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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on July 11, 2025 has been received and is entered herewith. Claims 1-8, 10-18, 20, 21, and 25 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Note: Because at least some of the new grounds of rejection are based on previously presented claim limitations and the rejections were not previously applied, this Office Action is considered a second Non-Final Rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 is missing a period at the end of the claim.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “where the front and back non-circumferential layers are different” should read “wherein the front and back non-circumferential layers are different.”
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein one or more front non-circumferential layers comprise a front sculpting area” should read “wherein the one or more front non-circumferential layers comprise a front sculpting area” to enhance clarity and to maintain consistent antecedent basis within the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-18, 20, 21, and 25 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 21 recites the limitation “a side panel for each leg which are shaped to cover each outer leg.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “each leg” and “each outer leg” in the claims.
Claims 16 and 25 recite the limitation “wherein the one or more inner compressive layers comprises a compressive fabric layer.” The limitation is indefinite, as it is unclear if the recited compressive fabric layer is synonymous with the non-stretch non-circumferential layer, or provided in addition to the non-stretch non-circumferential layer. Furthermore, if the compressive fabric layer is an additional layer, it is unclear how the claimed garment can be formed of “one or more” compressive layers, which inherently includes the option of one layer, since the claim would require at least two layers (i.e., the non-stretch non-circumferential layer and the additional compressive layer). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: “wherein the one or more inner compressive layers comprise a plurality of inner compressive layers including the non-circumferential layer and at least one additional inner compressive layer.”
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11-15, 21 (regarding claim 21, as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malish (US PG Pub 2010/0136882)(First Interpretation).
Regarding claim 1, Malish discloses a shape enhancing garment (pants of Figs. 1-2) which is formed from a base layer (3-3C) and one or more inner compressive layers (1-1C, 2-2C) for providing a slimming effect to an inner thigh area (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204, the Examiner notes that compressive layer(s) 1-1C, 2-2C is/are located an inner portion of the garment corresponding to the inner thighs, and is/are therefore inner compressive layers inasmuch as claimed),
wherein the one or more inner compressive layers comprise a non-circumferential layer (see at least Figs. 1-2; layer 1-1C, 2-2C covers only the inner thigh area of the garment without extending around the circumference of the pant legs), wherein the non-circumferential layer is a non-stretch layer (see at least paragraphs 0203-204).
Regarding claim 3, Malish further discloses wherein the non-circumferential layer (1-1C, 2-2C) comprises an inner thigh shaping region (1-1C, which is configured to shape at least a front inner thigh area) and optionally a sculpting area (2-2C, which is configured to sculpt at least a back inner thigh area and is therefore a sculpting area inasmuch as claimed, see at least Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204).
Regarding claim 4, Malish further discloses wherein the inner thigh shaping region (1-1C) is formed of a continuous non-stretch layer (see at least Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204).
Regarding claim 5, Malish further discloses wherein the inner thigh shaping region (1-1C) is shaped to cover only the inner thigh (see at least Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204).
Regarding claim 6, Malish further discloses wherein the non-circumferential layer (1-1C, 2-2C) comprises the sculpting area (2-2C, see at least Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204).
Regarding claim 11, Malish further discloses wherein the non-circumferential layer (1-1C, 2-2C) comprises one or more front non-circumferential layers (1-1C) and one or more back non- circumferential layers (2-2C) where the front and back non-circumferential layers are different (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204, 1-1C and 2-2C form different panels).
Regarding claim 12, Malish further discloses wherein one or more front non- circumferential layers (1-1C) comprise a front sculpting area (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204, front non-circumferential layer 1-1C is configured to sculpt at least a front inner thigh area, so as to form a front sculpting area).
Regarding claim 13, Malish further discloses wherein the front sculpting area (1-1C) is a groin sculpting area (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204, front sculpting area 1-1C extends up to cover at least a portion of a groin area of the garment and is therefore capable of providing sculpting to the groin, so as to form a groin sculpting area).
Regarding claim 14, Malish further discloses wherein the one or more back non-circumferential layers (2-2C) comprise a back sculpting area (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204, back non-circumferential layer 2-2C is configured to sculpt at least a back inner thigh area, so as to form a back sculpting area).
Regarding claim 15, Malish further discloses wherein the back sculpting area (2-2C) is a buttock supporting area (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204, back sculpting area 2-2C extends up to cover at least a portion of a buttock area of the garment and is therefore capable of providing support to the buttocks, so as to form a buttock supporting area).
Regarding claim 21, Malish further discloses a side panel (3, 3A) for each leg which are shaped to cover each outer leg (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204, the Examiner notes that claim 21 does not prohibit the side panels from being formed by the material of the base layer), wherein each side panel is free from inner compressive layers (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204).
Claims 1, 16, 20, and 25 (regarding claims 16, 20, and 25, as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malish (Second Interpretation).
Regarding claim 1, Malish discloses a shape enhancing garment (pants of Figs. 1-2) which is formed from a base layer (3-3C) and one or more inner compressive layers (1-1C, 2-2C) for providing a slimming effect to an inner thigh area (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204, the Examiner notes that compressive layer(s) 1-1C, 2-2C is/are located an inner portion of the garment corresponding to the inner thighs, and is/are therefore inner compressive layers inasmuch as claimed),
wherein the one or more inner compressive layers comprise a non-circumferential layer (1-1C; see at least Figs. 1-2; layer 1-1C covers only the inner thigh area of the garment without extending around the circumference of the pant legs);
wherein the non-circumferential layer is a non-stretch layer (see at least paragraph 0203).
Regarding claim 16, Malish further discloses wherein the one or more inner compressive layers (1-1C, 2-2C) comprises a compressive fabric layer (2-2C; interpreted to be an additional layer(s) separate from the non-circumferential layer; see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204 and rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above).
Regarding claim 20, Malish further discloses wherein the non-circumferential layer (1-1C) is provided on the compressive fabric layer (2-2C; see Figs. 1-2 and at least paragraphs 0035-0040; layers 1-1C and 2-2C are connected and at least partially overlapped at double seam 1C, such that the non-circumferential layer 1-1C is provided on at least a portion of the compressive fabric layer 2-2C).
Regarding claim 25, Malish discloses a shape enhancing garment (pants of Figs. 1-2) which is formed from a base layer (3-3C) and one or more inner compressive layers (1-1C, 2-2C) for providing a slimming effect to an inner thigh area (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204, the Examiner notes that compressive layer 1-1C, 2-2C is located an inner portion of the garment corresponding to the inner thighs, and are therefore inner compressive layers inasmuch as claimed),
wherein the one or more inner compressive layers comprise a non-circumferential layer (1-1C; see at least Figs. 1-2; layer 1-1C covers only the inner thigh area of the garment without extending around the circumference of the pant legs), wherein the non-circumferential layer is a non-stretch layer (see at least paragraph 0203), and
wherein the one or more inner compressive layers comprises a compressive fabric layer (2-2C, interpreted to be an additional layer(s) separate from the non-circumferential layer; see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0203-0204 and rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above; note that layer 2-2C is configured to provide compression to the inner thighs).
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10-12, 14, 16, 21, and 25 (regarding claims 16, 21, and 25, as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda et al. (herein Onoda)(US PG Pub 2010/001479) in view of Di Lorenzo (US PG Pub 2009/0038047).
Regarding claim 1, Onoda discloses a shape enhancing garment (13, see Figs. 4A-4B) which is formed from a base layer (1) and one or more compressive layers (2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 5a, 5b) for providing a slimming effect to an inner thigh area (see paragraphs 0025-0034 and 0052-0056; the compressive layers are configured to compress, and therefore provide a slimming effect to, at least an inner thigh area of the wearer);
wherein the one or more compressive layers comprise a non-circumferential layer (3a, 3b, 5a, 5b; see Figs. 4A-4B), wherein the non-circumferential layer is a non-stretch layer (see at least paragraphs 0025, 0034, and 0052-0056; Onoda discloses wherein compressive layer(s) may be formed of a non-stretch or low-stretch material).
Onoda substantially discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose wherein the one or more compressive layers ((2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 5a, 5b) are inner compressive layers. Instead, Onoda appears to disclose/depict wherein the one or more compressive layers are outer compressive layers that are layered on top of the base fabric (1) and sewn or adhered thereto (1; see Figs. 4A-4B and at least paragraph 0053).
However, Di Lorenzo teaches a compressive garment (10) comprising a base fabric (14) and one or more compression layers (28a, 28b) for providing compression to an inner thigh area (see at least paragraphs 0052-0057), wherein the one or more compression layers may be outer compressive layers (see embodiment of Figs. 7-9 and paragraphs 0065-0070) or inner compressive layers (see embodiment of Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 0052-0060) that are attached to an inner surface (30) of the base fabric (see at least Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 0007, 0052, and 0057). The Examiner notes that providing the compressive layers as inner compressive layers would allow the layers to be less visually obtrusive, and/or would provide a more direct compressive effect to the underlying thigh muscles and tissues of the wearer (see paragraphs 0003-0009).
Therefore, based on Di Lorenzo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Onoda’s outer compressive layers to be inner compressive layers (i.e., attached to an inner surface of the base fabric), as doing so would allow the compressive layers to be less visually obtrusive, and/or would provide a more direct compressive effect to the underlying thigh muscles and tissues of the wearer.
Furthermore, such a modification would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known compressive layer arrangement for another (i.e., compressive layers on the inside of the base fabric instead of on the outside thereof), to improve the compression performance and/or visual aesthetics of the garment, as discussed above. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding the limitation “shape enhancing garment,” Onoda and Di Lorenzo together teach a garment comprising inner compressive layers that are configured to compress a targeted body area of the wearer and are therefore capable of providing shape enhancement via compression. It has been held 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114 (II).
It is noted that the recitation of “for applying a slimming effect to an inner thigh area” is a functional limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the limitation is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. Onoda and Di Lorenzo together teach the structure as claimed (i.e., compressive inner thigh panels that are configured to apply compression/pressure to the inner thigh area of the wearer) and therefore would have a reasonable expectation of performing such function. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Regarding claim 3, the modified garment of Onoda (i.e., Onoda in view of Di Lorenzo) is further disclosed wherein the non-circumferential layer (5a, 5b of Onoda) comprises an inner thigh shaping region (5a of Onoda, which is configured to shape at least a right inner thigh area) and optionally a sculpting area (5b of Onoda, which is configured to sculpt at least a left inner thigh area and is therefore a sculpting area inasmuch as claimed, see at least Figs. 4A-4B and paragraphs 0025-0034 and 0052-0056 of Onoda).
Regarding claim 4, the modified garment of Onoda (i.e., Onoda in view of Di Lorenzo) is further disclosed wherein the inner thigh shaping region (5a of Onoda) is formed of a continuous non-stretch layer (see at least Figs. 4A-4B and paragraphs 0025-0034 and 0052-0056 of Onoda).
Regarding claim 5, the modified garment of Onoda (i.e., Onoda in view of Di Lorenzo) is further disclosed wherein the inner thigh shaping region (5a of Onoda) is shaped to cover only the inner thigh (see at least Figs. 4A-4B and paragraphs 0025-0034 and 0052-0056 of Onoda).
Regarding claim 6, the modified garment of Onoda (i.e., Onoda in view of Di Lorenzo) is further disclosed wherein the non-circumferential layer (5a, 5b of Onoda) comprises the sculpting area (5b of Onoda, see at least Figs. 4A-4B and paragraphs 0025-0034 and 0052-0056 of Onoda).
Regarding claim 10, Onoda and Di Lorenzo together teach the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, but fail to further teach wherein the inner thigh shaping region has a semi-circular shape.
However, Onoda further discloses wherein the various non-stretch material portions (2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 5a, 5b) can comprise various shapes such as a circular shape, an elliptical shape, a rounded polygonal shape, or a linear shape (see Figs. 4a-4b and at least paragraph 0029). The Examiner notes that Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed semi-circular shape, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised to vary the shape of a shaping region according to a desired area of shaping and/or a desired aesthetic appearance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Onoda’s inner thigh shaping region to include a semi-circular shape, so as to accommodate a desired area of shaping and/or to accommodate a desired aesthetic appearance, as a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. A change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
The Examiner further notes that the limitation “semi-circular” is being interpreted broadly to refer to a shape that is approximately semi-circular, as Applicant’s own disclosed inner thigh shaping region does not appear to be truly semi-circular (see at least Figs. 1-4 of instantly filed drawings).
Regarding claim 11, the modified garment of Onoda (i.e., Onoda in view of Di Lorenzo) is further disclosed wherein the non-circumferential layer (5a, 5b of Onoda) comprises one or more front non-circumferential layers (front portions of 5a, 5b of Onoda) and one or more back non- circumferential layers (back portions of 5a, 5b of Onoda) where the front and back non-circumferential layers are different (see at least Figs. 4A-4B and paragraphs 0025-0034 and 0052-0056 of Onoda).
