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 .
General Information
Acknowledgement is made of the applicant’s amendment filed on 11/17/2025, no new matter has been added.
The merits of this case have been carefully reexamined in light of the applicant’s response received 11/17/2025. It is the examiner’s position that the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) has not been overcome by the applicant’s amendment. Upon further review, a new ground for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) is set forth below. Because it is a new ground for rejection, this action is not made final.
35 USC 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails 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.
The claimed invention is indefinite and nonenabling for the following reasons:
Reproduction 1.2 is inconsistent with the other views. Reproduction 1.2 shows broken line elements extending out the top the waistband of the article (indicated below) which are not seen on the waistband in the other views. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
851
1805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.2 is inconsistent with the other views. Reproduction 1.2 shows solid lines on the underside of the shoulder straps of the article (indicated below) which are not seen on the underside of the shoulder straps in the other views. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image2.png
1563
1608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.3 is inconsistent with the other views. Reproduction 1.3 shows the top the waistband of the article with open pockets (indicated below) which is not seen on the waistband in the other views. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image3.png
894
1807
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Reproductions 1.5 and 1.6 are inconsistent with reproduction 1.1. Reproduction 1.1 shows a small element on the article (indicated below) that is not seen on the article in reproductions 1.5 and 1.6. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image4.png
585
1717
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Reproductions 1.5 and 1.6 are inconsistent with the other views. Reproductions 1.5 and 1.6 show the right shoulder strap in front of the left shoulder strap (indicated below) while the other views show the right placed behind the left shoulder strap. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image5.png
867
1350
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Reproductions 1.5 and 1.6 are inconsistent with the other views. Reproductions 1.5 and 1.6 show an element just above the waistband on the article (indicated below) that is not seen in the other views or understood by the examiner. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image6.png
895
1237
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.6 is inconsistent with the other views. Reproduction 1.6 is missing the waistband of the article (indicated below) which is seen on the article in the other views. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image7.png
928
1392
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.6 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.1. Reproduction 1.1 shows the surfaces of the shoulder strap to continuously flow downward onto the front of the article (indicated below) but reproduction 1.6 shows the shoulder strap to curve inward onto the front of the article. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image8.png
892
1660
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.6 is inconsistent with the other views. Reproduction 1.6 shows multiple elements on the article (indicated below) which are not seen on the article in the other views or understood. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image9.png
892
1660
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.6 is inconsistent with the other views. Reproduction 1.6 shows the ends of the shoulder straps to connect at a different location on the article (indicated below) while the other views show the straps to connect to the waistband near the rear of the article. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image10.png
892
1660
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.3 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.6. Reproduction 1.3 shows the top the waistband of the article with open pockets (indicated below) which is not seen on the waistband in reproduction 1.6. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image11.png
863
1409
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.7 is inconsistent with the other views. Reproduction 1.7 shows the ends of the shoulder straps to connect at a different location on the article (indicated below) while the other views show the straps to connect to the waistband near the rear of the article. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image12.png
920
1966
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.7 is inconsistent with the other views. Reproduction 1.7 shows the indicated elements on the article (indicated below) which are not seen on the article in the other views or understood. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image13.png
920
1966
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.7 is inconsistent with the other views. Reproduction 1.7 is missing the zipper pull on the article (indicated below) which is seen on the article in the other views. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image14.png
920
1966
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Because of the inconsistencies, and insufficient information in the reproductions provided, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reproduce the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled. In order to overcome this refusal, it is suggested that the design be shown clearly and consistently among the views. However, care must be taken to not introduce new matter. It must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of original filing. When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Discussion of the Merits of the Case:
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below.
Telephonic or In Person Interviews
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, may be used for this purpose:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012
See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below.
If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at Steven.czyz@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call.
Email Communications
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information.
When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
When responding to an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, Ex Parte Quayle, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only)
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources
Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b).
The references are cited as pertinent prior art. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Patent Number Search” button.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CZYZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Simmons can be reached on 571-272-2658. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN J CZYZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2913