DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on November 19th, 2022 in which claims 1-9 were presented for examination, amended by preliminary amendment on 7/28/26 to present Claims 1-10 for examination.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species C (Fig. 5), Subspecies 1 ([0034]), Group A’, and Subgroup II (Fig. 10) in the reply filed on 7/28/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, summarily-- 1) the species, subspecies, and subgroups are simply variations with a single, unified method, with unchanged core steps despite separate specification embodiments and that a single search would inherently cover the variations, and 2) the groups also do not establish patentable distinctness. This is not found persuasive because of the following:
Pertaining to item 1) --The argument that there is no search burden is not persuasive; at the least, the variations would require different text searches; furthermore, the differences in the structures as indicated in the species, subspecies, subgroups have not been argued; per remarks, the steps do diverge/vary in order to have variations in results;
Pertaining to item 2)—The argument that there is no patentable distinctness is not persuasive; first, the remarks misconstrue the restriction-- it is noted that there are only 3 groups, which have not been divided into “static vs dynamic, human vs robot” as per remarks; on the contrary, both static and dynamic input is of a human (Group B’ and A’, respectively) and Group C’ is of the robot; regardless, the remarks have not indicated any reasoning behind the lack of patentable distinctness between grouped structures as outlined;
Especially barring an explicit remark that the species, subspecies, subgroups, and/or groups are obvious variants of one another, the traversal is not found persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/28/26.
Furthermore, Claim 7 Lines, 2, 4, 5 should delete “and/or a second dynamic model database…and the second dynamic model database stores dynamic data associated with a plurality of breasts of different shapes and sizes wearing the underwear” as this is directed to an non-elected embodiment of Group C’, as the antecedent basis for the second dynamic model database is in [0070] directed to Group C’; the elected embodiment only refers to the first dynamic model database ([0048]); regardless, Claim 7 is currently and/or, and will be interpreted as only being for the first dynamic model database.
Furthermore, a typographical error in the requirement of 6/4/26 is noted herein--the support for Subspecies 2 and 3 is found in [0035], not [0034].
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
Lines 1-2 delete “the following steps. The first is to receive” and substitute –receiving—
Lines 2-3 delete “. Then is to obtain” and substitute --, then obtaining—
Line 4 delete “. Then is to compare” and substitute --, then comparing—
Line 5 delete “. Final is” and substitute --, and finally—
Line 8 before “female” delete “a” and substitute –the--
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0008] is a repeat of the abstract and is objected for similar reasons aforementioned
[0039] “s shown in Fig. 5” should read “As shown in Fig. 5”
For compact prosecution, though directed to non-elected embodiment(s)—
[0063] “water polo” is not a material and should be deleted unless an admission of inadvertent translation error can be persuasively presented
[0065] is unclear whether 226 is stationary, based on the swing or rotation
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Lines 8-9 before “female” delete “a” and substitute –the—for proper antecedent basis with Claim 1 Line 1
Claim 5 Line 3 before “sternum” delete “the” and substitute –a—
Claim 9 before “elastic support component” add –at least one—for proper antecedent basis with Claim 1
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the comparison result" in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as “the comparing”.
The term “aided design parameter is a setting position, setting direction, shape, length, width thickness, tensile strength, and combination thereof” in Claim 1 Lines 6-8 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how a singular parameter can have a combination of any of the listed, let alone all of the aforementioned with the term “and.” It is further unclear why the term “combination” is being recited if the term “and” is being utilized, as it would require all of the listed. It is unclear whether the recitation in an improperly written Markush limitation. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as being singular, such that any of the options listed will meet the recitation.
The term “the at least one image includes at least one dynamic image, and the dynamic images include images of walking” in Claim 4 Lines 1-2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. A claim cannot narrow within itself; it is unclear whether the recitation should read “and the at least one dynamic image include walking.” For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as such.
Relatedly, the term “the at least one image…include…walking, running, jumping, side shifting, and combinations thereof” in Claim 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the claim is meant to be similarly interpreted as Claim 1—whether it is unclear how a singular image (as allowed by the term “at least one”) can have a combination of any of the listed, let alone all of the aforementioned with the term “and.” It is further unclear why the term “combination” is being recited if the term “and” is being utilized, as it would require all of the listed. It is unclear whether the recitation in an improperly written Markush limitation. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as being singular, such that any of the options listed will meet the recitation.
