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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-4 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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 1-4 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.
Claim 1 recites “be slid from an upper side to a lower side for opening the fastener”. It is unclear what element has an upper side and a lower side. For purposes of examination that claim has been construed to mean “be slid from an upper side of the fastener to a lower side of the fastener for opening the fastener”. Appropriate clarification is required.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delumpa (US 11,910,854) in view of Yu Jie et al. (CN 220458664). The device of Delumpa teaches
With respect to claim 1, A one-piece dress (10) capable for use for men (Figure 4), comprising:
no bulge for breasts (Figure 4), and provided at a breast part of the dress (Figure 4); It is noted that the language “for breast” is intended use. The prior art teaches a flat front garment with no bulge and would be capable for use for a user without breast, as recited in the claim; see MPEP 2115;
a chest circumference length (Figure 4, area that would cover a chest);
a waist circumference length being narrower than the chest circumference length (Figure 4, shows where the edges are tapered in at the waist area, as comparted to the distal end 20),;
and a fastener (28) provided for men to urinate while standing(Figure 4), It is noted that the language “provided for men to urinate while standing” is a recitation of intended use. The prior art teaches an opening that is capable of aligning with gentialtia of a user and for use to urinate and therefore meets the claim language as currently recited, see MPEP 2114;
wherein the fastener (28) is configured to be provided to be openable and closable (Figure 4 & 5) from a crotch part of the dress (at 22) corresponding to a crotch of the user (22) toward a lower end of a hem of the dress; The language “configured to be provide to be openable and closeable from a crotch part of the dress corresponding to a crotch of a user is functional language. The prior art is capable of being opened and closed by the fastener 28, and corresponds to an area that is capable of being positioned in an area of a crotch of a user. It is noted that the positioning of the opening of the device in relationship to human anatomy would depending on the heigh/shape/anatomy of the user. The prior art is capable of functioning as recited, and therefore meets the claim, see MPEP 2114.
The fasteners 28 can be slid (column 2, lines 45) from an upper side of the fastener to a lower side of the fastener for opening the fastener, and separate to left and right and open the dress when slid up to the lower end (Figure 4),
The reciations can be slide from and upper side to a loser side and separate to left and right and opend when slide up is a functional recitation. A zipper as taught by Delumpa would inhernelty slide form upper and lower side, and separate a left and right portion from one another, meeting the functional language recited.
and an upper end of the fastener (28, zipper) at the crotch part of the dress is a non-separable fixed end (each end at left and right sides of the zipper is non separably fixed to the dress, figure 4).
The device of Delumpa substantially discloses the claimed invention but is silent with respect to a chest size and waist size.
The device of Yu Jie et al. teaches,
A dress (3);
a chest circumference length (120cm) being 100% to 120% relative to a corresponding chest size of a corresponding clothes size of a user according to a male size standard; It is noted that the users clothes 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 Yu Jie teaches a chest circumference of 120cm, which would be 100% of a man with a chest clothing size of 120cm.
a waist circumference length (110cm) being narrower than (110cm, is less than 120cm), the chest circumference length.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to utilize the size taught by Yu Jie et al. in order to provide an improved fit for smaller sized patients (abstract).
With respect to claim 2, The one-piece dress for men according to claim 1, wherein a hip circumference length is larger than the waist circumference length. The device of Delumpa shows where the edges are tapered in at the waist area, and taper outwards to the distal end (20) such that an area that would be located over a hip area would be larger than an area at the waist (Figure 4).
With respect to claim 3, wherein a dress length, from a base of a neck to the hem along a back of the dress, is 60% to 100% a corresponding height size of the corresponding clothes size of the user according to the male size standard (Figure 6). The recitation of a corresponding height size of the corresponding close size of the user is any size that fits any clothes size. The prior art shows a user having a size, and a corresponding dress 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. The device claimed by the applicant would not perform differently than the prior art device of Delumpa and is therefore not patentably distinct. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was efficiently 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 claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 4, wherein a dress length, from a base of a neck to the hem, is 60% to 100% of the assumed user's height a corresponding height size of the corresponding clothes size of the user according to the male size standard. The prior art shows a user having a size, and a corresponding dress 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. The device claimed by the applicant would not perform differently than the prior art device of Delumpa and is therefore not patentably distinct. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was efficiently filed to utilize the length of 60%-100% a height of a male size standard in order to fit a wide range of end users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies:
The slit is located closer to the top side of the gown the bottom side of the gown (or that the slit of the instant invention is in an alternative location);
The length of the slit is less than the distance between the lower end of the slit and the bottom side of the gown (or that the slit of the instant invention is at a specific location on the garment, or that an opening/slit is required);
The fasteners are not used to directly close a slit (the structural relationship between fasteners and a slit or opening are not recited in the claims);
The slit is not fully open from the center of the abdomen to a lower end of the gown (the instant invention doesn’t require any structure with respect to the opening or its position on the garment);
are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the fastener of the prior art cannot be separated to the left and right. The prior art teaches a zipper, inherently having left and right sides that form a connection and when disconnected would separate the left and right sides as currently required by the claim.
Applicant argues that the prior art is impossible to use for the intended function of urinating from the slit while standing is located at a center abdomen. The position of the slit of Delumpa on a human body would depend on the size and anatomy of the human body. The prior art is capable of being positioned on a human body (for example, a person of short stature) and be used for standing urination and therefore meets the claim language as currently recited.
Applicant argues that since the garment is unisex “it should” have a bulge for breast. The prior art does not disclose or suggest a structural breast bulge in the garment. Applicants reasoning relies on speculation regarding how the garment might conform to a wearers anatomy rather than a teaching in the reference itself. A prior art reference is evaluated for what it reasonably teaches a person of ordinary skill in the art, not for speculative features that might arise depending on the body shape of a potential user. The mere possibility that a garment could be worn by a mean does not constitute a disclosure or suggestion of a breast bulge as a structural feature of the garment.
Applicant argues that the device of Yu Jie fails to provide a teaching of relative sizes of several body parts based on a male size standard. The claim as currently recited requires “a chest circumference length that is 100-120% relative to a corresponding chest size of a corresponding clothes size of a user according to a male size standard.” The prior art has a size, that corresponds to a closes size of a male. The size would inherently correspond to a size of a user according to a male size standard, since a user’s since would fall within a size standard that’s currently in existence.
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