CLOTHING

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 . Response to Amendment In response to Applicant’s submission of remarks filed 3/16/2026, no claims were amended. Claims 18-19 and 21-22 remain canceled. Claims 17 and 20 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-16 and 23-26 are presented for examination on the merits for Group I and Species I-II. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2013/0160189 A1), in view of Miller et al. (US 2018/0325196 A1). Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses clothing for covering a body of a wearer (Figs. 1-2, paras. 13-14 disclose an upper half 1), the clothing comprising: an upper-body piece (1) for covering at least a portion of an upper half of the body (Figs. 1-2, paras 13-14); and upper-body support patternings (3-5 and 3’-5’ of Fig. 1; 3-5 and 3’-5’ of Fig. 2) on the upper-body piece (Figs. 1-2, paras. 13-14) the upper-body support patternings including a plurality of impressed figures (5 and 5’ of Fig. 1; 4 and 4’ of Fig. 2; Examiner notes the term “impressed” is broad and merely means “to mark or stamp with pressure”, see defn. no. 3 of American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, 2016, entry via thefreedictionary.com/impressed, and therefore, the upper-body support patternings of Yang includes a plurality of impressed figures, inasmuch as claimed) including printed on said upper-body piece (para. 37 discusses the coatings of 3-5 and 3’-5’ are printed), and the plurality of impressed figures including an upper-body first impressed figure (5 and 5’ of Fig. 1) extending from a medial bottom region of a front of the upper-body piece (see annotated Fig. 1 below) upwardly and laterally to form a V-shape (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where 5 and 5’ extends from the boxed area upwardly and laterally to form a V-shape), PNG media_image1.png 299 439 media_image1.png Greyscale an upper-body second impressed figure (4, 4’ of Fig. 2) on a back of the upper-body piece (Fig. 2; para. 14), the upper-body second impressed figure extending from a top portion of the upper-body piece (see annotated Fig. 2 below) diagonally and downwardly (see annotated Fig. 2 below) towards a center of the upper body piece (see annotated Fig. 2 below), PNG media_image2.png 296 361 media_image2.png Greyscale and an upper-body third impressed figure (5 and 5’ of Fig. 2) on the back of the upper-body piece (Fig. 2; para. 14) and below the upper-body second ink-impressed figure (Fig. 2), the upper-body third impressed figure extending horizontally (see annotated Figs. 1-2 above), with respect to a lower edge of the upper-body piece, from a lateral portion (see annotated Figs. 1-2 above, where a lower edge of the upper-body piece is the horizontal terminal edge of 1 and the portions of 5 and 5’ extend horizontally in a left to right and/or right to left direction with respect to the left to right direction of the upper-body piece’s terminal horizontal edge) of the upper-body piece towards the center of the upper-body piece (see annotated Fig. 2 above). Yang does not directly disclose the upper-body support patternings including a plurality of ink-impressed figures including ink printed on said upper-body piece, the plurality of ink-impressed figures including an upper-body first ink-impressed figure, an upper-body second ink-impressed figure, and upper-body third ink-impressed figure. However, Miller teaches clothing (para. 40; 100 is a shirt) with upper-body patternings (120), and the upper-body support patternings including a plurality of ink-impressed figures (para. 57 discloses 120 is an ink; Fig. 1A shows the shape of 120, and therefore, is an “ink-impressed figures” inasmuch as claimed; It is noted that the recitations “ink-impressed” is/are deemed a product-by-process limitation in the claim. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. See MPEP 2113.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the upper-body support patternings of Yang to be ink-impressed figures on said upper-body piece, as taught by Miller, in order to adjust the elasticity and other physical properties of the garment for a form-fitting and comfortable wear to the user (paras. 6-7). When in combination, Yang and Miller disclose the upper-body support patternings including a plurality of ink-impressed figures including ink printed on said upper-body piece, and the plurality of ink-impressed figures including an upper-body first ink-impressed figure on a back of the upper-body piece, the upper-body first ink-impressed figure extending from a medial bottom region of a front of the upper-body piece upwardly and laterally to form a V-shape, an upper-body second ink-impressed figure on a back of the upper-body piece, the upper-body second ink-impressed figure extending from a top portion of the upper-body piece diagonally and downward towards a center of the upper-body piece, and upper-body third ink-impressed figure on the back of the upper-body piece and below the upper-body piece and below the upper-body second ink-impressed figure, the upper body third ink-impressed figure extending horizontally from a lateral portion of the upper-body piece towards the center of the upper-body piece. Regarding claim 3, when in combination, Yang and Miller disclose the clothing set forth in claim 1, wherein: the upper-body piece has the form of a T-shirt (definition 1 of Princeton University 2003-2012, WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. S.v. "T-shirt." Via www.thefreedictionary.com/T-shirt defines T-shirt as a close-fitting pullover shirt; Figs. 1-2 of Yang show a shirt as the upper half of the garment, and therefore, “a t-shirt” inasmuch as claimed); and the plurality of ink-impressed figures are formed by silk-screen printing (of Miller: para. 56-57; It is noted that the recitation “formed by silk-screen printing” is deemed a product-by-process limitation in the claim. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. See MPEP 2113. Even though the product-by-process limitation is presented, please note Miller further discloses screen printing in para. 139). Yang and Miller do not directly disclose the ink-impressed figures are formed by silk-screen printing in which the upper-body first ink-impressed figure is of 25 mm ±10 mm width, and the upper-body second ink-impressed figure and the upper-body third ink-impressed figure each are of 50 mm±110mm width. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the ink-impressed figures of Miller to be have the claimed widths, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the first, second, and third impressed figures of Yang to have the claimed widths, in order to provide a proper fit for a user's body. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Regarding claim 4, when in combination, Yang and Miller discloses the clothing set forth in claim 1. Yang further discloses wherein the upper-body first ink-impressed figure, the upper-body second ink-impressed figure, and the upper-body third ink-impressed figure each are disposed in a bilateral-symmetrical geometry (Figs. 1-2). Regarding claim 5, Yang discloses clothing for covering a body of a wearer (Figs. 1-2, paras. 13-14 disclose an upper half 1), the clothing comprising: an upper-body piece (1) for covering at least a portion of an upper half of the body (Figs. 1-2, paras 13-14); and upper-body support patternings (3-5 and 3’-5’ of Fig. 1; 3-5 and 3’-5’ of Fig. 2) formed on the upper-body piece (Figs. 1-2, paras 13-14), the upper-body support patternings including a plurality of impressed figures (5 and 5’ of Fig. 1; 4 and 4’ of Fig. 2; Examiner notes the term “impressed” is broad and merely means “to mark or stamp with pressure”, see defn. no. 3 of American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, 2016, entry via thefreedictionary.com/impressed, and therefore, the upper-body support patternings of Yang includes a plurality of impressed figures, inasmuch as claimed) including printed on said upper-body piece (para. 37 discusses the coatings of 3-5 and 3’-5’ are printed), and the plurality of impressed figures including an upper-body first impressed figure (4 and 4’ of Fig. 2 & para. 14) on a back of the upper-body piece (Fig. 2; para. 14), the upper-body first ink-impressed figure extending from a top portion of the upper-body piece (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 1 rejection) diagonally and downward (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 1 rejection) towards a center of the upper-body piece (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 1 rejection), and an upper-body second impressed figure (5 and 5’ of Fig. 2) on the back of the upper-body piece (Fig. 2; para. 14) and below the upper-body first impressed figure (Fig. 2), the upper-body second ink-impressed figure extending horizontally, with respect to a lower edge of the upper-body piece (see annotated Figs. 1-2 above of claim 1 rejection, where a lower edge of the upper-body piece is the horizontal terminal edge of 1 and the portions of 5 and 5’ extend horizontally in a left to right and/or right to left direction with respect to the left to right direction of the upper-body piece’s horizontal terminal edge), from a lateral portion of the upper-body piece towards the center of the upper-body piece (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 1 rejection), wherein the upper-body piece has the form of a T-shirt (definition 1 of Princeton University 2003-2012, WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. S.v. "T-shirt." Via www.thefreedictionary.com/T-shirt defines T-shirt as a close-fitting pullover shirt; Figs. 1-2 of Yang show a form of a t-shirt as the upper half of the garment, and therefore, “a t-shirt” inasmuch as claimed). Yang does not directly disclose the upper-body support patternings including a plurality of ink-impressed figures including ink printed on said upper-body piece, and the plurality of ink-impressed figures including an upper-body first ink-impressed figure on a back of the upper-body piece, the upper-body first ink-impressed figure extending from a top portion of the upper-body piece diagonally and downward towards a center of the upper-body piece, and an upper-body second ink-impressed figure on the back of the upper-body piece and below the upper-body first ink-impressed figure, the upper-body second ink-impressed figure extending horizontally from a lateral portion of the upper-body piece towards the center of the upper-body piece, and the ink-impressed figures are formed by silk-screen printing. However, Miller teaches an upper-body piece (100; para. 40 discloses 100 is a shirt) and the upper-body support patternings (120; para. 38) including a plurality of ink- impressed figures (para. 57 discloses 120 is an ink; Fig. 1A shows the shape of 120, and therefore, is an “ink-impressed figures” inasmuch as claimed), and the ink-impressed figures are formed by silk-screen printing (It is noted that the recitations “ink-impressed” and “formed by silk-screen printing” are deemed product-by-process limitations in the claim. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. See MPEP 2113. Even though the product-by-process limitation is presented, please note Miller further discloses screen printing in para. 139). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper-body first and second impressed figures of Yang to be upper-body first and second ink-impressed figures, as taught by Miller, in order to adjust the elasticity and other physical properties of the garment for a form-fitting and comfortable wear to the user (paras. 6-7). It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper-body first and second impressed figures of Yang to be formed by silk-screen printing, as taught by Miller, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design and finish. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. When in combination, Yang and Miller disclose the upper-body support patternings including a plurality of ink-impressed figures including ink printed on said upper-body piece, and the plurality of ink-impressed figures including an upper-body first ink-impressed figure on a back of the upper-body piece, the upper-body first ink-impressed figure extending from a top portion of the upper-body piece diagonally and downward towards a center of the upper-body piece, and an upper-body second ink-impressed figure on the back of the upper-body piece and below the upper-body first ink-impressed figure, the upper-body second ink-impressed figure extending horizontally from a lateral portion of the upper-body piece towards the center of the upper-body piece, and the ink-impressed figures are formed by silk-screen printing. Regarding claim 7, when in combination, Yang and Miller disclose the clothing set forth in claim 5. Yang further discloses the upper-body first ink-impressed figure and the upper-body second ink-impressed figure each are disposed in a bilateral-symmetrical geometry (Figs. 1-2). Yang does not directly disclose wherein: the upper-body first ink-impressed figure and the upper-body second ink-impressed figure each are of 50 mm ±110mm width. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the upper-body first and second ink-impressed figures of Yang to be have the claimed widths, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Regarding claim 23, when in combination, Yang and Miller disclose the clothing set forth in claim 1. Yang further discloses wherein the upper- body first ink-impressed figure extends from the medial bottom region of the front of the upper-body piece upwardly and laterally to form an inverted V-shape (see annotated Fig. 1 of claim 1 rejection above). Regarding claim 24, when in combination, Yang and Miller disclose the clothing set forth in claim 1. Yang further discloses wherein the upper- body first ink-impressed figure extends from the medial bottom region of the front of the upper-body piece upwardly and inwardly to form the V-shape (see annotated Fig. 1 of claim 1 rejection above, where 5 and 5’ extends from the annotated medial bottom region upwardly and inwardly, and inwardly because 5 and 5’ extend inwardly toward the torso of the garment/wearer with respect to the medial bottom region). Regarding claim 25, when in combination, Yang and Miller disclose the clothing set forth in claim 1. Yang further discloses wherein a vertex of the V-shape is at a medial location of the upper-body piece from a bottom of the upper-body piece (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where “a medial location” is also at the annotated vertex). PNG media_image3.png 316 577 media_image3.png Greyscale Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2013/0160189 A1) and Miller et al. (US 2018/0325196 A1), in view of Park (US 2019/0281908 A1). Regarding claim 2, when in combination, Yang and Miller disclose the clothing set forth in claim 1, except for wherein: the ink is compounded with a mineral powder of at least one kind or a blended mineral powder of at least two of radium ore, germanium, quartz, terahertz ore, or tourmaline. However, Park teaches wherein: the ink is compounded with a mineral powder of at least one kind or a blended mineral powder of at least two of radium ore, germanium, quartz, terahertz ore, or tourmaline (paras. 17 and 67 discloses at least one kind of a mineral powder- tourmaline is added to the ink). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink of Miller to be compounded with a mineral powder of tourmaline, as taught by Park, in order to express various textures and physical properties of the fabric for improving the support and design of the garment to the wearer. Further, it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Regarding claim 6, when in combination, Yang and Miller disclose the clothing set forth in claim 5, except for wherein: the ink is compounded with a mineral powder of at least one kind or a blended mineral powder of at least two of radium ore, germanium, quartz, terahertz ore, or tourmaline. However, Park teaches wherein: the ink is compounded with a mineral powder of at least one kind or a blended mineral powder of at least two of radium ore, germanium, quartz, terahertz ore, or tourmaline (paras. 17 and 67 discloses at least one kind of a mineral powder- tourmaline is added to the ink). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink of Miller to be compounded with a mineral powder of tourmaline, as taught by Park, in order to express various textures and physical properties of the fabric for improving the support and design of the garment to the wearer. Further, it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Claim(s) 8, 10-12, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (US 2015/0306441 A1), in view of Miller et al. (US 2018/0325196 A1). Regarding claim 8, Yao discloses clothing (10; Figs. 1A-1B) for covering a body of a wearer (para. 10), the clothing comprising: a lower-body piece (10; Figs. 1A-1B including 100) for covering at least a portion of a lower half of the body (Figs. 1A-1B, where a portion of the lower half of the body is shown to be covered by 10); and lower-body support patternings (110 of Figs. 1A-1B) on the lower-body piece (Figs. 1A-1B; para. 24), the lower-body support patternings including a plurality of impressed figures (110 includes 151 of Fig. 1A and 151 of Fig. 1B), and the plurality of impressed figures including a lower-body first impressed figure (left and right 151 of Fig. 1A) on a front of a the lower-body piece (Fig. 1A is a ventral view as disclosed in para. 10), the lower-body first impressed figure extending from a medial top region (130) of the lower-body piece downwardly and outwardly to form a V-shape (Fig. 1A, where left and right 151 is extending from 130 downwardly and outwardly to form a V-shape as shown; left and right 151 extends “outwardly” because both extend from 130 downwardly to the outer edge of the inner thigh of the garment as shown), and a lower-body second impressed figure (left and right 151 of Fig. 1B) on a back of the lower-body piece (Fig. 1B is a dorsal view as disclosed in para. 10), the lower-body second impressed figure extending from a medial portion (142 is a “medial portion” because it is configured medial relative to the wearer’s leg) of the lower-body piece diagonally and upwards towards a center of the lower-body piece (Fig. 1B shows 151 extending from 142 diagonally and upwards towards the center of the lower-body piece, or toward the crotch region; the crotch region being the center of the lower-body piece). While Yao discloses the lower-body support patternings including a plurality of impressed figures are integrated in the lower-body piece (paras. 26-27), Yao does not directly disclose the lower-body support patternings including a plurality of ink-impressed figures including ink printed on said lower-body piece, and the plurality of ink-impressed figures including a lower-body first ink-impressed figure on a front of a the lower-body piece, the lower-body first ink-impressed figure extending from a medial top region of the lower-body piece downwardly and outwardly to form a V-shape, and a lower body second ink-impressed figured on a back of the lower-body piece, the lower-body second ink-impressed figure extending from a medial portion of the lower-body piece diagonally and upwards towards a center of the lower-body piece. However, Miller teaches lower-body support patternings (120 of Figs. 1A-1B) including a plurality of ink-impressed figures including ink printed on said lower-body piece (para. 56-57, where 120 is printed ink). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lower-body support patternings including the first and second impressed figures of Yao to be ink-impressed figures including ink printed on said lower-body piece, as taught by Miller, in order to adjust the elasticity and other physical properties of the garment for a form-fitting and comfortable wear to the user (paras. 6-7). When in combination, Yao and Miller disclose the plurality of ink-impressed figures including a lower-body first ink-impressed figure on a front of a the lower-body piece, the lower-body first ink-impressed figure extending from a medial top region of the lower-body piece downwardly and outwardly to form a V-shape, and a lower body second ink-impressed figure on a back of the lower-body piece, the lower-body second ink-impressed figure extending from a medial portion of the lower-body piece diagonally and upwards towards a center of the lower-body piece. Regarding claim 10, when in combination, Yao and Miller disclose the clothing set forth in claim 8, wherein: the lower-body piece has the form of shorts (Yao: Figs. 1A-1B; Miller: para. 40); and the plurality of ink-impressed figures (of Yao as evidenced by Miller: para. 57 and claim 8) are formed by silk-screen printing (of Yao as evidenced by Miller: para. 56-57; It is noted that the recitation “formed by silk-screen printing” is deemed a product-by-process limitation in the claim. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. See MPEP 2113). Yao and Miller do not directly disclose in which the lower-body first ink-impressed figure and the lower-body second ink-impressed figure each are of 25 mm ± 10mm width. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lower-body first and second, ink-impressed figure of Miller to be have the claimed widths, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the lower-body first and second ink-impressed figure of Miller to have the claimed widths, in order to provide a proper fit for a user's body. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Regarding claim 11, when in combination, Yao and Miller discloses the clothing set forth in claim 8, wherein the lower-body first ink-impressed figure and the lower-body second ink-impressed figure each are in a bilateral-symmetrical geometry (the lower-body first ink-impressed figure is taught of Miller and as evidenced by Yao in Figs. 1A-1B; the lower-body second ink-impressed figure of Yao and as evidenced by Miller in Figs. 1A-1B). Regarding claim 12, when in combination, Yao and Miller disclose the clothing set forth in claim 8, wherein: the plurality of ink-impressed figures further include a lower-body third ink-impressed figure (of Miller and as evidenced by Yao: right 152 of Fig. 1B) forming a first vertex (of Miller as evidenced by Yao: Fig. 1B, where the first vertex is the point at which the sides of right 152 and right 151 intersect as shown) with the lower-body second ink-impressed figure at a first end of the lower-body second ink-impressed figure (of Miller as evidenced by Yao: see annotated Fig. 1B below, where a first end is an edge of right 151 as shown) and extending upwardly from the first vertex (of Miller as evidenced by Yao: see annotated Fig. 1B below), and a lower-body fourth ink-impressed figure (of Miller as evidenced by Yao: left 152 of Fig. 1B) forming a second vertex with the lower-body second ink-impressed figure (of Miller as evidenced by Yao: Fig. 1B, where the second vertex is the point at which the side of left 152 and left 151 intersect as shown) at a second end of the lower-body second ink-impressed figure (of Miller as evidenced by Yao: see annotated Fig. 1B below, where a second end is an edge of left 151 as shown) and extending downwardly from the second vertex (of Miller as evidenced by Yao: see annotated Fig. 1B below). PNG media_image4.png 412 383 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 26, when in combination, Yao and Miller discloses the clothing set forth in claim 8. While Yao discloses the medial portion being below the crotch of the lower-body piece (Fig. 1B, see crotch of 100, and 142/130 is below the crotch), Yao does disclose 130, which is an extension of 142, as being capable of holding resistance to almost any part of the body (para. 21). Yao does not directly disclose wherein the lower- body second ink-impressed figure extends from the medial portion of the lower- body piece, the medial portion being above a crotch of the lower-body piece. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the medial portion being below a crotch of the lower-body piece of Yao to above the crotch of the lower-body piece in order to hold resistance (para. 21) and to provide an aesthetically please design. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (US 2015/0306441 A1) and Miller et al. (US 2018/0325196 A1), in view of Park (US 2019/0281908 A1). Regarding claim 9, when in combination, Yao and Miller disclose the clothing set forth in claim 8, except for wherein: the ink is compounded with a mineral powder of at least one kind or a blended mineral powder of at least two of radium ore, germanium, quartz, terahertz ore, or tourmaline. However, Park teaches wherein: the ink is compounded with a mineral powder of at least one kind or a blended mineral powder of at least two of radium ore, germanium, quartz, terahertz ore, or tourmaline (paras. 17 and 67 discloses at least one kind of a mineral powder- tourmaline is added to the ink). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink of Miller to be compounded with a mineral powder of tourmaline, as taught by Park, in order to express various textures and physical properties of the fabric for improving the support and design of the garment to the wearer. Further, it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2013/0160189 A1), in view of Park (US 2019/0281908 A1). Regarding claim 13, Yang discloses clothing (para. 12, tights) for covering a body of a wearer (paras. 12-14), the clothing comprising: upper (1) and lower (10) clothing core pieces for covering at a least a portion of an upper half of the body and at least a portion of a lower half of the body (paras. 12-14); and support patternings on the upper and lower clothing core pieces (front and back 3-5 and 3’-5’ on 1; front and back 11-14 and 11’-14’ on 10), wherein the support patternings including a plurality of impressed figures (front and back 3-5 and 3’-5’ on 1; front and back 11-14 and 11’-14’ on 10; Figs. 1-2) including printed on the upper and lower clothing core pieces (at least paras. 2 and 13-14 discloses the impressed figures are printed), and the plurality of impressed figures including an upper-body first impressed figure (5, 5’; Fig. 1) extending from a medial bottom region of a front of the upper clothing core piece (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection) upwardly and laterally to form a V-shape (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection), a lower-body first impressed figure on a back of the lower clothing core piece (the segment of 11 at the lead line of 11 on 10 of Fig. 2; paras. 25-26), the lower-body first impressed figure extending from a medial portion of the lower clothing core piece (see annotated Fig. 2 below) diagonally and upward towards a center of the lower clothing core piece (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the segment of 11 at the lead line of 11 on 10 of Fig. 2 extends diagonally and upwards towards the annotated center of the lower clothing piece), an upper-body second impressed figure (4 of Fig. 2) on a back of the upper clothing core piece (back of 1 is shown in Fig. 2), the upper-body second impressed figure extending from a top portion of the upper clothing core piece (see annotated Fig. 2 below) diagonally and downward towards a center of the upper clothing core piece (see annotated Fig. 2 below), an upper-body third impressed figure on the back of the upper clothing core piece (5 of Fig. 2) and below the upper-body second impressed figure (5 is below 4 of Fig. 2), the upper-body third impressed figure extending horizontally, with respect to a lower edge of the upper clothing core piece (Fig. 2 shows 5 extending horizontally in a left to right and/or right to left direction with respect to the left to right direction of the upper-body piece’s terminal horizontal edge), from a lateral portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below) of the upper clothing core piece towards the center of the upper-body piece (see annotated Fig. 2 below), a lower-body first impressed figure on the back of the upper-body piece and below the upper-body first impressed figure (where the segment of 11 at the lead line of 11 on 10 of Fig. 2 is below 5’ of Fig. 1, as best understood), the upper-body second impressed figure extending horizontally from a lateral portion of the upper-body piece towards the center of the upper-body piece (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and a lower-body second impressed figure (11 and 11’ of Fig. 1) a front of the lower clothing core piece (11 and 11’ of 10 in Fig. 1, where 10 is a front of the lower clothing core piece), the lower-body second impressed figure extending from a medial top region of the lower clothing core piece (see annotated Fig. 1 below) downwardly and outwardly to form a V-shape (see annotated Fig. 1 below, 11 and 11’ are extending downward and outwardly with respect to bottom terminal edge of 10, and 11 and 11’ extend “outwardly” because both extend toward the outer of the inner and outer thigh of the wearer). PNG media_image5.png 591 416 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 366 423 media_image6.png Greyscale Yang does not directly disclose wherein the support patternings including a plurality of ink-impressed figures including ink printed on the upper and lower clothing core pieces, and the plurality of ink-impressed figures including an upper-body first ink-impressed figure extending from a medial bottom region of a front of the upper clothing core piece upwardly and laterally to form a V-shape, a lower-body first ink-impressed figure on a back of the lower clothing core piece, the lower-body first ink-impressed figure extending from a medial portion of the lower clothing core piece diagonally and upward towards a center of the lower clothing core piece, an upper-body second ink-impressed figure on a back of the upper clothing core piece, the upper-body second ink-impressed figure extending from a top portion of the upper clothing core piece diagonally and downward towards a center of the upper clothing core piece, an upper-body third ink-impressed figure on the back of the upper clothing core piece and below the upper-body second ink-impressed figure, the upper-body third ink-impressed figure extending horizontally from a lateral portion of the upper clothing core piece towards the center of the upper-body piece, a lower-body first ink-impressed figure on the back of the upper-body piece and below the upper-body first ink-impressed figure, the upper-body second ink-impressed figure extending horizontally from a lateral portion of the upper-body piece towards the center of the upper-body piece, and a lower-body second ink-impressed figure a front of the lower clothing core piece, the lower-body second ink-impressed figure extending from a medial top region of the lower clothing core piece downwardly and outwardly to form a V-shape. However, Park teaches a clothing (abstract) wherein support patternings include a plurality of ink-impressed figures (para. 67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support patternings of the upper and lower clothing core pieces of Yang to include a plurality of ink-impressed figures, as taught by Park, in order to alter the elasticity and other physical properties of the garment for a form-fitting and comfortable wear to the user (paras. 6-7). When in combination, Yang and Park disclose the limitations as claimed above. Regarding claim 14, when in combination, Yang and Park further disclose the clothing set forth in claim 13, wherein: the ink is compounded with a mineral powder (Park: para. 67) of at least one kind or a blended mineral powder of at least two of radium ore, germanium, quartz, terahertz ore, or tourmaline (Park: paras. 17 & 67, where ink is compounded with at least tourmaline). Regarding claim 15, when in combination, Yang and Park further disclose the clothing set forth in claim 13, wherein: the plurality of ink-impressed figures further include a lower-body third ink-impressed figure (of Park and as evidenced by Yang: see annotated Fig. 1 below) forming a first vertex with the lower-body second ink-impressed figure (of Park and as evidenced by Yang: see annotated Fig. 1 below) at a first end of the lower-body second ink-impressed figure (of Park and as evidenced by Yang: see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the first end of the lower-body second ink-impressed figure 11’ is at the side edge of 11’ before meeting the annotated vertex) and extending upwardly from the first vertex (of Park and as evidenced by Yang: see annotated Fig. 1 below), and a lower-body fourth ink-impressed figure (of Park and as evidenced by Yang: see annotated Fig. 1 below) forming a second vertex with the lower-body second ink-impressed figure (of Park and as evidenced by Yang: see annotated Fig. 1 below) at a second end of the lower-body second ink-impressed figure and extending downwardly from the second vertex (of Park and as evidenced by Yang: see annotated Fig. 1 below). PNG media_image7.png 308 547 media_image7.png Greyscale Regarding claim 16, when in combination, Yang and Park disclose the clothing set forth in claim 13, wherein the plurality of ink-impressed figures are formed by silk-screen printing (It is noted that the recitation “formed by silk-screen printing” is deemed a product-by-process limitation in the claim. Although the structure of Yang may be formed by a different process, the end product is the same as that of Applicant' s claimed invention. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. See MPEP 2113. Even though the product-by-process limitation is presented, please note Park further discloses screen printing in para. 6). Yang and Park do not directly disclose in which the ink-impressed figures are of 60 mm or less width. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality printed support patternings of Yang to be of 60 mm or less in width, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the ink-impressed figures of Park to be of 60 mm or less in width, in order to provide a proper fit for a user's body. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Response to Amendment Applicant’s arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the status of the drawings: Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant submits Examiner did not indicate the status of the drawings. Examiner’s Response: Examiner invertedly did not repeat the status of the claims from a previous PTOL-326 form. The current PTOL-326 form is updated with the status of the drawings. Examiner submits that the status of the drawings remains unchanged from the previous Office Action mailed 8/27/2025. Regarding the Specification, objection to claims 12 and 15: Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts that the specification objections should be withdrawn because Applicant discloses the claimed limitation “a first vertex with the lower-body second ink-impressed figure at a first end of the lower-body second ink-impressed figure and extending upwardly from the first vertex” and “a second vertex with the lower-body second ink-impressed figure at a second end of the lower-body second ink-impressed figure and extending downwardly from the second vertex” in amended paragraph [0075]. Applicant further labels the first and second vertex in Fig. 17 on p. 2 of the arguments submitted on 3/16/2026. Examiner’s Response: Examiner finds the argument persuasive and withdraws the specification objection for claims 12 and 15. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claims 13-16: Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection recites the limitation “a lower-body first ink impressed figure on the back of the upper-body piece and below the upper-body first ink-impressed figure” as being indefinite, but the limitation was not claimed by Applicant; Examiner should withdraw the rejection. Examiner’s Response: Examiner finds Applicant’s argument persuasive, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 13 is withdrawn. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 1-5: Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant submits the structure that Examiner referenced as “horizontal terminal edge of 1” is unclear in the nonfinal rejection mailed 12/17/2025 on page 7. Because the non-annotated Fig. 2 of Yang does not show the bottom of the upper half of the tights 1 as a “horizontal terminal edge”, Yang does not disclose the limitation as claimed. Further, even if Yang does show the bottom of 1, Yang fails to disclose “an upper-body third ink-impressed figure extending horizontally, with respect to the lower edge of the upper half of the tights 1”. Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that Yang does not show an upper-body third ink-impressed figure extending horizontally, with respect to the lower edge of the upper half of the tights 1. Examiner draws to p. 7 of the nonfinal rejection mailed 12/17/2025, “and an upper-body third impressed figure (5 and 5’ of Fig. 2) on the back of the upper-body piece (Fig. 2; para. 14) and below the upper-body second ink-impressed figure (Fig. 2), the upper-body third impressed figure extending horizontally (see annotated Figs. 1-2 above), with respect to a lower edge of the upper-body piece, from a lateral portion (see annotated Figs. 1-2 above, where a lower edge of the upper-body piece is the horizontal terminal edge of 1 and the portions of 5 and 5’ extend horizontally in a left to right and/or right to left direction with respect to the left to right direction of the upper-body piece’s terminal horizontal edge)”. Examiner asserts that the annotated Fig. 1 indeed shows a terminal edge of 1, which is consistent to the original Fig. 2, because the horizontal terminal edge runs in the left and right direction, and the portions of 5 and 5’ as annotated also run in and left and/or right direction. Examiner further notes that the limitation “with respect to” is very broad and merely means “of or about someone or something”, see defn. of McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, 2002, entry via thefreedictionary.com/with+respect+to, and therefore, Yang discloses the limitation, inasmuch as claimed. The rejection(s) for claims 1 and 5 is/are maintained as stated above. Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant submits that Yang discloses portions of 5 and 5’ as extending diagonally upwards towards the center of the upper half of the tights 1 from the left and right sides of the upper half of the tights 1, and therefore, these portions do not run “horizontally” and as interpreted by Applicant as “parallel to or in the plane of the horizon” to meet the claimed limitation “the upper-body third ink-impressed figure extending horizontally”. Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because there are portions along 5 and 5’ that run parallel to or in the plane of the horizon to meet the claimed limitation. Further, Examiner clarified in the non-final rejection mailed on 12/17/2025 that “portions of 5 and 5’ extend horizontally in a left to right and/or right to left direction with respect to the left to right direction of the upper-body piece’s terminal horizontal edge”. Further, applicant is not claiming that the upper-body third impressed figure has to be parallel to the horizon or any other structure of the garment. As such, the weight of “horizontally” is given a broadest reasonable interpretation. The rejection(s) for claims 1 and 5 is/are maintained as stated above. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 8: Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts that the prior art of Yao fails to disclose “a lower-body first ink-impressed figure on a front of the lower-body piece, the lower-body first ink-impressed figure extending from a medial top region of the lower-body piece downwardly and outwardly to form a V-shape”. Applicant submits that Fig. 1A of Yao shows patterns 151 extending from the outer regions of a top/waistband of garment 10, which is not “extending from a medial top region”. Further, Applicant submits that if left and right 151 extend outwardly toward the outer edge of the inner thigh, there is no possible inward direction on the garment 10. Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because Yao shows in Fig. 1A left and right 151 extending from 130 downwardly and outwardly to form a V-shape, left and right 151 extends “outwardly” because both extend from 130 downwardly to the outer edge of the inner thigh of the garment. Applicant does not explicitly claim the relationship of “a medial top region” from any other structure(s) on the lower-body piece, and therefore, 130 of Yao is a medial top region, inasmuch as claimed. In response to Applicant’s assertions that if left and right 151 extend outwardly toward the outer edge of the inner thigh, there is no possible inward direction on the garment 10, the inward direction on the garment would be toward the inner thigh region of the garment and away from the outer edges of the garment. Additionally, Applicant does not claim an inward direction. The rejection of claim 8 is maintained as stated above. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 23-24: Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts that Fig. 1 of Yang does not show an inverted v-shape or and the vertex as annotated by Examiner on page 14 of the non-final office action mailed 12/17/2025 is not a vertex of the v shape, and therefore, the limitation “herein the upper-body first ink-impressed figure extends from the medial bottom region of the front of the upper-body piece upwardly and laterally to form an inverted V-shape” is not disclosed. Applicant asserts that Examiner is interpreting “inwardly” as being synonymous with “upwardly” in the limitation for claim 24. Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because as currently claimed, Yang does indeed disclose the limitation, as provided in the non-final rejection. Applicant does not disclose the v-shape being required to form a specific angle from the vertex. Applicant also does not provide additional structure for what qualifies as a vertex. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the rejection of claims 23-24 is maintained as stated above. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 25: Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts that Examiner is interpreting “vertex” arbitrarily labeling a point at which the alleged v-shape curves outward, but the curvature point is neither a vertex or a v-shape. Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicant does not disclose the v-shape being required to form a specific angle from the vertex. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the rejection of claim 25 is maintained as stated above. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 26: Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts that the system 130 of Yao is not a resistance band and it is unclear how 130 is relevant to move the bands 151 from a leg portion to above the crotch portion, especially if the bands are not for ornamental pieces. Applicant further believes the rejection resorted to impermissible hindsight reasoning. Examiner’s Response: Examiner submits that the motivation to move structures 142/130 above the crotch in order to hold resistance (see para. 21 of Yao and p. 21-22 of the nonfinal rejection mailed 12/17/2025), and clarified that this motivation was in combination with providing an aesthetically pleasing design. Examiner additionally submitted that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See similar garments cited on the PTO-892 attached to this Office Action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIAO QT HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET. 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. /G.Q.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3732 /SALLY HADEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732