DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 2/19/26 in which claims 12, 13, 15-24 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/19/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 12, 19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 Line 7 before “patient’s skin” delete “the” and substitute –a—for proper antecedent basis
Claim 19 needs review whether it should only recite that the at least one absorption area can further be located at a thoracic region of the garment.
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 12, 13, 15-24 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.
The term “absorption pad is located behind the inside layer of the fabric body” in Claim 12 Line 12 is considered new matter, especially without specification antecedent basis, pending clarification.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 15-24 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “sufficiently porous” in Claim 12 Line 8 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Though the term finds antecedent basis in [0012], the term "sufficiently" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No measurements for porosity nor disclosure of the material (ex. open-cell foam) or structure (mesh) have been disclosed to define the term “sufficiently”. Examiner recommends deleting the term “sufficiently.” For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met as long as the inside layer is capable of the function (“permit post-surgical fluid to pass”).
The term “surgical area” in Claim 12 Lines 8 , 9 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this term differs from the previously established term “surgical site” in Claim 12 Line 13 and Claim 16. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered the same.
The term “the absorption pad is located behind the inside layer of the fabric body” in Claim 12 Line 12 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Based on [0026] “Since the absorption pad is placed in a pocket 104, the absorption pad does not directly touch the surgical area, but instead there is a thin layer of fabric in between the incision and the absorption pad…it is important that this layer, which comes in direct contact with the skin at the surgical area…only the inside layer of fabric comes into direct contact with skin at the surgical area," it seems that the order of the layers, from skin to exterior, is: surgical site/skin, then the inside layer, then the pad, then the “outside” layer. As such, it is unclear whether the term “behind” is relative to the user’s skin, or some other interpretation. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as such.
The term “common” in Claim 12 Line 16 such as in “common surgical drainage or incision point, including” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Though the rest of the limitation recites a few regions, and though the specification indicates such regions as “examples” in [0006], these are not enough to establish clear metes and bounds for the term “common.” See MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV)—examples are not enough to definitively define the metes and bounds of so relative a term. Especially with the term “including” being open-ended, the metes and bounds for the term is further unclear. Examiner recommends deleting the term “common”.
The term “abdominal region…arm region…leg region” in Claim 12 Lines 16-18 and their associated elements is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the regions are of a patient (see Claim 20) or of the garment (see Claim 19). For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered of the patient. Should applicant amend such that the term is of the garment, further 112(b), 112(d) issues may be warranted for at least Claim 19 and/or Claim 20.
The term “an absorbent element” in Claim 13 Line 1 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term differs from “an absorbent element” in Claim 12, especially as Claim 12’s absorbent element is of at least one absorption area. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered “the absorbent element.”
The term “an abdominal…region of the garment” in Claim 19 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this abdominal region differs from an abdominal region of Claim 12 Line 16. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered different.
The term “an…arm…region of the garment” in Claim 19 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this abdominal region differs from an arm region of Claim 12 Line 17. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered different.
The term “leg region of the garment” in Claim 19 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this abdominal region differs from leg region of Claim 12 Line 17. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered different.
The term “thoracic…region” in Claim 19 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term differs from “torso” in Claim 12 Line 3, especially in light of applicant remarks on page 6 indicating that the terms are the same and therefore not amending the term “thoracic” into the specification for proper antecedent basis. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered different (torso of patient, thoracic of garment). However, terms should be consistent.
The term “an abdominal…region…of the patient” in Claim 20 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this abdominal region differs from an abdominal region of Claim 12 Line 16. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered the same.
The term “an…arm…region…of the patient” in Claim 20 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this abdominal region differs from an arm region of Claim 12 Line 17. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered the same.
The term “leg region…of the patient” in Claim 20 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this abdominal region differs from leg region of Claim 12 Line 17. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered the same.
The term “arms…of the patient” in Claim 23 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “arm region” in Claim 12. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms are considered the same.
The term “legs of the patient” in Claim 23 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “leg region” in Claim 12. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms are considered the same.
The term “the at least one absorption area is sized and configured to receive at least two absorbent elements” in Claim 24 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the “at least two absorbent elements” relate to “absorbent element” in Claim 12 Line 10. For example, it is unclear whether the recitation should read “wherein the absorbent element is a first absorbent element and the at least one absorption area is a first absorption area, wherein the garment further comprises a second absorption area with a second absorbent element.” For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as such.
The term “the at least one absorption area is sized and configured to receive at least two absorbent elements” in Claim 24 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the recitation is indicating that a single area can have at least two elements, or there is one element per area. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, either interpretation can be applied.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Claim 13 fails to further limit, as Claim 12 Lines 10-11 already indicate that the absorbent element is removably received within the at least one absorption area. Examiner recommends cancelling Claim 13.
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Claim 20 fails to further limit, as Claim 12 Lines 16-18 already recited that the at least one absorption area could be at the recited regions and their associated elements.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 15-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the following terms, to the best of the examiner’s understanding, is directed to a human organism and therefore is not patent eligible subject matter. Claims directed to or encompassing a human organism is excluded from eligibility before the Supreme Court. See MPEP 2105.
Claim 12 Lines 6-7 “the at least one absorption area being defined by an inside layer of the fabric body that is in direct contact with the patient’s skin” seems to positively claim patient skin; examiner recommends “that is configured to be in direct contact”
Claim 12 Lines 6-7 “the at least one absorption area being defined by an inside layer of the fabric body that is in direct contact with the patient’s skin at a surgical area” seems to positively claim a surgical area of a human body; examiner recommends “that is configured to be in direct contact”
Claim 12 Lines 15-16 “the at least one absorption area is located at a position corresponding to a common surgical drainage or incision point” seems to positively claim drainage/incision points of a human body; examiner recommends “configured to correspond to”
Claim 12 Lines 15-18 “the at least one absorption area is located at a position corresponding to a common surgical drainage or incision point, including an abdominal region around a belly button and lower left and lower right quadrants, an arm region around a posterior elbow, or a leg region around a medial knee and/or medial thigh” seems to positively claim abdominal region, arm region, and leg region and their correlated elements; examiner recommends “configured to correspond to”
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Interpretation
The term “absorption pad” or “absorbent element(s)” is functionally claimed in Claims 12, 17, 24 due to Claim 12 functionally reciting “the at least one absorption area being configured to hold …absorption pad as an absorbent element” and/or the dependencies thereon.
The term “absorbent element(s)” seems to be positively claimed in Claims 13, 15 due to Claim 13 positively reciting that the garment further comprises an absorbent element, and/or the dependencies thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 15, 17-22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caden (USPN 10786016).
Regarding Claim 12, Caden teaches a post-surgical garment (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; however, see Figs. 1B, 5; title "moisture absorbing anti-leak undergarments"; Caden teaches the garment which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being utilized post-surgical), comprising:
a fabric body (see Fig. 5; Col. 6 Lines 26-28 "undergarment 10, at least the front section 14 of the body 12 is provided with a multi-layer construction 30"; Col. 6 Lines 33-37 "construction 30 includes a first layer 32 fabricate from a soft, pliable material…and provide a wicking effect drawing moisture from the wearer's chest area...first layer 32 may comprise a knit fabric"; Col. 6 Lines 53-58 "second layer 38 which is disposed adjacent the first layer...having prescribed moisture absorption properties...fabricated from...an absorbent foam"; Col. 7 Lines 9-10 "third layer 40 may comprise a breathable, elastic polyurethane film", wherein at least 32 being a knit fabric makes a fabric body),
the fabric body having a size configured to cover at least a portion of a patient's torso, a limb, or both (see Figs. 1B; Caden teaches the fabric body with size which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of covering at least a portion of a patient’s torso in light of Fig. 1B; as another interpretation, abstract "undergarments that …are uniquely constructed to absorb fluids, such as those associated with sweat and lactation, in either prescribed areas of the undergarment or throughout the totality thereof"; Col. 1 Lines 34-36 "undergarments can include…men's undershirts…underwear"; Caden teaches the fabric body which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of covering at least a portion of a patient’s torso with an undershirt, in light of the recitation);
at least one opening formed in the fabric body (see Fig. 1B; Col. 7 Line 67-Col. 8 Line 6 "As seen in FIG. 1B, the undergarment 10 is provided with a pair of elongate slots or slits 48 within respective ones of the cup portions 16, each of which provides access to the interior of a respective one of the pockets 44 to allow for the advancement of the absorption layer 46 into its associated pocket 44, and removal of the absorption layer 46 from therewithin"; wherein the opening is in the fabric body inasmuch as the fabric body is not fully enclosed); and
at least one absorption area positioned within the fabric body and being accessible through the at least one opening (see Fig. 1B; Col. 6 Lines 53-58 for second layer 38 of fabric body absorbent and therefore creating an absorption area with Col. 7 Line 67-Col. 8 Line 6; Caden teaches the pocket of the absorbent fabric body with an opening which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being accessible as recited);
the at least one absorption area being defined by an inside layer (32) of the fabric body that is in direct contact with the patient's skin at a surgical area, the inside layer being sufficiently porous to permit post-surgical fluid through from the surgical area (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 5; Col. 6 Lines 27-28 "the front section 14 of the body 12 is provided with a multi-layer construction 30"; Col. 6 Lines 33-37 "construction 30 includes a first layer 32 fabricate from a soft, pliable material…and provide a wicking effect drawing moisture from the wearer's chest area...first layer 32 may comprise a knit fabric"; wherein the wicking indicates porosity),
the at least one absorption area being configured to hold a replaceable absorption pad as an absorbent element removably received within the at least one absorption area through the at least one opening (see claim interpretation; Caden teaches the at least one absorption area which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of holding a replaceable absorption pad as absorbent element removably received as recited, especially in light of Fig. 1B; Col. 7 Lines 41-46 "in the undergarment 10, at least portions of the first and second layers 32, 38 collectively define at least one pocket 44 therebetween which is sized and configured to removably accommodate an ancillary absorption layer 46 adapted to supplement the moisture absorption properties of the second layer 38"; Col. 7 Lines 52-53 "each ancillary absorption layer 46 takes the form of a generally circular absorption pad");
wherein the absorption pad is located behind the inside layer of the fabric body, wherein the absorbent element being configured to absorb fluid from a surgical site of the patient (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Caden teaches the inside layer of the fabric body which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of having an absorption pad located behind and absorbing fluid from a surgical site as recited, especially in light of Col. 7 Lines 41-46),
wherein the at least one absorption area is located at a position corresponding to a common surgical drainage or incision point, including an abdominal region around a belly button and lower left and lower right quadrants, at an arm around a posterior elbow, or at a leg around a medial knee and/or medial thigh (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Caden teaches the at least one absorption area which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being positioned at the regions of a patient as recited, especially in light of abstract "undergarments that …are uniquely constructed to absorb fluids, such as those associated with sweat and lactation, in either prescribed areas of the undergarment or throughout the totality thereof"; Col. 1 Lines 34-36 "undergarments can include…men's undershirts…underwear”, wherein underwear or undershirts indicates at least abdominal region around a belly button and lower left/right quadrants), and
wherein the at least one opening is positioned such that the absorbent element is replaceable while the garment remains worn by the patient (see Fig. 1B; Caden teaches the at least one opening which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of replacing the absorbent element while the garment is worn, especially in light of Col. 7 Lines 41-46).
Regarding Claim 13, Caden teaches the garment of claim 12, further comprising an absorbent element removably inserted within the at least one absorption area (see claim interpretation; as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see rejection of Claim 13 which already indicated that Caden teaches as recited).
Regarding Claim 15, Caden teaches the garment of claim 13, wherein the absorbent element has a size and shape that correlates to a size and shape of the at least one absorption area (see claim interpretation; as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Fig. 1B; Col. 7 Lines 41-46 wherein sized indicates shaped; Col. 7 Lines 52-53).
Regarding Claim 17, Caden teaches the garment of claim 12, wherein the absorbent element is removable and replaceable through the at least one opening without removing the garment from the patient (see claim interpretation, and therefore the rejection of Claim 12; Caden teaches the at least absorption area which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of having a removable/replaceable absorbent element as recited, especially in light of Col. 7 Lines 41-46, wherein removable indicates replaceable).
Regarding Claim 18, Caden teaches the garment of claim 12, wherein the at least one opening comprises a slit, flap, elastic opening, zipper, or hook-and-loop closure (Col. 7 Line 67-Col. 8 Line 6 "As seen in FIG. 1B, the undergarment 10 is provided with a pair of elongate slots or slits 48 within respective ones of the cup portions 16, each of which provides access to the interior of a respective one of the pockets 44 to allow for the advancement of the absorption layer 46 into its associated pocket 44, and removal of the absorption layer 46 from therewithin").
Regarding Claim 19, Caden teaches the garment of Claim 12, wherein the at least one absorption area is located at an abdominal, thoracic, arm, or leg region of the garment (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Caden teaches the garment’s at least one absorption area which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being at the regions recited, especially in light of abstract "undergarments that …are uniquely constructed to absorb fluids, such as those associated with sweat and lactation, in either prescribed areas of the undergarment or throughout the totality thereof"; Col. 1 Lines 34-36 "undergarments can include…men's undershirts…underwear", wherein undershirt indicates at least abdominal, and underwear indicates at least abdominal/leg).
Regarding Claim 20, Caden teaches the garment of Claim 19, wherein the at least one absorption area is configured to be located at the abdominal region around a belly button and lower left and lower right quadrants, at an arm around a posterior elbow, or at a leg around a medial knee and/or medial thigh (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see rejection of Claim 12).
Regarding Claim 21, Caden teaches the garment of claim 12, wherein the fabric body comprises a stretchable fabric (Col. 7 Lines 9-10 "third layer 40 may comprise a breathable, elastic polyurethane film" wherein the elastic layer is of the fabric body and therefore the fabric body is stretchable; and/or Col. 6 Line 37 “first layer 32 may comprise a knit fabric", wherein knits are inherently stretchable).
Regarding Claim 22, Caden teaches the garment of claim 12, wherein the fabric body comprises an antimicrobial material (Col. 3 Lines 49-52 "desirable that the undergarments provide…antimicrobial management…the present disclosure addresses these particular needs").
Regarding Claim 24, Caden teaches the garment of claim 12, wherein the at least one absorption area is sized and configured to receive at least two absorbent elements (see claim interpretation; as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Caden teaches the at least one absorption area which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being sized and configured for at least two absorbent elements, especially in light of Fig. 1B).
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caden (USPN 10786016), in view of Watabe et al (JP 2007/215822), herein Watabe.
Regarding Claim 16, Caden teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Caden does not explicitly teach a foam insert configured to provide compression to the surgical site.
However, Caden does teach that the absorbent pad at the surgical site is already a foam insert (for foam-- Col. 7 Lines 59-63 "absorption layer 46 (e.g., pad) may be fabricated from materials having prescribed moisture absorption properties, including but not limited to those described above in relation to the second layer 38"; Col. 6 Lines 56-58 "second layer 38 is fabricated from a liquid or moisture absorbing material (e.g.,...absorbent foam..."; for insert-- Col. 7 Lines 41-46).
Watabe teaches stacking two foam inserts (see Fig. 1; [0017] "absorbent pads (30) and (31)…stacked together…facilitates the replacement of the small pad (31) that directly touches the affected area, and also allows the large pad (30) to absorb any leakage from the small pad (31)").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Caden to have two foam inserts as taught by Watabe in order to ensure absorption ([0017]) in the same art of endeavor as absorbent garments.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Caden teaches a foam insert configured to provide compression to the surgical site (modified Caden teaches the foam insert in addition to the original foam insert/absorption pad/element which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of providing compression as recited).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caden (USPN 10786016), in view of Chatfield (USPN 2639708).
Regarding Claim 23, Caden teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Caden teaches wherein the garment is configured to extend across the torso and legs of the patient (abstract "undergarments that …are uniquely constructed to absorb fluids, such as those associated with sweat and lactation, in either prescribed areas of the undergarment or throughout the totality thereof"; Col. 1 Lines 34-36 "undergarments can include…men's undershirts…underwear", Caden teaches underwear and undershirts which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of extending across torso and legs of a patient).
Caden does not explicitly teach wherein the garment is configured to extend arms of the patient.
Chatfield teaches wherein the garment is configured to extend across the torso, arms, and legs of the patient (see Fig. 4 for extent across torso, arms, legs; Col. 1 Lines 1-4 "invention relates to...men's undergarments”; Chatfield teaches the garment which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for a patient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Caden’s men’s undergarments to extend as taught by Chatfield as aesthetic design choice (Col. 1 Lines 27-29), such as for warmth or modesty.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12, 13, 15-24 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification—
Pertaining to remarks on page 10 that Petitt’s media are thermal packs and not absorbent pads—examiner directs attention to the claim interpretation section of page 8 of the final rejection 11/19/25: the element was functionally claimed in at least the independent claim and therefore the remarks are not persuasive as long as Petitt’s pockets are capable of holding absorbent pads. Elements are still functionally claimed in at least the independent claim.
Similarly, pertaining to remarks on page 11 that Petitt’s pockets are based on athletic muscle groups and are not aligned with surgical drains or incisions—the remarks are not persuasive. The surgical drains or incisions cannot be positively claimed as related to the human body, and therefore the structure of Petitt is merely required to be capable of such a function in product claims (as opposed to method claims), regardless of whether the placement was based on muscle groups.
Pertaining to remarks on page 11 directed to Claim 18—it is not understood how the remarks are indicating that Petitt does not teach the claims.
Pertaining to remarks on page 11 that Petitt does not disclose a single integrated garment—the remarks are not persuasive, as the claims have not required a single integrated garment. Furthermore, even if claimed, no criticality has been disclosed such that the recitation could not be taught by modification, under aesthetic design choice or making elements integral, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Remarks/amendments seem to indicate that the inventive concept is the combination of the fabric body material with the absorbent pad. However, no specifics have been disclosed, let alone claimed, for the fabric body material.
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: Chong et al (USPN 12564225), Miotto et al (US Publication 2026/0053206) directed to fabric body material; Kamada (US Publication 2002/007509) directed to doubling of foam inserts; Dahlquist (USPN 8615815) directed to full body men’s garments; Bratcher, Jr (US Publication 2011/0196458) directed to garment with pockets for compression elements.
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
Prosecution Insights