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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species C in the reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-11, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebras (3091772).
Regarding claim 1, Herbras discloses an article of apparel (fig.1) comprising: a first textile element (fig.1 shows a garment having two portions and/or right leg opening and left leg open 1 and 2) forming a first portion (1) of the article of apparel; a second textile element (left leg opening/2) forming a second portion of the article of apparel; and a strap system (10,17) comprising: a first strap (fig.3 shows one end of strap 10 connected to a waistband 6 and the other end at about element 10) having a first end and a second end, the first end of the first strap fixed to the first textile element (at 6 fig.3) of the article of apparel, wherein the first strap has a first amount of stretch (elastic band 10); a second strap (fig.3 shows one end of strap 17 connected to a portion of garment at 6 and the other end is free at 14/15) having a third end and a fourth end, the fourth end of the second strap fixed to the second textile element of the article of apparel, wherein the first strap is in a face sharing relationship with the second strap (fig.3), wherein the second strap has a second amount of stretch (elastic band 17).
But Hebras does not disclose wherein the first amount of stretch of the first strap is greater than the second amount of stretch of the second strap. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to experiment with different amount of stretch in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering an optimum value of stretch on the two known elastic bands involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, Hebras discloses a coupling mechanism (5, fig.3) securing the first strap to the second strap, wherein the coupling mechanism is slidable along a length of the first strap and the second strap (col.1, lines 35-48; col.2, lines 67-72; col.3, lines 23-75),
wherein an amount of stretch of the strap system is dependent on a location of the coupling mechanism along the length of the first strap and the second strap (col.2, lines 67-72; col.1, lines 35-48; col.3, lines 23-75).
Regarding claims 2-5, Hebras discloses the article of apparel of claim 1, wherein the first strap and the second strap remain in the face sharing relationship when the coupling mechanism is positioned at different locations along the length of the first strap and the second strap (col.2, lines 67-72; col.1, lines 35-48; col.3, lines 23-75, fig.3); wherein the second end of the first strap is unfixed to the second textile element of the article of apparel, and wherein the third end of the second strap is unfixed to the first textile element of the article of apparel (fig.3); wherein the first end of the first strap and the third end of the second strap are positioned at a first side of the coupling mechanism, and wherein the second end of the first strap and the fourth end of the second strap are positioned at a second opposite side of the coupling mechanism (fig.1-3); wherein an amount of stretch of the strap system is dependent on a location of the coupling mechanism along the length of the first strap and the second strap (col.2, lines 67-72).
Regarding claims 6-8, Hebras discloses the end portions of the waistband and the respective overlapping parts 7 are slidable in relation to each other so as to increase or decrease the overlap, respectively (col.2, lines 67-70). But Hebras does not disclose wherein when the coupling mechanism is located closer to the first end of the first strap and the third end of the second strap, the strap system has a first amount of stretch, and wherein when the coupling mechanism is located closer to the second end of the first strap and the fourth end of the second strap, the strap system has a second amount of stretch that is greater than the first amount of stretch; wherein when the coupling mechanism is located closer to the first end of the first strap and the third end of the second strap, a first distance measured from the first end of the first strap to a first side of the coupling mechanism is smaller than a second distance measured from the fourth end of the second strap to a second opposite side of the coupling mechanism; wherein when the coupling mechanism is located closer to the second end of the first strap and the fourth end of the second strap, a third distance measured from the fourth end of the second strap to the second opposite side of the coupling mechanism is smaller than a fourth distance measured from the first end of the first strap to the first side of the coupling mechanism. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to experiment with different amount of stretch in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering an optimum value of stretch on the two known elastic bands involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 9-11, Hebras discloses the article of apparel of claim 1, wherein the second strap is formed of a low-stretch or no-stretch material (elastic band 17); wherein the article of apparel is a lower body garment (fig.1); wherein the article of apparel is the lower body garment with the strap system forming at least a portion of a waistband support system of the lower body garment (fig.1).
Regarding claim 15, Hebras discloses an article (fig.1) comprising: a first textile element (1) forming a first portion of the article; a second textile element (2) forming a second portion of the article; and a strap system (5, fig.3) comprising: a first strap (fig.3 shows one end of strap 10 connected to a waistband 6 and the other end at about element 10) having a first end and a second end, the first end of the first strap fixed to the first textile element of the article, wherein the first strap has a first amount of stretch (elastic band 10); a second strap (fig.3 shows one end of strap 17 connected to a portion of garment at 6 and the other end is free at 14/15) having a third end and a fourth end, the fourth end of the second strap fixed to the second textile element of the article, wherein the first strap is in a face sharing relationship with the second strap (fig.3), wherein the second strap has a second amount of stretch (elastic band 17).
But Hebras does not disclose wherein the first amount of stretch of the first strap is greater than the second amount of stretch of the second strap. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to experiment with different amount of stretch in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering an optimum value of stretch on the two known elastic bands involves only routine skill in the art.
Furthermore, Hebras discloses a coupling mechanism (5) securing the first strap to the second strap, wherein the coupling mechanism is slidable along a length of the first strap and the second strap, and wherein an amount of stretch of the strap system is dependent on a location of the coupling mechanism along the length of the first strap and the second strap (col.1, lines 35-48; col.2, lines 67-72; col.3, lines 23-75).
Regarding claims 16-17. Hebras discloses wherein the first strap and the second strap remain in the face sharing relationship when the coupling mechanism is positioned at different locations along the length of the first strap and the second strap; wherein the first end of the first strap and the third end of the second strap are positioned at a first side of the coupling mechanism, and wherein the second end of the first strap and the fourth end of the second strap are positioned at a second opposite side of the coupling mechanism (col.1, lines 35-48; col.2, lines 67-72; col.3, lines 23-75).
Regarding claims 18-20, Hebras discloses the article of claim 15, wherein the second end of the first strap is unfixed to the second textile element of the article, and wherein the third end of the second strap is unfixed to the first textile element of the article (fig.3); wherein the article is an article of footwear, wherein the first end of the first strap is located on a lateral side and wherein the fourth end of the second strap is located on a medial side of the article of footwear (fig.3, col.1, lines 35-48; col.2, lines 67-72; col.3, lines 23-75); wherein the article is a lower body garment, wherein the strap system comprises at least a portion of a waistband support system of the lower body garment (fig.1-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY K TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)270-3495. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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.
/Timothy K Trieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights