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 .
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 2-10, 12-13, 15-16, 19-21 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.
Claims 2-10 and 21 each refer to a “towel-like” fabric. The scope of the claim is unclear because it is unclear what “towel-like” encompasses. There is no teaching or suggestion provided in the originally filed specification to provide an understanding of what “towel-like” would require in order to meet or overcome the limitations as claimed.
Claims 12, 15-16, 19-20 each refer to a “towel-textured” fabric. The scope of the claim is unclear because it is unclear what “towel-textured” encompasses. There is no teaching or suggestion provided in the originally filed specification to provide an understanding of what “towel-textured” would require in order to meet or overcome the limitations as claimed.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the lined portions" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, lines 10-12 refer to a “main body portion” being lined while the end of line 12 refers to “lined portions”. It is unclear what area constitutes and additional lined portion separate from the originally recited “lined portion”. Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the lined portion" in lines 12 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In claim 4, lines 4 and 12 refer to a lined portion, while lines 7-8 refer to “lined portions”. It is unclear what area constitutes and additional lined portion separate from the originally recited “lined portion”. Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the extension area" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the extension area" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the lined portion" in lines 12 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the lined portions" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the bsorbent undergarment" in lines 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Png et al. (US 2010/0249736).
With reference to claim 1 Png et al. (hereinafter “Png”) discloses an undergarment [0028] comprising:
a waist opening and first and second leg openings [0032];
a main body portion made of a main body fabric [0037], the main body portion comprising a crotch portion (14), wherein the crotch portion comprises portions of the first and second leg openings (figure 2);
the crotch portion further comprising an absorbent liner [0042], the absorbent liner comprising:
a top layer (100);
one or more intermediate hydrophilic [0047] layers (200);
a breathable and waterproof layer (300);
a self-fabric layer (400) made of the main body fabric as set forth in [0060-0061].
With reference to claim 11, Png discloses an absorbent undergarment [0028] comprising:
a waist opening and first and second leg openings [0032];
a main body portion extending to all portion of the absorbent undergarment [0037] and an absorbent liner [0042], the absorbent liner comprising:
a top layer (100);
one or more intermediate hydrophilic [0047] layers (200);
a breathable and waterproof layer (300), and
the bottom layer (400),
wherein the top and bottom layers envelope the one or more hydrophilic layers and the breathable, waterproof layer as shown in figure 5.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Wickremesinghe (US 2010/0016822).
As to claim 11, Wickremesinghe discloses an absorbent undergarment (10, Figs 1, 3-5; para [0030] - see diaper 10), comprising: a waist opening (see Fig 5; para [0030]-[0032] - see diaper 10 having a waist opening on the top side as seen in Fig 5); first and second leg openings (see Figs 1, 3-5; para [0030]-[0032] - see diaper 10 has leg portions 12 which form leg openings when the diaper is affixed to an infant as seen in Fig 5); a main body fabric extending to all regions of the absorbent undergarment and comprising a bottom layer of the absorbent undergarment, wherein the bottom layer comprises the outside surfaces of the absorbent undergarment (see Figs 1-5; para [0040] see diaper 10 which has a main body portion wherein the diaper has an outer cover 36 which forms the bottom layer and wherein the outer cover 36 as the bottom layer comprises the outer surface of the diaper 10); and an absorbent liner in a crotch region of the absorbent undergarment (see Figs 2; para [0033],[0041]-[0042] see central crotch portion of the diaper having an absorbent liner region which comprises an absorbent core 20, a top layer 26, a hydrophilic layer 38, a water proof layer 24 and the lower most outer cover 36), the absorbent liner comprising: a top layer (see Fig 2; para [0041] see top hydrophobic layer 26); one or more intermediate hydrophilic layers (38, Fig 2; para [0041]); a breathable, waterproof layer (24, Fig 2: para [0042]); and the bottom layer (see Fig 2; para [0040] - see lower most layer which is the same outer cover 36), wherein the top and bottom layers envelope the one or more hydrophilic layers and the breathable, waterproof layer (see Fig 2; para [0033],[0040]-[0042] see top layer 26 and bottom outer cover 36 which envelope the hydrophilic layer 38 and the waterproof layer 24).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Png et al. (US 2010/0249736) and further in view of WO 2020/086330.
With reference to claims 2-3 and 10, Png teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Png also discloses a breathable and waterproof layer (300) may include a hydrophobic knitted [0057], polyester fabric [0058] that may also include a polyurethane laminate coating as set forth in [0057-0059]. Further, Png discloses that additional layers of the main body fabric as set forth in [0037] where Png discloses that the entire garment may be made of functional fabric and in [0039] where Png discloses that the term “fabric” includes single of multiple layers of fabric.
a self-fabric layer (400) made of the main body fabric as set forth in [0060-0061].
The difference between Png and claims 2-3 is the provision that the specific layers include specific materials and that lines portions have a specific extension.
WO 2020/086330 (hereinafter “Polstein”) teaches an analogous undergarment that may include more than a three-layered substrate including one or a combination of the disclosed materials [018] wherein a top layer comprises a cotton and spandex blend with at least 80% cotton (see Fig 3; para [0027] - see top-most layer 130 having a cotton spandex blend with 80-97 percent cotton), intermediate hydrophilic layers (130,134) comprising a first towel-like fabric made of a polyester material [015] and having a textured surface (see Fig 3; para [0015],[0024] see central hydrophilic layer 130 which has a moisture wicking layer made out of polyester and 50 percent cotton and thereby would reasonably suggest a towel like fabric with a textured surface to wick the moisture away; alternatively see layer(s) also described as being treated with a hydrophobic material such as silicone or wax as set forth in [026] which would also reasonably suggest a textured surface as the surface includes another material overlying the base material); and wherein the undergarment comprises a front panel (102, Fig 1; para [0018]) and a back panel (104, Fig 1, 2C; para [0018]). Polstein also teaches that any and/or all of the layers of the substrate found in the crotch may extend beyond the crotch panels and into the front, rear and/or side panels as set forth in [028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Png with the specific configuration of layers as taught by Polstein in an effort to provide a construction that exhibits optimal comfort and breathability while providing enhanced protection as taught by Polstein in [017]. It is further noted that Png acknowledges that the top layer may be any material that is capable of allowing the transmission of fluid to the underlying layer as set forth in [0043].
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the lined portion within any desired portion of the undergarment because Polstein recognizes that the layer(s) may extend as desired and the change in size and/or shape of the lined element, which has been previously disclosed by the prior art as being adjustable, is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With reference to claim 4, Png teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Png discloses that the entire garment (which would include the top layer, the self-fabric layer and/or the main body fabric) may be made of functional fabric [0037], that any and all of the materials, fabrics and layers may be combined or may be used individually [0038] and that the functional fabrics may include cotton [0035] with or without the use of elastane (i.e., spandex) as set forth in [0031]. Png also discloses that the absorbent liner may include a gusset portion [0016]. The gusset may also be composed of one or more pieces of the disclosed fabric [0036] including hydrophilic layers as set forth in [0029].
The difference between Png and claim 4 is the explicit recitation that the main body fabric comprises a cotton and spandex blend with at least 80% cotton, that the intermediate hydrophilic layers and the lined portions comprise a towel-like fabric made of a polyester material, wherein the towel-like fabric has a textured surface, having a larger surface area than the top layer and the breathable and waterproof layer comprises a knit polyester fabric layer with a polyurethane laminate coating, and that the lined portion extends from the gusset portion to the waist and leg openings in partial edges of the waist and the leg openings and not extending to all edges of the waist and leg openings.
Polstein teaches an analogous undergarment that may include more than a three-layered substrate including one or a combination of the disclosed materials [018] wherein one layer comprises a cotton and spandex blend with at least 80% cotton (see Fig 3; para [0027] - see top-most layer 130 having a cotton spandex blend with 80-97 percent cotton), intermediate hydrophilic layers (130,134) comprising a first towel-like fabric made of a polyester material [015] and having a textured surface (see Fig 3; para [0015],[0024] see central hydrophilic layer 130 which has a moisture wicking layer made out of polyester and 50 percent cotton and thereby would reasonably suggest a towel like fabric with a textured surface to wick the moisture away; alternatively see layer(s) also described as being treated with a hydrophobic material such as silicone or wax as set forth in [026] which would also reasonably suggest a textured surface as the surface includes another material overlying the base material). Polstein also teaches that any and/or all of the layers of the substrate found in the crotch may extend beyond the crotch panels and into the front, rear and/or side panels as set forth in [028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Png with the specific configuration of layers as taught by Polstein in an effort to provide a construction that exhibits optimal comfort and breathability while providing enhanced protection as taught by Polstein in [017]. It is further noted that Png acknowledges that the top layer may be any material that is capable of allowing the transmission of fluid to the underlying layer as set forth in [0043].
As to claims 5 and 7, see the rejection of claims 1-4.
