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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species E, O and Y (Applicant cites claims 1-7, 23 and 24 as being generic to the elected species) in the reply filed on November 11, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Lee (KR 101956752 B1) does not disclose all of the features of claim 1 (Examiner indicated the subject matter of claim 1 as not being a special technical feature due to Lee disclosing the subject matter of claim 1, in the Restriction Requirement mailed on September 18, 2025). Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
132
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because claim 1 recites “a plurality of connections, joining together the first distribution layer to at least one additional layer of the crotch part, and wherein the plurality of connections defines a connection pattern distributed across the first distribution layer distributed to cover at least 50% of the first distribution layer at a location of the genitalia of a standing user wearing the protective garment”. The language does not only recite that the connections “form a distributed pattern across >50% of the top layer” (as Applicant states), but this language actually continues, reciting that the plurality of connections “defines a connection pattern distributed across the first distribution layer distributed to cover at least 50% of the first distribution layer at a location of the genitalia of a standing user wearing the protective garment” (emphasis added). Since the connection pattern itself has not been explicitly defined by Applicant with respect to its shape, nor has the claim explicitly defined “a location of the genitalia of a standing user wearing the protective garment”, the Lee device’s connection pattern is capable of covering at least 50% of “the first distribution layer at a location of the genitalia” in use. It is further noted that different users’ anatomies are shaped and sized differently, although “a location” of the genitalia, absent further distinguishing language, could be any sized region in the garment where the user’s genitalia overlaps, including the exact shape of the depicted connection pattern #32 in Fig. 4 of Lee, which is generally a rectangle. As will be explained in a subsequent 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section, this language is also indefinite and unclear. Examiner further notes that claim 1 recites no limitations regarding bulging, spacing or selective joining of different combinations of layers, to which Applicant has alleged Lee to be silent.
Applicant’s second argument:
PNG
media_image2.png
318
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “wherein the crotch part comprises, in order from an inner part of the crotch part to an outer part of the crotch part: a first distribution layer having relatively large pores; a second distribution layer having relatively small pores; a liquid-absorbing layer; and a liquid barrier”. As explained in the Restriction requirement mailed on September 18, 2025, Lee teaches these features: “wherein the crotch part comprises, in order from an inner part of the crotch part to an outer part of the crotch part: a first distribution layer having relatively large pores (mesh layer #76; Fig. 8; mesh layer #76 is in direct contact with the skin of the user and separates the first absorbent layer #72 from the skin (Page 4, third-to-last paragraph)); a second distribution layer having relatively small pores (second absorbent layer #74; Fig. 8; Page 3, third-to-last paragraph describes mesh layer #76 to have a pore size larger than that of the second absorbent layer #74); a liquid-absorbing layer (first absorbent layer #72; Fig. 8); and a liquid barrier (waterproof layer #70; Fig. 8)”.
Applicant further argues that there is no serious search burden. Examiner disagrees, and notes that the different disclosed species, if all searched and examined together, would require diverging the focus of the search into multiple mutually exclusive features, and potentially result in various numerous duplicative rejections being made with different primary references merely to address the different species of different dependent claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Examiner reminds Applicant that upon indication of any generic allowable subject matter, any withdrawn claims will be considered for rejoinder, assuming the subject matter does not contradict the hypothetical allowable subject matter.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on November 11, 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-12 and 19-26 have been amended; claims 13-18, 27 and 28 are canceled; claims 8-12, 19-22, 25 and 26 are withdrawn from further consideration. Accordingly, claims 1-12 and 19-26 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-7, 23 and 24.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because throughout the drawings, Applicant includes a reference numeral and a leading line which lead to open space (see 100 in Fig. 3a; see 110, 120, 127, 133 in Fig. 3b, to identify a few). If Applicant intends for a reference numeral to be “pointing” to an area or structural feature without having the leading line extend all the way to the feature, then Examiner suggests Applicant change the leading line to an arrow.
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 use of the term “lycra” (Page 18, Line 5), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term (i.e. “LYCRA®, a type of spandex fiber”).
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3: before “comprising”, it is suggested Applicant add “, the protective garment”
Claim 1, line 14: the comma before “joining” should be deleted
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. See claim 5, which recites “contact-limiting means for limiting”. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1 (and claims 2-7, 23 and 24 at least due to dependency from independent claim 1) is 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “the protective garment being a washable garment arranged for repeated use” (emphasis added). It is unclear what is meant by “arranged for repeated use” because “arranged” is a statement regarding placement of a structure, as best as can be understood. Correction/clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the phrase will be interpreted as meaning the same thing as “the protective garment being a washable garment configured for repeated use”.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “a first distribution layer having relatively large pores” (line 10) and “a second distribution layer having relatively small pores” (line 11) without clarifying how the pore sizes are being compared to another size (i.e. relatively large compared to what? relatively small compared to what?). Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the language will be interpreted as meaning the same as “a first distribution layer having pores; a second distribution layer having pores, wherein the pores of the second distribution layer are smaller than the pores of the first distribution layer”.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “at least one additional layer of the crotch part” (line 15). It is unclear if “at least one additional layer” is positively reciting that there is an additional layer than the four previously positively recited crotch part layers (i.e. first and second distribution layers, liquid-absorbing layer and liquid barrier), or “at least one additional layer” is in reference to either of the second distribution layer, the liquid-absorbing layer or the liquid barrier. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, since the crotch part is positively recited to have the aforementioned four layers, “at least one additional layer” is being interpreted as being in reference to one of the other three layers that is not the first distribution layer, as best as can be understood.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “wherein the plurality of connections defines a connection pattern distributed across the first distribution layer distributed to cover at least 50% of the first distribution layer at a location of the genitalia of a standing user wearing the protective garment”. This language is unclear. First, the “connection pattern”, as best as can be understood, is in reference (eventually, in dependent claim 2) to stitches or welds. It’s indefinite whether the “pattern” is referring specifically to the material that forms the stitches (i.e. threads) or welds (i.e. bonded material fused between layers), or the pattern also includes the area in between the stitches or welds (i.e. the area occupied by the distance between adjacent stitches or welds). When viewing elected Figs. 3a, 3b and 3c, the connection pattern, as best as can be understood, is constituted by the elements labeled 136 and 127a, which, themselves (i.e. not counting the area occupied by the distance between adjacent stitches or welds), do not appear to be capable of covering 50% of the first distribution layer. In fact, if interpreting the “connection pattern” as including the spatial area between the individual stitch/weld lines, along with the stitch/weld lines themselves, there does not appear to be 50% coverage, due to the excessive white space that remains outside of those spatial areas between the stitches/welds. Therefore, this limitation appears to be reliant on the shape/size of the anatomy of the wearer (“at least 50% of the first distribution layer at a location of the genitalia of a standing user wearing the protective garment”), which further renders the limitation indefinite because the shape/size of the wearer’s anatomy has not been defined specifically in the claim. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, this claim limitation will be interpreted as best as can be understood when applying any prior art thereagainst.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant recites “wherein the connections constitute a contact-limiting means for limiting a share of the first distribution layer being in direct contact with the user wearing the protective garment, by the first distribution layer locally bulging inwards towards the liquid barrier layer, away from the skin of the user, at the connection in question”. The phrase “the connection in question” is unclear because the claim begins by referencing multiple connections (i.e. “the connections”). Also, in the context of the claim language, the use of “in question” is unclear, because no particular connection has been first referenced by which to interpret which connection would be “in question”. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, this claim limitation will be interpreted as best as can be understood when applying any prior art thereagainst.
Regarding claim 23, Applicant recites “wherein the connection pattern comprises several different connections joining together the first distribution layer with different numbers of other layers”. It is unclear what is meant by “different numbers” of other layers, absent further clarifying language. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, this claim limitation will be interpreted as best as can be understood when applying any prior art thereagainst.
Further regarding claim 23, Applicant recites “any additional distribution layer comprised in the crotch part” and “any additional liquid-absorbing layers comprised in the crotch part”. Claim 23 depends from claim 1, which only recites that the crotch part has “a first distribution layer” and “a second distribution layer”, as well as “a liquid-absorbing layer”. It is unclear if claim 23 is positively reciting that the crotch part actually has at least one additional distribution layer and/or at least one additional liquid-absorbing layer. Correction is required. Since neither of claims 1 or 23 positively require “an additional distribution layer” (i.e. in addition to the positively recited first and second instances in claim 1) nor “an additional liquid-absorbing layer”, then claim 23 is not deemed to require such additional layers.
Regarding claim 24, Applicant recites “wherein the first distribution layer in some locations is connected to the second distribution layer without being connected to the liquid-absorbing layer, and/or the second distribution layer in some locations is connected to the liquid-absorbing layer without being connected to the first distribution layer”. Examiner notes that all components of the garment are connected together, at least through intermediate structure if not directed connected, so referencing any elements as “without being connected” to one another is unclear. Correction is required. Examiner suggests “without being directly connected”, if this is the intended meaning.
