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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The “Related Application Information” needs to be updated in regard to the status of the applications.
Appropriate correction is required.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language of the Abstract is not clear. The meaning o the word “Passepartout” in the Abstract is not clear especially in regard to its “textile” or “apparel” meaning. It is not clear as to what structure this term is encompassing. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-20 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.
In claim 1, line 4, it is not clear as to what the term “Passepartout” means or what structure it encompasses in regard to its textile or apparel structure meaning. In claim 1, line 4 it is not clear as to what the “an internal side” refers to. If it is the bra internal side or the two fabric based cups internal side. The structure of the “Passepartout framing element” is not clear and as to how it holds the fabric based leak protection pad in place. In claim 2 , line 2 it is not clear as to how the internal fabric based Passepartout framing element comprises a fabric based border element and how it is structured.
Throughout the claims the term “generally” renders the claims indefinite and unclear as to whether the term “generally” is further limited the structure of which it is attempting to describe. The term is present in claims 3 and 4, lines 2 and 3.
Throughout the claims the term “Passepartout” needs to be clearly defined in regard to its structure and its relationship with the other structural components of the bra.
The term “high-wicking fabric layer” in claims 12, lines 4-5,claim 14, line 3; claim 16, line 2;is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term high wicking fabric layer 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. The metes and bounds of the term “high” is indefinite. The term “high absorbency fabric” is a relative term and it is not clear as to what the metes and bounds of the term “high absorbency” extends to or means. This term is in claim 14, line 5; Claim17, lines 2 and 4; claim 18, lines 2and 4; and claim 19, lines 2 and 4. Applicant needs to state the limits and bounds of the absorbency of the fabric.
Claim 20 is unclear and indefinite. It is not clear as to what applicant is claiming. The preamble is attempting to claim a “fabric-based leak protection pad”. But then the claim refers back to claim 2 and states that the pad is configured to be placed into and held within a bra. However, no pad structure has been claimed at all and not in claim 2… Therefore, it is not clear s to what bra and pad combination is being claimed at all.
However, the claims, as best understood, have been examined on their merits.
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)(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) 1-5, 9, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Raimondo (US 20030211810 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Raimondo discloses a bra 1 in fig. 3, , comprising:
two fabric-based cups 2 and 4, in paras. (0022-0023), configured to cover breast of a human wearer;
wherein at least one of the two fabric-based cups 2, 4 , comprises therein an internal fabric-based
Passepartout framing element 42, 44 , integrally attached to an internal side or the fabric-based cup in
which it is attached,
wherein the internal fabric-based Passepartout framing element is configured to hold in
place a fabric-based leak-protection pad 34, 36 in figure 3, (See Raimondo, fig. 3, paras. (0014, 022,
023).
In regard to claim 2, Raimondo discloses the bra according to claim 1,
wherein the internal fabric-based Passepartout framing element 42,44 comprises a fabric-based
border element with 30,32, having an inner aperture 22,28 in para. (0022) that has an area that is
smaller than an area of the fabric-based leak-protection pad 34, 36 as in figure 3, to enable said fabric-
based border element
of said internal fabric-based Passepartout framing element to hold in place the fabric-based leak-
protection pa 34, 36 in figure 3 and paras. (0014, 0022, 0023).
In regard to claim 3, Raimondo discloses the bra 1 in figure 3, according to claim 2,
wherein the internal fabric-based Passepartout framing element 31,33 in figure 3 is structured as a
generally triangular frame which is configured to receive and hold therein a generally triangular fabric-
based leak-protection pad 34, 36 in figure 3 and paras. (0014, 0022, 0023).
In regard to claim 4, Raimondo discloses the bra according to claim 2,
wherein the internal fabric-based Passepartout framing element is structured as a generally
ring-shaped frame 42,44 in figure 3 and paras. (0022,0023,0014 of Raimondo )which is configured to
receive and hold therein a generally circular fabric-based leak-protection pad 34, 36 in figure 3 and
paras. (0014, 0022, 0023) .
In regard to claim 5, Raimondo discloses the bra according to claim 2,
wherein the internal fabric-based Passepartout framing element is formed of a fabric that
is pre-coated or pre-treated ) being made of plastic as in para. (0023) with a liquid-repelling agent, to
repel liquids from the internal fabric-
based Passepartout framing element towards the fabric-based leak-protection pad 34, 36 in figure 3 and
paras. (0014, 0022, 0023).
In regard to claim 9, Raimondo discloses the bra as claimed in regard to claim 2, comprising
wherein the internal fabric-based Passepartout framing element 42, 44 in figure 3, holds in place the
fabric-based leak-protection pad 34, 36 in figure 3 and paras. (0022),(0023)in a user-removable
manner,
wherein the fabric-based leak-protection pad 34, 36 is manually removable, via a partial folding
operation, from within the fabric-based border element of the internal fabric-based Passepartout
framing element 42,44 as in figure 3 and paras. (0014, 0022, 0023).
In regard to claim 20, Raimondo discloses a fabric-based leak-protection pad 34, 36 as in paras. (0014,
0022, 0023) as in figure 3 , configured to be inserted into and held within a bra, in accordance with
claim 2 including framing element 42, 44 as discussed above in regard to claim 2 above.
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 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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raimondo in view of Gendel (US6786798 A1).
In regard to claim 6, Raimondo discloses the bra according to claim 2,
discloses the framing element 42-44 that is of a plastics material to avoid moisture and odor retention.
However, Raimondo does not specifically disclose the framing element as being of an ionized silver as
in claim 6, as being anti-bacterial and odor absorbing.
Gendel discloses a bra constructed of a material as in Raimondo that includes the ionized silver, anti-
microbial and odor absorbing as in claims 6-8. (See Gendel, col. 1, lines 51-58 and 63-67).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the framing element material of Raimondo with the teaching of Gendel to provide the material as being silver ionizing material as in claim 6, that is antibacterial and also odor absorbing as in claims 7 and 8 so that bacteria, germs and odor creating materials are removed from the framing element to avoid odors and disease.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raimondo in view of Johnson et al (US 3356090 A1).
In regard to claim 13, Raimondo discloses the bra according to claim 2 as discussed above . However,
Raimondo does not disclose wherein the fabric-based leak-protection pad comprises a liquid-absorbing
membrane for absorbing fluids of the human wearer,
wherein the liquid-absorbing membrane is sandwiched between: (I) a breast-facing high-
wicking fabric layer that is configured to pull liquids away from the breast towards said liquid-
absorbing membrane, and (II) a polyester pad-lining element that covers the fabric-based leak-
protection pad at a surface that is facing away from the breast.
Johnson et al discloses (See Johnson et all in col. 1, line 40 – col. 2, line 45) the pad 10 with the layer
that absorbs fluids from the wearer 16, the fabric-based leak-protection pad comprises a liquid-
absorbing membrane 12 for absorbing fluids of the human wearer,
wherein the liquid-absorbing membrane is sandwiched between: (I) a breast-facing high-
wicking fabric layer 11 that is configured to pull liquids away from the breast towards said liquid-
absorbing membrane, and (II) a polyester pad-lining element (col. 2, lines 60-65 of Johnson et al) that
covers the fabric-based leak-
protection pad with layer 17 at a surface that is facing away from the breast. (See Johnson et all in col.
1, line 40 – col. 2, line 45)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the i
invention to modify the pad 34, 36 of Raimondo with the teaching of Johnson et al to provide the
absorbing and wicking layers as well as water repellant outer layer to provide the best absorbing,
wicking and protection , water repellant pad as desired.
Claim(s) 10 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raimondo in view of Hann (US 2010/0121300 A1).
In regard to claim 10, Raimondo discloses the bra as claimed except for the pad as being seamless. Hann discloses the seamless pad and it is well kwon to include seamless bra pads that are formed by laminating layers to avoid seams and bulkiness when worn. (See Hann, Para. (0011).
In regard to claims 14-19 Raimondo discloses the pad substantially as claimed except for the specific layers as claimed with the wicking layer, high absorbency layer. Breathable membrane and polyester pad element as in claim 14; the layers glued or laminated together for a gap free structure as in claim 15, with hydrophilic yarns fabric layer as in claim 16; with the silver molecules as in claim 17; the antibacterial agent as in claim 18 and the odor absorbing agent as in claim 19.
Hann discloses the same multilayer construction with the same materials therein as in paras. ( 0008), (0009),(0010),(0021),(0024-0025) and figure 1.
Accordingly it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the layered pad of Raimondo with the teaching of Hann to further include the specific materials as claimed to provide the benefits of those materials within the padding layers and thereby providing the best absorbent wicking and water repellant pad that is odor absorbing and antibacterial as claimed to yield a no odor, non-disease water absorbing and repellant breast pad when used.
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 GLORIA M HALE whose telephone number is (571)272-4984. The examiner can normally be reached MON.-THURS..
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 1-571-272-3425. 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.
/GLORIA M HALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732