DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on December 18, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently claims 1, 5-6, 15, and 19-20 are amended, claims 3 and 17 are cancelled, and claims 13-14 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-2, 4-12, 15-16, and 18-26 pending for examination.
Claim Notes
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to and should claim 22 be found allowable claim 23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 15-16, 18-19, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao (US 2015/0259834)1 in view of Martinet (US 2015/0111466)1, McMurray (US 2004/0097151)1, and Rabinowicz (WO 2020/234816)1.
With respect to claims 1-2 and 15-16, Hsiao teaches a fabric structure including an upper fabric layer knitted with a plurality of first PET fibers and a plurality of first PU fibers; a lower fabric layer knitted with a plurality of second PU fibers (elastic yarn) and a plurality of third PET fibers (polyester second yarn); and a central fabric layer interposed between the upper fabric layer and the lower fabric layer, knitted with a plurality of wave-like second PET fibers (paragraph [0009]). Because of the characteristics of the PU material, the lower fabric layer has stretchability and mild stickiness (paragraph [0017]). The second PU fibers (elastic yarn) may be knitted into a plurality of fibers regions 18 and the third PET fibers (polyester second yarn) are knitted into a plurality of second regions 20, where the regions are in the form of strips arranged alternately (Fig. 3; paragraph [0018]). Since the third PET fibers (polyester second yarn) and the second PU fibers (elastic yarn) of the lower layer are formed in adjacent regions as seen in Fig. 3, the PU fibers (elastic yarn), which provides stickiness, is necessarily entirely or partially exposed on the outside of the lower layer to form a sticky surface. The second PET fiber, which is used to knit the central fabric layer, may be a monofilament (paragraph [0017]). The upper and lower fabrics are knitted in a warp knitting method (paragraph [0017]). The fabric structure may be used as the cloth for a female bra (garment) (paragraph [0020]).
Hsiao is silent as to the PU fiber being thermoplastic.
Martinet teaches a garment comprising a fabric that is knit so as to purposefully cling and grip to a wearer’s body (paragraph [0005]). Yarns made from, for example, thermoplastic polyurethane polymers, spandex, and/or latex may be used for such purposes (paragraph [0005]). Martinet further teaches a bra cup made of a knitted spacer fabric where the inner side, which contacts the wearer’s skin, comprises spandex or thermoplastic polyurethane (paragraphs [0041], [0046]). The thermoplastic polyurethane fibers is strong due to its high molecular weight for a given denier, has good elastic and modulus for wearing, is thin and breathable, and has high stretch (paragraph [0033]).
Since both Hsiao and Martinet teach spacer fabrics for bra cups comprising polyurethane fibers to provide stickiness to the cup, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyurethane fiber of Hsiao to be thermoplastic polyurethane in order to provide a bra cup that is strong, has good elastic and modulus for wearing, is thin and breathable and has high stretch, as well as providing the stickiness property desired by both Hsiao and Martinet.
Hsiao in view of Martinet is silent as to the second PU fiber (elastic yarn) being melted and adhered with the third PET fiber (second yarn) through thermal treatment.
McMurray teaches an integrally formed weft knit fabric structure having first and second knit fabric layers that are secured in a parallel and spaced relationship with each other by a plurality of resilient spacer yarns that extend between the first and second layers (paragraph [0007]). The spacer product may be heat-molded and used in a brassiere garment as a molded breast cup while imparting a permanent heat memory property to the spacer fabric product permitting the molding process to shape the fabric and still maintain all functions of stretch, thickness, and comfort breathability (paragraph [0010]).
Since both Hsiao in view of Martinet and McMurray teach spaced fabrics for bras comprising thermoplastic elastomers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heat-molded the spacer fabric to form a breast cup which has a permanent heat memory property while maintaining all functions of stretch, thickness, and comfort breathability.
Rabinowicz teaches a fabric panel comprising a knitted first yarn to define a first face side of the panel and comprising a first yarn of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) elastomeric monofilament and a knitted second yarn to define an opposite second face side of the panel made of nylon, polyester, or acrylic (page 2, lines 12-21). The composite fabric may be melt-bonded through the first yarn through the application of heat and pressure (page 4, line 15 – page 5, line 10). The composite fabric forms a molded bra (page 1, lines 4-8).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the thermoplastic polyurethane yarn of Hsiao in view of Martinet would be melted and adhered with the PET yarn when the fabric is heat-molded as suggested by McMurray.