The difference between Png modified and claims 5 and 7 is the explicit recitation that the undergarment includes a second absorbent liner and that the layers of the article have specific dimensions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the undergarment of Png modified with a second absorbent liner as desired because Png acknowledges that the fabrics of the undergarment may include multiple layers of materials as set forth in [0039].
Additionally, it is noted that the duplication of essential working parts of a device is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to the specific dimensions of the layer, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the surface area of the layer(s) as desired since Polstein teaches that any and/or all of the layers of the substrate found in the crotch may extend beyond the crotch panels and into the front, rear and/or side panels as set forth in [028], and any change in size and/or shape of an element previously set forth in the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 6, see the rejection of claims 1-5.
The difference between Png modified and claim 6 is the explicit recitation that the lined portion of the article has specific dimensions.
Polstein teaches that any and/or all of the layers of the substrate found in the crotch may extend beyond the crotch panels and into the front, rear and/or side panels as set forth in [028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the surface area of the layer(s) as desired in view of the teachings of Polstein and since it has been held that any change in size and/or shape of an element previously set forth in the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 8, see the rejection of claim 1-7.
Png includes the use of nylon in a main body (i.e., outer) fabric as set forth in [0060].
Additionally, Polstein teaches an analogous garment wherein the main body fabric comprises a nylon and spandex blend having at least 80% nylon (134, Fig 3; para [0027] - see layer 134 which has a nylon spandex blend 70-90 percent nylon).
The difference between Png modified and claim 8 is the explicit recitation that the absorbent liner comprises a quadruple layered gusset portion flanked by a double layered liner and the layers of the article have specific dimensions.
The examiner contends that the inclusion of a quadrupled layered gusset portion and a double layered liner is the equivalent of providing the article with additional layers.
Png has set forth that the term “fabric” ,of the which the entire garment is composed of, may include multiple layers of fabric as set forth in [0039]. Likewise, Polstein teaches an analogous undergarment that may include more than a three-layered substrate including one or a combination of the disclosed materials [018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the undergarment of Png modified with additional layers as desired, in view of the teaches of both Png and Polstein, because both references recognize the inclusion of additional layers which may include any and/or all of the materials disclosed in order to produce the desired product.
Additionally, it is noted that the duplication of essential working parts of a device is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to the specific dimensions, Polstein teaches that any and/or all of the layers of the substrate found in the crotch may extend beyond the crotch panels and into the front, rear and/or side panels as set forth in [028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the surface area of the layer(s) as desired in view of the teachings of and since it has been held that any change in size and/or shape of an element previously set forth in the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 9, see the rejection of claims 1-8.
The difference between Png modified and claim 9 is the provision that the first section is attachable and detachable to and from the second section.
Initially, it is noted that Png discloses that layers making up both first and second sections may be sewn at various attachment points [0066], thereby providing sections that may be attachable and/or detachable from each other.
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide attachable and detachable material as desired since it has been held that making integral products separable and/or making separable products integral is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 12, see the rejection of claim 2.
The difference between Png modified and claim 12 is the provision that the polyester fiber has a double-sided velour fabric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Png modified with a double-sided velour fabric because the general disclosure of polyester has been provided by the prior art and the substitution of one type of polyester based material for another is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claims 13 and 14, see the rejection of claim 2.
With reference to claim 15, see the rejection of claims 2-4 and 12.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claims 2-5 and 12.
With respect to claim 17, Png teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 11. Png recognizes the use of sewing within the article as set forth in [0065].
The difference between Png and claim 17 is the provision that an elastic is sewn in the leg opening using fold-over technique.
Polstein teaches an undergarment wherein the body of the undergarment (including leg portions/openings) include a first substrate as set forth in [004]. Polstein further teaches that the first substrate may include any of the disclosed materials (page 8, last paragraph) which includes spandex (an elastic material) as set forth in [027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Png with the specific layers as taught by Polstein in order to provide a construction exhibits optimal comfort and breathability while providing enhanced protection as taught by Polstein in [017].
With respect to the use of the fold-over technique, the examiner contends that the manner in which the elastic is provided, the examiner contends that the product by process limitation does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Utilizing a fold over technique does not appear to provide any functional distinction between the claimed invention and the prior art.
As to claim 18, see the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claims 19-20, see the rejection of claims 1-12.
It is noted that Png discloses a top layer that is made of polyester as set forth in [0044].
Regarding claim 21, see the rejection of claims 1-11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wyner et al. (US 2018/0338548) discloses a bodysuit with an integrated crotch lining.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781