9Notice 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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to an amendment filed on 10/9/2025 in which claims 30-47 were presented for examination of which claims 45-47 were withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/23/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (a device) in the reply filed on 10/9/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 IS objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “minimise” change to –minimize--. 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.
Claims 34, 36, 38-39 and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 34 recites “the appropriate shape” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the metes and bounds the applicant is claiming.
Claim 36 recites “in particular…higher friction” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the metes and bounds the applicant is claiming.
Claims 38-39 and 46-47 recite “predetermined regions” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the metes and bounds the applicant is claiming.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 30-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fitton (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0148980 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Fitton discloses a garment for males comprising a garment body (Fig. 3 identifier 100) having an integral moulded cup (120 or 150) adapted (capable) for supporting the wearer's genitalia (when worn), the garment body (100) having seams (para. 0090 describe ultrasonic bonding which was considered as the seams) configured (capable) to be substantially invisible underneath tight clothing (See Fig. 1 wherein it illustrates that the garment body is invisible underneath the shorts), wherein at least some of the seams are not stitched (because they are ultrasonic bonding not stitching by thread seams).
Regarding claim 31, Fitton discloses a garment wherein the seams are bonded (ultrasonic bonding as described above).
Regarding claim 32, Fitton discloses a garment wherein the seams are formed from a folded bond, ultrasonic-fused bond or overlap-bonded seam (ultrasonic bonding as described above which was considered as the claimed ultrasonic-fused bond).
Regarding claim 33, Fitton discloses a garment wherein the moulded cup (120 or 150) is formed from a foam material comprising: polyurethane foam; polyester foam; or ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) foam (para. 0072 describe reticulated foam which was considered as polyurethane foam).
Regarding claim 34, Fitton discloses a garment wherein the moulded cup (120 or 150) conforms to the appropriate shape for supporting the genitalia of the male wearer (because it is a cup shape as shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 35, Fitton discloses a garment wherein the moulded cup (120 or 150) varies in thickness (capable) to conceal the form of the wearer's genitalia when worn underneath tight-fitting clothing (para. 0074).
Regarding claim 36, Fitton discloses a garment wherein the moulded cup comprises rolled or rounded edges to minimize or prevent discomfort to the male wearer in particular predetermined regions of higher friction.
Regarding claim 37, Fitton discloses a garment wherein the garment is an undergarment (para. 0003).
Regarding claim 38, Fitton discloses a garment wherein the moulded cup (120 or 150) comprises edges in predetermined regions, the edges comprising a highly tapered edge to blend with the fabric of a waistband of the garment (see Figs. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 39, Fitton discloses a garment wherein the edges of the cup are smoothly varying between highly tapered and rounded in predetermined regions (See Figs. 3 and 6).
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 of this title, 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 40-42 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitton (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0148980 A1) in view of Vagas Snyder (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0100505 A1).
Regarding claim 40-42, Fitton discloses a garment further comprising a cup receiving pouch (para. 0077 describe a cup-like shape which was considered as the receiving pouch) adapted (capable) to receive a moulded protective cup formation (See Fig. 3) having a cover of plastic film (para. 0069) adapted (capable) to provide impact protection to the wearer's genitalia (when worn).
Fitton does not disclose that the cup is formed of a rigid material a rigid over-cup formed of a rigid material configured to encase the moulded cup, the rigid over-cup being adapted to provide impact protection to the wearer's genitalia (when worn), wherein the protective cup formation is formed from a rigid protective material such as, for example, hard plastic, carbon fibre or Kevlar material.
However, Vargas Snyder “Vargas” teaches yet another garment (See Fig. 1) having a garment body (1) and a cup (2 and 5), a rigid over-cup formed of a rigid material (para. 0002) configured (capable) to encase the moulded cup (because it is inserted in the pouch), the rigid over-cup being adapted (capable) to provide impact protection to the wearer's genitalia (when worn), wherein the protective cup formation is formed from a rigid protective material such as, for example, hard plastic, carbon fibre or Kevlar material (para. 0002 describe hard plastic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured Fitton device with a cup is formed of a rigid material a rigid over-cup formed of a rigid material configured to encase the moulded cup, the rigid over-cup being adapted to provide impact protection to the wearer's genitalia (when worn), wherein the protective cup formation is formed from a rigid protective material such as, for example, hard plastic, carbon fibre or Kevlar material as taught by Vargas to provide protection and comfort to the penis and scrotum, underwear or underpants that are known as jockstraps; those that tend to be conformed of different materials for the comfort and protection of the male genitals for instance materials which are solid or hard as are the plastic materials (para. 0002).
Regarding claim 44, Fitton discloses a garment wherein the garment is either a brief, trunks, shorts, or mid-length or full-length tights (Fig. 1 illustrates a brief).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitton (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0148980 A1) in view of Vagas Snyder (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0100505 A1) and Wyner et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0084896 A1).
Regarding claim 43, Fitton as modified by Vargas discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
they do not disclose that the protective cup formation is formed from a non-Newtonian material.
However, Wyner et al. “Wyner” teaches yet another garment in the form of pants (para. 0110, last line) having a protective cup (Fig. 12 identifier 300) wherein the protective cup formation is formed from D30 (para. 0008) which is considered as a non-Newtonian material as evident by the applicant own specification.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured Fitton and Vargas device with the protective cup formation is formed from a non-Newtonian material as taught by Wyner in order to offer better impact absorption (para. 0008).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered (See PTO-892) pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED ANNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-5 PM 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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHALED ANNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732