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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 was amended. Claims 9-19 were newly added. Claims 1-19 have been examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the crotch part and upper parts, zipper fastener, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 9-20 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. Claims 9-13 recite “the dress continuously extends from a base to a neck to a hem of the dress as a one piece structural without having a joint structure connecting between the upper part and the lower part. There is no support in the originally filed disclosure for the limitations “extends continuously from a base to a neck to a hem of the dress as a pone piece structure without having a joint connecting between the upper and lower parts”. Claims 14 -20 recite “wherein the dress does not have another zipper in addition to the zipper”. There is no support for this limitation in the originally filed disclosure.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (US 1,421,162) in view of Caco (US 2017/0295858).
The device of Buckley teaches,
With respect to claim 1, A one-piece garment (1) capable for use for men comprising:
No bulge for breast provided at a breast part of a dress (Figure 1). It is noted that the language “for breast” is a functional recitation. The prior art teaches a flat front garment with “no bulge” and would be capable for a use for a user without breast, as recited in the claim see MPEP 2114;
;
A chest circumference length being 100% to 120% relative to a corresponding chest size of a corresponding clothes size of a user according to a male size standard, the device of Buckly has a chest circumference (Figure 1, area at the top portion that would cover a chest) length (inherent measurement around the circumference of the garment) being 100% to 120% relative to a corresponding chest size of a corresponding clothes size of a user (it is noted that the users clothes size or chest size is not disclosed and therefore any numerical measurement that would fit a male user would meet the functional recitation as claimed.) The device of Buckley has a chest size measurement (undisclosed, but for example 120cm,) and would be 100% of a man with a chest size of the same measurement, (for example 120cm) according to a male size standard;
a fastener (6) provided at a front of the garment along a front center line of the garment (figure 1), the fastener extending downwardly from a crotch part of the dress to a lowest end of the dress (Figure 1) wherein the fastener does not extend upwardly (the fastener ends at the crotch portion waist area) from the crotch part to an upper end of the dress (1);
The device of Buckley substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a waist circumference less than a chest circumference length, and a fastener comprising a zipper. The device of Caco teaches a one-piece garment having a waist circumference ( vertically central portion of 118) that is smaller than a chest circumference (Figure 13). The device of Caco teaches a zipper (114) to close a slit opening.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the smaller waist circumference in order to provide a tighter fight to prevent excess fabric from hindering movement or catching on something, and zipper fastener in place of front slit fastener, since they provide easy opening and closing and are known functional equivalents within the art.
With respect to claim 2, The one-piece dress for men according to wherein a hip circumference length is larger than the waist circumference length (Caco Figure 14).
With respect to claim 3, The one-piece dress for men according to wherein a dress length, from a base of a neck to a hem along a back of the dress, is 60% to 100% of a corresponding height size of the corresponding clothes size of the user according to the male size standard. (Figure 1). The recitation of a corresponding clothes size of the user according to the male size standard is any size that fits any clothes size. The prior art shows a user having a size, a corresponding dress size length that appears to be in the range of 60-100% but fails to give the range or measurement. It has been cited by legal precedent in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984),cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the invention was effectively filed to utilize the length of 60-100% a height of a male size standard, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine sill in the art.
With respect to claim 4, The one-piece dress for men according to wherein a dress length, from a base of a neck to a hem of the dress, is 60% to 100% of a corresponding height size of the corresponding clothes size of the user according to the male size standard. The recitation of a corresponding clothes size of the user according to the male size standard is any size that fits any clothes size. The prior art shows a device intended for a user having a size, a corresponding dress size length that appears to be in the range of 60-100% but fails to give the range or measurement. It has been cited by legal precedent in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984),cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the invention was effectively filed to utilize the length of 60-100% a height of a male size standard, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine sill in the art.
With respect to claim 5, The one-piece dress for men according to wherein the lowest end of the dress (lower most edge) at both sides of the fastener/zipper splits to the left and right when the fastener/zipper is opened. (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 6, The one-piece dress for men according to wherein the lowest end of the dress (lower most edge) at both sides of the zipper/fastener (Figure 1) splits to the left and right when the zipper is opened. (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 7, The one-piece dress for men according to wherein the lowest end of the dress (lower most edge) at both sides of the zipper/fastener splits to the left and right when the zipper is opened. (Figure 2).
With respect to claim 8, The one-piece dress for men according to wherein the lowest end of the dress (lower most edge) at both sides of the zipper/fastener (Figure 1) splits to the left and right when the zipper is opened. (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 9-13, wherein the dress continuously extends from a base of a neck (at top of element 1) to a hem (bottom of element 1) of the dress as a one-piece structure without having a joint structure connecting between an upperpart and a lower part of the dress at the waist (Figure 1).
With respect to claims 14-20, the dress does not have another zipper in addition to the zipper (Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
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 Ostrup can be reached at 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights