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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed June 4, 2026 has been received, Claims 1 and 3-12 are currently pending, with Claims 6-8 remaining withdrawn from prosecution at this time, and Claim 12 being withdrawn at this time (see below).
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 12 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 12 is directed to unelected Species I, II, or III; para.50 refers to indication covering parts 30, 130, and 230. Species IV is not disclosed as having a zipper.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fanesi (US 2020/0308748), as evidenced by Scriven (US 625,423).
Regarding Claim 1, Fanesi discloses a garment having a first surface (i.e. exterior surface of 1) and a second surface (i.e. interior surface of 1) opposite the first surface, comprising: a quality indication tag (23) that indicates quality information on quality of the garment and is provided on the second surface (para.66-67); and an indication covering tag (22:20,6) that indicates information (i.e. brand information) other than the quality information and is provided so as to cover the quality indication tag (para.67); wherein at least one of the quality indication tag or the indication covering tag is deformable so that transition between a first state (i.e. when the pocket is closed and 23 is concealed in 22) in which the quality indication tag is hidden by the indication covering part and a second state (i.e. when the pocket is opened and 23 is pulled out of 22) in which at least a portion of the quality indication tag is exposed is available (as seen in Fig.5; para.67), wherein the garment is a reversible garment configured to allow both the first surface and the second surface to be used (Abstract & para.26), and the indication covering tag is stretchable (as evidenced by Scriven, Pg.1, lines 21-30 “it is well known that all fabrics are more or less elastic”).
Regarding Claim 3, Fanesi discloses a garment according to claim 1, wherein the indication covering part (22:20,6) is an identification labeling part (20) providing identification information for identifying the garment (para.67).
Regarding Claim 4, Fanesi discloses a garment according to claim 1, wherein the quality indication tag (23) transitions from the first state (i.e. when the pocket is closed and 23 is concealed in 22) to the second state (i.e. when the pocket is opened and 23 is pulled out of 22) by deforming (i.e. opening the pocket) the indication covering tag (22:20,6) so that a position of the indication covering tag with respect to the quality indication tag shifts (as seen in Fig.5; para.67).
Regarding Claim 5, Fanesi discloses a garment according to claim 1, wherein when the indication covering tag (22:20,6) deforms so as to fold back partially (i.e. the top edge of 20 would fold back partially as the pocket is opened), the quality indication tag transitions from the first state (i.e. when the pocket is closed and 23 is concealed in 22) to the second state (i.e. when the pocket is opened and 23 is pulled out of 22)(as seen in Fig.5; para.67).
Regarding Claim 9, Fanesi discloses a quality indication member (23) provided to an article having a first surface (i.e. exterior surface of 1) and a second surface (i.e. interior surface of 1) opposite the first surface, comprising: a quality indication tag (23) that indicates quality information on quality of the article and is provided on the second surface (para.66-67); and an indication covering tag (22:20,6) that indicates information (i.e. brand information) other than the quality information and is provided so as to cover the quality indication tag (para.67); wherein at least one of the quality indication tag or the indication covering tag is deformable (i.e. opening the pocket) so that transition between a first state (i.e. when the pocket is closed and 23 is concealed in 22) in which the quality indication part is hidden by the indication covering tag and a second state (i.e. when the pocket is opened and 23 is pulled out of 22) in which at least a portion of the quality indication tag is exposed is available (as seen in Fig.5; para.67), wherein the garment is a reversible garment configured to allow both the first surface and the second surface to be used (Abstract & para.26), and the indication covering tag is stretchable (as evidenced by Scriven, Pg.1, lines 21-30 “it is well known that all fabrics are more or less elastic”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
3. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanesi (US 2020/0308748), as evidenced by Scriven (US 625,423), in view of Nozawa (JP 2020098318 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Fanesi discloses the invention substantially as claimed above, including wherein the quality indication tag and the indication covering tag are provided at a lower portion of the garment (i.e. bottom portion of 6). Fanesi does not disclose wherein the quality indication tag and the indication covering tag are provided at a lower portion of the garment so as to span the first surface and the second surface. However, Nozawa teaches a garment (7) having an indication covering tag (1) provided at a lower portion of the garment so as to span the first surface (7a) and the second surface (7b)(as seen in Fig.3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the indication covering tag placement of Fanesi to be a pocket provided at a lower portion of the garment so as to span the first surface and the second surface, as taught by Nozawa, in order to provide the garment with the desired aesthetic appearance. When in combination, Fanesi and Nozawa teach wherein the quality indication tag and the indication covering tag are provided at a lower portion of the garment so as to span the first surface and the second surface.
Regarding Claim 11, Fanesi and Nozawa disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Fanesi and Nozawa do not disclose the quality indication tag and the indication covering tag are provided at a lower portion of a seam between a front body and a back body of the garment. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have moved the quality indication tag and the indication covering tag of modified Fanesi to be placed at a lower portion of a seam between a front body and a back body of the garment, in order to provide the desired placement of the tag portions. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Fanesi’s “pocket” is not an obvious equivalent with the “tag” recited in claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant has provided no further defining structure in the claims regarding the structure of the “tag” in such a way as to distinguish over the pocket of Fanesi. For this reason, Fanesi teaches the limitations as currently claimed and Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments, which are drawn solely to the newly amended limitations, have been considered but are moot in view of the newly modified ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm 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, Alissa J. Tompkins can be reached at 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.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights