DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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, 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 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyo-Grooten (US 2019/0289935). Grooten discloses an outerwear including two long sleeves with a portion of each of the two long sleeve sleeves having a portion at a distal end thereof having two openings, a first opening defined as a finger opening and a second opening defined as a thumb opening and a transparent window/translucent panel (10) positioned on each of the two long sleeves in an area over a wrist worn device, subparagraphs 14-16 so as to provide visual access to a wrist worn/smart device being worn by a wearer of the outerwear as shown in figures 3 and 8. However, Grooten does not show the outerwear being a jacket.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the outerwear with the two long sleeves of Grooten can include but not limited to a jacket, etc. as such upper torso garment is well known in the apparel making art.
Response to Amendment
The amendment and arguments filed on March 27, 2026 have been considered. In view of such the amendment has necessitated this office action to be made FINAL over prior art of record and the arguments are moot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 18-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 4-7 and 18-21 are allowable because the prior art does not teach or suggest a jacket having each of the long sleeves at distal ends having a first finger opening and a second thumb opening with a transparent window positioned in an area over a wrist worn device to provide visual access thereto in combination a flap that selectively covers the transparent window.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art reference cited on PTO-892 discloses a long sleeved garment having a transparent window positioned at a distal end thereof having a wrist opening.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEJASH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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 (571) 272-5559. 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.
June 15, 2026 /TAJASH D PATEL/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights