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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species IV: Fig.7A-7C in the reply filed on December 16, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 16, 2025.
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.
1. 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: “a quality indication part” and “an indication covering part” in claims 1, 3-5, and 9-11.
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 § 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.
2. Claim(s) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fanesi (US 2020/0308748).
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 part (23) that indicates quality information on quality of the garment and is provided on the second surface (para.66-67); and an indication covering part (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 part (para.67); wherein at least one of the quality indication part or the indication covering part 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 part 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 part is exposed is available (as seen in Fig.5; para.67).
Regarding Claim 2, Fanesi discloses a garment according to claim 1, wherein the garment is a reversible garment configured to allow both the first surface and the second surface to be used (Abstract & para.26).
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 part (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 part (22:20,6) so that a position of the indication covering part with respect to the quality indication part shifts (as seen in Fig.5; para.67).
Regarding Claim 5, Fanesi discloses a garment according to claim 1, wherein when the indication covering part (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 part 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 part (23) that indicates quality information on quality of the article and is provided on the second surface (para.66-67); and an indication covering part (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 part (para.67); wherein at least one of the quality indication part or the indication covering part 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 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 part is exposed is available (as seen in Fig.5; para.67).
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) in view of Nozawa (JP 2020098318 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Fanesi discloses the invention substantially as claimed above, including wherein the quality indication part and the indication covering part are provided at a lower portion of the garment (i.e. bottom portion of 6). Fanesi does not disclose wherein the quality indication part and the indication covering part 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 part (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 part 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 part and the indication covering part 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 part and the indication covering part 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 part and the indication covering part 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 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.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732