An effort has been made to identify all indefinite language with the pending claims. However, Examiner notes the above listing of 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections may not be conclusive and Applicant is required to review every claim for compliance to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and proper application of the prior art.
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 1 (and claims 2-7, 23 and 24 at least due to dependency from independent claim 1), as best as can be understood, is 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 for the reason(s) below:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant appears to claim parts of the human body, which is not directed to statutory subject matter (i.e. human per se). For example, the claim recites “wherein the plurality of connections defines a connection pattern distributed across the first distribution layer distributed to cover at least 50% of the first distribution layer at a location of the genitalia of a standing user wearing the protective garment”, which is actively reciting structure in relation to a user/person, rather than reciting that the structure is configured/adapted to be used in such a manner. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “wherein the plurality of connections defines a connection pattern distributed across the first distribution layer distributed to cover at least 50% of the first distribution layer at a location of the genitalia of a standing user, when the user is wearing the protective garment”.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant appears to claim parts of the human body by reciting “wherein the connections constitute a contact-limiting means for limiting a share of the first distribution layer being in direct contact with the user wearing the protective garment, by the first distribution layer locally bulging inwards towards the liquid barrier layer, away from the skin of the user, at the connection in question”. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “wherein the connections constitute a contact-limiting means for limiting a share of the first distribution layer being in direct contact with the user, when the user is wearing the protective garment, by the first distribution layer locally bulging inwards towards the liquid barrier layer, away from the skin of the user, at the connection in question, when the user is wearing the protective garment”.
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, 23 and 24, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) (KR 101956752 B1; please refer to the English machine translation document corresponding to the Lee disclosure that was previously provided).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee discloses a protective garment in the form of a pantie, a pair of trousers or other legwear with or without an upper/torso part (panty body #10; Fig. 1 of Lee), the protective garment being a washable garment arranged for repeated use (in Page 4, about the middle of the page, Lee references “washing” of the garment wherein liquid in the garment’s first absorbent layer escapes during such washing; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense) comprising a front part (see Fig. 1; Examiner notes that the term "part" is very broad and merely means "a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); a back part (see Fig. 2); a waist (see Figs. 1 and 2, wherein a waist is present at the top end of the garment); and a crotch part having a leak-proof body (absorbent pad #20 is a crotch part; Page 6, Lines 3-4 describe prevention of leaking), wherein the crotch part comprises, in order from an inner part of the crotch part to an outer part of the crotch part: a first distribution layer having relatively large pores (mesh layer #76; Fig. 8; mesh layer #76 is in direct contact with the skin of the user and separates the first absorbent layer #72 from the skin (Page 4, third-to-last paragraph)); a second distribution layer having relatively small pores (second absorbent layer #74; Fig. 8; Page 3, third-to-last paragraph describes mesh layer #76 to have a pore size larger than that of the second absorbent layer #74 (i.e. the pores of the first distribution layer are relatively large compared to the pores’ size of the second distribution layer which are relatively small)); a liquid-absorbing layer (first absorbent layer #72; Fig. 8); and a liquid barrier (waterproof layer #70; Fig. 8), wherein the crotch part comprises a plurality of connections, joining together the first distribution layer to at least one additional layer of the crotch part (absorbent pad is sewn on the inner surface of the panty body (claim 1, line 2 of Lee); the sewing is a plurality of connections (#30, #32) that join the layers together; see Abstract of Lee also), and wherein the plurality of connections defines a connection pattern distributed across the first distribution layer distributed to cover at least 50% of the first distribution layer at a location of the genitalia of a standing user wearing the protective garment (see Figs. 4, 5 of Lee; since Applicant has not defined the boundaries of what on the user is “at a location of the genitalia of a standing user”, the pattern of the sewing/suture lines #30 (Fig. 5) would be distributed to be at least capable of covering at least 50% of the mesh layer #76 “at a location” of the hypothetical genitalia of the hypothetical standing user, absent further distinguishing structural language in the claim regarding where such boundaries are, defined in relation to features of the garment itself, and not reliant on the anatomy of the hypothetical user, as best as can be understood).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses that the pattern is a quilted pattern (Fig. 5 shows multiple layers joined together at #30/32 an area inward of the peripheral edge of the layers, which is equivalent of a quilted pattern, inasmuch as the claim has defined the quilted pattern).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses that the pattern is at least locally regular (Figs. 3 and 4 show the pattern to be rectangular with two halves separated by a central line #30 with laterally disposed lines #32, which creates at least some sense of a locally regular pattern, inasmuch as the claim has described the locally regular pattern).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses that the connections constitute a contact-limiting means for limiting a share of the first distribution layer being in direct contact with the user wearing the protective garment, by the first distribution layer locally bulging inwards towards the liquid barrier layer, away from the skin of the user, at the connection in question (Fig. 5 shows that valleys #42/44 bulge away from the wearer and inward toward the interior layers, which creates at least a sense of a contact-limiting means because the valleys would cause only the relatively flat innermost surface to make direct contact with the user’s skin, in use).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses that the connections are arranged to locally press together layers of the crotch part along bond lines (Fig. 5 shows how the connections (30/32) press together the layers of crotch part (absorbent pad #20) along the bond lines (i.e. the lines that generally coextend with #30/32); Examiner notes that the term "bond" (in the verb sense; as best as can be understood “bond line” is being used wherein there are lines that have been bonded) is very broad and has a definition of "to hold or be held together, as by a rope or an adhesive; bind; connect" (Defn. No. 14 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); the layers are bound/connected together where the lines #30/32 are located, to create the valleys #42/44).
Regarding claim 23, Lee discloses that the connection pattern comprises several different connections (multiple lines #30/32 are shown, each line being a “different” connection, as best as this limitation can be understood) joining together the first distribution layer with different numbers of other layers selected from the set of the second distribution layer; any additional distribution layer comprised in the crotch part; the liquid-absorbing layer; and any additional liquid-absorbing layers comprised in the crotch part (Fig. 5 shows that the connection joins together the first distribution layer (i.e. which is part of layer #20), wherein the connection lines penetrate through all of the visible layers in the Figure from the inner surface (i.e. at the top) to the outer surface (i.e. at the bottom), so the first distribution layer is connected to the second distribution layer as well as to the liquid-absorbing layer, as best as this limitation can be understood).
Regarding claim 24, Lee discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 23, as set forth above, and further discloses that the first distribution layer in some locations is connected to the second distribution layer without being [“directly”, as best as can be understood] connected to the liquid-absorbing layer, and/or the second distribution layer in some locations is connected to the liquid-absorbing layer without being [“directly”, as best as can be understood] connected to the first distribution layer (Fig. 8 shows that the first distribution layer (#76) is not directly connected to the liquid-absorbing layer #72, since there is an intervening layer #74 (i.e. second distribution layer) therebetween).
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.
Claims 2 and 7, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Png et al. (hereinafter “Png”) (US 2020/0297556).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but never explicitly states that the connection lines #30/32 are “stitches” or “welds” and it cannot be determined from the Lee English machine translation alone whether they are stitches and/or welds, so Lee is deemed silent with respect to meeting this claim limitation.
Png teaches an undergarment that has multiple layers (#100/200/300/400) that progressively feature absorbency and liquid-barrier properties, wherein the garment can have its components connected with stitched seams (¶ 0073 of Png).
Lee and Png teach analogous inventions in the field of undergarments with multiple layers with absorbency and liquid barrier properties. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a stitched seam as the connection means of choice for forming the connection lines #30/32 in Lee, as taught by Png, in order to provide a known mechanism for mechanically joining fabric layers together, and further since the concept of stitched connections in garments is very well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but is silent as to whether the connection pattern (i.e. lines #30/32) comprises hydrophilic and/or hydrophobic connections.
As noted above, Png teaches an undergarment that has multiple layers (#100/200/300/400) that progressively feature absorbency and liquid-barrier properties, wherein the seams of the garment can have a hydrophobic coating (¶ 0016 of Png).
Lee and Png teach analogous inventions in the field of undergarments with multiple layers with absorbency and liquid barrier properties. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have applied a hydrophobic coating to the connections #30/32 in the Lee garment, as taught by Png, in order to prevent unwanted liquid penetration through the seams, which would otherwise render the waterproof layer #70 less effective (i.e. if the connections #30/32 were not hydrophobic, any liquid could pass through the seam from the innermost layer to the outermost layer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon in an art rejection above is deemed relevant in the field of reusable underwear with a quilted stitch pattern at the crotch region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
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.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732