NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 04/30/2026, no new matter has been added.
The merits of this case have been carefully reexamined in light of the applicant’s response received 04/30/2026. 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 reproduction 1.1. The size and shape of the indicated elements on the article in reproduction 1.2 (indicated below) do not match what is shown in reproduction 1.1. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
1058
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.2 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.1. The location of the zipper pull element on the article in reproduction 1.1 (indicated below) does not match what is shown in reproduction 1.2. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image2.png
482
1534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.2 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.1. Reproduction 1.1 shows the body support portion of the article to rest on top of the waist portion of the article (indicated below) while reproduction 1.2 shows the body support portion of the article to extend down on to the waist portion of the article. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image3.png
480
1638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.3 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.1. Reproduction 1.1 shows solid line edges on the shoulder straps of the article (indicated below) which are not shown on the shoulder straps in reproduction 1.3. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image4.png
663
1462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.3 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.1. Reproduction 1.3 shows a raised edge/surface on the waist portion of the article (indicated below) which is not shown on the article in reproduction 1.1. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image5.png
526
978
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.3 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.1. Reproduction 1.3 shows the strap extending off the waist portion of the article near the bottom edge (indicated below) while reproduction 1.1 shows the same strap extending off in the middle. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image6.png
470
1321
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The exact three-dimensional shape of the back support pad on the rear of the article (indicated below) is not clearly disclosed. Reproduction 1.1 shows the top corner to sit higher than the middle. Reproduction 1.7 shows an additional solid line and a defined thickness to the pad that is not seen in any other view. Also, reproductions 1.4 and 1.5 show a solid line at the top of the back support pad connecting to the waist portion that is not seen in the other views. As currently disclosed it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image7.png
840
1280
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this refusal by amending all the views to clearly and consistently show the size and shape of the back support pad on the article, or by amending the views to reduce the back support pad to broken lines in all the views removing it from the claim.
Reproduction 1.3 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.2. Reproductions 1.2 and 1.3 are front and rear views, but the shape of the indicated strap and waist band portion of the article in reproduction 1.3 (indicated below) does not match what is shown in reproduction 1.2. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image8.png
615
1684
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.3 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.2. Reproductions 1.2 and 1.3 are front and rear views, but the shape of the indicated bottom edge of the article in reproduction 1.3 (indicated below) does not match what is shown in reproduction 1.2. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image9.png
421
1657
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.4 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.2. Reproduction 1.4 shows a round element extending off the top of the zipper pull (indicated below) which is shown in reproduction 1.2. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image10.png
437
340
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.4 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.2. Reproduction 1.4 shows a greater space between the indicated edge and the zipper pull (indicated below) and the element that covers the top of the zipper pull in reproduction 1.4 shows a different shape. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image11.png
405
327
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.4 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.2. The location/connection of the body support to the waist portion of the article in reproduction 1.4 (indicated below) does not match the location/connection shown in reproduction 1.2. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image12.png
404
474
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.4 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.2. The indicated elements on the article in reproductions 1.2 and 1.4 (indicated below) do not coincide or seen in the other view. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image13.png
838
1069
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The exact three-dimensional shape of the top of the body support on the front of the article (indicated below) is not clearly disclosed. Reproduction 1.1 shows the indicated portion to curve outwards near the top edge. Reproduction 1.2 shows the portion with a very short and wide shape which doesn’t match reproductions 1.4 and 1.5. Also, reproduction 1.6 shows the portion with two solid lines forming the top edge, unlike the other views. As currently disclosed it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image14.png
750
918
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this refusal by amending all the views to clearly and consistently show the size and shape of the top portion of the body support on the article, or by amending the views to reduce the indicated top portion of the body support to broken line in all the views removing it from the claim.
The exact location/placement of the indicated broken line elements on the article (indicated below) are not clearly disclosed. Reproduction 1.1 shows it just below the solid line, reproduction 1.2 shows them covering some of the solid line, and reproductions 1.4 and 1.5 show them well below the solid line edge. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image15.png
701
901
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The exact three-dimensional shape and configuration of the shoulder straps on the article (indicated below) in reproductions 1.4 and 1.5 are not clearly disclosed or match the other views. Reproduction 1.5 appears to show the straps extending out and down, and reproduction 1.4 shows a different configuration. As currently disclosed it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image16.png
972
1405
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
960
1559
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this refusal by amending reproductions 1.4 and 1.5 to clearly and consistently show the size and shape of the shoulder straps on the article.
Reproduction 1.5 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.1. The indicated elements on the article in reproductions 1.1 and 1.5 (indicated below) do not coincide or seen in the other view. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image18.png
945
1022
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.5 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.1. Reproduction 1.5 shows a round element at the top of the zipper pull and is missing the middle line on the zipper track (indicated below) which does not match reproduction 1.1. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image19.png
378
1159
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.5 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.1. The location/connection of the body support to the waist portion of the article in reproduction 1.5 (indicated below) does not match the location/connection shown in reproduction 1.1. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image20.png
448
1131
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.6 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.1. The size and shape of the indicated element/surface on the article in reproduction 1.6 (indicated below in red color) does not match the same element/surface shown in reproduction 1.1. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image21.png
788
1429
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.6 is inconsistent with the other views. Reproduction 1.6 show elements on the article (indicated below in red color) which are not shown in the other views. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image22.png
960
1656
media_image22.png
Greyscale
The exact depth and three-dimensional shape of the indicated element on the interior of the article (indicated below in red color) is not clearly disclosed. As currently disclosed it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image23.png
777
804
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this refusal by amending reproduction 1.6 to clearly and consistently show the size and shape of the back support pad on the article, or by amending reproduction 1.6 to reduce the indicated element to broken line removing it from the claim.
Reproduction 1.6 is inconsistent with the other views. According to the other views (indicated below), the rear back support pad should be seen inside the shoulder straps in reproduction 1.6. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image24.png
1107
2104
media_image24.png
Greyscale
The exact configuration and shape of the shoulder straps on the rear of the article (indicated below) are not clearly disclosed. Reproduction 1.6 shows the ends of the straps extending far apart, while reproduction 1.3 shows the ends of the straps wider and closer together. As currently disclosed it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image25.png
1110
2104
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Reproductions 1.6 and 1.7 are inconsistent with reproductions 1.3-1.5. Reproductions 1.3-1.5 show the indicated broken line buckle elements placed directly onto the shoulder straps (indicated below) while reproductions 1.6 and 1.7 show the indicated broken line buckle elements placed beside/just next to the shoulder straps, when they probably should not be seen according to the angle. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image26.png
1930
1660
media_image26.png
Greyscale
The exact three-dimensional shape of the waist support on the article (indicated below) is not clearly disclosed. Reproduction 1.7 shows the top corner to sit higher than the middle. Reproduction 1.7 shows an additional solid line and a defined thickness to the waist support portion that is not seen in any other view. As currently disclosed it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image27.png
624
1790
media_image27.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.7 is missing the indicated solid lines on the waist support portion of the article (indicated below) which are seen on the front of the article in reproduction 1.2. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image28.png
582
1652
media_image28.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.7 is inconsistent with the other views. Reproduction 1.7 show elements on the article (indicated below in red color) which are not shown in the other views or understood. Clarification and consistency are required.
PNG
media_image29.png
1053
2200
media_image29.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.7 is inconsistent with the other views. According to reproductions 1.4 and 1.5 (indicated below), the rear back support pad should be seen inside the shoulder straps in reproduction 1.7. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image30.png
1061
1494
media_image30.png
Greyscale
Reproductions 1.6 and 1.7 both show the end of the shoulder straps the same way. However, according to reproduction 1.3 and 1.6 the shoulder straps curve down and inward (indicated below) and reproduction 1.7 should show the opposite side of the end of the shoulder straps, like what is shown in reproduction 1.3. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image31.png
1385
1674
media_image31.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).
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
Prosecution Insights