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 response of 5/5/2026 is received. Claims 1, 6-8 and 10 are amended, claims 5 and 12 are cancelled, and claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13 are pending.
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 1-4, 6-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickson (U.S. 12,035,762) in view of Robinson (U.S. 2018/0338543). Dickson discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Dickson teaches a pair of pants 100 for wearing by a user, comprising: a first pant leg 101a having a free end 112a; a cuff formed at the free end of the first pant leg 101a; and a band (drawstring) attached to the cuff of the first pant leg 101a. However, Dickson doesn’t teach the band is an elastic band wherein the elastic band is configured to extend into and out of two cut-out slots in the cuff as a loop that is configurable to wrap around a leg of the user to lessen movement of the cuff relative to the leg of the user. Robinson teaches an analagous upper torso garment with a sleeve 3 including an elastic band 7 attached to a cuff 13 of the sleeve. The elastic band is 7 configured to extend into and out of two cut-out slots 17,18 in the cuff as a loop that is configurable to wrap around a hand of the user to lessen movement of the cuff relative to an arm of the user as in Fig.19. Paragraph 56 discloses “Maintaining the tension on the strap 7 may keep the cuff 13 fitted to the user’s hand 22 and/or arm.” and paragraph 55 discloses that the “While the digit 23 illustrated in Fig.10 is the thumb of the hand 22, other digits of the hand 22 may be used to engage the strap 7”. Robinson serves as a teaching of an alternative elastic band retained in a cuff of a garment for retaining the cuff to the wearer’s limb during use. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that Dickson’s pant leg cuff could be improved by modifying the drawstring-style band to provide the elastic band attached to the cuff as taught by Robinson, as Robinson’s elastic band configuration doesn’t require an additional locking mechanism and is discretely retained on an inner surface of the pant leg cuff for selective use as a retention means. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dickson’s pant leg cuff band configuration with the elastic band configuration as taught by Robinson to result in an adjustable alternative band configuration configured to extend into and out of two cut-out slots in the cuff as a loop that is configurable to wrap around a leg of the user to lessen movement of the cuff relative to the leg of the user, as the modified band can be discretely retained on an inner surface of the pant leg and doesn’t require an additional toggle mechanism.
For claim 2, Dickson doesn’t teach the elastic band is moveable between a stowed position in the cuff and an operational position. Dickson’s modified elastic band is moveable between a stowed position in the cuff and an operational position as Figure 19 shows the elastic band in an operational position and Figure 15 shows the elastic band in a stowed position and the elastic band is moveable between the positions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Dickson’s elastic band as moveable between a stowed position in the cuff and an operational position, as Robinson teaches the band is stowed within the cuff until extended to the operational position.
For claim 3, Dickson doesn’t teach the pair of pants of claim 2, wherein the elastic band is hidden from view when in the stowed position in the cuff. Robinson teaches the elastic band 7 is hidden from view when in the stowed position in the cuff, as Fig. 13 shows the elastic band 7 as exposed on an inner surface 9 of the sleeve which is hidden from view. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dickson’s band such that it is hidden from view when in the stowed position in the cuff, as Robinson teaches the elastic band is oriented on an inner surface of the cuff, considered as hidden from view.
For claim 4, Dickson doesn’t teach the pair of pants of claim 2, wherein at least a portion of the elastic band is disposed within the cuff when in the stowed position. Robinson teaches that at least a portion of the elastic band 7 is disposed within the cuff when in the stowed position, as Figure 15 shows a portion of the elastic band 7 as accessible and a portion disposed within the cuff when in the stowed position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dickson’s band such that at least a portion of the elastic band is disposed within the cuff when in the stowed position, as the elastic band is discretely retained in the cuff until extended to the operational position.
For claim 6, Dickson doesn’t teach the pair of pants of claim 1, wherein the two cut-out slots are arranged on an interior face of the cuff. Robinson teaches the two cut-out slots 17,18 are arranged on an interior face of the cuff as in Fig.13. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dickson to provide the two cut-out slots arranged on an interior face of the cuff as taught by Robinson, to maintain a neat exterior appearance of the cuff and pant leg.
For claim 7, Dickson doesn’t teach the pair of pants of claim 1, wherein the two cut-out slots are spaced from one another along the cuff. Robinson teaches the two cut-out slots are spaced from one another along the cuff as in Figure 13. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dickson such that the two cut-out slots spaced from one another long the cuff, as this allows for a portion of the elastic band between the slots to be exposed for access by the wearer.
For claim 8, Dickson doesn’t teach the pair of pants of claim 1, wherein the elastic band is configured
to stretch and twist to form a criss-crossed arrangement that wraps around the leg of the user. As modified by Robinson, the elastic band is capable of stretching to wrap around the leg of the user. One of ordinary skill could determine the length of the elastic band necessary for a particular pair of pants and/or user such that the elastic band can stretch and twist to form a criss-crossed arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dickson’s elastic band as configured to stretch and twist to form a criss-crossed arrangement that wraps around the leg of the user, as an additional function of the elastic band.
For claim 9, Dickson doesn’t teach the pair of pants of claim 1, wherein the cuff compresses when the elastic band is stretched. Dickson as modified by Robinson teaches the claimed structure and the cuff is considered as capable of compressing when the elastic band 7 is stretched, as tension is exerted on the cuff when the band is stretched and there is expected to be some degree of cuff compression. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dickson’s pair of pants such that the cuff compresses when the elastic band is stretched, as tension is exerted on the cuff material when the elastic band is stretched and some compression of the cuff is expected.
For claim 10, Dickson doesn’t teach the pair of pants of claim 1, wherein the elastic band has a length
that is one half of a circumferential length of the cuff. As modified by Robinson, Dickson’s elastic band is configured to stretch and extend in length to wrap around a leg of the user. One of ordinary skill in the apparel art understands that due to the elastic properties of the band, the band length can be less than that of the circumferential length of the cuff. The length of the elastic band is considered as a results effective variable and an ideal length can be determined based on the degree of elasticity desired and the cuff size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dickson’s elastic band to have a length that is one half of a circumferential length of the cuff, as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the elastic band length to minimize materials and production costs.
For claim 13, Dickson teaches a second pant leg having a free end, a second pant leg having a free end;
a cuff formed at the free end of the second pant leg; and a band attached to the cuff of the second pant leg. However, Dickson doesn’t teach the band is an elastic band. Robinson teaches an analagous upper torso garment with two sleeves/limb coverings, each including an elastic band 7 attached to a cuff. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dickson’s second pant leg to form the band such that both pant legs have the same exterior appearance and capability.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickson in view of Robinson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lombardi ‘846. Dickson discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Dickson doesn’t teach the pair of pants of claim 1, wherein the elastic band comprises at least one of rubber, spandex, polyester, cotton, and nylon. Lombardi teaches an elastic band employed as part of a cuff structure, the elastic band comprising rubber as in col.16. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dickson’s elastic band to comprise rubber which is known as a material that can expand and contract as necessary for adjustable sizing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has overcome the drawing objections by canceling claim 12 and has also overcome the rejection to claim 10 by amending the claim language.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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, as the claim rejections are revised as necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights