Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/226,909

MODESTY PANEL FOR GARMENT

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 27, 2023
Examiner
KANE, KATHARINE GRACZ
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Acushnet Company
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
296 granted / 631 resolved
-23.1% vs TC avg
Strong +45% interview lift
Without
With
+45.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
692
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
48.6%
+8.6% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 631 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/5/2026 has been entered. 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. Claims 1-10, 12, 15-17, 19-23 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “wherein said another layer of the plurality of inner layers comprises a liner or a lining that is configured to extend continuously across the front facing portion of the lower garment from the left and right side seam regions of the lower garment to the inseam region of the lower garment”. It is unclear if said another layer is a different layer than the layer forming one of more front pockets. Such a limitation lacks detailed support in the instant specification. Also, such limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear what structural limitation applicant intends to cover since it is nowhere stated what is meant by “another layer” which extends continuously and forms one or more front pockets. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-10, 12, 15-17, & 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otashevich (US 2019/0320747) in view of Stern (USPN 1,458,632). Regarding Claim 1, Ostashevich disclose an article of apparel (Figures 1-3, 8 & 9), comprising: a lower garment (400) with a lightweight and breathable construction (Para. 8 & 29), the lower garment comprising: an outer layer (399, 499, 412, 512) configured as a main fabric for the lower garment (Figures 1-3, 8 & 9), the main fabric having a first side facing externally and a second side facing inwardly towards a subject's body (Figures 1-3, 8 & 9); an internal construction (402 & 404) comprising a plurality of inner layers disposed between the outer layer and the subject's body (Figures 1-3, 8 & 9); and one or more pockets (Para. 9 & 28) comprising one of more front pockets (Figures 8 & 10), wherein the plurality of inner layers comprises a modesty panel (402 & 404), wherein the modesty panel comprises a non-compressive panel that conceals a shape or a profile of a select portion of the subject's body (Para. 8 & 29), wherein the non-compressive panel extends continuously across a front facing portion of the lower garment from an inseam region of the lower garment to a left side seam region (Figures 1-3) and a right side seam region of the lower garment (Figures 1-3), wherein the modesty panel forms a first side of the one or more front pockets (Para. 9 & 34, Figures 8 & 10). Otashevich does not specifically disclose another layer of the plurality of inner layers are configured to extend between the modesty panel and the outer layer to form a second side of the one or more front pockets. However, Otashevich discloses, in another embodiment, another layer (Para. 31, interior layer) configured to extend continuously (once assembled) across the front facing portion of the lower garment from the left and right side seam regions of the lower garment to the inseam region of the lower garment (Figure 5) and Stern discloses the use of a layer of a plurality of inner layers to form various sides of one or more pockets (Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the construction of additional interior layers and pockets, as taught by Otashevich and Stern using inner layers to form pockets to the apparel of Otashevich, in order to provide strength, additional support and prevent wrinkling. Therefore the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose the first and second sides of the front pockets are stitched together to form one or more pocket bags (Otashevich, Figures 1-3 & Stern, Figures 1-3). Ostashevich discloses various material made be used for the modestly panel and main fabric or outer layer (Para. 29) Ostashevich does not specifically disclose wherein the modesty panel is partially visible through the main fabric or the outer layer. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the layers as claimed, since it is well 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. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose an upper portion of the modesty panel is finished at a waist band seam of the lower garment (Otashevich, Figure 1). Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose one or more side portions of the modesty panel are finished at the left or right side seam regions of the lower garment (Otashevich, Figure 1). Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose a lower portion of the modesty panel is finished at the inseam region of the lower garment (Otashevich, Figure 1). Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose a bottom edge of the modesty panel is detached from the outer layer of the lower garment and/or one or more inner layers of the lower garment (Otashevich, Figure 1 & Para. 30). Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose the bottom edge extends between (i) the inseam region of the lower garment and (ii) the left and right side seam regions of the lower garment (Otashevich, Figure 1). Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose the bottom edge of the modesty panel is independently movable or repositionable relative to the outer layer of the lower garment and/or one or more inner layers of the lower garment (Otashevich, Figure 1 & Para. 30). Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose one or more side portions of the modesty panel have a fixed position or orientation relative to the outer layer of the lower garment and/or the one or more inner layers of the lower garment (Otashevich, Figure 1). Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose the modesty panel comprises a multi-functional layer that covers the select portion of the subject's body without extending around or across a back or rear facing portion of the lower garment (Ostashevich, Figure 1 & Para. 26, 29 & 30). Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Otashevich and Stern do not specifically disclose the non-compressive material comprises a mesh material and wherein the main fabric comprises a ripstop material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the non-compressive material and the main fabric as claimed, since it is well 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. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using a mesh material and a ripstop material would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Otashevich and Stern do not specifically disclose the mesh material is lighter than the ripstop material of the main fabric. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to experiment with different mesh material in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of desired comfort, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the weight involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose the modesty panel has a different stretchability or drapeability than the main fabric (Otashevich, Para. 8 & 29). Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Otashevich and Stern do not specifically disclose the modesty panel has a greater thickness than the main fabric. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to experiment with different ranges of thickness for the material in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of desired comfort, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the weight involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose the main fabric comprises a plurality of strands or fibers that are knit or woven to form the outer layer (Para. 8 & 29), wherein the outer layer comprises a plurality of openings formed between the knit or woven strands or fibers (Para. 8 & 29). The combination of Otashevich and Stern do not specifically disclose the openings having a maximum dimension of at most about ¾ of an inch or less. However, any knit or woven fabric has small openings due to the construction of the fabric itself. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the material would have openings smaller than an inch. Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose the modesty panel and the main fabric collectively form a fully opaque construction restricting a visibility of the select portion of the subject's body (Para. 29). Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose the one or more pockets include a primary pocket with a primary pocket bag and a secondary pocket with a secondary pocket bag, wherein the secondary pocket bag is provided inside or within the primary pocket (Otashevich, Figures 1-3 & Stern, Figures 1-3). Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose the modesty panel comprises a surface that is common to the primary pocket bag and the secondary pocket bag (as modified, Figures 1-3 & Stern, Figures 1-3). Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Otashevich and Stern disclose the main fabric comprises a non-elastic or substantially inelastic material that resists stretching or expansion in one or more directions (Ostashevich, Para. 29). Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Otashevich and Stern do not specifically disclose the modesty panel has a same stretchability or drapeability as the main fabric. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the panel and fabric as claimed, since it is well 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. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using the same type of material would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otashevich (US 2019/0320747) in view of Stern (USPN 1,458,632) in further view of Kiuchi (US 2019/0320737). Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Otashevich and Stern do not specifically disclose comprising one or more gussets extending along a lower portion of the modesty panel, wherein the one or more gussets have a different stretchability than the modesty panel wherein the plurality of gussets comprise a first gusset and a second gusset that is separate from the first gusset, wherein the first gusset is disposed along a left side of an upper inseam region of the lower garment and wherein the second gusset is disposed along a right side of the upper inseam region of the lower garment. However, Kiuchi discloses a gusset (Para. 29) having a stretchability (Para. 29) which can be a first gusset and second gusset (two or more layers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a gusset, as taught by Kiuchi, to the garment of Otashevich, in order to provide comfort, prevent leaks and allow performance fabric for functionality. Therefore, as modified the one or more gussets extends along a lower portion of the modesty panel, wherein the one or more gussets has a different stretchability than the modesty panel; wherein the plurality of gussets comprise a first gusset and a second gusset that is separate from the first gusset, wherein the first gusset is disposed along a left side of an upper inseam region of the lower garment and wherein the second gusset is disposed along a right side of the upper inseam region of the lower garment (as modified, each gusset is disposed as claimed). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 11, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599185
PROTECTIVE KNEE PAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12564247
ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR WITH REEL CLOSURE AND SLIDABLE EYELET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12538960
FOOT SUPPORT SYSTEMS INCLUDING FLUID MOVEMENT CONTROLLERS AND ADJUSTABLE FOOT SUPPORT PRESSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12478118
Adapter System For Vest Closure Mechanisms
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12471670
SOLE STRUCTURE HAVING A FLUID-FILLED CHAMBER FOR AN ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+45.4%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 631 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month