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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on12/30/2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 10, 14, and 17-19 have been amended; claims 2, 8-9, 11-13 and 15-16 are canceled; and claim 20 has been added. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-7, 10, 14, and 17-20 are pending in this application. Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed 06/30/2025, are hereby withdrawn: the prior claim objections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. Applicant's arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of the lining that “defines a thickness gradient increasing substantially continuously” for claims 14 and 20 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 14, and 17-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a left side covering only a left leg of the wearer and a right side covering only a right leg of the wearer” It is suggested the claim is rephrased to recite “a left side configured to cover only a left leg of the wearer and a right side configured to cover only a right leg of the wearer” so the functional relationship between the elements is more clearly established.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims depending from claims objected to under this section are similarly objected to for their dependence on a claim objected to under this section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 14 and 20 recite the “interior lining is continuous.” The limitations are considered as new matter because there is no support in applicant’s disclosure regarding continuity of the lining material. There is no apparent discussion regarding the continuous or uninterrupted distribution of the lining material. Therefore, the feature is considered as new matter introduced into the claims and is not permissible.
Claims 14 and 20 recite the lining “defines a thickness gradient increasing substantially continuously.” The limitations are considered new matter because there is no support in applicant’s disclosure regarding the type of slope with respect to the gradient of the lining. The recited limitation suggests a linear “ramping-up” of the lining material. However, this linear “ramping-up” or linear slope of the liner is not discussed in the specification and is not shown in any drawing what would otherwise lend support to this feature. Therefore, the feature is considered as new matter introduced into the claims and is not permissible.
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 14 and 20 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 14 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what degree the gradient is required to be continuous or not continuous. Appropriate clarification is required.
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 invenon 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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0354192 A1 to Wong in view of US 9,456,641 B1 to Mignone and evidenced by US 7,886,367 B2 to Chapuis.
For claim 1, Wong discloses a legging (40) for covering legs of a wearer, the legging defining a left side covering only a left leg of the wearer (left side of 40) and a right side covering only a right leg of the wearer (right side of 40), the legging comprising:
a front panel and a rear panel, defining a waist opening of the legging (see annotated figs. 3-4 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
258
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of leg panels positioned below the front panel and the rear panel so as to cover the legs (panels comprising leg portions 42 and 44 illustrated in figs. 3 and 4);
a left pocket formed entirely on the left side and below the front panel and the rear panel (left 82 is below the illustrated front and rear panel; and isolated on the outer left thigh portion)(pockets 82 are sized based on the item intended to be pocketed, para 0043);
a right pocket formed entirely on the right side and below the front panel and the rear panel (right 82 is below the illustrated front and rear panel; and isolated on the outer right thigh portion) (pockets 82 are sized based on the item intended to be pocketed, para 0043), the left and right pockets being spaced apart from each other (see figs. 3-4 wherein the left and right 82 are spaced apart from each other).
Wong does not specifically disclose: left interior lining that is thermogenic and non-slip, and is located entirely underneath the left pocket to produce a first thermogenic zone on the left legs; and a right interior lining that is thermogenic and non-slip, and is located entirely underneath the right pocket to produce a second thermogenic zone on the right leg that is separate and isolated from the first thermogenic zone.
However, attention is also directed to Mignone teaching an analogous garment (leggings, claim 2) comprising gripping elements (7) on the outer right and left thighs to enhancing the grip against the wearer’s skin (abstract of Mignone) made from neoprene rubber, silicone rubber, and latex for providing a garment with high coefficient of friction (col. 2, lines 45-62 of Mignone). Specifically, Mignone teaches grip elements (7) are intended to be isolated from other gripping elements and at strategic locations (col. 6, lines 35-40 of Mignone) for ensuring enhanced grip between the wearer and the garment during stretching, movements, and holds (col. 3, lines 33-41 of Mignone) (See fig. 1 of Mignone).
PNG
media_image2.png
769
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Wong would be modified to comprise non-slip silicone gripping elements strategically located on the outer thigh and, coextensively, located entirely underneath each of the left and right pockets, for ensuring enhanced grip between the wearer and the garment during stretching, movements, and holds, as taught by Mignone (col. 3, lines 33-41 of Mignone) (See fig. 1 of Mignone).
Further, the effect of providing the silicone interior lining also provides the added benefit of stimulating and supporting muscles, and improving blood circulation to targeted areas of the thigh (a thermogenic effect), as evidenced by Chapuis (col. 2, lines 15-19; col. 3, lines 34-43; and col. 4, lines 48-50 of Chapuis).
For claim 3, the modified Wong teaches the legging of claim 1, wherein the front panel and the rear panel have a rise (see annotated figs. 3-4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
196
674
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modified Wong does not specifically disclose wherein the rise is of at least 30.5 centimeters.
However, the modified Wong does teach each of the front and back rise panels extend upwardly from a base portion to a proximal end of the torso portion of the garment (see annotated figs. 3-4 above) and can include a low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise waist line (para 0031 of Wong).
Therefore, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the rise portion of the modified Wong would be modified wherein for have a length of at least 30.5 centimeters for purposes of providing the wearer sufficient coverage and compression on the torso during use, as taught by Wong, since the rise of the modified Wong would also provide coverage and compression on the wearer’s torso and would not perform any differently from claimed dimension of the garment.
For claim 4, the modified Wong teaches the legging of claim 1, wherein the front panels is lined (paras 0031-0032 of Wong).
For claim 5, the modified Wong teaches the legging of claim 1 wherein the rear panels is lined (paras 0031-0032 of Wong).
For claim 6, the modified Wong teaches the legging of claim 1,wherein the front panels is double-layered (paras 0031-0032 of Wong).
For claim 7, the modified Wong teaches the legging of claim 1, wherein the rear panels is double- layered (paras 0031-0032 of Wong).
For claim 10, the modified Wong teaches the leggings of claim 1, wherein the interior lining includes silicone attached to the inside of the legging (see discussion for claim 1 above wherein the interior lining includes silicone attached to the inside of the legging).
For claim 17, the modified Wong teaches the legging of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein a lining material of the left and right interior linings is rubber.
However, attention is again directed to Mignone teaching the gripping elements are made from either neoprene rubber, silicone rubber, and latex for providing a garment with high coefficient of friction (col. 2, lines 45-62 of Mignone). Therefore, these gripping materials have the same function and are recognized by the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the silicon material forming the internal liner of the modified Wong would be capable of being substituted for neoprene rubber since the modification would amount to a simple substitution of known components for a predictable result. In this case, the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing grip between the garment and the skin of the wearer without requiring more than ordinary skill in the art to achieve (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). As a result, the modified Wong would be considered as teaching wherein a lining material of the interior lining is of rubber.
For claim 19, the modified Wong teaches the legging of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein a lining material of the interior lining is latex.
However, attention is again directed to Mignone teaching the gripping elements are made from either neoprene rubber, silicone rubber, and latex for providing a garment with high coefficient of friction (col. 2, lines 45-62 of Mignone). Therefore, these gripping materials have the same function and are recognized by the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the silicon material forming the internal liner of the modified Wong would be capable of being substituted for latex the modification would amount to a simple substitution of known components for a predictable result. In this case, the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing grip between the garment and the skin of the wearer without requiring more than ordinary skill in the art to achieve (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). As a result, the modified Wong would be considered as teaching wherein a lining material of the interior lining is of latex.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Mignone and evidenced by Chapuis, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0209267 A1 to Rush.
For claim 18, the modified Wong teaches the legging of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein a lining material of the interior lining is plastic.
However, attention is also directed to Rush teaching a technical pant garment having an inner short (abstract of Rush). Specifically, Rush teaches the inner short is made of broad panels or taping of varying thickness (para 0030 of Rush) and wherein said panels are formed of silicone (para 0032 of Rush) and in the form of silicone dots to grip the wearer’s skin to enhance the application of load between the inner short and the wearer (paras 0034-0035 of Rush) and that the panels can have any suitable construction and can be made from any suitable material including plastic panels could be employed, as can neoprene, rubber, polyurethane or silicon panels, or any other suitable material (para 0032 of Rush). Therefore, these gripping materials have the same function and are recognized by the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the silicon material forming the internal liner of the modified Wong would be capable of being substituted for polyurethane, considered a plastic, since the modification would amount to a simple substitution of known components for a predictable result. In this case, the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing grip between the garment and the skin of the wearer without requiring more than ordinary skill in the art to achieve (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). As a result, the modified Wong would be considered as teaching wherein a lining material of the interior lining is plastic.
Statement on Prior Art
Claims 14 and 20 are free of prior art, but are subject to the drawing objections, the rejection under 35 USC 112(a), and the rejection under 35 USC 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICK I LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3262. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 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 at (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.
/ERICK I LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3732