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 6, and Partipilo further discloses further comprising a third portion (120), wherein the third portion of the animal garment is configured to provide additional coverage of the animal and includes a lining disposed on an interior side of the animal garment that selectively engages the exterior surface of the animal (either the mesh 120, ¶0026 or the insulation, ¶0025) and a logo portion (180), wherein the logo portion is configured to selectively receive a logo ¶0026.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partipilo in view of Lim, McCabe, and Hansen as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Thielemann (US 6138611 A)
For Claim 10, Partipilo as modified above teaches teaches the animal garment of claim 9.
Partipilo as modified above teaches is silent to wherein the lining is constructed from fleece, cotton flannel, or water-repellent, polyurethane-coated nylon fabric.
Thielemann, like prior art above, teaches a pet garment (title, disclosure) further comprising an inner fleece layer (126, Col. 4, lines 35-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the thermal layer of Partipilo as modified above with a fleece material as taught by Thielemann, in order to provide a fabric which is easy to obtain and work with, which provides sufficient thermal properties, yielding predictable results.
Claims 11 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partipilo in view of Freitag (US 20090173290 A1).
For Claim 11, Partipilo discloses an animal garment (“bodysuit, garment or covering 110”) comprising:
a first portion configured to conform to a back of the animal (an upper part of the “bodysuit, garment or covering 110”);
a second portion configured to conform to a belly of the animal (a lower part of the body of the “bodysuit, garment or covering 110”);
a collar portion of the animal garment (135) attached to both the first and the second portions; and
at least one fastening device (170) configured to secure the animal garment to the animal ¶0028;
wherein the collar portion is positioned and shaped to retain warmth and reduce draft entry during use (the elastic of 135 would, in the same way as the instant invention, constrict airflow out of the garment, thus reducing draft and retaining warmth).
Partipilo is silent to the collar portion formed of rib-knit stitched using stretch-resistant seam construction.
Freitag, like prior art above, teaches a protective covering (title, disclosure), further comprising rib knit between two sections of the covering (“bordering sections 2 or border regions 3, 4 of the woven, meshed, or knitted fabric are arranged overlapping each other and connected to each other by two-part snap-fastener elements 1. If possible, care must be taken that the finer ribbing is arranged on the outside of the sections and the wider ribbing is arranged on the body side” ¶0037, emphasis added), using stretch-resistant seams (the seams used to attach the ribbing to the garment of Freitag would necessarily resist a certain amount of stretch in order to operate as intended).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the borders between the sections of Partipilo in view of ribbed connection features as taught by Freitag, in order such that “moisture can be better suctioned on the body side and a better dissipation of the moisture to air is possible on the outside,” as recognized by ¶0037, Freitag, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 12, Partipilo in view of Freitag teaches the animal garment of claim 11, and Partipilo further discloses wherein the fastening device comprises an element selected from the group comprising3 zippers (170 “zipper” ¶0028), snaps, buttons, and hook-and-loop fasteners.
Claims 13 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partipilo in view of Freitag as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of McCabe.
For Claim 13, Partipilo in view of Freitag teaches the animal garment of claim 12.
Partipilo in view of Freitag is silent to further comprising a flap portion of the animal garment configured to isolate the fastening device from contact with the animal's fur, hair or skin, thereby preventing discomfort or entanglement.
McCabe, like prior art above, teaches an animal garment (title, disclosure), further comprising a flap portion configured to isolate the fastening device from contact with the animal’s fur (the flap corresponding to & behind any one of the zipper tracks, see, e.g. Figs. 4-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the zipper of Partipilo with a flap as taught by McCabe in order to protect the animal and the longevity of the device, as is well known in the art, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 14, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 13, and McCabe further teaches wherein the fastening device is secured to the flap portion of the animal garment to enhance durability and maintain secure attachment of the animal garment (Fig. 4-7).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partipilo in view of McCabe and Kerrigan (US 20030079695 A1).
For Claim 15, Partipilo discloses an animal garment (“bodysuit, garment or covering 110”) comprising:
an exterior surface formed of a water-resistant material (e.g. nylon, as discussed in ¶0025);
an interior lining providing thermal insulation (“nylon,” and “cotton,” in combination, as discussed in ¶0025);
at least one illumination portion4 formed intergrally from the garment material, comprising a pocket that includes a selectively securable fastener (132) to retain an illumination device in a fixed position and isolate it from the animal’s body (the pocket 130 ¶0029, where at least the back portion of the pocket is the same material as the remainder of the garment; the pocket forms a space which may be used in any manner by the user, including to carry a flashlight).
Partipilo is silent to a flap portion configured to shield the fastening device from contact with the animal’s fur, and
wherein the pocket includes a transparent or translucent material configured to transmit light.
McCabe, like prior art above, teaches an animal garment (title, disclosure), further comprising a flap portion configured to isolate the fastening device from contact with the animal’s fur (the flap corresponding to and behind any one of the zipper tracks, see, e.g. Figs. 4-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the zipper of Partipilo with a flap as taught by McCabe in order to protect the animal and the longevity of the device, as is well known in the art and yielding predictable results.
Kerrigan, like prior art above, teaches an animal garment (title, disclosure) further comprising transparent pockets (8, ¶0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the pocket of Partipilo with transparent material as taught by Kerrigan, in order to realize the stated advantage of “allow viewing of the contents of the pocket elements 8,” ¶0024, and yielding predictable results.
For Claim 16, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 15, and Partipilo further discloses wherein the illumination device is selected from the group comprising a rechargeable light source, a chemical luminescent light source, a replaceable battery-powered light source, or a solar-powered light source (the pocket 130 is capable of housing such a light source).
For Claim 17, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 15, and Partipilo further discloses further comprising a light-reflective (135) or5 a photo-reflective device disposed on of the exterior surface of the animal garment or the illumination portion of the animal garment to enhance nighttime visibility of the animal garment (“retroreflective tape 135 which may be prismatic or a beaded film material to increase the visibility of the animal during low light situations,” ¶0028).
For Claim 18, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 15, and Partipilo further discloses further comprising an elastic portion (150 / 204) of the animal garment incorporated into a component of the animal garment to facilitate a secure and flexible fit for different animal sizes and body structures (in the same manner as the instant invention, either 150 or 204 is capable of holding the garment to the body).
For Claim 19, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 15, and Partipilo further discloses further comprising one or more pockets of the animal garment (130, ¶0029) constructed from a material selected from the group comprising6 cotton, nylon (“nylon,” ¶0025), polymer material, a natural material, or a synthetic material.
For Claim 20, Partipilo as modified above teaches the animal garment of claim 15, and Partipilo further discloses further comprising a logo (180) disposed on one or more surfaces of components of the animal garment; wherein the components of the animal garment are configured to be washable and reusable while maintaining water-resistant and thermal properties (at least the selected materials are washable, in the same manner as the instant invention).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
RE Applicant arguments to claims 11-14, “This specific structural and functional limitation is not taught or suggested by Freitag, which merely discloses elastic protective clothing in general. The rib-knit collar, as claimed, provides a technical solution for thermal retention and draft exclusion in a dog coat that is missing from the prior art.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. At the outset, the basis of support for the rib knit material does not include the recited seam construction. Additionally, rib knit cuffing is found on the cuffs of the majority of sweatshirts available, human and pet alike. The implementation of rib knitting as a measure to retain warmth is well established, and thus, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See WO 8400666 A1, US 3626663 A (published in 1970), US 4834079 A, and “Fitwarm Dog Turtleneck Sweater, Thermal Knitted Pet Coat”).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 & 15-20 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
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.
Quintana (US 20190364877 A1 & US 20170172107 A1) each discloses a light in a pocket of an animal garment. It is noted that the claimed invention does not require the light.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: the structural elements must have explicit support in the originally filed specification. A review of the instant specification shows that only elastic, fixed to the garment, is contemplated. The prior art is applied as best understood, due to the lack of support.
2 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the Markush grouping.
3 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the Markush grouping.
4 Interpretation note: any claimed “portion” of the device does not require the portion to have any structural differences from another portion. In other words, two or more portions may exist on the same panel of fabric.
5 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
6 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.