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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
In response to the Application filed on 25 February 2025, with amended claims 3-6, claims 1-6 are presented for examination on the merits.
Specification
The amended abstract and specification of 25 February 2025 is/are acknowledged and entered. No new matter was presented.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 positively claims portions of the human anatomy, which is not patent eligible subject matter. It is recommended that Applicant adopt language such as "configured to" be associated with the recited portions of the human anatomy (a wearer's body passes) in order to avoid positively claiming human anatomy.
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 1-6 is/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, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim “a garment main body provided with an opening part formed by folding a fabric”. After a full review of Applicant' s disclosure, it appears “a fabric” is the same material that makes up a garment main body. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify if an additional structure considered as “a fabric”, or that the garment main body is a fabric. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “a fabric” as the same material that makes up a garment main body, and the fabric is folded to form an opening part. Claim 1 is rejected as best understood by Examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 2019/0350282 A1), in view of Warren (US 7,854,022 B2).
Regarding claim 1, insofar as is definite, Du discloses a garment (Figs. 1-2; abstract discloses “a garment”) having an opening through which a wearer's body passes (Fig.1 & para. 3, where the bottom hem 10 of the garment creates an opening where/for the torso of the body to pass), the garment comprising:
a garment main body (101) provided with an opening part (105) formed by folding a fabric (paras. 11 & 29, where the cloth that makes up 101 is “a fabric” inasmuch as claimed and as best understood; Figs. 1-2), the opening part being joined along an edge of the opening of the garment main body (Figs. 1-2; paras. 24 & 29, where 105 is folded up and sewn, which creates an edge, and therefore, “the opening part being joined along an edge of the opening of the garment main body”), wherein the opening part is fixed with adhesive dots (104 & plurality of 104; paras. 17, 29 & 36; Fig.2) along a mountain fold line (Fig. 1, where the edge formed by the fold of 105 is “a mountain fold line” inasmuch as claimed) and a fabric end of the fabric (the terminal end of 101).
Du does not directly disclose wherein the opening part is fixed with adhesive dots provided in a plurality of rows.
However, Warren teaches a garment (10) with adhesive dots (Figs. 2-3 shows left plurality of 28, middle plurality of 28, and right plurality of 22) provided in a plurality of rows (Figs. 2-3, where 3-3 is the cross section showing a left row of the left plurality of 28, middle row of the middle plurality of 28, and right row of the right plurality of 22, and therefore, the “adhesive dots [are] provided in a plurality of rows” inasmuch as claimed; col. 3 lines 7-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opening part fixed with adhesive dots of Du to be provided in a plurality of rows, as taught by Warren, in order to better secure the fabric layers at the edges of the garment (col. 3 lines 7-12). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add additional rows of adhesive dots to the opening part of Du in order to improve the comfort and fit of the article of clothing for the wearer, since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
While Du discloses an average value LA of intervals between adjacent adhesive dots that are provided closest to a fabric end side of the opening part (Fig. 2 shows the plurality of 104 are spaced apart and closest to the edge of 105, and therefore, have “an average value LA of intervals between adjacent adhesive dots”) and an average value LB of intervals between adjacent adhesive dots provided closest to a mountain fold line side of the opening part (Fig. 2 shows the plurality of 104 being spaced apart and along the edge formed by the fold of 105, and therefore, “an average value LB of intervals between adjacent adhesive dots”), Du and Warren do not directly disclose an average value LA of intervals between adjacent adhesive dots provided within a 3-cm section in a row of adhesive dots that are provided closest to a fabric end side of the opening part is smaller than an average value LB of intervals between adjacent adhesive dots provided within a 3- cm section in a row of adhesive dots that are provided closest to a mountain fold line side of the opening part.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify average value LA and LB of intervals between adjacent adhesive dots of Du to be provided within a 3-cm section in a row of adhesive dots that are provided closest to a fabric end side of the opening part is smaller than an average value LB of intervals between adjacent adhesive dots provided within a 3- cm section in a row of adhesive dots that are provided closest to a mountain fold line side of the opening part, in order to provide a more secure fit of the garment to the wearer. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2, modified Du discloses the garment according to claim 1, except for wherein the LA and the LB have a relation of LA/LB ≤ 0.75.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the LA and LB relation of Du to have a relation of LA/LB ≤ 0.75, since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 3, modified Du discloses the garment according to claim 1, wherein the opening part is formed in a pattern having a concave curve with the opening being directed upward (Figs. 1-2, where the shape of 10/101 is “a pattern”, and 105 follows the concave curve as shown in the dotted lined box, the opening being directed upward).
Regarding claim 4, modified Du discloses the garment according to claim 1, wherein the opening part has a curved shape (Figs. 1-2, where the shape of 105 has a curved shape as shown in the dotted lined box) having an inner periphery on the mountain fold line side (Fig. 2, where the inner periphery faces directly toward the wearer’s body where 105 is folded) and an outer periphery on the fabric end side when the opening part is not joined to the opening (Fig. 2, shows 102 as not joined to the opening, as best understood), and an angle formed by a tangent line at an end of the opening part on the fabric end side in a longitudinal direction of the opening part (Fig. 1, “an angle” is reflected by the curvature of the opening part, and the tangent line is along the edge of 10, as best understood) and a tangent line at an opposite end of the opening part on the fabric end side in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1, a tangent line is along the edge of 105, as best understood).
Du does not directly disclose an angle formed by a tangent line at an end of the opening part on the fabric end side in a longitudinal direction of the opening part and a tangent line at an opposite end of the opening part on the fabric end side in the longitudinal direction is 10⁰ or more and less than 180⁰.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the tangent line at an opposite end of the opening part on the fabric end side in the longitudinal direction of Du to have a degree that is 10⁰ or more and less than 180⁰, in order to provide a proper fit for a user’s torso. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 5, modified Du discloses the garment according to claim 1, wherein: the opening part has a curved shape (Figs. 1-2, where the shape of 105 has a curved shape as shown in the dotted lined box) having an inner periphery on the mountain fold line side (Fig. 2, where the inner periphery faces directly toward the wearer’s body where 105 is folded) and an outer periphery on the fabric end side when the opening part is not joined to the opening (Fig. 2, shows 102 as not joined to the opening, as best understood), and an angle formed by a tangent line at an end of the opening part on the fabric end side in a longitudinal direction of the opening part (Fig. 1, “an angle” is reflected by the curvature of the opening part, and the tangent line is along the edge of 10) and a tangent line at an opposite end of the opening part on the fabric end side in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1, a tangent line is along the edge of 105).
Du does not directly disclose wherein: the LA and the LB have a relation of LA/LB ≤0.7, and a tangent line at an opposite end of the opening part on the fabric end side in the longitudinal direction is 10⁰ or more and less than 180⁰.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the LA and LB relation of Du to have a relation of LA/LB ≤ 0.75 and to modify a tangent line at an opposite end of the opening part on the fabric end side in the longitudinal direction of Du to have a degree that is 10⁰ or more and less than 180⁰, in order to provide a proper fit for a user’s torso. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 2019/0350282 A1), in view of Warren (US 7,854,022 B2), and as evidenced by Scriven (US 625,423).
Regarding claim 6, modified Du discloses the garment according to claim 1, wherein the opening part has a stretch rate (Du: para. 29 discloses 105 is made of cloth, and therefore, a type of fabric, as evidenced by Scriven lines 25-26 discloses all fabrics are stretchable by a certain degree).
Du does not directly disclose wherein the opening part has a stretch rate in a longitudinal direction of 20% or more and 200% or less, and the adhesive dots are fixed with the opening part being stretched.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the cloth/fabric of the opening part of Du for a fabric with a stretch rate in a longitudinal direction of 20% or more and 200% or less, and the adhesive dots are fixed with the opening part being stretched, as a simple substitution of one well known stretchability in a fabric for another, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a shapeable and elastic material for a more comfortable fit. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
1515The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See the prior art cited in the PTO-892 related to garments attached to this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIAO QT HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.
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.
/G.Q.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights