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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in RUSSIAN FEDERATION on October 19, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the “RU2023126780” application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
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 begins with a statement which can be implied (“The proposed invention relates to…”). 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).
Specification (Disclosure)
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with language which is not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose language used in the specification are:
repetitive use of indefinite references to elements, using terms like “it” and “its” (see ¶ 0003-0004).
¶ 0003-0007 are paragraphs that are essentially each a single run-on sentence.
The last sentence of ¶ 0013 includes the word “fibrides”, and no definition of this term can be found upon research in various dictionaries.
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 claim 2 at least due to dependency from 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 following limitations, all of which lack clear antecedent basis in the claim:
“the main fabric” (lines 1 and 4)
“the article” (lines 1 and 4)
“the walls of which” (line 2)
“the pocket walls” (line 2)
“the long sides of each edge element and lining sections” (lines 3-4)
“the lining of the article” (line 4)
“the other edge of the long side” (lines 4-5)
“the…closing locking elements” (line 7)
“the free opening” (line 8)
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “them” (line 6) which is indefinite.
Claim 1 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Correction is required.
Examiner notes that, without any filed drawings to use as a guide, the subject matter of claim 1 is confusing and cannot be discerned or understood clearly, even when attempting the interpret the claim in light of the written Specification. For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as best as can be understood when applying any prior art thereagainst.
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 1 and 2, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barone et al. (hereinafter “Barone”) (US 2014/0366250) in view of Semiachkov (RU 197471 U1; please refer to the English machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding independent claim 1, Barone discloses a pocket with a magnetic closure (pocket #10 has a closure #42, which may be a magnetic closure (¶ 0020, third sentence)), including (Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification does not provide any context for how to interpret the transitional phrase “including”; MPEP 2111.03(I) indicates that “comprising” and “including” are synonymous; therefore, “including” as recited in the claim is being interpreted as being open-ended in the same manner as “comprising”) a lining (layer pair #12) connected to the main fabric of the article (regions #28 and #30, which include portions #32 and #34 are part of the garment material layer #100 (i.e. main fabric of the article, as best as this limitation can be understood); see Fig. 1, showing all layers being connected to one another, at least through intermediate structure if not directly connected), the walls of which form a pocket cavity (a pocket cavity is defined between layer pair #12 and layer pair #14), each of the pocket walls is provided with an edge element (the pocket space has walls that have arbitrary edge elements, inasmuch as the claim structurally defines), which are made of fabric strips (the pocket material can be made of rip-stop nylon (¶ 0016), which is a type of fabric strip), whereas one of the long sides of each edge element and lining sections are connected to the main fabric of the lining of the article (as noted above all components of the pocket are connected together; all sides of each edge element can be considered “long” as they have some measurable length (see Fig. 1)), and the other edge of the long side of each edge element is folded and stitched to form an open cavity (see flap extension #22 which has a folded mock French seam stitch (Fig. 1)), but is silent to locking elements being installed in the open cavity, and configured for closing with integrated magnets placed on [the locking elements], and the edge elements and closing locking elements forming a pocket closure in the form of a sleeve, which closes the free opening to the pocket.
Semiachkov teaches a pocket with a magnetic closure, wherein the closure includes magnetic locking joints #4 (i.e. locking elements with integrated magnets thereon), wherein the locking joints are used in edge elements of the pocket located on the side of each of the walls of the lining at the inlet of the pocket. Each of the locking elements has reinforcing elements #3 onto which the magnetic locking joints are placed along the entire length (see first full paragraph on Page 4 of the English machine translation provided).
Barone and Semiachkov teach analogous inventions in the field of pockets with magnetic closure devices. 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 substituted the magnetic closure #42 of Barone out for the strips of magnetic locking joints and reinforcing elements therewith of Semiachkov, in order to provide an alternative known magnetic fastener system that can close the opening to the pocket along a greater percentage of the length, as opposed to a single closure point that appears to be native to Barone (see singular #42 fastener in Figs. 1-3 of Barone), and it would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have placed the magnetic locking element and reinforcing element into the folded, stitched mock French seam (see near #22 in Fig. 1 of Barone) in order to utilize the very edge of the flap for the connection, which would better prevent the flap from inadvertently being snagged open undesirably. As a result of the modification, there would be locking elements installed in the open cavity (formed via the mock French seam’s folded stitched cavity, as best as this limitation can be understood), and configured for closing with integrated magnets placed on [the locking elements] (as noted above, the locking joints incorporated from Semiachkov have magnets integrated therein with the reinforcing elements), and the edge elements and closing locking elements forming a pocket closure in the form of a sleeve (the sleeve defines the open cavity mentioned above, as best as this can be understood), which closes the free opening to the pocket (via the magnetic locking joint, post-modification).
Regarding claim 2, the modified pocket of Barone (i.e. Barone in view of Semiachkov, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the locking elements are strips made of polymer materials (Semiachkov teaches that the reinforcing elements of the locking strips can be made of various polymers (see last paragraph on Page 3 of the English machine translation)).
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 pockets with magnetic closures.
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