With respect to claims 4 and 18, Hsiao in view of Martinet, McMurray, and Rabinowicz teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 16 above. Hsiao further teaches the upper and lower fabrics are knitted in a warp knitting method (plain stitch) (paragraph [0017]) or the upper layer may be knitted to have a jacquard pattern (paragraph [0019]).
With respect to claims 5 and 19, Hsiao in view of Martinet, McMurray, and Rabinowicz teaches all the limitations of claims 4 and 18 above. Hsiao further teaches the upper and lower fabrics are knitted in a warp knitting method (plain stitch) (paragraph [0017]).
Hsiao is silent as to the second PU yarn (first yarn) and the third PET yarn (second yarn) being fed at an angle of 10-70 degrees from each other and knit together where the second PU yarn (first yarn) is used as the face yarn of the first outer layer or the second outer layer to form the sticky surface, and the third PET yarn (second yarn) is used as the bottom yarn of the first outer layer or the second outer layer.
As can be seen in at least Fig. 2 of the instant application, it appears that the structure resulting from the first and second yarn being fed to the knitting needle at an angle of 10-70 degrees is the first and second yarn are plated in the final knitted fabric.
McMurray teaches an integrally formed weft knit fabric structure having first and second knit fabric layers that are secured in a parallel and spaced relationship with each other by a plurality of resilient spacer yarns that extend between the first and second layers (paragraph [0007]). The spacer fabric includes elastomeric spandex yarns to create stretch and recovery (paragraph [0041]). The spandex are plated with textured synthetic multifilament yarns and/or bright luster synthetic multifilament yarns to form the first and second knit fabric layers (paragraph [0043]; Fig. 3). The spacer product may be heat-molded and used in a brassiere garment (paragraph [0010]).
Since both Hsiao in view of Martinet in view of McMurray teach spacer fabrics comprising an elastomeric yarn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have plated the PU yarn and the PET yarn of Hsiao in view of Martinet because it is known in the art that plating yarns in a spacer fabric will provide the predictable results of a spacer fabric with stretch suitable for bras. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claims 7-9 and 21-23, Hsiao in view of Martinet, McMurray, and Rabinowicz teaches all the limitations of claims 4 and 18 above.
Hsiao is silent as to the second PU yarn (first yarn) and the third PET yarn (second yarn) being formed into courses according to a predetermined jacquard pattern by weft knitting, and the positions of the courses formed by the second PU yarn (first yarn) and the third PET yarn (second yarn) in the same row are complementary; wherein the circular weft knitting selects two of knit, tuck, and miss to periodically form the courses.
McMurray teaches an integrally formed weft knit fabric structure having first and second knit fabric layers that are secured in a parallel and spaced relationship with each other by a plurality of resilient spacer yarns that extend between the first and second layers (paragraph [0007]). The spacer fabric includes elastomeric spandex yarns to create stretch and recovery (paragraph [0041]). The spandex are plated (complementary courses) with textured synthetic multifilament yarns and/or bright luster synthetic multifilament yarns to form the first and second knit fabric layers (paragraph [0043]; Fig. 3). The spacer product may be heat-molded and used in a brassiere garment (paragraph [0010]).
Since both Hsiao in view of Martinet in view of McMurray teach spacer fabrics comprising an elastomeric yarn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have plated the PU yarn and the PET yarn of Hsiao in view of Martinet because it is known in the art that plating yarns in a spacer fabric will provide the predictable results of a spacer fabric with stretch suitable for bras. See MPEP 2143.
McMurray further teaches that decorative surfaces may be provided through use of a weft-knit jacquard pattern and a combination of stitches selected from the group consisting of simple knit, miss, or tuck (paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the upper fabric layer, the lower fabric layer, or both fabric layers of Hsiao in view of Martinet to have a jacquard pattern comprising a combination of stitches selected from the group consisting of simple knit, miss, or tuck, in order to provide decorative surfaces.
With respect to claims 10 and 24, Hsiao in view of Martinet, McMurray, and Rabinowicz teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 above.
Hsiao in view of Martinet is silent as to the density of the yarns used to make the upper and lower layers being 5-40 deniers and the density of yarns used to make the central fabric layer being 10-50 deniers.
McMurray teaches an integrally formed weft knit fabric structure having first and second knit fabric layers that are secured in a parallel and spaced relationship with each other by a plurality of resilient spacer yarns that extend between the first and second layers (paragraph [0007]). The spacer fabric includes elastomeric spandex yarns to create stretch and recovery (paragraph [0041]). The spandex are plated with textured synthetic multifilament yarns and/or bright luster synthetic multifilament yarns to form the first and second knit fabric layers (paragraph [0043]; Fig. 3). The multifilament yarns are nylon or polyester with a denier of 20-200 and the spandex yarns have a denier of 10-70 (paragraph [0041]). The spacer yarns may be a polyester monofilament with a denier of 20-80 (paragraph [0042]). The spacer product may be heat-molded and used in a brassiere garment (paragraph [0010]).
Since both Hsiao in view of Martinet in view of McMurray teach spacer fabrics comprising an elastomeric yarn and polyester fibers with a polyester spacer layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the TPU yarns to have a denier of 10-70, as the TPU yarns provide stretch similar to the spandex yarn, the PET fibers of the outer layers to have a multifilament denier of 20-200, and the PET spacer yarns to have a denier of 20-80 because it is known in the art that the above fiber sizes will provide the predictable results of a spacer fabric with stretch suitable for bras. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao (US 2015/0259834)2 in view of Martinet (US 2015/0111466)1, McMurray (US 2004/0097151)1, and Rabinowicz (WO 2020/234816)1 as applied to claims 4 and 18 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2019/0203389)1.
With respect to claims 6 and 20, Hsiao in view of Martinet, McMurray, and Rabinowicz teaches all the limitations of claims 4 and 18 above. Hsiao further teaches the second PU fibers (elastic yarn) may be knitted into a plurality of fibers regions 18 and the third PET fibers (polyester second yarn) are knitted into a plurality of second regions 20, where the regions are in the form of strips arranged alternately (Fig. 3; paragraph [0018]).
Hsiao in view of Martinet, McMurray, and Rabinowicz is silent as to the second PU yarn (first yarn) and the third PET yarn (second yarn) being fed at an angle of 10-70 degrees from each other and knit together to form the purl stitch where the second PU yarn (first yarn) is used as the face yarn of the first outer layer or the second outer layer to form the sticky surface, and the third PET yarn (second yarn) is used as the bottom yarn of the first outer layer or the second outer layer.
As can be seen in at least Fig. 2 of the instant specification, it appears that the structure resulting from the first and second yarn being fed to the knitting needle at an angle of 10-70 degrees is the first and second yarn are plated in the final knitted fabric.
McMurray teaches an integrally formed weft knit fabric structure having first and second knit fabric layers that are secured in a parallel and spaced relationship with each other by a plurality of resilient spacer yarns that extend between the first and second layers (paragraph [0007]). The spacer fabric includes elastomeric spandex yarns to create stretch and recovery (paragraph [0041]). The spandex are plated with textured synthetic multifilament yarns and/or bright luster synthetic multifilament yarns to form the first and second knit fabric layers (paragraph [0043]; Fig. 3). The spacer product may be heat-molded and used in a brassiere garment (paragraph [0010]).
Since both Hsiao in view of Martinet in view of McMurray teach spacer fabrics comprising an elastomeric yarn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have plated the PU yarn and the PET yarn of Hsiao in view of Martinet because it is known in the art that plating yarns in a spacer fabric will provide the predictable results of a spacer fabric with stretch suitable for bras. See MPEP 2143.
Hsiao in view of Martinet and McMurray is silent as to the stitch being a purl stitch.
Liu teaches a functional fabric having a unitary one-piece construction incorporating at least a thermoplastic yarn (paragraph [0001]). Liu further teaches that plain and purl stitches are a known knitting stitch (paragraph [0037]). The fabric may be used in apparel clothing (paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the plain stitch of the knitted fabric of Hsiao in view of Martinet and McMurray to be a purl stitch because it is known in the art that a purl stitch is suitable for apparel clothing and would yield the predictable result of a purl knitted fabric. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 11 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao (US 2015/0259834)3 in view of Martinet (US 2015/0111466)1, McMurray (US 2004/0097151)1, and Rabinowicz (WO 2020/234816)1 as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Yoon (US 2005/0079784)1.
With respect to claims 11 and 25, Hsiao in view of Martinet, McMurray, and Rabinowicz teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 above.
Hsiao in view of Martinet, McMurray, and Rabinowicz is silent as to the CPI of the upper and lower layers being 50-80 and the WPI being 20-50.
Yoon teaches a warp knit useful for the manufacture of articles such as ladies’ clothes (paragraph [0002]). The knit has an intermediate spacer sandwiched between a technical face and a rear face (paragraph [0011]). It is preferable to maintain the density of the warp knit at 40 to about 80 wale/course number/inch so that excellent touch and shape stability is obtained (paragraph [0031]).
Since both Hsiao in view of Martinet, McMurray, and Rabinowicz and Yoon teach spacer fabrics for women’s clothing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the upper and lower fabric layers to have a density of 40-80 wale/course number/inch in order to provide a knit spacer fabric with excellent touch and shape stability.
Claim(s) 12 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao (US 2015/0259834)4 in view of Martinet (US 2015/0111466)1, McMurray (US 2004/0097151)1, and Rabinowicz (WO 2020/234816)1 as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Lin (US 2020/0001566)1.
With respect to claims 12 and 26, Hsiao in view of Martinet, McMurray, and Rabinowicz teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 above.
Hsiao in view of Martinet, McMurray, and Rabinowicz is silent as to the lengths of the second PET fibers varying with position in the transverse direction to form a spacer fabric with varying thickness.
Lin teaches spacer fabrics provided with adaptive thickness (paragraph [0002]). The spacer fabric includes a first fabric layer and a second fabric layer and a central fabric layer which is intertwined with the first fabric layer and the second fabric layer and formed of a plurality of wave-like fibers (paragraph [0006]). The central fabric layer is formed with adaptive thicknesses in accordance with predetermined thickness patterns (paragraph [0006]). Generally, the variation of thickness is in consideration of variable functions of the garments to be made so as to save labor costs and time for subsequent processing (paragraph [0005]). With respect to a bra, the thickness of the spacer fabric in the push-up parts is greater than the thickness of the spacer fabric in the upper parts so as to provide better breast-supporting capability (paragraph [0016]). The change in thickness is controlled by changing the thickness (length) of the central fabric layer (paragraph [0019]).
Since both Hsiao in view of Martinet, McMurray, and Rabinowicz teach spacer fabrics for bras, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spacer fabric of Hsiao and in view of Martinet to have a varying thickness, such as a decrease in the thickness from the push-up parts of a bra cup to the upper parts, so as to provide better breast-supporting capability while also saving labor costs and reducing time for subsequent processing.
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification
The objection to the specification for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response received on December 18, 2025.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 5-6 and 19-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed December 18, 2025.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 15 of the response Applicant submits that McMurray performs heat molding, not material melting as claimed.
These arguments are not persuasive. As described in the previous rejection of claim 3 and the current rejection of claim 1, McMurray did not explicitly teach that the heat molding would melt TPU. Rabinowicz was relied on to teach the process of McMurray would result in melting of the TPU fiber.
On page 15 of the response Applicant submits that Rabinowicz discloses melting between panels as bonding interface, where the present invention recites treatment on the surface of the outside of the first or second outer layer to melt and adhere the second yarn using thermal treatment.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, it is the combination of Hsiao in view of Martinet, McMurray, and Rabinowicz which teaches the claimed melting of thermoplastic elastic yarn. Particularly, Martinet teaches the use of TPU as a thermoplastic elastic fiber in knitted spacer fabrics, McMurray teaches that it is known to heat-mold spacer fabrics, and Rabinowicz teaches that it is known that TPU melts when heat and pressure are applied. This combination results in a TPU fiber that melts during a heated molding process. Since the molding process is performed on the final fabric the TPU fiber will necessarily melt and adhere with the PET fibers of Hsiao.
On page 15 of the response Applicant submits that Rabinowicz specifically teaches bonding separated panels by melting TPU yarns at opposing faces whereas McMurray teaches heat-molding spacer fabrics while preserving spacer resiliency and separation. Applicant asserts that neither reference teaches or suggests melting spacer yarns within a spacer fabric nor selectively forming fused spacer structure. Applicant further asserts that applying the Rabinowicz teachings of melting with the heat molding of McMurray would destroy the intended purpose of McMurray.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., melting spacer yarns within a spacer fabric and selectively forming a fused spacer structure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to the combination of McMurray and Rabinowicz, it is respectfully submitted that Rabinowicz was relied on to show that the heat-molding of McMurray would necessarily result in the melting of the TPU fibers of Hsiao in view of Martinet. The molding process described by Rabinowicz is within the scope of the molding process of McMurray, and there is no suggestion in either reference that heat-molding would render the spacer fabric of McMurray unsuitable for its intended purpose.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Previously presented
2 Previously presented
3 Previously presented
4 Previously presented