DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 10/22/25 in which claims 1-2 are presented for examination, wherein Claim 1 remains withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/22/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
For clarity of record—remark 1 on page 13 filed 10/22/25 is found persuasive to overcome claim objections, and remark 3 on page 13 is found persuasive to overcome 112(a) rejections and specification objections pertaining to the term “highly supportive.”
The remaining remarks of Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Pertaining to remark 2 on page 13 that [0042] was corrected to reflect that 112/182 have the same, greater compressive form than that of 116/118—examiner respectfully disagrees. As aforementioned in the final rejection of 4/24/25 page 8—despite remarks indicating that such corrections have been made, and despite [0042] being amended on 3/27/25, the amendments made do not reflect that 112/182 are the same compressive force, let alone greater than that of 116/118. [0042] of 3/27/25 still reads that 112 is a second zone, and that 116, 118, 182 are all of a third level zone. As such, all related issues still exist.
Pertaining to remark 2 on page 13 that the drawings amendments of 3/27/25 correct the outstanding issue(s)—examiner respectfully disagrees. The only drawings pertaining to compressive force are Figs. 3A, 3B. However, no changes were made to Figs. 3A,3B pertaining to the compressive forces of 116, 118, 182, and 112, but merely the addition of reference numerals 140 and 160 which helped to address other objections.
Pertaining to remark 4 on page 14 that there is no new matter—examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated on pages 7-8 of the office action of 4/24/25, examiner has not found support in the original disclosure for the indicated recitations. A mere counter-statement is not persuasive to overcome the rejection; remarks should explicitly point out where support is found in the original disclosure for further examiner consideration.
Examiner again notes that no amendments have been made to Claim 1, which may result in a lack of rejoinder and the claim being cancelled without traverse. See MPEP 821.04.
Examiner also notes that corrections have not been made for the information disclosure statement.
Relatedly, Examiner notes that there multiple instances in which corrections were neither addressed nor made in the response of 10/22/25 (for example: specification objection directed to hyperlinks).
Pertaining to remark 5 -- Due to the plethora of issues, examiner believes an interview would not assist in further compact prosecution at this time since examiner has already previously indicated all issues on the record. Further changes and/or explanations would have to be proposed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 3/27/25 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Examiner recommends applicant to file a corrected IDS through the Patent Center to use the latest IDS form. Furthermore, examiner recommends review of the NPL citation listed, as two different citations are listed in a single NPL box.
As such, the same issue still exists as indicated in the non-final rejection of 12/5/24:
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
As such, references listed in [0020]-[0022] have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are still objected to for the following:
Though Figs. 3A,3B reflect [0023] and Claim 2 (112/182 have the same, greater compressive force than the same compressive force of 116/118), the figures do not reflect the embodiment of [0042] (112 has a greater compressive force the same compressive force of 116/118/182)
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is still objected to because of the following informalities:
At the outset, specification seems to disclose two different compression embodiments; Claim 2 and [0023] seem to disclose a first compression embodiment (114 is the greatest compression and is inelastic, wherein 112/182 have the same, greater compressive force than the same compressive force of 116/118), whereas [0042] seems to disclose a second compression embodiment (114 is the greatest compression and is elastic, 112 has a greater compressive force the same compressive force of 116/118/182); in other words, it is unclear whether 114 is elastic or inelastic, and which compressive force level the element of 182 belongs to (to 112 or to 116/118)
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. This issue occurs twice in [0020]; examiner recommends removing the hyperlinks and submitting the White Paper as a first non-patent literature in an IDS, and submitting the website where the White Paper may be found as a second non-patent literature in an IDS should applicant so desire
[0042] “A single layer of …fabric provides the least amount of compressive force in the bra area 106 as well as in the shorts 120. Likewise, the buttock molds 184 have the least amount of compressive force. However, the buttock molds 184 are molded to provide support but not necessarily high compression” is unclear. It is unclear whether [0042] is indicating that only the bra area and the shorts have the fabric, but the buttock molds are of another material, since they are molded in a way that does not provide high compression (but instead a least amount of compressive force, equal the that of the bra area and the shorts).
Relatedly, the terms “likewise” and “however” are unclear in [0042]. The term “likewise” seems to indicate that the bra area, shorts, and buttocks have the same least amount of compressive force. The term “however” seems to indicate that the buttock molds 184 are somehow different than that of the bra area or shorts, but is not specified how. It is unclear whether disclosure means that the “least amount of compressive force” is not of a (relative term) “high” compression
Relatedly, [0042] is unclear in light of [0014] which indicates that the bra cups are molded. As such, it is unclear whether [0042] actually means that all of the bra area, shorts, and buttocks are of the single fabric
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is further 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 (however, attention is directed to 112(a) new matter issues below which would have to be first addressed):
Claim 2 is not in the specification, such as:
Specifying 2 layers or 3 layers
The terms utilized between Claim 2 and the specification are inconsistent; for example, as best understood of Claim 2, Claim 2 indicates lower abdomen 114 > mid and upper abdomen 112 regarding compression levels; however, [0042] indicates central mid panels 114 > right and left upper panels 112 regarding compression levels
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 Lines 6-7 “rear flank regions …achieved by 3 layers of overlapping elastic fabric panels” is considered new matter. The only indication of the number of overlapping elastic fabric panels providing compression in the original disclosure is [0042], wherein [0042] indicated that a (first) maximum compression level began with four layers, wherein there was second zone disclosed, where there was a third compression zone disclosed, and there was a fourth compression level was disclosed resulting in one, single layer of fabric, wherein each zone has decreasing compression levels-- as such, there is support for a first area with 4 layers, a second area with 3 layers, a third area with 2 layers, and a fourth area with 1 layer. However, [0042] indicates that the rear flank regions 182 are of the third zone which only has two layers. As such, Claim 2 is new matter.
Claim 2 Lines 9-11 “compressive strength of…molded buttocks…achieved by a single layer of…fabric” is considered new matter. The only indication of the number of layers being single is in [0042], wherein [0042] indicates that there is a single layer of fabric in the bra area and the shorts, but not necessarily the buttocks.
Examiner Notes
Claim(s) 2, as best understood from the disclosure, is/are free of U.S.C. 102/103 rejections, but is/are currently questioned under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action.
For clarity, examiner notes that Claim 2 is interpreted as lower abdomen 114 > mid and upper abdomen 112, rear flank regions 182 > side panels 116, lower lap panels 118 > breast cups 106, molded buttocks 184, and shorts panels 120 regarding compression levels. Furthermore, the various layers are discontinuous, based on [0035] and [0039] (for example: the single layer of the shorts panels do not extend into the lower abdomen that has four layers).
Any disagreement with the aforementioned may warrant further 112(a) new matter and/or 112(b) indefiniteness rejections and/or U.S.C. 102/103 rejections without constituting a new rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Toratani (US Publication 2025/0241387) directed to a garment with areas of varying pressure.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732