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
The amendment filed on 2/14/2025. Claims 1 and 2 were amended. Claim 17 was cancelled. Claims 1-16 have been examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-16 are 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. Claim 1 recites “the support fabric is stiffer than the main fabric layer”. Claim 1 also requires that the support fabric be “elastic, spandex, elastane, natural rubber, synthetic rubber […]” and the main fabric is “nylon, polyester, polypropylene cotton or wool yarns”. Applicants’ specification provides a definition for “stiffer” in that it is formed of a high modulus material. High modulus material refers to a fibers high initial resistance to stretching. It is unclear how the yarns can be comprised on elastic, spandex, elastane and rubber and be “stiffer” or have a higher modulus than fibers such as cotton, nylon, polypropylene which are rigid/non-stretch fibers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 8 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Rutledge (US 2,717,388). The device of Rutledge teaches, as best understood,
With respect to claim 1,
A seamlessly knitted structure (Column 2, lines 10-15) for a male garment, the knitted structure comprising:
a main fabric layer (12) comprising first yarns selected from one or more of: nylon yarn (column 1, lines 60-65) , polyester yarn, polypropylene yarn, cotton yarn (Column 1, lines 60-65), and wool yarn;
a support fabric layer (16) knitted to the main fabric layer (Figure 2), it is noted that “knitted to” is a product by process limitation, the prior art is capable of being made by the claimed process, and therefore meets the recitations as currently presented,
the support fabric layer comprising second yarns selected from one or more of: spandex, elastane, natural rubber (column 2, line 32) , synthetic rubber, and thermoplastic polyurethane,
wherein the support fabric layer is stiffer than the main fabric layer; The phrase “is stiffer” is a functional characteristic of the fabric. The prior art fabric meets the limitations are recited, being a natural rubber material, and as best understood, would meet the limitation as being stiffer as currently recited by the claim see MPEP2114;
and a pouch fabric layer (13, 24) knitted to and extending outwardly from the main fabric layer (Figure 1) and supported by the support fabric layer (12), the pouch fabric layer forming a pouch space for accommodating a groin region of a male user wearing the male garment comprising the knitted structure. It is noted that “knitted to” is a product by process limitation, if the prior art is capable of being formed by the claimed process than it I meets the claim.
With respect to claim 6, wherein the main fabric layer comprises a mesh or porous structure. Knit fabrics are formed by interloping yarns and are inherently porous due to the looping construction.
With respect to claim 7, wherein the main fabric layer (12) comprises first fabric areas (17, 20) adjacent to the support fabric layer (16) , such that when the male garment is worn by the male user, the first fabric areas are adapted to align to the groin region and inner thigh regions of the male user (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 8, wherein the first fabric (17, 20) areas comprise a smooth material (Figure 2).
With respect to claim 12, wherein the knitted structure is joined to the fabric body (column 2, lines 10-15).
With respect to claim 13, wherein the knitted structure is stitched to the fabric body. At least a portion of the knitted structure (16) is stitched to the fabric body (12) (along seam 14). The language “is stitched to” is a product by process limitation the prior art is capable of being formed by the claimed process and therefore meets the claim as currently recited.
With respect to claim 14, wherein the knitted structure is seamlessly knitted together with the fabric body (Column 2, lines 10-15). The language “is seamless knitted” is a product by process limitation the prior art is capable of being formed by the claimed process and therefore meets the claim as currently recited.
With respect to claim 15,
A method of producing the knitted structure according to claim 1, the method comprising seamlessly knitting the knitted structure using a knitting machine (column 1, lines 10-15).
With respect to claim 16, wherein the knitting machine is a V-bed flat knitting machine. (column 2, line 10).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutledge in view of Oh (US 10,342,266). The device of Rutledge substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a function layer.
The device of Oh teaches,
With respect to claim 3, further comprising a functional layer (141) knitted (190) to the pouch fabric layer and disposed within the pouch space (Figure 14). It is noted that the language “knitted to” is a product by process limitation, the prior art is capable of being made by the claimed process and therefore meets the limitation as currently recited.
With respect to claim 4, wherein the functional layer is configured for absorbing and/or wicking moisture. (column 9, lines 43).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the liner taught by Oh in order to provide improved comfort.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutledge in view of Almog (US 2022/0047022). The device of Rutledge substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking, frictional yarns along peripheral edges.
The device of Almog teaches,
With respect to claim 5, wherein the main fabric layer (Figure 4) comprises frictional yarns along peripheral edges of the main fabric layer (para 0154).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the silicone frictional yarns taught by Almog in order to provide improved grip (para 0139) and to prevent rolling (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 9 and 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO 892
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
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 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732