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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Application filed on 4/3/2025 in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination. The restriction requirement mailed on 1/12/2026 was mailed inadvertently and therefore it is not applicable to this application, therefore the previous office action of restriction requirement mailed on 1/12/2026 is hereby replaced with this non-final office action.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claims 5-10 and 15-16 limitations are not shown.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the limitation in claim 15 is not present in the specification as originally filed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract as originally filed lack a summary of the structural elements making the invention.
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 11, 15 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 11 and 17 are indefinite because it is unclear that they are independent or dependent, it was interpreted that the claims are dependent on claim 1.
Claim 15 recites a “widened segment” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the metes and bounds the applicant is trying to claim. The limitation was not explained in the specification nor shown in the figures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 11-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0258159 A1) as best understood.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 17, Moore discloses a patch assembly and a fly closure for securing a drawstring to a garment (See Figs. 6-7) comprising:
a garment (10);
a drawstring (70);
a panel (11) with a first side (facing the wearer when worn) for attaching to the garment (See Fig. 6) and a second side (facing away from the wearer when worn) for retaining the drawstring (70); and
a loop (in the form of a stitch midway between the drawstring ends (92, 94) secured to the second side of the panel (as shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 2, Moore discloses a patch assembly wherein the panel is fabric (para. 0041 describe an elastic textile which was considered as fabric).
Regarding claim 12, Moore discloses a fly closure further comprising a plurality of opposing apertures adjacent the loop (Fig. 6 identifiers 52, 58).
Regarding claim 18, Moore discloses a garment wherein the panel (11) is a waistband of the garment (See Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Moore discloses a garment wherein the panel is attached to a waistband of the garment (para. 0041 by stitching, welding and the like).
Regarding claim 20, Moore discloses a garment further comprising a plurality of opposing apertures adjacent the loop (52, 58).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0258159 A1) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0295870 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Moore discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Moore does not disclose a patch assembly wherein the loop comprises a fabric with elasticity.
However, Harris et al. “Harris” teaches yet another patch assembly for securing a drawstring to a garment (See Figs. 3 and 4) having a loop (100, 120) comprises a fabric with elasticity (See Para. 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured Moore device with a patch assembly wherein the loop comprises a fabric with elasticity as taught by Harris in order to provide the ease of replacing the drawstring when damaged without the need to replace the entire garment.
Regarding claim 4, Moore as modified by Harris discloses a patch assembly further comprising a retainer (which is the inner side of element 120).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Moore as modified by Harris discloses a patch assembly wherein the retainer (See above) is fixed within the loop (integrally fixed).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Moore as modified by Harris discloses a patch assembly wherein the retainer (See above) is removably secured within the loop (by removing the adhesive).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Moore as modified by Harris discloses a patch assembly wherein the retainer (See above) comprises protrusions (122) extending within the interior of the loop (See Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Moore as modified by Harris discloses a patch assembly wherein the first side comprises an adhesive (para. 0028 of Harris).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Moore as modified by Harris discloses a patch assembly wherein the first side comprises one portion of a hook-and-loop fastener (Para. 0028 of Harris).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Moore as modified by Harris discloses a patch assembly wherein the loop (See above) is configured (capable) to adopt either of an open or locked position relative to the panel along its length.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Moore as modified by Haris discloses a fly closure further comprising a retainer (which is the inner side of element 120).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Moore as modified by Haris discloses a fly closure wherein the retainer removably attaches to the drawstring (See Fig. 3 of Harris).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Moore as modified by Haris discloses a fly closure wherein the retainer (See above) is a widened segment of the drawstring (See Fig. 3 of Harris).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Moore as modified by Haris discloses a fly closure wherein the retainer is a segment of the drawstring having increased friction within the loop (See Fig. 3 of Harris when tightened).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered (See PTO-892) pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED ANNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-5 PM 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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/KHALED ANNIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732