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
Claims 7-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/24/25.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 4d contains an exploded view that needs to be placed in brackets see MPEP 608.02. 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 use of the term GORTEX-TEX (paragraph 0028), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “to be positioned so as to face a wearer’s body side” should read “to be positioned so as to face a wearer’s body side when worn”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “to be positioned so as to be opposite to the wearer’s body side” should read “to be positioned so as to be opposite to the wearer’s body side when worn”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 § 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 and 4-6 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.
In regard to claim 1, it is unclear how many tucks are being claimed. There is a tuck presented in claims 13 and 17, it is unclear if there are multiple tucks being claimed in the front/one fabric or if the second instance of “a tuck” should read “said/the tuck”. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the claim to be referring to only one tuck.
Further regarding claim 1, one of the fabric layers is being referred to as two different names, “the other fabric” and “the lining fabric”, it is unclear if these structures are referring to the same layer or not. Applicant should use consistent terminology when referring to the same structure throughout the claims.
Further regarding claim 1, it is unclear if one of the fabric layers is being referred to as two different names, “the one fabric” and “the front fabric”, and if these structures are referring to the same layer or not. Applicant should use consistent terminology when referring to the same structure throughout the claims.
In claim 1, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “largely cutting” would require or entail and if there are structural implications of the cloth product besides the cutting. It is unclear if there are other means to create the extra fabric or stitch besides the “cutting”?
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear in lines 13-18 what is being required of the claimed cloth product and what is the structure during the manufacturing process. For instance, the tuck does not appear to be part of the final filled cloth product. It is unclear what structure is required to read on the claimed product.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "filling-material partition stitch" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regard to claim 1, there are two limitations directed to the front/one fabric of cutting so that it is larger than the lining/other fabric. It is unclear what applicant is intending to require of the cloth product. Are there two cutting processes being required of the cloth product, and how do these affect the cloth product structure? For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the cloth product to be produced once by this step and that the final cloth product structure requires that the one/front fabric is larger than the lining/other fabric.
Regarding claim 1, the claim requires two different process limitations directed to pushing the front/one fabric up and away from the filing material to stand up in a three-dimensional manner from the other/lining fabric. It is unclear if this process is happening twice and what structure is required of the cloth product to meet the same process twice. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the cloth product to be produced once by this step and that the final cloth product structure requires that three-dimensional space between the one/front fabric and the lining/other fabric.
Any remaining claims are rejected depending from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maud (US 2015/0201683).
In regard to claim 1, Maud teaches a filling-material filled cloth product comprising: a pair of fabrics layered together and sewn peripherally at filling-material partition stitch defining therein a bag-shaped filling-material accommodation space (see annotated figure below, identifier 450 and paragraph 0128); and a thermally insulating filling material accommodated within the bag-shaped filling-material accommodation space (paragraph 0055); wherein one fabric of the pair of fabrics is cut so as to be larger than the other fabric of the pair of fabrics so that the one fabric having a surplus portion in proximity to the filling-material partition stitch made as a result of largely cutting is pushed up away from the filling material so as to stand up in a three-dimensional manner from the other fabric (product-by-process limitation see MPEP 2113, the method of forming the product is not needed to be taught by the prior art, if the prior art teaches the final cloth product structure, Maud teaches the one fabric layer having a surplus portion and is cut larger than the other fabric layer: see annotated figure 4 below), and thereby, the filling-material accommodation space is three-dimensionally shaped so as to accommodate the filling material having a substantially uniform thickness in proximity to the filling-material partition stitch (see stitch: 450 and height of filling material accommodation space next to the stitching: annotated figure 4 below); wherein the surplus portion has a tuck formed on the one fabric (see annotated figure below); and wherein one fabric of the pair of fabrics is a front fabric to be positioned so as to face a wearer’s body side (see annotated figure below), and the other fabric of the pair of fabrics is a lining fabric to be positioned so as to be opposite to the wearer’s body side (see annotated figure below), and wherein the front fabric is cut so as to be larger than the lining fabric so that the front fabric having a tuck formed thereon is pushed up away from the filling material so as to stand up in a three-dimensional manner from the lining fabric (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 4, Maud teaches wherein the filling-material accommodation space includes a plurality of filling-material accommodation spaces adjacent to each other (see annotated figure above).
In regard to claim 5, Maud teaches wherein said filling-material filled cloth product is a jacket (paragraph 0145).
In regard to claim 6, Maud teaches wherein the filling material is made of down (paragraph 055).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found cited in PTO-892 form submitted herewith. The cited prior art to Maud (US 2015/0201683) is or particular relevance to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 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, Clinton T 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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732