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 .
A pre-amendment was received 4/30/2025 amending claims 4, 5, 7-10, 13, 15, and 16 and claims 1-16 are pending.
An IDS of 4/30/2025 and 7/15/2025 were received.
A power of attorney is on file for this application, received 4/30/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: please insert a period at the end of claims 4 and 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. It’s unclear what “to be appropriate” means in the limitation that the garment adjustment system is configured to adjust the fit of the garment to the wearer “to be appropriate” when the armour member is present in the mounting and absent from the mounting.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Seeler (U.S. 3,284,805). Seeler discloses the invention as claimed. Seeler teaches a garment adjustment system 9,10 for adjusting the fit of a garment to a wearer, the system including a lacing arrangement 2b,3b,4b for attachment to the garment and a reel assembly 15, the reel assembly and the lacing arrangement 2b,3b,4b being configured to cooperate to adjust the fit of the garment to the wearer (“This invention relates to suits and garments for aviators and astronauts,…which employs mechanical means for contracting the suit about the body of the wearer..”).
For claim 2, Seeler teaches the system of claim 1 configured to adjust the fit of the garment to the torso of the wearer.
For claim 3, Seeler teaches the system of claim 1 configured to adjust the fit of the garment to the legs of the wearer (Col.4, lines 13-28: “It will be seen that when the spring 17 is tensioned the cable drum 15 when released, will rotate or wind up the cables 16 and thus pull the tensioning cables 2a,3a,4a on the arms, legs, and body of the wearer (as seen in Figs. 1 to 4)”. However, means are provided for holding or retaining the cable drums 15 with their springs 17 wound up or under a tensioned condition in which event the cables 16 are in a slack or nontensioned condition, ..thus tensioning or contracting the arm, leg and body portions of the suit on a wearer”).
For claim 4, Seeler teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the reel assembly 15 includes a ratchet (ratchet like disk 21 with ratchet like teeth 22 around its periphery for engagement with releasable holding means 23) configured to allow the progressive tightening of the fit of the garment to the wearer.
For claim 5, Seeler teaches the system of claim 4 wherein the reel assembly 15 includes a release arrangement 23 configured to release the ratchet to loosen the fit of the garment.
For claims 6 and 7, Seeler teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the release arrangement includes a grip member 40a such that manual pulling of the grip member allows the lacing arrangement to loosen the fit of the garment. Seeler teaches the hand wheel or disc having an outer flange or rim 40a which the wearer may grasp and thus rotate the cable drum to unwind cables 16 and relieve tension in the legs, arms, and body and thus reset the tensioning device. The grip member comprises at least
one of a flexible strip of material or webbing as the outer flange or rim 40a is considered as a flexible strip of material.
For claim 8, Seeler teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the lacing arrangement includes at least one of a cord 16(considered equivalent to a cable), a rope or a lace.
For claims 10 and 16, Seeler teaches a garment 1 that is an aircrew protection garment including the garment adjustment system of claim 1.
For claim 15, Seeler teaches the garment of claim 10, including a plurality of the garment adjustment systems 9, 10 (one system on each side of the garment for adjusting the left and right sides of the suit).
Claims 1 and 10-13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Cummiskey (U.S. 2021/0030081). Cummiskey discloses the invention as claimed. Cummiskey teaches a garment 2 including a garment adjustment system for adjusting the fit of a garment to a wearer, the system including a lacing arrangement 4 attached to the garment and a reel assembly 6, the reel assembly and the lacing arrangement being configured to cooperate to adjust the fit of the garment to the wearer. The garment includes a mounting 10 for a removable armour member 8,22 to protect the wearer, the garment adjustment system being configured to adjust the fit of the garment to the wearer to be appropriate when the armour member is present in the mounting and absent from the mounting. Note that the garment adjustment system is configured to adjust the fit of the garment 2 to the wearer when the armour member is removed from the cover 10 or inserted into the cover 10 as the lacing arrangement is attached to panels 26a,b and/or lower panels 28a,b for fitting the garment 2 to the wearer’s body.
For claim 13, Cummiskey teaches the lacing arrangement 4 is attached to the garment 2 such that the reel assembly and the lacing arrangement are configured to adjust the fit of the garment to the waist and chest of the wearer simultaneously as the arrangement of Figures 6 and 7 includes the reel assembly 6 with cables 4 guided into respective channels 58 such that when the user rotates hub 12 by a full rotation anti-clockwise, the length of each cable 4 disposed about the user will be reduced by approximately pi times twice the radius r of the respective circumferential cable receiving channel 58. The lacing arrangement and reel assembly are configured to adjust the lacing arrangement/cables 4 to different extents by rotation of hub 12 of the reel assembly. Cummiskey teaches “It may be desirable to tighten a cable disposed about the waist to a greater extent than a cable disposed around the chest, for example.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Seeler ‘805 in view of Beers et al. (Beers, U.S. 9,532,893). Seeler discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t teach the system of claim 1, wherein the reel assembly is motorised to automatically adjust the fit of a garment to the wearer. Beers teaches a system configured to adjust the padding of the garment 322 including a motorized reel assembly (motorized tensioning device 342) such that tension is applied to a cable associated with the pad to modify pad stiffness. The motorized tensioning device includes a torque transmitting system that allows for incremental tightening, incremental loosening and full loosening of the tensioning member. Beers teaches the motorized tensioning device may be employed with a remote device 170 allowing a user to store two or more tension settings, corresponding to at least two different lace tension preferences. Those skilled in the art appreciate that storage or recall of tensions for multiple motorized tightening devices 160, whether part of a single item of apparel or multiple items, such as a pair of shoes, may be performed with a single command issued by a remote device 170 or with a series of control commands, such as by issuing separate control commands to each motorized tightening device 160 and/or item of apparel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Seeler’s system such that the reel assembly is motorised to automatically adjust the fit of the garment to the wearer as taught by Beers, as Seeler’s motorized reel assembly could be programmed with different tension settings to correspond to different lace tension preferences for each of Seeler’s reel assemblies 9,10.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummiskey ‘081. Cummiskey discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the lacing arrangement passing around a waist region of the garment and over a chest region of the garment but doesn’t explicitly teach the lacing arrangement passing around a back portion of the garment. Cummiskey’s lacing arrangement and reel assembly are configured to adjust the lacing arrangement/cables 4 to different extents by rotation of hub 12 of the reel assembly as discussed in the rejection of claim 13. Paragraph 52 teaches the rotational tightening mechanism/reel assembly 6 may be disposed on any other part of the body protector 2 such as the back or a side, and a reel assembly 6 positioned on the back of the protector 2 would include the lacing arrangement passing around a back portion of the garment as the lacing arrangement is part of the reel assembly 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cummiskey such that the lacing arrangement passing around a waist region of the garment, as when the reel assembly is positioned on a back of the protector, the lacing arrangement necessarily passes around a back portion of the garment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
