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 .
Specification (Disclosure)
Examiner notes that the Specification is objected to for lacking a “Brief Description of the Drawings” section, as is required.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Specification (Abstract)
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 of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the legal term “comprises” (see line 1). Examiner suggests reciting “includes” instead of “comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
Figures 1A and 1B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 3A, 3B and 3C include photographic material, including grayscale shading which causes the subject matter to not be as clearly articulated as an equivalent illustration. Examiner suggests providing illustrations that represent the same subject matter, rather than grayscale photographs.
The drawings are objected to because the reference numeral “225” in Figs. 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B and 4 uses an arrow that is generally pointing to the garment, rather than a leading line (i.e. without an arrow point) that extends all the way to the element to which reference numeral 225 is assigned (i.e. torso portion). Examiner suggests the arrow from each instance of “225” be replaced with a leading line that extends all the way to the torso portion, in the figures identified above.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12, 14 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11: “wherein the American football training” should be replaced with “training garment”
the adjective phrase “American football” has already been established in the preamble of claim 1; since all dependent claims’ preambles only refer to “the training garment”, the garment itself should consistently be referred to as “the training garment” or can alternatively be further simplified to “the garment”
Similarly, claims 2, 37, 16, 18 and 20 are suggested to delete the phrase “American football”
Claim 8, line 1: “comprise” should recite “comprises”
This suggestion applies to claims 10, 12, 14 (line 1 of each), 18 and 20 (line 2 of each), as well
Claim 9, line 2: “between 300 to 550 gsm” should be amended to recite “between 300 and 550 grams/meter² (gsm)”
Since claim 9 is the first instance of “gsm”, all subsequent mentions of “gsm” in the claims would be acceptable if the suggested change to claim 9 is made, as described above
Claim 12, line 2: “to” should recite “and”
This suggestion applies to claims 15, 17 and 19 (line 2 of each), as well
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1 (and claims 2-20 at least due to dependency from independent claim 1) is 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “the left and right shoulder flaps having a lip area on its perimeter that is able to be gripped during a training session”, wherein the term “its” is indefinite. Also, it is unclear if there is a single lip area that is shared by both the left and right shoulder flaps, or each of the flaps has a respective lip area. Based on the figures 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B and 4, it appears that each flap has a respective lip area. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the excerpt is being interpreted as “the left and right shoulder flaps each having a respective perimeter, each respective perimeter having a respective lip area that is able to be gripped during a training session”.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant recites “a front of the torso portion”. In claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, Applicant already positively recites that the torso portion has “a front” (lines 8-9 of claim 1). It is indefinite as to whether there are multiple front areas for the torso portion. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the language in claim 2 is being interpreted as “the front of the torso portion” (i.e. there is one front of the torso portion).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant recites “the cotton materials” (emphasis added to the plurality). Up to this point in the claim language, only one cotton material has been positively recited, in claim 7, from which claim 9 indirectly depends. Correction is required. Examiner suggests “the cotton material”. Examiner notes that the same issue is present in claims 10, 13 and 15, which are likewise indefinite, and similar suggestions for correction are made therefor.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant recites “the cotton material”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Correction is required. Should “the cotton material” be recited as “the hemp material”, since claim 16, from which claim 17 depends, positively recites “a hemp material”?
Regarding claim 19, Applicant recites “the cotton material”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Correction is required. Should “the cotton material” be recited as “the ripstop material”, since claim 18, from which claim 19 depends, positively recites “a ripstop material”?
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 and 3-8, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blauer et al. (hereinafter “Blauer”) (USPN 6,128,783).
Regarding independent claim 1, Blauer discloses an American football training garment (configuration #58 of sweater garment; Figs. 7 and 8; Examiner notes that the phrase “American football training” is an adjective phrase that describes the intended use of the garment, which does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense) comprising: a collar (#88); a left sleeve (#64; Fig. 7) having a left upper arm portion (see Fig. 7, wherein the sleeve #64 has an arbitrary upper arm portion; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); a right sleeve (#66) having a right upper arm portion (see Fig. 7, wherein the sleeve #66 has an arbitrary upper arm portion); a torso portion (bodice #62) extending between the left and right sleeves and adjacent to the collar (see Fig. 7; Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); i.e. all elements of the garment are adjacent one another, at least to some degree); and a left shoulder flap between the collar and the left sleeve (cloth patch #92 is a shoulder flap; Figs. 7-8) and a right shoulder flap between the collar and the right sleeve (cloth patch #94 is a shoulder flap; Figs. 7-8), the left and right shoulder flaps extending over a front and back of the torso portion (as shown in Figs. 7-8, the cloth patches extend onto both a front and back of the bodice, over the shoulders of the garment), the left and right shoulder flaps having a lip area on its perimeter that is able to be gripped during a training session (each cloth patch has an arbitrary perimeter area that is a “lip area” (i.e. generally along the seam between the patch and the surrounding bodice and sleeve fabric), inasmuch as the lip area has been defined, structurally, in the claim; Examiner notes that the term "area" is very broad and merely means "a section, portion, or part". (Defn. No. 3 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); wherein the American football training [garment] does not include plastic shell materials (there are no plastic shell materials in the garment, at least in the same context as Applicant describes plastic shell materials as being “hard”, as in impact-dispersing football shoulder pads (see ¶ 0005 of Applicant’s Specification)).
Regarding claim 3, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the garment comprises a jersey-type garment (absent further structurally-distinguishing language regarding what constitutes a “jersey-type” garment, the sweater garment of Blauer (#58 configuration) is a “jersey-type” garment, inasmuch as the jersey-type garment has been defined in the claim; Blauer teaches that the garment fabric can include jersey material (Col. 4, Line 32 and Col. 5, Line 30)).
Regarding claim 4, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the collar comprises a crew neck collar (as shown in Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 5, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the torso portion comprises a first layer of fabric and the left and right shoulder flaps comprises a second layer of fabric that is stitched onto the first layer of fabric (Col. 5, Lines 51-52 describe how the patches are stitched onto the base fabric of the sweater; Col. 5, Lines 12-22 describe “patch fabric” (i.e. the patches are the flaps); “knitting” of a plain jersey stitch (Col. 5, Line 30; Col. 4, Lines30-32).
Regarding claim 6, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the lip area is approximately 1 inch in width (as explained above, there is a lip “area” at the perimeter of the patches where the patches are sewn to surrounding bodice and sleeve material; also as noted above, the term “area” is very broad, absent further distinguishing structural language regarding any particular boundaries for the lip area; therefore, the approximately 1 inch width of the perimetric seams of the patches would constitute the lip area, which would be approximately 1 inch in width).
Regarding claim 7, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the garment comprises a cotton material (patches are a cotton blend (Col. 5, Lines 12-18)).
Regarding claim 8, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the cotton material comprises a single weave material (patch fabric (i.e. with the cotton blend) is a 2x1 twill weave, which is a type of single weave material).
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.
Claim 2, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosenstein (USPN 2,263,544).
Regarding claim 2, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach that the garment further comprises fasteners extending a length of a center of a front of the torso portion that are configured to fasten two front halves of the torso portion of the American football training garment.
Rosenstein teaches a sweater garment that is reversible (Col. 1, Line 3 of Rosenstein; similarly as Blauer’s sweater), wherein the sweater includes fasteners extending a length of a center of a front of the torso portion that are configured to fasten two front halves of the torso portion of garment (slide fastener #4 shown in Figs. 1-2 of Rosenstein).
Blauer and Rosenstein teach analogous inventions in the field of upper body garments. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the slide fastener #4 from Rosenstein into the front center of the sweater of Blauer in order to provide the user with capability to open and close the sweater to adapt to different temperatures for improved comfort, as is very well-known in the art.
Claim 9, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer as applied to claims 1, 7 and 8 above, and further in view of NPL to Fabric Blog (hereinafter “Fabric Blog”) (URL = “https://blog.fabricuk.com/understanding-fabric-weight/”).
Regarding claim 9, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 7 and 8, as set forth above, but does not teach that a weight of the cotton material is between 300 to 550 gsm.
Fabric Blog teaches that twill weaves, a heavyweight fabric, can have a weight of 350+ gsm (see Page 2 of the NPL document provided).
Blauer and Fabric Blog teach analogous inventions in the field of fabrics, including twill weaves. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a 350 gsm twill denim weave (taught by Fabric Blog) as the twill weave of choice for the cotton/polyester blended fabric of the cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to further reinforce the shoulders with a heavier fabric that has greater durability, and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 10 and 11, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of NPL to Powered By She (hereinafter “PBS-Double”) (URL = “https://poweredbyshe.com/2018/06/17/gi-weaves-102-single-weave-gi-and-double-weave-gi-mystery/”).
Regarding claim 10, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as set forth above, but does not teach that the cotton material comprises a double weave material.
PBS-Double teaches a fabric for use in garments, which can include a double weave material with a weight ranging from 750-950 gsm (see Page 2 of the NPL document provided).
Blauer and PBS-Double teach analogous inventions in the field of garment fabrics. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the double weave material of PBS-Double as the woven material of choice for the cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to provide an alternative known strong fabric material that can reinforce the shoulders in the garment, as shoulder reinforcement is desired by Blauer (Col. 4, Line 33-35 of Blauer).
Regarding claim 11, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of PBS-Double, as applied to claim 10 above), renders obvious that a weight of the cotton material is between 550 and 900 gsm (see Page 2 of the NPL document provided, wherein the disclosed range of 750-950 gsm overlaps with the claimed range of 550-900 gsm).
Claims 12 and 13, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of NPL to Powered By She (hereinafter “PBS-Gold”) (URL = “https://poweredbyshe.com/tag/gold-weave/”).
Regarding claim 12, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as set forth above, but does not teach that the cotton material comprises a gold weave material.
PBS-Gold teaches a fabric for use in garments, which can include a gold weave cotton material with a weight of 550 gsm (see Page 8 of the NPL document provided).
Blauer and PBS-Gold teach analogous inventions in the field of garment fabrics. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the gold weave material of PBS-Gold as the woven material of choice for the cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to provide an alternative known strong fabric material that can reinforce the shoulders in the garment, as shoulder reinforcement is desired by Blauer (Col. 4, Line 33-35 of Blauer), which will also feel soft over time, as taught by PBS-Gold.
Regarding claim 13, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of PBS-Gold, as applied to claim 12 above), renders obvious that a weight of the cotton material is between 450 to 800 gsm (see Page 8 of the NPL document provided, which teaches that the gold weave has a weight of 550 gsm, which is inside the claimed range).
Claims 14 and 15, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of NPL to Powered By She (hereinafter “PBS-Pearl”) (URL = “https://poweredbyshe.com/tag/pearl-weave/”).
Regarding claim 14, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as set forth above, but does not teach that the cotton material comprises a pearl weave material.
PBS-Pearl teaches a fabric for use in garments, which can include a pearl weave material with a weight ranging from 450-550 gsm, but can be made as light as 390 gsm (see Page 11 of the NPL document provided).
Blauer and PBS-Pearl teach analogous inventions in the field of garment fabrics. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the pearl weave material of PBS-Pearl as the woven material of choice for the cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to provide an alternative known strong fabric material that can reinforce the shoulders in the garment, as shoulder reinforcement is desired by Blauer (Col. 4, Line 33-35 of Blauer).
Regarding claim 15, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of PBS-Pearl, as applied to claim 14 above), renders obvious that a weight of the cotton materials is between 300 to 550 gsm (see Page 11 of the NPL document provided, which discloses a weight of 390 gsm, which is within the claimed range).
Claims 16 and 17, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Filteau (CA 3,173,586 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach that the garment comprises a hemp material.
Filteau teaches a reinforcement material for a garment (Abstract of Filteau, and throughout the disclosure). Filteau teaches that the material can include textiles, which include natural fibers such as hemp (Page 11, Line 15 of Filteau). Filteau also teaches that the fabric weight can range from about 540 gsm to about 680 gsm (Page 5, second-to-last paragraph of Filteau).
Blauer and Filteau teach analogous inventions in the field of garment reinforcement fabrics. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the hemp reinforcement material (as taught by Filteau) as the material of choice for the reinforcement cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to provide an alternative known strong fabric material that can reinforce the shoulders in the garment, as shoulder reinforcement is desired by Blauer (Col. 4, Line 33-35 of Blauer).
Regarding claim 17, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Filteau, as applied to claim 16 above), renders obvious that a weight of the [hemp] material is between 400 to 800 gsm (see Page 5, second-to-last paragraph of Filteau, which discloses a weight range of 540-680 gsm, which is within the claimed range).
Claims 18 and 19, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL to TenCate (hereinafter “TenCate”) (URL = “https://apac.tencatefabrics.com/outershell-advance-220”).
Regarding claim 18, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach that the garment comprises a ripstop material.
TenCate teaches a strong woven material for garment fabric, which can be made of a ripstop twill, with a weight of 220 gsm (see Page 2 of the NPL document provided).
Blauer and TenCate teach analogous inventions in the field of garment fabrics. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the ripstop twill (as taught by TenCate) as the twill material of choice for the cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to provide an alternative known strong fabric material that can reinforce the shoulders in the garment, as shoulder reinforcement is desired by Blauer (Col. 4, Line 33-35 of Blauer).
Regarding claim 19, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of TenCate, as applied to claim 18 above), renders obvious that a weight of the [ripstop] material is between 200 to 400 gsm (see Page 2 of the NPL document provided, which discloses a weight of 220 gsm, which is within the claimed range).
Claim 20, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schottenstein (US 2022/0346477).
Regarding claim 20, Blauer discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach that the garment comprises a canvas material.
Schottenstein teaches a garment with reinforcement patches that can be formed from canvas (¶ 0052, second-to-last sentence of Schottenstein).
Blauer and Schottenstein teach analogous inventions in the field of reinforcements in garments via patches. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used canvas (as taught by Schottenstein) as the material of choice for the cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to provide an alternative known strong fabric material that can reinforce the shoulders in the garment, as shoulder reinforcement is desired by Blauer (Col. 4, Line 33-35 of Blauer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon in an art rejection above is deemed relevant in the field of garments with extra layers of material at or near the shoulder regions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
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.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732