DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/2025 has been entered. It is noted that the status identifiers are incorrect for claims 8, 13, and 23-26 in the submission filed on 11/19/2025, since these claims were not entered as part of the after final submission on 10/27/2025, see Advisory Action mailed 11/03/2025. Claims 1, 5, 8, and 13 are amended. Claims 18-19 and 21-22 are newly canceled. Claims 17 and 20 remain withdrawn. Claims 23-26 are newly added. Claims 1-16 and 23-26 are presented for examination on the merits for Group I and Species I-II.
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:
Claims 12 and 15 recite the following limitation(s): “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”. After a complete review of Applicant’s instant specification, such limitation lacks antecedent basis from the instant written specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/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, regards as the invention.
Claim 13 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim “a lower-body first ink-impressed figure on the back of the upper-body piece and below the upper-body first ink-impressed figure”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear which structure is “a lower-body first ink-impressed figure on the back of the upper-body piece and below the upper-body first ink-impressed figure. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify if a lower-body first ink-impressed figure on the back of the lower-body piece was intended to be claimed, the “a lower-body first ink-impressed figure on the back of the lower-body piece is the same as the structure recited in lines 16-17, or where the lower-body first ink-impressed figure exists. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the recitation as “the lower-body first ink-impressed figure on the back of the lower-body piece and below the upper-body first ink-impressed figure”. Claim 13 is rejected as best understood by Examiner.
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 19 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In view of Applicant' s amendment, the search has been updated, and newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments, which are drawn solely to the newly amended limitations, have been considered but are moot in view of the newly modified ground(s) of rejection.
Regarding the Specification, objection to claims 12 and 15:
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts that amendments were submitted for claims 12 and 15 to overcome the specification objections.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because no amendments were submitted for claims 12 and 15 to overcome the specification objections. Examiner notes that the arguments presented on 10/27/2025 that were addressed in the Advisory Action mailed 11/3/2025 stated that “a first vertex” and “a second vertex” is/are not presented in the written specification. Further, the annotation was not provided in the originally filed disclosure and Examiner maintains the specification objections for claims 12 and 15 as stated above.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claims 13-16:
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts that the amendments provided on 10/27/2025 and 11/3/2025 addressed the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, and therefore, Examiner should reconsider and withdraw the rejection.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner submits that Applicant did not make changes to the limitation that was rendered indefinite, “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 such, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 13 is maintained as stated above, and claims 14-16 as dependent upon claim 13.
Conclusion
15 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
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights