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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action (mailed on 05/15/2025) is withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
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.
Claim 7 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.
Claim 7, recites “the second fabric layer is defined A by a greater power than the first fabric layer”, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is a structure of term “A”. Furthermore, because such claimed subject matter do not have support in the instant disclosure. Such lack of support makes it very difficult to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Claim 11, recites “auxetic or true auxetic”, it is unclear which structure encompassed by such limitation, furthermore, the term “or” is an alternative term that also indefinite.
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) 1-4, 6, 10-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (2018/0325196—hereinafter, Miller).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a pants garment (fig.1, par [0073]) comprising: a waistband (118, fig.1A, par [0073] and the annotated fig.1A’ below) comprising a multi-layer fabric panel (fig.1, 104) including a first fabric layer (120) coupled to a second fabric layer (116, par [0037]), the first fabric layer comprising a first material (120) and a second material (116), the first material forming an auxetic structure comprising a pattern of reentrant shapes, and the second material providing a fill portion positioned inside each reentrant shape of the auxetic structure (par [0063-0064]), the second fabric layer coupled to the first fabric layer along an upper perimeter and a lower perimeter of the waistband, the second fabric layer free-floating relative to the first fabric layer in a central body portion between the upper perimeter and the lower perimeter of the waistband; and a pelvis portion connected to the waistband (par [0051, 0056-0058, 0063-0064]).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-4, 6, Miller discloses wherein the second fabric layer is provided by a stretch fabric (par [0045, 0082]); wherein the second fabric layer is identical to the first fabric layer (par [0041]); wherein the first fabric layer is an inner layer on the waistband and the second fabric layer is an outer layer on the waistband (par [0038]); wherein the pants garment is provided by one of long pants, capri pants, leggings shorts, or briefs (fig.1A).
Regarding claims 10-11, Miller discloses wherein the pattern of reentrant shapes are auxetic hexagons arranged in an hourglass orientation or in a bow-tie orientation on the waistband (par [0063]; wherein the multi-layer fabric panel is near auxetic or true auxetic (par [0063]).
Regarding claims 13-14, Miller discloses wherein the waistband is configured to completely encircle a waist of a wearer of the pants garment (see fig.1A’ above); the waistband further comprising a front stretch panel, wherein the multi-layer fabric panel is arranged on a back of the waistband and is connected to the front stretch panel along at least one side seam (fig.1A and par [0078-0079]).
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.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (2018/0325196—hereinafter, Miller).
Regarding claim 5, Miller discloses the pants garment of claim 1 wherein each of the reentrant shapes is an auxetic hexagon arranged (par [0112]). But Miller does not disclose shape as an hourglass orientation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a shape of panel as the claimed invention, such modification would be considered a mere change in shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Miller discloses par [0054] states that the first material 116 and the second material 120 affect the material properties of the fabric panel 104 differently. For example, areas of the fabric panel 104 to which the first material 116 is applied can have a different modulus of elasticity than areas of the fabric panel 104 to which the second material 120 is applied. Depending on the materials used, the modulus of elasticity of the fabric panel 104 in areas where the first material 116 is applied can be greater than or less than the modulus of elasticity of the fabric panel 104 in areas where the second material 120 is applied. But Miller does not disclose wherein the second fabric layer is defined A by a greater power than the first fabric layer, such that the second fabric layer controls stretch and drives recovery of the first fabric layer. 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 modulus of elasticity of the fabric in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering an optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Miller does not disclose wherein the auxetic structure lowers a Poisson's ratio of the multi-layer fabric panel. 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 modulus of elasticity of the fabric or the Poisson’s ratio of the material in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering an optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Miller discloses a waistband (see fig.1A’ above) for an article of apparel, the waistband comprising: a multi-layer rear panel including a first layer (120) defining an auxetic structure and a second layer (116) provided by a stretch fabric, the auxetic structure (par [0064]); and a front panel connected to the multi-layer rear panel (fig.1B). But Miller does not disclose lower a Poisson's ratio of the multi-layer rear pane. 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 modulus of elasticity of the fabric or the Poisson’s ratio of the material in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering an optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Furthermore, Miller discloses does par [0054] states that the first material 116 and the second material 120 affect the material properties of the fabric panel 104 differently. For example, areas of the fabric panel 104 to which the first material 116 is applied can have a different modulus of elasticity than areas of the fabric panel 104 to which the second material 120 is applied. Depending on the materials used, the modulus of elasticity of the fabric panel 104 in areas where the first material 116 is applied can be greater than or less than the modulus of elasticity of the fabric panel 104 in areas where the second material 120 is applied. But Miller does not disclose not disclose the second layer is defined by a greater power than the first layer such that the second layer controls stretch and drives recovery of the first layer. 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 modulus of elasticity of the fabric in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering an optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 16-17, Miller discloses the waistband of claim 15 wherein the front panel is provided by a stretch fabric connected to the rear panel by at least one seam arranged on a side of the waistband (fig.1A-1B); wherein the auxetic structure is provided by a pattern of reentrant shapes par [0064].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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