The term “markers, which are respectively arranged at positions corresponding to…sternum, ribs, breasts, shoulders and/or shoulders” in Claims 2-3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The term “respectively” seems to encompass all of the options. However, the term “and/or” does not encompass all of the options. It is unclear if this is another improper Markush, and what the desired claim interpretation is. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as any two of the options are met.
The term “markers, which are respectively arranged at positions corresponding to…sternum, ribs, breasts, shoulders and/or shoulders” in Claims 2-3 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The term “markers” is plural. However, the term “and/or” does not require more than one marker. It is unclear if this is another improper Markush, and what the desired claim interpretation is. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as any two of the options are met.
The term “target object” in Claim 9 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this term differs from “female underwear” in Claim 1.
Especially in light of the aforementioned indefiniteness pertaining to listed options-- the term “parameters include a relative positional relationship and related information between a shape of a breast and a sternum, ribs, shoulders, abdomen and other parts” in Claim 10 is unclear. It is unclear between which of the options the relative/related terms apply. There is A) breast, B) sternum, C) ribs, D) shoulders, E) abdomen, F) one of other parts, G) another of plurality of other parts. Option 1: is it between A and B related/relative to C, D, E, F, G? Option 2: is it between A related/relative to B, C, D, E, F, G? Or some other option(s)? For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met if any comparison is made.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oommen (USPN 11600054), herein Oommen, in view of Pei (US Publication 2023/0394695) and Holland (USPN 11730208).
Regarding Claim 1, Oommen teaches an aided design method for female underwear (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; for structure for the method—abstract; Col. 9 Lines 7-13 "Fig. 2 is a diagram illustrating a system (200)…body region to be measured is a chest region (204) of a female subject (202)…relevant regulating garment in this example is a brassiere. The subject is not wearing any garment…during the scan", wherein the system indicates aid of a user; wherein fabrication indicates design), comprising:
receiving at least one image associated with a profile of a female body (Col. 9 Lines 21-31 "device 230 is an imaging device, capturing image data, which image data can be processed using…photogrammetry techniques…image data and/or depth of field data can …be used to determine…other features of the body region, such as volume of an individual breast, relative distances between features of the region such as the sternal notch and the nipple centre, and the like");
obtaining a plurality of body parameters associated with the female body according to the at least one image (Col. 9 Lines 21-31, wherein the features are the body parameters);
comparing the body parameters with a content of a model database (Col. 12 Lines 18-22 "a database is created and maintained of a series of measurements of body regions of subjects with and without a variety of regulating garments (of different sizes, shapes, material specifications, support elements and the like) being applied to the body region"; for comparing-- Col. 12 Lines 25-31 "In an embodiment, given a set of measurement data captured from the user, and a given garment to be applied, an associated predicted transform or movement for that given combination can be looked up in the database by determining a closest match to the current measurement data (and proposed garment), to provide the simulation of the regulating effect for that user"); and
generating an aided design parameter according to the comparison result (according to comparison--Col. 14 Lines 60-65 "subject is then scanned as described above (608) and the measurement data is manipulated (610) to simulate the garment regulation. At this stage the subject can be shown on a display a representation of the body region wearing the regulating garment. If necessary, the modification data can be further modified at this stage"; Col. 15 Lines 3-5 "The finalised manipulated data is then used with the obtained generic digitized garment pattern to generate (612) the bespoke pattern(s) for this garment for this subject", wherein aforementioned indicated that the comparison results in simulation; and herein, simulation can then have modification; as for generating based on modification--Col. 14 Lines 22-36 "once the modification of the measurement data has been made, this modified data can be used to generate the fabrication data for manufacture of the garment. For example, the dimensions of a bust modified to simulate wearing a garment can be used directly as the dimensions of the components for that garment, as the garment to those dimensions has now been simulated to provide the correct sizing, shaping, support and regulation of the bust. The direct use of the data may be, for example, a data set from the modified data to provide a length of a brassiere strap, or a size of a cup, or an area and shape pattern for a fabric panel for use in part of the brassiere, or a precise length of an under-wire or boning component. For example, a dimension from the modified data of a vertical distance will determine or indicate a strap length, and so forth"),
wherein the aided design parameter is a setting position, setting direction, shape, length, width, thickness, tensile strength, and combination thereof associated with at least one support component disposed on the female underwear (see aforementioned for "direct use" recitation for a strap length or area/shape for fabric panel; wherein both are components supporting a wearer).
Oommen at least suggests that the body parameters are dynamic (Col. 14 Lines 60-62 "subject is then scanned as described above (608) and the measurement data is manipulated (610) to simulate the garment regulation"; Col. 12 Lines 7-17 "the modification can use a three-dimensional transform which will translate all data points according to pre-determined models for movement of the body region. These can be pre-determined for example by using image capture repeatedly on a body region being moved through a set of measurement positions; for example, movement of a lower portion of a breast will result in a certain movement of an upper portion of the breast, or an upward movement of the base of the bust will result in a given compression of the bust region as a whole, or a given reshaping of the volume of the bust or breast"),
and therefore a dynamic model database (Col. 16 Lines 36-44 "throughout the procedure measurements made, modifications made, resulting fabrication data, records of garments produced...can be stored in a database. These stored data can be used for example with reference to a given subject, in order for example to repeat a similar fabrication, or...used as a collected resource"; as such, if parameters are dynamic, so would the database be at least eventually).
Nevertheless, Pei teaches dynamic body parameters ([0024] "three-dimensional (3D) image scanner...configured to obtain images of an individual and generate a plurality of 3D images of the individual"; [0034] "successive 3D images acquired while the image is moving"; [0035] "3D images may be…acquired while the individual is nude"; [0022] "3D images may be successive 3D images acquired while the individual is moving. The plurality of 3D images may include the breasts"; [0022] "defining a number of datapoints on the surface of the breasts in the 3D image"; wherein breasts indicate female body, furthermore in light of [0002]; since image is dynamic, so are the parameters; [0038] “In an aspect of the disclosure, the processor may be further configured to predict a cup size of breasts of an individual"; see Fig. 25 where moving images get datapoints and therefore a cup size; as such, Pei teaches parameters inasmuch as datapoints are used to determine cup size of bra).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oommen's image scan to be dynamic as taught by Pei as a known method to determine accurate bra size.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Oommen teaches dynamic body parameters and a dynamic model database (Pei teaches dynamic images; therefore, modified Oommen teaches dynamic parameters, which would result in a dynamic database in view of Oommen Col. 16 Lines 36-44; as such, the database would at least eventually be with dynamic parameters and therefore be a dynamic database, as taught by modified Oommen).
Oommen does not explicitly teach that the at least one support component is elastic.
However, Oommen does teach the components being of a sports bra (Col. 16 Line 22 "sports undergarment").
Holland teaches a sports bra with at least one elastic support component (Col. 4 Line 44 "elastic shoulder straps 130"; Col. 4 Line 58 "elastic underband 300"; Col. 3 Line 7-9 "bra 100 can be...sports bra").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oommen’s support component(s) to be elastic as taught by Holland as an effective structure in a sports undergarment.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Oommen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Oommen further teaches wherein the at least one image includes at least one dynamic image (see rejection of Claim 1 with Oommen and Pei),
and the dynamic images include images of walking, running, jumping, side shifting, and combinations thereof (see Pei [0081] "imaging device 12 acquires a plurality of 3D images while the individual is running. The 3D images include the chest/breast region").
Regarding Claim 5, modified Oommen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Oommen further teaches wherein the profile corresponding to the female body in the at least one image includes a plurality of markers (Col. 9 Lines 51-58 "Bézier surface method is used to determine the size, shape and volume of the subject body region; as in known methods, this method constructs a surface from a series of landmark data points on the surface, and the known locations of those landmarks in the three-dimensional space captured (in this embodiment, these are determined from the photogrammetric processing of the image data)"; Col. 10 Lines 26-34 "landmarks can be determined from or overlaid on the image data captured from the subject. In one embodiment, the landmarks can be derived from the image data, for example by known methods of segmenting the image data and establishing landmark points at vertices between segments. For instance, an image region segmented into background, arm and chest segments can establish one or more landmarks between the arm and chest"),
which are respectively arranged at positions corresponding to a sternum, ribs, breasts, shoulders and/or abdomen (would be of breasts, since of chest, and sternum; Col. 9 Lines 26-31 "image data and/or depth of field data can …be used to determine…other features of the body region, such as volume of an individual breast, relative distances between features of the region such as the sternal notch and the nipple centre, and the like"; Col. 9 Lines 7-8 "Fig. 2 is a diagram illustrating a system (200)…body region to be measured is a chest region (204) of a female subject (202)"; Col. 13 Lines 56-57 "in a further illustrative embodiment, the body region to be regulated is an abdomen region of the subject").
Regarding Claim 7, modified Oommen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Oommen further teaches wherein the dynamic model database includes a first dynamic model database (see rejection of Claim 1 with Oommen and Pei),
wherein the first dynamic model database stores dynamic data associated with a plurality of breasts of different shapes and sizes (see Oommen Col. 9 Lines 12-13 "The subject is not wearing any garment…during the scan"; Col. 12 Lines 18-22 "a database is created and maintained of a series of measurements of body regions of subjects with and without a variety of regulating garments (of different sizes, shapes, material specifications, support elements and the like) being applied to the body region”; wherein the rejection of Claim 1 already established that dynamic parameters result in dynamic database, especially in light of Oommen Col. 16 Lines 36-44; as such, saving results from dynamic parameters is saving dynamic data).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Oommen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Oommen further teaches wherein the dynamic body parameters include a relative positional relationship and related information between a shape of a breast and a sternum, ribs, shoulders, abdomen, and other parts during exercise (see Oommen Col. 9 Lines 21-31 "device 230 is an imaging device, capturing image data, which image data can be processed using…photogrammetry techniques…image data and/or depth of field data can …be used to determine…other features of the body region, such as volume of an individual breast, relative distances between features of the region such as the sternal notch and the nipple centre, and the like", wherein Pei taught as such during exercise, see rejection of Claim 4, Pei [0081]).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oommen (USPN 11600054), herein Oommen, in view of Pei (US Publication 2023/0394695) and Holland (USPN 11730208), further in view of Elliott et al (USPN 2485720), herein Elliott.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Oommen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Oommen further teaches wherein the at least one elastic support component is strip-shaped (where "strap length" is strip-shaped).
Oommen does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one elastic support component has a first part and a second part with different thicknesses.
Elliott teaches wherein the at least one support component has a first part and a second part with different thicknesses (see Figs. 1-4; Col. 1 Lines 1-2 "pads for shoulder straps of garments").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oommen’s at least one elastic support component (strap length) to be of differing thicknesses as taught by Elliott in order to provide comfort (Col. 1 Line 5).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oommen (USPN 11600054), herein Oommen, in view of Pei (US Publication 2023/0394695) and Holland (USPN 11730208), further in view of Huang (US Publication 2008/0051005).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Oommen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Oommen does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one elastic support component is bonded to a target object by hot press.
However, Oommen already taught that the at least one elastic support component can include a strap of a brassiere (see rejection of Claim 1).
Huang teaches that a brassiere strap is bonded to a target object by hot press (see Fig. 1; [0032] "shoulder straps 5 are affixed to the inner brassiere lining layer 2 by a hot press").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oommen's straps to be affixed to the female underwear as taught by Huang as a known effective attachment for bra straps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Joines et al (US Publication 2021/0127858) directed to video image from different angles; Pei et al (USPN 11430246), Wang (US Publication 2020/0004906), Gardiner et al (US Publication 2008/0312765), Sawada (USPN 6101424), Lee (USPN 7092782), Calissoni (EP 2463791), Salemeh et al (US Publication 2022/00957904), Khan (US Publication 2025/0241392), Kishimoto et al (USPN 12127618), Youn (WO 2019/194558) directed to aided design method for female underwear; Korszun (USPN 5680528), Fantegrossi et al (US Publication 2022/0035641) directed to video image; Wang (US Publication 2020/0000165), Wang (US Publication 2004/0186611) directed to comparing with database; Fennell et al (US Publication 2020/0275862) directed to dynamic imaging of breast; Choi et al (USPN 10482642) directed to markers; Koropp (USPN 3229694), Smith (USPN 5725139), Koidl-Breitenherdt (US Publication 2008/0078013), Miller (USPN 2070369), Strutz (USPN 3964653) directed to support component with differing thicknesses; Tassinari (USPN 11647803) directed to hot press; Witek et al (USPN 10244801) directed to sports type underwear; Krawchuk (USPN 8549763), Snyder (USPN 11992067) directed to elastic underband; Clarissa (AT 18174), Lau (USPN 9622516), Cohen (USPN 2592792), Hopkins (USPN 8870624), Rushton (USPN 11490664), Sutherland (GB 2201579) directed to support component 42c; Cone (USPN 5850222) directed to parameters and body image; Chandra et al (USPN 11980245), deGuzman et al (USPN 11131045), Bijvoet (USPN 7346421) directed to consumer input of height, weight waist; Hendrickson (USPN 7878880) directed elastic shoulder/underband straps.
Also considered pertinent-- Bitonti et al (US Publication 2024/0320392) directed to aided design method for female underwear.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights