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
The amendments filed, April 20, 2026, have been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-25 are currently pending. No claims have been amended. Claims 24 and 25 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it is not obvious or reasonable to combine a dimensionless reuseable undergarment with Sophie who also teaches a reuseable undergarment with dimensions because the office failed to demonstrate “that the combination of Yip and Yang may be modified with the teachings of Sophie with the required reasonable expectation of success.”
Respectfully, taking a reuseable undergarment which does not provide dimensions and using another known reuseable undergarment with dimensions is logical and provides a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have to make the reuseable undergarment using physical material thereby necessitating the reuseable undergarment has dimensions. Using known dimensions absolutely provides the one of ordinary skill a reasonable expectation of success by virtue of the dimension being known. If even the dimension where not known the reuseable undergarment must be worn by a user therefore adjusting the size of the undergarment to the user is obvious.
Applicant appears to take issue at Sophie for not stating the bond region is no more than 11cm; however, Sophie clearly teaches the bond region is less than 11cm which falls within the claimed limitation.
Applicant has the burden of proving the criticality for this dimension. No more than 11cm allows for a range of 11cm to respectfully and practically almost zero cm as there would be no attachment if the bond length was zero. The claim simply excludes reuseable undergarment with bong lengths more than 11cm. Sophie shows reuseable undergarment with a bond length being less than 11cm is known. Therefore, Sophie provides a reasonable expectation of success, and that the limitation is known.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks about newly added claim 24, unwanted folds or creases being commercially unacceptable does not take away from Sophie teaching the bond length is less than 11cm. Just because Sophie notes there were a couple of small tucks does not prevent the functionality of garment. Applicant’s specification does not state this length eliminates tucks, folds, or creases only that it may reduce of avoid of unwanted folds. The term “may be” shows the applicant is not sure if the result is achieved. Page 3 from applicant’s specification and bolded part added by the Examiner. As such newly added claim 24 contains new matter as “no creases” is not support by the specification.
“As proposed herein, the maximum front bond width being defined as the maximum transversal width measured over the set of bonding members and in the front intermediate region of the undergarment, is no more than 11 cm. With this restriction to the maximum front bond width, it has been found that unwanted folds or creases as seen from the front side of the undergarment when worn by a user may be reduced or avoided.”
Page 4 of applicant’s specification notes “Thus, the front portion maximum width may, similar to the maximum front bond width, be no more than 11 cm. As such, it has been found that by restricting the front portion maximum width, the tendency of the undergarment to form unwanted creases towards the front of the wearer may be further reduced.” Again, this section only supports a reduction and not a complete elimination of folds or creases.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s specification does not state this length eliminates tucks, folds, or creases only that it may reduce of avoid of unwanted folds. The term “may be” shows the applicant is not sure if the result is achieved. Page 3 from applicant’s specification and bolded part added by the Examiner. As such newly added claim 24 contains new matter as “no creases” is not support by the specification.
“As proposed herein, the maximum front bond width being defined as the maximum transversal width measured over the set of bonding members and in the front intermediate region of the undergarment, is no more than 11 cm. With this restriction to the maximum front bond width, it has been found that unwanted folds or creases as seen from the front side of the undergarment when worn by a user may be reduced or avoided.”
Page 4 of applicant’s specification notes “Thus, the front portion maximum width may, similar to the maximum front bond width, be no more than 11 cm. As such, it has been found that by restricting the front portion maximum width, the tendency of the undergarment to form unwanted creases towards the front of the wearer may be further reduced.” Again, this section only supports a reduction and not a complete elimination of folds or creases.
Claim 25 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims does not appear to be supported by the specification, the term exceeds is not present in the disclosure. Related terms were searched (such as greater or less) and nothing about the front portion maximum width of the absorbent assembly was found to be related to “the set of bonding members”.
When the examiner searched for the term “the front portion maximum width of the absorbent assembly” the only two citations came up on page 4 and 5 of applicant’s specification suggests the opposite relation:
“For avoiding the formation of undesired creases on the front side of the undergarment, the transversal assembly crotch width may be no greater than the maximum front bond width. For example, the transversal assembly crotch width may be no greater than the front portion maximum width of the absorbent assembly in the front intermediate region. Optionally, the transversal assembly crotch width of the absorbent assembly may be less than the maximum front bond width over the set of bonding members in the front intermediate region. As such, the absorbent assembly may be shaped to be further adapted to the body of the wearer, for increased comfort and fit of the undergarment.”
When the examiner search for “the maximum front bond width over the set of bonding members” again only two citations came up on page 4 of applicant’s specification suggests an equal width relation NOT a greater or less than relationship.
Applicant’s specification page 4:
“Further, the absorbent assembly has a front portion maximum width being the maximum transversal width of the absorbent assembly in the front intermediate region of the undergarment. The front portion maximum width will hence be no less than the maximum front bond width. For example, the front portion maximum width may be greater than the maximum front bond width.”
might have support for “the front portion maximum width may be greater than the maximum front bond width” but that is not what is currently claimed, and the sentence is confusing and appears to be contradictory to the rest of the specification.
Basic garment construction would dictate that attaching a large piece ( by virtue of the absorbent assembly having a greater width than the undergarment panel) that the absorbent assembly would either need to overhang the undergarment or be bunched or folded or tucked to be confined in a smaller space and that would create bunching. The applicant has made it very clear this width limitation is to decrease bunching.
It is unclear what the applicant is trying to claim and appears to be new matter. If the applicant could kindly point to the specific support in the application and or amend the claim to reflect the specification it would be greatly appreciated.
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.
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) 1-2 and 4-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yip US11154431 B1 in view of Yang US 2022/0249303 A1 and NPL Sophie “DIY Period Panties” October 11, 2019 <https://alltheunderwear.sophiehines.com/diy-period-panties-sewing/ > (hereafter referred to as Sophie).
Regarding claim 1-2 and 4-10, Yip discloses a washable and reusable undergarment (abstract and Col 4 lines 27-39), comprising one or more fabric panels (fig 2 and Col 4 lines 40-60 which disclose multiple panels) forming a front region (14 fig 1), a back region (16, fig 1) and an intermediate region (18, fig 1) extending between the front and back regions ( Col 4 lines 40-60), the front region and the back region being joined such that the undergarment (10, fig 1) forms a waist opening (fig 1) and a pair of leg openings (22, fig 1) ( col 4 lines 40-60), wherein a central longitudinal axis of the undergarment is defined along the one or more fabric panels of the undergarment from the back region and towards the front region (fig 1 has a clear x and y axis), and a transversal crotch axis of the undergarment is defined in a direction extending between the leg openings (as seen in figures 1 and 2 which show a the overall article plus the transverse crotch section (or gusset 18) and so as to divide the intermediate region into a front intermediate region extending longitudinally between the transversal crotch axis and a front end of each leg opening, and a rear intermediate region extending longitudinally between the transversal crotch axis and a rear end of each leg opening (while no line is drawn this boundary is based on identical parts and therefore also present), the transversal crotch axis being perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis (while no line is drawn this boundary is based on identical parts and therefore also present these boundaries will be detailed below on the secondary reference which teaches the specific dimensions of each region); the undergarment further comprising an absorbent assembly (11, fig 2) comprising a wearer facing top layer (24, fig 2 and 3), a moisture barrier (28, fig 3), and one intermediate layers (26, fig 3) being superimposed along a height axis (see fig 3), perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see fig 3) and the transversal crotch axis (see fig 3), between the top layer (24) and the moisture barrier (28) (see fig 3 and [0037]), and wherein the absorbent assembly (11) is permanently attached to at least one out of the one or more of fabric panels in at least part of the intermediate region by a set of one or more bonding members (Col 4 line 61- col 5 line 10 disclose the absorbent assembly is coupled to the main body).
Yip discloses the garment is meant to function as an undergarment (Col 4 lines 27-39) but fails to provide dimensions for a typical undergarment and that the absorbent member lies with the crotch section.
Yip fails to disclose at least two intermediate layers and wherein the front intermediate region of the undergarment per claim 1.
Yang teaches a reusable absorbent article (abstract) thereby being in the same field of endeavor as the instant claims and Yip. Yang teaches the absorbent material may have more than one layer (claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added a second absorbent layer to provide improved urine retention abilities.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-10, Yip and Yang fail to teach:
- wherein the front intermediate region of the undergarment, a maximum front bond width as measured transversally over the set of bonding members attaching the absorbent assembly to the one or more fabric panels is no more than 11 cm and wherein the absorbent assembly has a front portion maximum width being the maximum transversal width of the absorbent assembly in the front intermediate region, the front portion maximum width being no more than 11 cm per claim 1.
-wherein the maximum front bond width over the set of bonding members in the front intermediate region is in the range from 4 to 10 cm per claim 2.
-wherein the front portion maximum width is in the range from 4 to 10 cm per claim 4.
-wherein, in the front intermediate region, the maximum front bond width over the set of bonding members is substantially equal to the front portion maximum width of the absorbent assembly per claim 5.
-wherein the absorbent assembly has a transversal assembly crotch width at the longitudinal location of the transversal crotch axis, the transversal crotch with being no greater than the maximum front bond width over the set of bonding members in the front intermediate region and/or no greater than the front portion maximum width of the absorbent assembly (10) in the front intermediate region per claim 6.
-wherein the transversal assembly crotch width is in the range from 3 to 8 cm per claim 7.
-wherein a first front portion length of the absorbent assembly is defined along the longitudinal direction from the transversal crotch axis to the longitudinal position of the maximum front bond width over the set of bonding members in the front intermediate region, wherein the first front portion length is in the range from 4 to 15 cm per claim 8.
-wherein a maximum front bond width over the set of bonding members in the front region of the undergarment is no more than the maximum front bond width of the set of bonding members (20a, 20b) in the front intermediate region per claim 9.
-wherein, in the front region of the undergarment, a maximum width of the absorbent assembly (10) is no more than the maximum width of the absorbent assembly in the front intermediate region per claim 10.
Sophie provides a pattern for making absorbent period underwear which has provides typical measurements and is used to show the claimed size is known. Furthermore, the size of the garment will be a result effective variable as children are typically smaller than adults and even individuals of all ages can have a wide BMI range which would affect the size of the garment. Additionally, there are different styles of underwear. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Sophie’s image of the garment assembly has been labelled according to the claimed regions above and it is on a cutting mat which provides to scale figures. The cutting mat is in square inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take a known underwear garment size and use it to size a reusable absorbent article designed to mimic underwear.
PNG
media_image1.png
656
1144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
723
909
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Yip discloses wherein the absorbent assembly extends no further than the front intermediate region in a direction longitudinally towards the front of the undergarment (fig 2 since the absorbent assembly is fixed to the main body it cannot extend beyond its bond points).
Regarding claim 12, Yip discloses, wherein the maximum front bond width of the set of bonding members is substantially equal to the transversal width of the intermediate region at the location of the maximum front bond width (see Yip fig 2 which shows the intermediate region is about the same length as the bond with and Chatzka annotated above).
Regarding claim 13, Yip discloses wherein the absorbent assembly (10) comprises a front edge (27) directed towards the front of the undergarment (1), a rear edge (25) directed towards the rear of the undergarment (fig 2), and a pair of side edges (generally noted as 20), each side edge being at least partly directed towards a respective leg opening (22, fig 1 and 2), and connecting the front edge and the rear edge (fig 2).
Regarding claim 14, Yip discloses wherein each side edge is at least partly arranged at the respective leg opening of the undergarment (fig 1 and 2 which shows the side edges being arrogant at the leg openings).
Regarding claim 15, Yip discloses, wherein the set of bonding members is arranged to fasten the absorbent assembly to the at least one out of the one or more of fabric panels (fig 3 and 11) at least along part of the side edges of the absorbent assembly (Col 12 lines 31-44).
Regarding claim 16, Yip discloses wherein the set of bonding members is arranged to fasten the absorbent assembly to the at least one out of the one or more of fabric panels at least along part of the front edge of the absorbent assembly (Col 12 lines 31-44).
Regarding claim 17, Yip discloses wherein the set of bonding members is arranged to fasten the absorbent assembly to the at least one out of the one or more of fabric panels at least along part of the rear edge of the absorbent assembly (Col 12 lines 31-44).
Regarding claim 18, Yip discloses wherein the set of bonding members comprises one or more bonding lines (Col 12 lines 31-44).
Regarding claim 19, Yip discloses wherein the one or more bonding lines are continuous bonding lines (Col 12 lines 31-44).
Regarding claim 20, Yip discloses wherein the set of bonding members comprises one or more of adhesive bonding members and/or mechanical bonding members (Col 12 lines 31-49).
Regarding claim 21, Yip discloses wherein the intermediate region of the undergarment comprises at least one out of the one or more fabric panels, having an exterior side (see fig 1 which shows the exterior) facing away from the wearer, and an interior side (see fig 2 which shows the interior) facing in a direction towards the wearer, wherein the absorbent assembly is located on the interior side of the at least one fabric panel (fig 2).
Regarding claim 22 and 23, Yip, Yang, and Sophie fail to disclose wherein the maximum front bond width over the set of bonding members in the front intermediate region is in the range from 4 to 9 cm per claim 22 and wherein the front portion maximum width is in the range from 4 to 9 cm per claim 23.
Sophie clearly teaches the front bond width/ front portion width is 10cm. This is longer than the newly added limitation. Yip clearly teaches absorbent garment can be different styles and or different sizes (col 4 lines 27-39). The size of the garment is going to be related to the bond length. Even if the garment material fans out or decreases beyond the seam or bonded section or meeting point of the two pieces of fabric that section where the bond is cannot be larger or smaller than the bond length. Therefore, the style /shape and size of article will directly affect the bond length. Applicant’s specification provides no mention of criticality for the claimed range, and only a perceived benefit that the article may have less unwanted folds when the front bond length range is less than 11cm. Applicant’s specification page 3 states (emphasis added by the examiner) “With this restriction to the maximum front bond width, it has been found that unwanted folds or creases as seen from the front side of the undergarment when worn by a user may be reduced or avoided.” The claimed article is not limited a specific body type, age range, or underwear style. As such adjusting the range from 10cm as taught by Sophie to 9cm falls under routine optimization due to changing the size of the article which effects the bond length. A smaller induvial will need a smaller pair of underwear as such adjusting all the garment dimension down to be smaller falls under routine optimization. It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLA E BURNETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9574. The examiner can normally be reached M-S: 0830-1900 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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached on (571) 270-5879. 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.
/GABRIELLA E BURNETTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights