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 .
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 limitation “the cord-like material is attached to an outer surface of the bra pad” (while the casing being secured at the perimeter between the first layer and the second layer) in claim 3; “the casing is attached to an outer surface of the bra pad” (while the casing being secured at the perimeter between the first layer and the second layer) in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification does not describe “…that enable the bra pad to return to a shape into which it was originally formed after deformation” in claims 1, 21 and 22.
The specification does not describe “the cord-like material is attached to an outer surface of the bra pad” (while the casing being secured at the perimeter between the first layer and the second layer) in claim 3.
The specification does not describe “the casing is attached to an outer surface of the bra pad” (while the casing being secured at the perimeter between the first layer and the second layer) in claim 7.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 12-18 and 20-22 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 1, 21 and 22 recite “… that enable the bra pad to return to a shape into which it was originally formed after deformation”, which is not described in the specification. The original specification only describes “the cord-like material can be a wire substantially round or cylindrical in shape, which can be a heat-resistant plastic or metal wire that possesses spring-like properties, enabling it to return to the shape into which it was originally formed after being subjected to deformation”.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the cord-like material is attached to an outer surface of the bra pad” while claim 1 recites “the casing being secured at the perimeter between the first layer and the second layer”, which does not have a support in the specification and the drawings do not show the limitation. Therefore, claim 3 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 7 recites “the casing is attached to an outer surface of the bra pad”, while claim 1 recites “the casing being secured at the perimeter between the first layer and the second layer”, which does not have a support in the specification and the drawings do not show the limitation. Therefore, claim 7 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claims 3, 5-7, 15, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the cord-like material is attached to an outer surface of the bra pad” while claim 1 recites “the casing being secured at the perimeter between the first layer and the second layer”. It is unclear how the casing is secured between the first layer and the second layer of the bra pad body and the cord-like material (which is placed inside the casing) is attached to an outer surface of the bra pad. For the purpose of applying art, the limitation is interpreted that the cord-like material is attached to a surface of the bra pad.
Claim 5 recites “a first layer”, “a second layer”. It is unclear “a first layer”, “a second layer” in claim 5 are the same or different from “a first layer” and “a second layer” in claim 1. For the purpose of applying art, “a first layer” and “a second layer” in claim 5 are interpreted to be the same as “a first layer” and “a second layer” in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “a casing” in line 2. It is unclear “a casing” in claim 6 is the same or different from “a casing” in claim 1. For the purpose of applying art, “a casing” in claim 6 is interpreted to be the same as “a casing” in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “the casing is attached to an outer surface of the bra pad”, while claim 1 recites “the casing being secured at the perimeter between the first layer and the second layer”. It is unclear how the casing can be attached to an outer surface of the bra pad while the casing is secured between the first layer and the second layer of the bra pad. For the purpose of applying art, the limitation is interpreted that the casing is attached to a surface of the bra pad.
Claim 15 recites “the casing is made of cloth or fabric material”, while claim 1 recites “a fabric casing”. The claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth. See MPEP. 2173.05(c). I.
Claim 16 recites “a first layer”, “a second layer”. It is unclear “a first layer”, “a second layer” in claim 16 are the same or different from “a first layer” and “a second layer” in claim 1. For the purpose of applying art, “a first layer” and “a second layer” in claim 16 are interpreted to be the same as “a first layer” and “a second layer” in claim 1.
Claim 22 recites “the shape of the perimeter” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites “the bra pad of claim 1, wherein the support structure further comprises a casing having a channel for holding the cord-like material therein”, while claim 1 already recites “a support structure comprising a fabric casing having a channel that holds a cord-like material”.
Claim 16 recites “the casing is sandwiched between a first layer and a second layer of the bra pad”, while claim 1 already recites “the casing being secured …between the first layer and the second layer”.
Claim 17 recites “the cord-like material runs on the perimeter of the bra pad as one integral continuous piece” while claim 1 already recites “the cord-like material runs on the perimeter of the bra pad body as one integral continuous piece”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 15-17 and 20 are rejected to the degree of definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 2012/0052769).
Regarding claim 1, Pearce teaches a bra pad (fig. 13, pad 102 with wire 230), comprising:
a bra pad body having a perimeter (fig. 1); and
a support structure comprising a fabric casing having a channel that holds a cord-like material (para. [0044], the underwire is encased in a fabric sleeve);
wherein the cord-like material comprises a heat-resistant plastic wire or a heat-resistant metal wire having spring-like properties (para. [0066], the wire 230 is extruded and made from elastomeric material) that enable the bra pad to return to a shape into which it was originally formed after deformation (para. [0020]-[0023]), and wherein the cord-like material runs on the perimeter of the bra pad body as one integral continuous piece (figs. 1 and 13).
Pearce does not teach in fig. 13 the bra pad body comprising a first layer and a second layer; and the casing being secured at the perimeter between the first layer and the second layer.
However, Pearce teaches in fig. 15, the bra pad body comprising a first layer and a second layer (layers 242, 244); and the casing (fig. 15, casing 251) being secured at the perimeter between the first layer and the second layer.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pearce in fig. 13 with a first layer and a second layer and the casing being secured as the perimeter between the first layer and the second layer as suggested in fig. 15 of Pearce for the benefit of providing a place for securing a removable casing to lift or shape the breast in a comfortable way (Pearce, para. [0067]).
Pearce does not clearly teach the pad is placed inside a cup of a bra.
However, Pearce teaches the bra may be used in other garments, such as sports bras, swimwear, bikini tops, camisoles, lingerie, clothing with built-in-bras or other breast supports. Such garments may be worn under other clothing (para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the bra pad of Pearce placed inside a cup of a bra for the benefit of providing a fuller more rounded appearance for a bra cup and filling out the bra cups, creating a better fit and preventing gaps or bulges.
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure Pearce teaches the cord-like material is attached to an outer surface of the bra pad (fig. 13).
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure Pearce teaches the cord-like material is attached to an inner surface of the bra pad (annotated fig. 13 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the modified structure Pearce teaches the bra pad comprises a first layer and a second layer (fig. 15) and the cord-like material is sandwiched between the first layer and the second layer (as shown in fig. 15, the material encased by the sleeve 251 is sandwiched between the first layer and the second layer).
Regarding claim 6, the modified structure Pearce teaches the support structure further comprises a casing having a channel for holding the cord-like material therein (para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure Pearce teaches the casing is attached to an outer surface of the bra pad (fig. 15).
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure Pearce teaches the casing is attached to an inner surface of the bra pad (fig. 15).
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure Pearce teaches the cord-like material comprises the wire that is round or cylindrical in shape (fig. 13, para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 15, the modified structure Pearce teaches the casing is made of cloth or fabric material (para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 16, the modified structure Pearce teaches the casing is sandwiched between a first layer and a second layer of the bra pad (fig. 15).
Regarding claim 17, the modified structure Pearce teaches the cord-like material runs on the perimeter of the bra pad as one integral continuous piece (figs. 1, 13, para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified structure Pearce does not teach the casing is detachably attached to the perimeter of the bra pad.
However, Pearce teaches the casing (fig. 15, casing 251) is detachably attached to the perimeter of the bra pad (fig. 15, para. [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Pearce with the teaching that the casing is detachably attached to the perimeter of the bra pad as suggested in fig. 15 for the benefit of providing supporting and shaping to the breast of the user when it is desired.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 2012/0052769), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Maeda (US 2022/0408852).
Regarding claim 12, the modified structure Pearce does not teach a diameter of the wire is ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Maeda teaches a diameter of the wire is ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm (para. [0027], the diameter of the wire 170 is within a range of 0.5 mm to 2 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diameter of the wire of the modified structure Pearce ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm as taught by Maeda for the benefit of providing lightweight material in supporting the cup insert.
Regarding claim 13, the modified structure Pearce does not teach a diameter of the wire is ranging from 0.7 mm to 1 mm.
However, Maeda teaches a diameter of the wire is ranging from 0.7 mm to 1 mm (para. [0027], the diameter of the wire 170 is within a range of 0.5 mm to 2 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diameter of the wire of the modified structure Pearce ranging from 0.7 mm to 1 mm as suggested by Maeda for the benefit of providing lightweight material in supporting the cup insert.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 2012/0052769), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jonas (US 3126007).
Regarding claim 14, the modified structure Pearce teaches the cord-like material comprises the wire having a flat shape (figs. 8-11).
The modified structure Pearce does not teach the wire having a thickness ranging from 0.5mm to 1.2mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jonas teaches a wire having a flat shape and having a thickness ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.2 mm (fig. 2, column 3, lines 69-74).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the wire of the modified structure Pearce with the thickness of the wire of Jonas for the benefit of providing a supporting frame for the cup insert, which provides optimum comfort and support to the wearer (Jonas, column 2, lines 17-20).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 2012/0052769), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hood (US 2006/0189254).
Regarding claim 18, the modified structure Pearce does not teach the cord-like material is comprised of plurality of pieces that are not touching each other, thereby forming a set of disconnected cord segments.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hood teaches the cord-like material is comprised of plurality of pieces that are not touching each other, thereby forming a set of disconnected cord segments (fig. 5, the cup member 306 comprises wire members 300 and 310 that are not touching each other).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the underwire of the modified structure Pearce with plurality of pieces that are not touching each other as taught by Hood for the benefit of providing more support for the bra pad in the upper part of the breast area (Hood, para. [0025]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 2012/0052769) in view of DeAngelo (US 2021/0030077).
Regarding claim 21, Pearce teaches a bra pad (fig. 13, pad 102 with wire 230) comprising:
a bra pad body having a perimeter (fig. 13, pad 102 having a perimeter); and
a support structure comprising a fabric casing (para. [0044], the underwire is encased in a fabric sleeve) having a channel holding a cord-like material (fig. 13, wire 230), the casing attached at the perimeter of the bra pad body (para. [0044], the underwire is encased in a fabric sleeve and the underwire is located at the bottom and/or sides of a bra cup);
wherein the cord-like material extends along the perimeter to form a partially closed loop (fig. 1), and wherein the cord-like material comprises a heat-resistant plastic wire or a heat-resistant metal wire having spring-like properties (para. [0066], the wire 230 is extruded and made from elastomeric material) that enable the bra pad to return to a shape into which it was originally formed after deformation (para. [0020]-[0023]).
Pearce does not clearly teach the pad 102 is for placement inside a cup of a bra.
However, Pearce teaches the bra may be used in other garments, such as sports bras, swimwear, bikini tops, camisoles, lingerie, clothing with built-in-bras or other breast supports. Such garments may be worn under other clothing (para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the bra pad of Pearce placed inside a cup of a bra for the benefit of providing a fuller more rounded appearance for a bra cup and filling out the bra cups, creating a better fit and preventing gaps or bulges.
The modified structure Pearce does not clearly teach the core-like material extends along 80% to 95% of the perimeter of the bra pad body.
However, in the same field of endeavor, DeAngelo suggests that the diameter of the cup is 5.125 inches (para. [0025]); the underarm region 244 is about 3 inches long, while the underarm region does not include the underwire (para. [0044]). Therefore, the length of the underwire is about (π x 5.125) – 3 = 13 inches. Therefore, the length of the underwire is about 13 inches /( π x 5.125) inches = 81% of the perimeter of the bra pad.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Pearce with the teaching that a length of the cord-like material is ranging from 80% to 95% of the perimeter of the bra pad as suggested by DeAngelo for the benefit of providing support and comfort to the user while using the bra (DeAngelo, para. [0044]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 2012/0052769).
Regarding claim 22, Pearce teaches a bra pad (fig. 13, pad 102 with wire 230) comprising:
a bra pad body having a perimeter (fig. 13, pad 102 having a perimeter); and
a support structure comprising a fabric casing (para. [0044], the underwire is encased in a fabric sleeve) having a channel that holds a cord-like material (fig. 13, wire 230); and
wherein the cord-like material is a heat-resistant plastic wire or heat-resistant metal wire having spring-like properties (para. [0066], the wire 230 is extruded and made from elastomeric material) that enable the bra pad to return to a shape into which it was originally formed after deformation (para. [0020]-[0023]).
Pearce does not teach a hook and loop fastening mechanism that detachably secures the casing to the perimeter of the bra pad body without displacing the cord-like material within the channel, the casing conforming to the shape of the perimeter and being configured to provide a stable attachment that resists displacement during use.
However, Pearce teaches the casing (fig. 15, casing 251 encapsulates material) is detachably attached to the perimeter of the bra pad using a hook and loop fastening mechanism (para. [0067]), without displacing the material within the channel (fig. 15), wherein the casing conforms to the shape of the perimeter of the bra pad and is configured to provide a stable attachment that resists displacement during use (fig. 15, para. [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Pearce with the teaching that the casing is detachably attached to the perimeter of the bra pad as suggested by Pearce in fig. 15 for the benefit of providing supporting and shaping to the breast of the user when it is desired.
Pearce does not clearly teach the pad 102 is for placement inside a cup of a bra.
However, Pearce teaches the bra may be used in other garments, such as sports bras, swimwear, bikini tops, camisoles, lingerie, clothing with built-in-bras or other breast supports. Such garments may be worn under other clothing (para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the bra pad of Pearce placed inside a cup of a bra for the benefit of providing a fuller more rounded appearance for a bra cup and filling out the bra cups, creating a better fit and preventing gaps or bulges.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, dated 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 22 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on reasonings applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that DeAngelo does not describe the length of a wire running along the perimeter of a removable insert pad.
In response, the applicant's arguments are 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).
In this case, Pearce teaches a removable insert pad (see the rejection of claims 1, 21, 22 above). Pearce also teaches the pad can be function as a cup of a bra (fig. 1) and the underwire extends less than 100% of the perimeter of the bra pad body. Pearce does not teach the underwire extends along 80% to 95% of the perimeter of the bra pad body. However, DeAngelo teaches the underwire extends along 80% to 95% of the perimeter of the bra pad body (see rejection of claim 21 above). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Pearce with the teaching that a length of the cord-like material is ranging from 80% to 95% of the perimeter of the bra pad as suggested by DeAngelo for the benefit of providing support and comfort to the user while using the bra (DeAngelo, para. [0044]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM-4:30 PM 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732