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 of 11/05/2025 and correction of 03/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-13 and 15-16 are presented.
Claims 1-13 and 15-16 are amended in the reply.
The present Office action treats claims 1-13 and 15-16 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Specification Amendment
A specification amendment—including and Abstract amendment—of 11/05/2025 is acknowledged. A subsequent redundant amendment accompanies the correction of 03/20/2026. For the purpose of clarity of the record, it is noted the specification amendment of 11/05/2025 and the redundant specification amendment of 03/20/2026 are identical. This amendment is acceptable and is entered.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 11/05/2025. These drawings are acceptable and are entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks of 11/05/2025 (see p. 9-19 of the reply) and the subsequent redundant remarks provided in the correction of 03/20/2025 (see p. 9-19 thereof) are fully considered. For the purpose of clarity of the record, it is noted the remarks are identical in each of the reply of 11/05/2025 and the correction of 03/20/2025.
Regarding Objections to the Drawings (p. 9-11): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. The specification amendments and replacement drawings of 11/05/2025; the amendments to the claims of 03/20/2026; and Applicant’s explanations of where the features are found within the drawings (see p. 9 line 25 – p. 10 line 32; p. 11 lines 2-9; p. 11 lines 13-15 of the reply) are sufficient to overcome the objections to the drawings as applied in the Office action of 06/05/2025.
Regarding Objections to the Specification (p. 11-12): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment of 11/05/2025 overcomes the specification objections to para 47 as applied in the Office action of 06/05/2025. In addition, Applicant’s statement that the trade names or marks used in commerce are accompanied by generic terminology and include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce is fully considered and is persuasive. Accordingly and upon further review of the present disclosure, Applicant’s amendment, and Applicant’s remarks (see p. 11-12), the specification objections are withdrawn.
Regarding Objections to the Claims (p. 12): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. The claim amendment of 03/20/2026 overcomes the claim objections as applied in Office action of 06/05/2025. It is noted that upon further review of the present disclosure and the claims presented for examination, new claim objections are raised in the present Office action; see Claim Objections below.
Regarding Claim Interpretation (p. 12): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered. Applicant’s claim amendment of 03/20/2026 is such that the language identified as being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) is no longer claimed. However, it is noted that certain amended claim language is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in Claim Interpretation hereinbelow. Applicant’s specific argument that the “elements...more clearly recite structure to perform the claimed function” is, in relation to the claimed “musculoskeletal assistance elements” of claim 1, fully considered and not persuasive in that claim 1 as amended does not provide a structural modifier that precedes the term “musculoskeletal assistance elements” and further does not recite sufficient structure to perform the recited function of redistributes a weight of the ballistic protection element when the ballistic protection element is received in the at least one compartment.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112 (p. 12-13): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered. Applicant’s claim amendment of 03/20/2026 overcomes the 35 USC 112 rejections as applied in the Office action of 06/05/2025. However, it is noted that Applicant’s amendment has necessitated new 35 USC 112 rejections; see rejections below. It is noted that in regards to claim 6, Applicant’s specific argument that the Office’s assertion that “warp density is not a fiber property” “is directly contradicted by the Action’s rejection of claim 6...The Action cites...Glenn...as allegedly disclosing the elements of claim 6” is fully considered and is not persuasive. As stated in the Office action of 06/05/2025, for the purpose of applying art to claim 6 as it was previously presented, the Office interpreted the indefinite phrase “wherein the active portions comprise elastomeric fibers with a denser warp...” in the manner described in the Office action of 06/05/2025 (see p. 17 lines 2-6) wherein such interpretation does not require a fiber or fibers to have a warp density.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 (p. 14-19): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9-10, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7: “that redistributes” should be --that redistribute--
Claim 9 line 1: “The under garment” should be --The undergarment--
Claim 10 line 2: “the garment” should be --the undergarment--
Claim 12 line 2: “the garment” should be --the undergarment--
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. 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: musculoskeletal assistance elements that redistributes a weight of the ballistic protection element when the ballistic protection element is received in the at least one compartment in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
It is noted the phrase “the musculoskeletal assistive elements comprise a continuous elastic frame comprising a series of anchor portions and a series of active portions, wherein each of the series of anchor portions and each of the series of active portions is designed to coincide with corresponding sectors of a wearer’s body” in claim 2 recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 5 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.
Claim 5 recites “the multilayers of fabrics covering the elastic frame has a first coefficient of elasticity and the elastic frame has a second coefficient of elasticity, greater than or equal to that first coefficient of elasticity”, which is new matter. As stated in the specification, para [0051] states “The body of the garment (in particular the part that covers the frame) has a first coefficient of elasticity and the frame has a second coefficient of elasticity, greater than or equal to that first coefficient of elasticity”. However, the relative elasticity coefficient that is claimed is claimed more narrowly—i.e. “the multilayers of fabrics” having the claimed first coefficient of elasticity —and is not supported by the disclosure as filed. The term “coefficient” is only used in para [0051] and in the context described above. Looking to the drawings, no drawing shows a multilayers of fabric in sufficient detail so as to ascertain its relative coefficient of elasticity to that of a frame.
Claim 6 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.
Claim 6 recites “the series of active portions comprise elastomeric fibers having a denser warp than a warp of the multilayers of fabrics surrounding the series of active portions”, which is new matter. As stated in the specification, para [0052] states “Active portions comprise elastomeric fibers with a denser warp than the warp of the surrounding T-shirt”. However, the relative denser warp that is claimed is claimed more narrowly—i.e. “denser...than a warp of the multilayers of fabrics”—and is not supported by the disclosure as filed. The term “denser” is only used in para [0052] and in the context described above; variations of the term “denser” including “density” and “dense” do not appear in the specification as filed. Looking to the drawings, no drawing shows a multilayers of fabric in sufficient detail so as to ascertain whether it has a warp that is less dense than any other structure and/or warp.
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.
Claims 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is indefinite in reciting both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. MPEP 2173.05(p) states in relevant part “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite”. In the present case, claim 4 both recites an apparatus (i.e. the “undergarment” apparatus and also recites the method step of using the apparatus: “rigid components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements...create tensile forces” and “flexible components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements compress the rigid components”. For the purpose of applying art, the phrase “wherein rigid components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements subjected to compression create tensile forces on flexible components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements subjected to tension, and wherein the flexible components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements compress the rigid components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements” is interpreted as if it reads --wherein the musculoskeletal assistive elements comprise rigid components and flexible components, and wherein the rigid components are configured to be subjected to compression to create tensile forces on the flexible components, and wherein the flexible components are configured to compress the rigid components--.
Claim 5 recites “the multilayers of fabrics covering the elastic frame”, which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 introduces multilayers of fabrics, and claim 2 introduces a continuous elastic frame. However, as claimed in claim 2, the multilayers of fabrics are not described as covering any frame such that it is not clear whether and how “the multilayers of fabrics covering the elastic frame” is meant to limit one or more of the “multilayers of fabrics” of claim 1. For the purpose of applying art, the phrase “the multilayers of fabrics covering the elastic frame has” is interpreted as if it reads --wherein the multilayers of fabrics of at least one of the front or the back are covering the elastic frame and have--
Claim 6 recites “the series of active portions comprise elastomeric fibers having a denser warp than a warp of the multilayers of fabrics surrounding the series of active portions”. It is not understood how elastomeric fibers can have a denser warp than another structure insofar as warp density is not a fiber property. It is therefore understood what is meant by fibers having “a denser warp than a warp of the multilayers”.
For the purpose of applying art, the phrase “the series of active portions comprise elastomeric fibers having a denser warp than a warp of the multilayers of fabrics surrounding the series of active portions” is interpreted as if it reads --wherein the series of active portions comprises elastomeric fibers, wherein the series of active portions comprises a first warp density, wherein the multilayers of fabrics comprises a second warp density greater than the first warp density--
Claim 7 recites “wherein the surface pattern comprises free portions on which there is no heat-sinking material the network of lines of the heat-sinking material”. The phrase is indefinite because it is not clear whether and how “the network of lines of the heat-sinking material” further limits the claim. The phrase appears to be incomplete in that it appears to be lacking one or more clarifying terms before, after, or within the phrase “the network of lines of the heat-sinking material”. For the purpose of applying art, the phrase “wherein the surface pattern comprises free portions on which there is no heat-sinking material the network of lines of the heat-sinking material” is interpreted as if it reads -- wherein the surface pattern comprises free portions on which there is no heat-sinking material and there is no network of lines of the heat-sinking material--
Claims 8-13 are indefinite if only because they depend from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Yee, US 2015/0082506, newly cited] in view of [Agarwal, US 2019/0184673, previously cited], and [Reidbord, US 2,315,814, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Yee discloses (Figs. 1-4):
An undergarment 10 (i.e. “shirt 10”; para 21; wherein said shirt 10 is configured to be worn underneath another garment such that it is an undergarment) comprising:
a front (see annotated Fig. 3 b – a below) and a back (see annotated Fig. 3 b – a below) each composed of multilayers (front having a first front layer 12a and a second front layer (i.e. one “sheet of material folded over on itself to form a loop”); back having a first back layer 12b and a second back layer (i.e. another “sheet of material folded over on itself to form a loop”) joined by a seam 14a (i.e. “side seam[] 14a”; para 21; i.e. 12a—and the second layer of the front attached thereto—is joined to 12b—and the second layer of the back attached thereto—such that front and back are each composed of multilayers joined by a seam)
wherein the multilayers of at least one of the front or the back defines at least one compartment 30b, 30e (i.e. multilayers of front define compartment 30b and multilayers of back define compartment 30e) for receiving a ballistic protection element (compartments are configured to receive “items within the pocket” (para 28) and examples include “wallet and/or keys...credit card or driver's license” (para 23) such that each compartment is configured to receive an item disposed therein; this capability is not limited to only those exemplary items described by Yee and includes other items of that will fit within each compartment—including a ballistic protection element);
musculoskeletal assistance elements 22a, 22b, 22c, 22c (i.e. the “support members 22 a, 22 b and 22 c”; para 25) redistributes a weight of the ballistic protection element when the ballistic protection element is received in the at least one compartment (22a and the member 22c on the front are configured to distribute a weight of an item contained within 30b to “shoulder seam portions 16 a , 16 b” (para 28); 22b and the member 22c on the back are configured to distribute a weight of an item contained within 30e to “shoulder seam portions 16 a , 16 b” (para 28); herein the limitation “redistributes” is met insofar as elements 22a, 22b, 22c are capable of performing this function in sequence: in other words distribute the weight a first time upon insertion of an item therein; removal of said item; re-insertion of said item to redistribute the weight; this capability is not limited to only those exemplary items described by Yee and includes other items of that will fit within each compartment—including a ballistic protection element).
PNG
media_image1.png
944
991
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yee does not expressly disclose the multilayers are multilayers of fabrics
Yee does disclose layers 12a and 12b comprise “cotton, polyester, wool, blends thereof, and/or substantially any materials that may be used now or in the future to make items of clothing” (para 21) and that the folded layers identified above (i.e. the second front layer and the second back layer as identified above) “may be constructed out of the same material as the web portions 12 a and 12 b” (para 23). Thus although Yee discloses materials of construction that could be components of fabrics, Yee does not expressly disclose they are fabrics.
However, Agarwal teaches and within the context of “an undergarment” (para 84) that “Garments may be...fabricated from fabric” (para 95).
It 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 to have modified the undergarment of Yee such that its multilayers are multilayers of fabrics in order to yield the predictable result of an undergarment wherein the fabric structure of the multilayers is appropriate for fastening via the “stitching” described by Yee (paras 21 and 24 of Yee).
Yee does not expressly disclose:
a heat-sinking material
However, Agarwal teaches and within the context of “an undergarment” (para 84) providing a garment with a heat-sinking material: “garment may also include a heat-collecting coating (also termed a “heat sink,...)””; para 56.
Agarwal further teaches “with a heat transfer coating, body heat can be conducted away more quickly. During this conduction, garment temperature also changes, which temperature difference can cause enhanced natural convection, resulting in extra heat dissipation and cooling sensation”; para 6.
It 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 to have modified the modified Yee such that it is provided with a heat-sinking material in order to permit body heat conduction away from the undergarment and/or to provide a cooling sensation to the undergarment, as suggested by Agarwal (para 6).
Yee does not expressly disclose:
a reinforcement element attached to the at least one compartment by at least one reinforcement seam.
Reidbord teaches a “POCKET FOR CLOTHING” (title) wherein a reinforcement element 15 (i.e. “reinforcing strip 15”; p. 1 line 43) is attached to a compartment (“pocket”; p. 1 line 42) by a reinforcement seam 16 (“strip is sewed to the base” of the compartment “by a...seam 16”; p. 1 line 46).
Reidbord further teaches the reinforced pocket “will delay or prevent the usual wear that causes holes to form” such that it is “long wearing” (p. 1 lines 3-9).
It 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 to have modified the modified Yee such that it is provided with a reinforcement element attached to the at least one compartment by at least one reinforcement seam in order to delay and/or prevent the formation of holes and/or to make the compartment durable for lengthy usage, as suggested by Reidbord (p. 1 lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 2:
Yee in view of Agarwal and Reidbord teach The undergarment in accordance with claim 1, as set forth above.
Yee further discloses wherein the musculoskeletal assistive elements comprise a frame 22a, 22b, 22c, 22c (i.e. the combined “support members 22a, 22b, and” both front and back support members “22c”; para 25) comprising a series of anchor portions (a first anchor portion at 34 (para 26) and further anchor portions at which 22c is “fastened...to the pockets approximately at the ends the seam openings...support members may be secured substantially anywhere on the pockets, including, but not limited to, the seam opening”; para 26) and a series of active portions (those portions of the frame between successive anchor portions) wherein each of the series of anchor portions and each of the series of active portions is designed to coincide with corresponding sectors of a wearer’s body (each series is configured to overlie a sector of a wearer’s body such that the limitation is met).
Yee does not expressly disclose the frame is a continuous frame.
However and in further view of Yee:
Yee teaches 22c of the frame “may extend from the pocket[] 30 1...to pockets 30 b...and to pocket[] 30c” (para 26). Each of 22c appears to be in contact with 22a and 22b, respectively, in Fig. 3; however, Yee is silent as to whether 22c and 22a and the other of 22c and 22b are connected in such a way that the combined 22a, 22b, 22c, 22c represent a continuous frame.
It 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 to have modified the modified Yee such that the 22c and 22a are directly joined to each another and such that 22c and 22b are directly joined to each other, as appears to be the case in Fig. 3, and such that the frame is a continuous frame in order to yield the predictable result of an undergarment whose frame is capable of distributing weight directly from the pockets 30a, 30b, 30c, 30d, 30e, 30f to the shoulder seam region of the undergarment via the continuous frame.
Yee does not expressly disclose the frame is a continuous elastic frame.
However and in further view of Yee:
Yee teaches 22a of the frame “may be elastic for added comfort and/or support to the pockets 30” (para 27).
It 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 to have modified the modified Yee such that its continuous frame is a continuous elastic frame in order to add comfort and/or support, as suggested by Yee (para 27).
Regarding claim 3:
Yee in view of Agarwal and Reidbord teach The undergarment according to claim 2, as set forth above.
The modified Yee further meets the limitation wherein the series of anchor portions is positioned in such a way that each anchor portion of the series of anchor portions does not suffer substantially any deformation when the ballistic protection element is received in the at least one compartment (each anchor portion is configured to not suffer substantial deformation when the protection element is received; it is noted the ballistic protection element is functionally claimed, and its weight could be small such that anchor portions would not suffer substantial deformation as claimed), and wherein the series of active portions is positioned in such a way that each active portion of the series of active portions deforms by contracting or elongating (due to the elastic nature thereof (see above treatment of claim 2) and being provided “in spaced relation to...12a and 12b” (para 28) such that each active portion is capable of contracting and is also capable of elongating) when the ballistic protection element is received in the at least one compartment (active portions are capable of contracting and also elongating whether or not an item or a ballistic protection element is received in the compartment), wherein whether an active portion of the series of active portions deforms by contracting or elongating is dependent on the area of the body where the active portion is located (an active portion is capable of contracting and also capable of elongating; active portion is further configured such that deformation will deform by contracting if the active portion is first extended to a stretched state by a stretching force and releasing the stretching force so as to permit contraction; active portion is further configured such that deformation will deform by elongating if the active portion is first provided at a contracted state and then subjected to a stretching force applied thereto; the limitation “dependent on the area of the body where the active portion is located” is met insofar as the active portion is configured to be in a contracted state when the active portion and the frame are provided around the body of a small wearer such that deformation by elongation is permitted when a stretching force is applied thereto and is further configured to be in a stretched state when the active portion and the frame are provided around the body of a large wearer such that deformation by contracting is permitted when a stretching force is released—for example during the process of doffing the undergarment by pulling one or more portions of the garment upward (as presented in each of Figs. 1-3) so as to raise said one or more portions of the garment away from the wearer’s shoulders.
Regarding claim 4:
Yee in view of Agarwal and Reidbord teach The undergarment according to claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Yee further meets the limitation wherein rigid components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements subjected to compression create tensile forces on flexible components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements subjected to tension, and wherein the flexible components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements compress the rigid components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements.
(The claim is indefinite; see 35 USC 112(b) rejection thereof; however, as best understood, what is claimed is a capability of the undergarment; refer to the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection stating how the phrase “wherein rigid components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements subjected to compression create tensile forces on flexible components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements subjected to tension, and wherein the flexible components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements compress the rigid components of the musculoskeletal assistive elements” is interpreted for the purpose of applying art. The present disclosure states that the capability is a result of the combination of anchor portions and active portions (paras 49-50 as filed) such that the anchor portions of Yee are rigid components in that they are more fixed than the active portions via their being anchored as explained in above addressing of claim 1 and in reference to Yee para 26; and the active portions of Yee are flexible components in that they are less fixed than the anchored portions in that they are not so anchored; it is noted the term “rigid” means “Not subject to or admitting of change; fixed” (Oxford English Dictionary, “rigid (adj.), sense I.2.a,” March 2026, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1042122934) and the term “flexible” means “admitting of change in figure without breaking; yielding to pressure, pliable, pliant” (Oxford English Dictionary, “flexible (adj.), sense 1.a,” September 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1064363655.). Accordingly, the rigid components of the modified Yee (i.e. the anchor portions) are configured to be subjected to compression to create tensile forces on the flexible components, and the flexible components of the modified Yee (i.e. the active portions) are configured to compress the rigid components by virtue of their ability to be lengthened and contracted (in the manner described by the Applicant in para [0049] of the specification as filed due to the elastic nature thereof) so as to afford a combination of anchor portions and active portions having differing degrees of flexibility and rigidity (in the manner described by the Applicant in para [0049]) so as to afford the capability to create tensile forces and to compress (in the manner described by the Applicant in paras [0049]-[0050] as filed which state that a structure having such portions of differing degrees of flexibility and rigidity is so configured).
Regarding claim 7:
Yee in view of Agarwal and Reidbord teach The undergarment according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Yee does not expressly disclose wherein the undergarment comprises a surface pattern on the multilayers of fabrics, wherein the heat-sinking material comprises a network of lines that intersect at a plurality of points forming a network, and wherein the surface pattern comprises free portions on which there is no heat-sinking material the network of lines of the heat sinking material.
However and in further view of Agarwal: Agarwal teaches heat-sinking material provided on a garment swatch 200 comprising portions occupied by the heat-sinking material further wherein a surface of the garment swatch comprises free portions on which there is no heat-sinking material (para 28; Fig. 2).
Agarwal as further embodied in para 74 teaches heat-sinking material comprises a network of lines that intersect at a plurality of points forming a network: “the heat-collecting coating comprises a plurality of features placed into thermal communication with one another. As one example, the coating may comprise a plurality of lines that intersect with one another”.
Agarwal further teaches “with a heat transfer coating, body heat can be conducted away more quickly” (para 6).
It 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 to have modified the modified Yee such that the undergarment comprises a surface pattern on the multilayers of fabrics, wherein the heat-sinking material comprises a network of lines that intersect at a plurality of points forming a network, and wherein the surface pattern comprises free portions on which there is no heat-sinking material the network of lines of the heat sinking material in order to permit body heat to be quickly conducted away from the wearer’s body, as suggested by Agarwal (para 6).
Regarding claim 8:
Yee in view of Agarwal and Reidbord teach The undergarment according to claim 7, as set forth above.
The modified Yee as applied to claim 7 does not expressly disclose wherein said heat-sinking material comprises graphene.
However and in further view of Agarwal:
Agarwal as embodied in para 78 teaches “the thermally-conductive additive comprises... graphene” (para 78).
It 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 to have modified the modified Yee such that its heat-sinking material comprises of graphene in order to yield the heat conduction effect; one of ordinary skill would recognize that graphene is an appropriate material therefor based on the teaching of Agarawal.
Regarding claim 9:
Yee in view of Agarwal and Reidbord teach The undergarment according to claim 7, as set forth above.
The modified Yee as applied to claim 7 further meets the limitation wherein the heat-sinking material is applied to the multilayers of fabrics using a printing technique and heat sealing.
(The phrase is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation; the modified Yee comprises the heat-sinking material as claimed in claim 7; see above treatment of claim 7. The heat-sinking material is applied to the multilayers and appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a process that is silent as to whether that process comprises both printing and heat sealing. However, Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product; see MPEP 2113 II.
Regarding claim 10:
Yee in view of Agarwal and Reidbord teach The undergarment according to claim 7, as set forth above.
The modified Yee as applied to claim 7 does not expressly disclose the heat-sinking material covers between 10% and 70% of the surface of the garment.
However and in further view of Agarwal:
Agarwal teaches “A heat-collecting coating may be disposed on...from about 65 to about 70% of the surface area of the user-facing surface of the garment” (para 83). Agarwal further teaches “high-performance fabrics that can help users regulate their temperature. In some instances (e.g., during exercise), the user may desire a garment that can help cool the user” (para 3).
It 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 to have modified the modified Yee such that the heat-sinking material covers between 65 and 70% of the surface of the garment in order to provide the undergarment with a degree of heat sinking that is appropriate and/or desirable to some users under a specific environmental condition and level of activity exerted while using the undergarment.
Regarding claim 11:
Yee in view of Agarwal and Reidbord teach The undergarment according to claim 10, as set forth above.
The modified Yee as applied to claim 10 further meets the limitation wherein the heat-sinking material covers between 30% and 70% of the surface.
(Refer to above treatment of claim 10 wherein the modification is the heat-sinking material covers between 65 and 70% of the surface.)
Regarding claim 12:
Yee in view of Agarwal and Reidbord teach The undergarment according to claim 10, as set forth above
The modified Yee as applied to claim 10 further meets the limitation wherein the heat-sinking material covers between 40% and 70% of the surface.
(Refer to above treatment of claim 10 wherein the modification is the heat-sinking material covers between 65 and 70% of the surface.)
Regarding claim 13:
Yee in view of Agarwal and Reidbord teach The undergarment according to claim 7, as set forth above.
The modified Yee as applied to claim 7 does not expressly disclose wherein the network of heat-sinking material comprises a basic hexagon design forming a regular pattern.
However and in further view of Agarwal:
Agarawal as embodied in para 28 and Fig. 2 teaches the network of heat-sinking material comprises a basic hexagon design forming a regular (Fig. 2) pattern: “interconnected features in a garment swatch 200 according to the present disclosure. As shown, hexagon features 202, 206, 210, and 214 are connected by thermally conductive traces 204, 208, 212, and 216...the user-facing surface of a garment may include a web or other network of interconnected features (e.g., the linked hexagons of FIG. 2); such interconnections may facilitate the transfer of thermal energy” (para 28; Fig. 2).
It 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 to have modified the modified Yee such that the network of heat-sinking material comprises a basic hexagon design forming a regular pattern in order to facilitate transfer of thermal energy, as taught by Agarwal (para 28).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Yee, US 2015/0082506], [Agarwal, US 2019/0184673], and [Reidbord, US 2,315,814] as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of [Lin, US 2015/0096105, previously cited].
Regarding claim 5:
Yee in view of Agarwal and Reidbord teach The undergarment according to claim 2, as set forth above.
Yee does not expressly disclose wherein the multilayers of fabrics covering the elastic frame has a first coefficient of elasticity and the elastic frame has a second coefficient of elasticity, greater than or equal to that first coefficient of elasticity.
However, Lin teaches an undergarment (“Trousers”; Abstract, wherein said trousers is configured to be worn under another garment such that it is an undergarment) wherein an undergarment “body 1” comprises a “flexible fabric” (para 21). A “housing space 122 is formed by sewing an inverted folding of a portion of the flexible fabric when the trouser body 1 is sewn to form the trouser head 12. In addition, the housing space 122 holds an elastic strap 13 inside that has two sewing sections 131 sewn on the trouser body 1 corresponding to the two distal ends 123. In other words, the elastic strap 13 has two ends sewn on the two distal ends 123 of the housing space 122 to form the sewing sections 131. To ensure that the trouser head 12 does not deform that might affect the visual appeal of the trousers, the elastic strap 13 has elasticity coefficient substantially same as that of the flexible fabric... Thus, when the elastic strap 13 deforms while the wearer 2 puts on the trousers the elastic strap 13 and the flexible fabric change same amount of deformation, thereby provide neat and fit visual sight. Moreover, in practice, the elasticity coefficients of the elastic strap 13 and the flexible fabric can differ in a range from 0 to 5%.” (para 21). The flexible fabric of the housing space 122 of the body 1 covers the elastic strap 13.
It 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 to have modified the modified Yee such that the multilayers of fabrics covering the elastic frame has a first coefficient of elasticity and the elastic frame has a second coefficient of elasticity, equal to that first coefficient of elasticity in order to permit expansion and contraction of the undergarment in such a way that both the multilayers and the elastic frame change the same amount of deformation when a force is applied thereto, thereby providing a neat and/or fit visual appearance, as suggested by Lin (para 21).
Or
It 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 to have modified the modified Yee such that the body of the garment covers the elastic frame has a first coefficient of elasticity and the elastic frame has a second coefficient of elasticity, greater than that first coefficient of elasticity by 0-5% in order to permit expansion and contraction of the undergarment in such a way that both garment body and elastic frame change by about the same amount of deformation when a force is applied thereto, thereby providing a neat and/or fit visual appearance, as suggested by Lin (para 21).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Yee, US 2015/0082506], [Agarwal, US 2019/0184673], and [Reidbord, US 2,315,814] as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of [Glenn, US 2010/0093258, previously cited].
Regarding claim 6:
Yee in view of Agarwal and Reidbord teach The undergarment according to claim 2, as set forth above.
Yee does not expressly disclose wherein the series of active portions comprise elastomeric fibers having a denser warp than a warp of the multilayers of fabrics surrounding the series of active portions, and wherein the series of active portions are in a pre-stressed condition.
However, Glenn teaches an “elastic fabric” (para 21) appropriate for “undergarments” (para 56; para 23) comprising “elastomeric...yarn” (para 21) which is in a pre-stressed condition (“tension under which the elastomeric...yarn is laid” (para 7) wherein “The warp density can be used to vary the elastic modulus/stretch properties across the width of the woven fabric” (para 22). Glenn further teaches that “outer edge portions” of an undergarment “have a high warp density” (para 53) wherein said outer edge portions “have a different stretch property than” an “inner body panel” further wherein the edge feature is achieved by “increasing the warp density at the edges” (para 82) while providing the elastomeric fibers in a pre-stressed condition permits “the width of the woven fabric” to “increase[] compared to its width in a relaxed state upon applying a...load to the fabric” (para 12) further wherein the fabric is configured to fit close to a wearer’s body (“control the stomach...help to suite the natural curves of the body”; para 55)
It 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 to have modified the modified Yee such that the series of active portions comprise elastomeric fibers having a denser warp than a warp of the multilayers of fabrics surrounding the series of active portions, and wherein the series of active portions are in a pre-stressed condition in order to provide both the series of active portions and the multilayers of fabrics with the capability of fitting close to a wearer’s body, to permit expansion of the series of active portions and the multilayers of fabrics, and for the series of active portions to undergo expansion and contraction more readily than the rest of the multilayers of fabrics due to the relative warp densities thereof.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Yee, US 2015/0082506], [Agarwal, US 2019/0184673], and [Reidbord, US 2,315,814] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Grisanti, US 2,764,762, previously cited].
Regarding claim 15:
Yee in view of Agarwal and Reidbord teach The undergarment according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Yee does not expressly disclose wherein the reinforcement element comprises an element made of cotton canvas located at a bottom of the at least one compartment and attached to the multilayers of fabrics by the reinforcement seam.
In further view of Reidbord: in Reidbord, the reinforcement element is located at a bottom of the compartment: “reinforcing strip 15...placed along...lower border” (p. 1 lines 43-44; Figs. 2, 3, and 4).
Grisanti teaches a reinforcement element 16 comprising an element made of cotton canvas (“cotton canvas”; col. 2 line 41) for a “belt” (col. 1 line 15) wherein the belt garment is configured to be worn under another garment such that it is an undergarment. In Grisanti, the reinforcement element 16 is attached by reinforcement seams 24 and 34 (col. 2 line 61; col. 3 lines 20-21)
It 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 to have modified the modified Yee such that its reinforcement element comprises an element made of cotton canvas located at a bottom of the at least one compartment and attached to the multilayers of fabrics by the reinforcement seam in order to strengthen and reinforce the bottom of the compartment via the reinforcement system at the bottom of the compartment further wherein the wherein the element made of cotton canvas is configured to provide the reinforcement.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Yee, US 2015/0082506], [Agarwal, US 2019/0184673], [Reidbord, US 2,315,814], and [Grisanti, US 2,764,762] as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of [Kolmes, US 2007/0271965, previously cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Yee in view of Agarwal, Reidbord, and Grisanti teach The undergarment according to claim 15, as set forth above.
Yee does not expressly disclose wherein the cotton canvas comprises a 1-gauge canvas, a 2-gauge canvas, or a 3-gauge canvas.
However, Kolmes teaches a “protective fabric” appropriate for a “protective...undergarment[]” wherein fabric “Construction may be in various Gauges such as 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18 gauges wherein within the context of the present invention, the term "gauge" means needles per inch on the specific machine on which the pieces are knit. By way of example, 18 Gauge would normally make a fine textured piece, whereas a 3 gauge piece would normally be of a coarser texture” (para 23).
It 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 to have modified the modified Yee such that its cotton canvas is a 3-gauge canvas in order to provide a coarse texture to the reinforcement system for a user who prefers the feel of coarse textured fabrics.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights