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
The merits of this case have been carefully reexamined in light of the applicant’s response received 05/05/2026. 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 and a FINAL rejection is set forth below.
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:
The scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, reproduction 2.1 shows a triangular element on both sides of the article between the support portion and the waist straps (indicated below) that are not clearly disclosed. Reproduction 2.7 shows the side of the support portion extending straight to the waist strap, without disclosing any elements between the two. 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_image1.png
516
1592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this refusal by clarifying what the two triangular shapes are and where they are located at in the other views. Consistency is required.
Reproductions 2.2 and 2.3 are inconsistent with the other views. Reproductions 2.2 and 2.3 are missing the straps that wrap around the back pad element on the article (indicated below) which are shown on the back pad in the other views. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image2.png
580
1523
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, the exact configuration and shape of the elements that form the waist straps on the article (indicated below) are not clearly disclosed. All the views show a different thickness and shape to the waist straps, and the exact configuration of the top of the waist straps is unknown. How does the top view and bottom view of the waist straps show the same thing? 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_image3.png
1688
1853
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this refusal by amending the reproductions to clearly and consistently show the shape and configuration of the waist straps, or by amending the reproductions to reduce the waist straps to broken line removing them from the claim.
The scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, the exact shape and configuration of the body support portion of the article (indicated below) is not clearly disclosed. Reproduction 2.2 and 2.3 show a more rounded shape that does not match the other views, and with the lack of surface shading the exact shape is not understood. 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_image4.png
1003
1264
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this refusal by amending the reproductions to clearly and consistently show the shape and configuration of the body support of the article and by adding surface shading to help understand the shape.
Reproductions 2.2, 2.3, 2.5 and 2.6 are inconsistent with reproduction 2.4. Reproduction 2.4 shows buckle elements on the rear of the article (indicated below) which do not match the buckle elements in reproductions 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6. The buckle elements in reproduction 2.4 show multiple pieces that form the buckles, and a strap that connects to the buckle by weaving into the buckle, while reproductions 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6 show a simple rectangle shape missing several details of the buckles. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image5.png
831
1088
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, reproductions 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 show solid line elements on the top and bottom of the body support portion of the article (indicated below) which are not clearly disclosed. Are they openings? What is the depth and exact configuration? Are they folds? Why are they 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_image6.png
1263
1700
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this refusal by amending reproductions 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 to clearly and consistently show the shape and configuration of the indicated elements, or by amending the reproductions to reduce the indicated solid lines to broken line removing them from the claim.
Reproductions 2.5 and 2.6 are inconsistent with the other views. Reproductions 2.5 and 2.6 show the indicated strap connecting the waist to the back pad (indicated below) at an angle or much thicker than what is shown in the other views. Reproduction 2.7 shows the same strap as a single line and straight up and down. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image7.png
271
1654
media_image7.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 is FINALLY REJECTED under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 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.
/STEVEN J CZYZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2913
Prosecution Insights