Regarding claim 12, the modified garment of Onoda (i.e., Onoda in view of Di Lorenzo) is further disclosed wherein one or more front non- circumferential layers (front portions of 5a, 5b of Onoda) comprise a front sculpting area (see at least Figs. 4A-4B and paragraphs 0025-0034 and 0052-0056 of Onoda, front non-circumferential layer 5a, 5b is configured to sculpt at least a front inner thigh area, so as to form a front sculpting area).
Regarding claim 14, the modified garment of Onoda (i.e., Onoda in view of Di Lorenzo) is further disclosed wherein the one or more back non-circumferential layers (back portions of 5a, 5b of Onoda) comprise a back sculpting area (see at least Figs. 4A-4B and paragraphs 0025-0034 and 0052-0056 of Onoda, back non-circumferential layer 5a, 5b is configured to sculpt at least a back inner thigh area, so as to form a back sculpting area).
Regarding claim 16, the modified garment of Onoda (i.e., Onoda in view of Di Lorenzo) is further disclosed wherein the one or more inner compressive layers (2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 5a, 5b of Onoda) comprises a compressive fabric layer (2a, 2b, 3a, 3b; interpreted to be an additional layer(s) separate from the non-circumferential layer, see Figs. 4A-4B and paragraphs 0025-0034 and 0052-0056 of Onoda and rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above).
Regarding claim 21, the modified garment of Onoda (i.e., Onoda in view of Di Lorenzo) is further disclosed to comprise a side panel (side portions of 1 of Onoda) for each leg which are shaped to cover each outer leg (see at least Figs. 4A-4B and paragraphs 0025-0034 and 0052-00564 of Onoda, the Examiner notes that claim 21 does not prohibit the side panels from being formed by the material of the base layer), wherein each side panel is free from inner compressive layers (see at least Figs. 4A-4B and paragraphs 0025-0034 and 0052-0056 of Onoda).
Regarding claim 25, Onoda discloses a shape enhancing garment (13, see Figs. 4A-4B) which is formed from a base layer (1) and one or more compressive layers (2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 5a, 5b) for providing a slimming effect to an inner thigh area (see paragraphs 0025-0034 and 0052-0056; the compressive layers are configured to compress, and therefore provide a slimming effect to, at least an inner thigh area of the wearer);
wherein the one or more compressive layers comprise a non-circumferential layer (3a, 3b, 5a, 5b; see Figs. 4A-4B), wherein the non-circumferential layer is a non-stretch layer (see at least paragraphs 0025, 0034, and 0052-0056; Onoda discloses wherein compressive layer(s) may be formed of a non-stretch or low-stretch material); and
wherein the one or more compressive layers comprises a compressive fabric layer (2a, 2b, 3a, 3b; interpreted to be an additional layer(s) separate from the non-circumferential layer, see Figs. 4A-4B and paragraphs 0025-0034 and 0052-0056 of Onoda and rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above).
Onoda substantially discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose wherein the one or more compressive layers (2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 5a, 5b) are inner compressive layers. Instead, Onoda appears to disclose/depict wherein the one or more compressive layers are outer compressive layers that are layered on top of the base fabric (1) and sewn or adhered thereto (1; see Figs. 4A-4B and at least paragraph 0053).
However, Di Lorenzo teaches a compressive garment (10) comprising a base fabric (14) and one or more compression layers (28a, 28b) for providing compression to an inner thigh area (see at least paragraphs 0052-0057), wherein the one or more compression layers may be outer compressive layers (see embodiment of Figs. 7-9 and paragraphs 0065-0070) or inner compressive layers (see embodiment of Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 0052-0060) that are attached to an inner surface (30) of the base fabric (see at least Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 0007, 0052, and 0057). The Examiner notes that providing the compressive layers as inner compressive layers would allow the layers to be less visually obtrusive, and/or would provide a more direct compressive effect to the underlying thigh muscles and tissues of the wearer (see paragraphs 0003-0009).
Therefore, based on Di Lorenzo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Onoda’s outer compressive layers to be inner compressive layers (i.e., attached to an inner surface of the base fabric), as doing so would allow the compressive layers to be less visually obtrusive, and/or would provide a more direct compressive effect to the underlying thigh muscles and tissues of the wearer.
Furthermore, such a modification would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known compressive layer arrangement for another (i.e., compressive layers on the inside of the base fabric instead of on the outside thereof), to improve the compression performance and/or visual aesthetics of the garment, as discussed above. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding the limitation “shape enhancing garment,” Onoda and Di Lorenzo together teach a garment comprising inner compressive layers that are configured to compress a targeted body area of the wearer and are therefore capable of providing shape enhancement via compression. It has been held 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114 (II).
It is noted that the recitation of “for applying a slimming effect to an inner thigh area” is a functional limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the limitation is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. Onoda and Di Lorenzo together teach the structure as claimed (i.e., compressive inner thigh panels that are configured to apply compression/pressure to the inner thigh area of the wearer) and therefore would have a reasonable expectation of performing such function. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda and Di Lorenzo, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Randall et al. (herein Randall)(US PG Pub 2016/0044971).
Regarding claim 2, Onoda and Di Lorenzo together teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, but fail to further teach wherein the non-stretch layer is formed from a non-stretch film.
However, Randall teaches a compression garment (9) comprising at least a base layer (12) and an inner non-stretch compression layer (36, see Figs. 1-9 and paragraphs 0005-0007 and 0026-0040), wherein the non-stretch layer is formed from a non-stretch film (see at least paragraphs 0033-0040), as such a material provides enhanced stability/stiffness and can be easily applied to the base fabric by common processes such as printing, molding, or adhering (see paragraphs 0005-0007 and 0033-0040).
Therefore, based on Randall’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Onoda’s non-stretch layer to be a non-stretch film, as such a material would provide enhanced stability/stiffness, and can be easily applied to the base fabric by common processes such as printing, molding, or adhering.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda and Di Lorenzo, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Harber et al. (herein Harber)(US PG Pub 2014/0082815).
Regarding claim 7, Onoda and Di Lorenzo together teach the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, but fail to further teach wherein the sculpting area is formed from a plurality of non-stretch elements to provide graduated compressive pressure release.
However, Harber teaches a compression garment (100) comprising a base layer (base textile as seen in Fig. 1 and described in at least Fig. 5 and paragraph 0019) and a compression layer (compression elastomer as seen in Figs. 1-3 and described in at least Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0013-0019), wherein the compression layer is formed from a plurality of compressive elements (rings) that provide graduated compressive pressure release (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0005 and 0013-0019), so as to provide varying amounts of compression along desired portions of the garment, according the size and anatomy of the wearer, and/or the intended use of the garment (see paragraphs 0005, 0014, and 0018-0019).
Therefore, based on Harber’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Onoda’s sculpting area to be formed from a plurality of non-stretch elements to provide graduated compressive pressure release, as doing so would provide varying amounts of compression along desired portions of the garment, according the size and anatomy of the wearer, and/or the intended use of the garment.
Regarding claim 8, the modified garment of Onoda (i.e., Onoda in view of Di Lorenzo and Harber) is further disclosed wherein a size of each non- stretch element decreases the further the non-stretch element is away from the inner thigh shaping region and/or a distance between adjacent non-stretch elements increases the further the non-stretch elements are away from the inner thigh shaping region (see Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 0013-0019 of Harber; Harber discloses wherein different compression gradients may be applied to gradually decrease the size of each compressive ring the further the ring is away from a desired maximum compression region; and/or to gradually increase a distance between adjacent compressive rings the further the rings are away from the desired maximum compression region).
Claims 17-18, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda and Di Lorenzo, as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Szilagyi (US PG Pub 2021/0145084).
Regarding claim 17, Onoda and Di Lorenzo together teach the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above. Onoda further discloses wherein the compressive layer (2a, 2b, 3a, 3b) is formed from two or more fabric regions (see at least Figs. 4a-4b and paragraphs0052-0056) but fails to disclose wherein the two or more fabric regions having different compressive strength.
However, Szilagyi teaches a compressive garment (310, see Figs. 11a-11d) comprising a plurality of fabric regions (350, 352, 354, 356) each having a different compressive strength (see at least paragraphs 0084-0088), so as to selectively provide areas of support, shaping, and/or lift (see paragraphs 0056, 0063, and 0084-0085).
Therefore, based on Szilagyi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Onoda’s two or more fabric regions to have different compressive strength, as doing so would selectively provide areas of support, shaping, and/or lift.
Regarding claim 18, the modified garment of Onoda (i.e., Onoda in view of Di Lorenzo Szilagyi) is further disclosed wherein a fabric region (356 of Szilagyi) having a higher compressive strength is positioned at or near an inner thigh area to provide a slimming effect to the inner thigh (see Figs. 11A-11D and at least paragraphs 0084-0085 of Szilagyi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOCELYN BRAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-0581. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup, can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/JOCELYN BRAVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights