DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 3/26/26 in which claims 1-21, 23-32 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/26/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21, 23-32 is/are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “inner support panel” in Claim 1 Line 4 is considered new matter. As best understood, this is referring to panel 810. However, there is no specification antecedent basis for the term. [0083], [0084] never indicate that the M-shaped layer is for support.
The term “first textile comprising: a molded region of the 3D cup that is heat-set and an adjoining region that is not heat-set, such that the molded region exhibits reduced stretch compared to the adjoining region” in Claim 23 Lines 13-15 is new matter. There is no specification antecedent basis or other support in the original disclosure for this recitation, despite remarks indicating that [0022, 32-34, 39, 83, 84] provide support. The paragraphs with the closest disclosure are in paragraphs [0033] and [0039]. However, neither paragraph indicates that the same textile, let alone first textile 100, has two differing regions, let alone one region that is heat-set and a region that is not heat-set. [0033] only indicates that a textile that has been heat-set is less stretchable in comparison with a hypothetical textile that has not been heat-set, and is silent pertaining to differing regions within a same textile, let alone a molded region and a non-molded region. [0039] in fact teaches away from an unmolded first textile, and recites that the first textile has limited stretch due to being molded, and again is silent pertaining to differing regions within a same textile, let alone a molded region and a non-molded region. It is unclear if the “adjoining region” was meant to be directed to third textile 712 which is disclosed as being unmolded, and is disclosed as being attachable to the first textile ([0082]). However, this is not currently a valid interpretation of the claims because the claims indicate that the first textile comprise the adjoining region.
The term “inner support panel” in Claim 23 Line 16 is similarly rejected for new matter as aforementioned.
The term “first textile comprising:…an inner support panel” in Claim 23 Lines 12, 16-20 is new matter. Even if the term were interpreted to be that of M-shaped panel 810, the original disclosure does not support that the inner support panel 810 is a “sub-set” element of the first textile 100. The panel 810 and first textile 100 are individually sub-sets of the garment (for example, see [0085], where 810 is exposed after 100, 710, 712 is releasably attached).
The term “inner support panel” in Claim 31 Line 2 is similarly rejected for new matter as aforementioned.
The term “first textile layer further comprises a yarn that extends back and forth between the first knit layer and the second knit layer” in Claim 24 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is considered new matter pending at least the 112(b) rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21, 23-32 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “inner support panel” in Claim 1 Line 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the lack of specification antecedent basis, it is unclear whether the term is referring to panel 810. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered as such.
The term “front portion further comprises an M-shaped layer” in Claim 21 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this M-shaped layer differs from “inner support panel” of Claim 1, on which Claim 21 depends. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered the same, wherein Claim 21 further establishes that the panel has an M-shape.
The term “first textile comprising: a molded region of the 3D cup that is heat-set and an adjoining region that is not heat-set, such that the molded region exhibits reduced stretch compared to the adjoining region” in Claim 1 Lines 12-15 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the 112(a) rejection, it is unclear how the term was meant to be interpreted. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as similarly indicated in previous prosecution; though certain terms have changed, the concept is the same.
The term “inner support panel” in Claim 23 Line 16 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the lack of specification antecedent basis, it is unclear whether the term is referring to panel 810. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, in light of Claim 31, the term will be considered as such.
The term “first textile comprising:…an inner support panel” in Claim 23 Lines 12, 16-20 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the 112(a) rejection, it is unclear how the term was meant to be interpreted. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as though the first textile does not comprise the inner support panel, but the elements are separately of the garment.
The term “yarn” in Claim 24 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this term differs from “tie yarns” in Claim 23 Line 10.
The term “yarn” in Claim 24 Line 5 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even if the term is referring to Claim 23 Line 10, it is unclear which specific singular yarn Claim 24 is referring to of the plurality of yarns established in Claim 23 Line 10.
All of Claim 24, especially the term “the first textile layer further comprises a yarn that extends back and forth between the first knit layer and the second knit layer” in Claim 24 Lines 4-5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. In the context of Claim 24, it is unclear how the first textile layer (which is the first knit layer) would have a yarn that extends back and forth between itself and the second knit layer. It is unclear whether this is a typographical error and should read “the first textile further comprises” instead of “the first textile layer further comprises”. Regardless, the recitation is replete with indefiniteness. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted met by Claim 23.
The term “the yarn” in Claim 25 Line 1 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether this term refers to that of Claim 24 or a specific singular yarn of Claim 23 Line 10.
The term “the yarn” in Claim 25 Line 1 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even if the term refers to that of Claim 24, it is unclear which specific singular yarn Claim 25 is referring to of the plurality of yarns established in Claim 23 Line 10.
The term “the yarn” in Claim 25 Line 1 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even if the term refers to that of Claim 21, it is unclear which specific singular yarn Claim 25 is referring to of the plurality of yarns established in Claim 23 Line 10.
The term “front portion of the bra comprises apertures that are uncovered by the second textile” in Claim 30 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Interpretation
Specific Definitions of Claimed Terms
The term “domal-shaped cup” in Claims 1, 17, 18, 26 is specifically interpreted as defined in applicant specification [0054] as “a textile that includes a first face and a second face on an opposite side of the textile as the first face and that, when not exposed to an external force…is concave on the first face and convex on the second face…a domal-shaped cup is not necessarily hemispherical.”
The term “tubular-jacquard knit textile” in Claim 10 is specifically interpreted as defined in applicant specification [0049] as “a textile having knit stitches forming a front knit panel and knit stitches forming a back knit panel.”
Product-by-Process
At the outset, examiner notes that molding recitations and heat-set recitations are considered product-by-process. Disagreement may warrant additional restriction of claims, especially as molding and/or heat-setting is directed to another classification and/or search (see reasons for restriction aforementioned).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, 15, 18-20, 23-- the recitations are being treated as a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art; more specifically:
the structure of Claim(s) 12 is a hydrophilic yarn treated with a wicking component
the structure of Claim(s) 15 is a hydrophobic yarn with DWR
the structure of Claim(s) 18 is the domal-shaped cup of the first textile
the structure of Claim(s) 19 is the second textile
the structure of Claim(s) 20 Line 5 is the outermost panel
the structure of Claim(s) 23 Lines 13-15 is a region of the 3D cup and an adjoining region
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.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 1-11, 14-17, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dandapure et al (USPN 9210955), herein Dandapure ‘955, in view of Dandapure et al (US Publication 2023/0172294), herein Dandapure ‘294, and Evans (GB 2509745).
Regarding Claim 1, Dandapure ‘955 teaches an upper -torso support garment (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; see Fig. 1A; Col. 1 Lines 45-46 "bra 100"; Dandapure ‘955 teaches the bra which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for support and for an upper-torso) comprising:
a front portion comprising a breast covering area (see Fig. 1A: Col. 1 Lines 45-46 "bra 100 can include a front portion 110 with bra cups 112 and 114"; Dandapure ’955 teaches the front portion which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of having an area for covering a breast, especially in light of the recitations of cups),
which comprises a domal-shaped cup having an inner-facing side and an outer-facing side (see Fig. 1A; Col. 1 Lines 45-46 "bra 100 can include a front portion 110 with bra cups 112 and 114"; for domal shape – see claim interpretation; Fig. 3; Col. 2 Line 24 "Fig. 3 provides…bra 100"; wherein the existence of a cup indicates inner/outer facing sides); and
the domal-shaped cup comprising a first textile (first textile being 400; see Fig. 8A; Col. 5 Lines 5-6 "Figs. 8a…illustrate a bra assembly 800 including the layers 400, 500, 600, and 700"; Col. 5 Lines 8-10 "bra assembly 800 may include a front assembly 810 for the front portion 110 of the bra 110"; see Fig. 8A; Col. 2 Lines 27-31 "an innermost layer (inner layer 400) may be a spacer fabric that provides coverage as well as compression... The inner layer 400 may be viewed as a set of molded cups that may be attached to a bra frame").
Dandapure ‘955 does not explicitly teach the first textile comprising:
a hydrophilic layer oriented towards the inner-facing side; and
a hydrophobic layer oriented towards the outer-facing side.
However, Dandapure ‘955 does teach a nylon spacer fabric (Col. 2 Lines 27-31; Col. 5 Lines 39-40 "edges of the inner layer 400 (e.g., made of nylon spacer fabric")).
Dandapure ‘294 teaches the textile (10) which comprises:
a hydrophilic layer oriented towards the inner-facing side (see Fig. 1; [0040] "fabric 10 comprises a back (inner) layer 12 which is the layer next to the skin of a wearer"; [0041] "back fabric layer 12 comprises a second yarn 18 that is hydrophilic"); and
a hydrophobic layer oriented towards the outer-facing side (see Fig. 1; [0040] "face (outer) layer 14 which correspond to the layer of the fabric 10 facing the exterior and away from the skin of the wearer"; [0041] "face fabric layer 14 comprises a first yarn 23 that comprises the durable water repellency (DWR) additives or DWR finish therein thus forming a fabric outer surface that is hydrophobic"; [0042] "first yarn 23...on ...the face layer 14...can be...a nylon, a polyester...or any...combination").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dandapure ‘955’s nylon spacer fabric to be the spacer fabric comprising nylon of Dandapure ‘294, as a known effective material for handling moisture in garments ([0002], [0003]), which Dandapure ‘955 desires as well (Col. 2 Lines 37-38).
Modified Dandapure ‘955 does not explicitly teach the garment comprising an inner support panel positioned interior to the domal-shaped cup,
the inner support panel comprising a right leg, a left leg, a center leg portion, and an upper portion extending across an upper region of the breast covering area,
wherein the right leg, the left leg, and the center leg portion extend from the upper portion and towards a bottom edge of the front portion.
Evans teaches wherein the garment comprising an inner support panel positioned interior to the cup (see Figs. 1, 2, wherein cup is of outer panel 22; page 6 Lines 3-4 "Figure 2 shows the bra 1 of the present invention with the outer panel 22 removed from the view in order to illustrate inner panel 21"; page 6 Lines 10-12 "Openings 25 and 25a are provided in the inner panel 21 so that, during the breast feeding, a user can expose a nipple of one or both breasts for breast feeding"; page 5 Lines 22-25 "inner panel 21 is partially concealed by the outer panel 22 releasably attachment 23 and 24 allow the outer panel or panels 22 to be attached to and released"; page 5 Lines 27-31 "with the inner and/or outer panel may be connected along all or some of their periphery to the base and shoulder straps at parts 221, 222, 223...at least a part of section 223 must generally be detached to allow the outer panel 22 to be sufficiently removed from inner panel 21"; page 5 Lines 32-33 "outer panel or panels 22 may be constructed from multiple sheets of material 31, 32, and 33", wherein inner panel 21 is the M-shaped layer in Fig. 2; see also extrinsic evidence Horii et al US Publication 2014/0017977, wherein a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Evans teaches the inner panel which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for support),
the inner support panel comprising a right leg, a left leg, a center leg portion, and an upper portion extending across an upper region of the breast covering area (see Fig. 2),
wherein the right leg, the left leg, and the center leg portion extend from the upper portion and towards a bottom edge of the front portion (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dandapure ‘955’s layers (400-700) with an interior M-shaped inner support layer as taught by Evans in order to provide breast access during breast feeding (abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the hydrophilic layer comprises a first textile layer and the hydrophobic layer comprises a second textile layer (the two layers are fabric and therefore textile layers).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the first textile layer comprises a first knit layer and the second textile layer comprises a second knit layer ([0047] "fabric 10 is made with a knitting construction…double jersey plaited construction for example (as shown in Fig. 1)").
Regarding Claim 4, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 3.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the first textile further comprises a yarn that extends back and forth between the first knit layer and the second knit layer (see Fig. 1; [0040] "connecting yarn 16 binds together the back fabric layer 12 and the face fabric layer 14").
Regarding Claim 5, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 4.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the yarn comprises a hydrophobic yarn ([0041] "face fabric layer 14 comprises a first yarn 23 that comprises the durable water repellency (DWR) additives or DWR finish therein thus forming a fabric outer surface that is hydrophobic").
Regarding Claim 6, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the yarn comprises an elastic yarn ([0044] "connecting yarn can be an elastane").
Regarding Claim 7, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 6.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the elastic yarn comprises a bare elastic yarn ([0044] has no indication of covering, and therefore is bare).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the first textile comprises a spacer mesh (see Fig. 1 for spacer; "see Fig. 1; [0047] "fabric 10 is made with a knitting construction…double jersey plaited construction for example (as shown in Fig. 1)"; wherein knits are mesh).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 8.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the spacer mesh is knit (see Fig. 1 for spacer; "see Fig. 1; [0047] "fabric 10 is made with a knitting construction…double jersey plaited construction for example (as shown in Fig. 1)"; wherein knits are mesh).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 3.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the first textile comprises a knit tubular jacquard textile (see claim interpretation; see Fig. 1; [0047] "fabric 10 is made with a knitting construction…double jersey plaited construction for example (as shown in Fig. 1)").
Regarding Claim 11, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the hydrophilic layer comprises a hydrophilic yarn ([0041] "back fabric layer 12 comprises a second yarn 18 that is hydrophilic").
Regarding Claim 14, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the hydrophobic layer comprises a hydrophobic yarn ([0041] "face fabric layer 14 comprises a first yarn 23 that comprises the durable water repellency (DWR) additives or DWR finish therein thus forming a fabric outer surface that is hydrophobic").
Regarding Claim 15, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 14.
Dandapure ’294 further teaches wherein the hydrophobic yarn is treated with durable water repellant (DWR) ([0041] "face fabric layer 14 comprises a first yarn 23 that comprises the durable water repellency (DWR) additives or DWR finish therein thus forming a fabric outer surface that is hydrophobic").
Dandapure ‘294 at least suggests wherein the hydrophobic yarn is treated with durable water repellant (DWR) prior to being incorporated into the hydrophobic layer (see [0041] indicating “thus”; nevertheless, see claim interpretation; the recitation “prior to be incorporated” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if Dandapure ‘294 hydrophobic yarn with DWR results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other methods making hydrophobic yarn with DWR, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the method with the Dandapure ‘294 reference above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art; in other words, the hydrophobic yarn with DWR of modified Dandapure ‘955 teaches the hydrophobic yarn treated with DWR prior to being incorporated into the hydrophobic layer of Claim 15 because it has the structure of Claim 15).
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dandapure ‘955’s hydrophobic yarn as provided by Dandapure ‘294 to be treated with DWR prior to incorporation, especially as there are a finite number of solutions, in order to ensure thorough, more complete repellency, as opposed to treating afterwards.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the hydrophobic layer comprises DWR finish ([0041] "face fabric layer 14 comprises a first yarn 23 that comprises the durable water repellency (DWR) additives or DWR finish therein thus forming a fabric outer surface that is hydrophobic").
Regarding Claim 17, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Dandapure ‘955 further teaches wherein the hydrophilic layer comprises an inner-most face of the domal-shaped cup (Dandapure ‘294 see Fig. 1; [0040] "fabric 10 comprises a back (inner) layer 12 which is the layer next to the skin of a wearer"; [0041] "back fabric layer 12 comprises a second yarn 18 that is hydrophilic"; wherein this back fabric layer 12 would be the innermost in Dandapure ‘955 layer 400).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Dandapure ‘955 further teaches a second textile positioned directly adjacent to the hydrophobic layer (see Fig. 8 for directly adjacent; wherein second textile is 500 and/or 600; Col. 2 Lines 31-34 "The frame (inner frame layer 500 and outer frame layer 600) may include two layers of fabric that can provide support to the base of a wearer's breasts while also adding compression"),
the second textile comprising a mesh textile that has been molded (for mesh textile-- Col. 3 Lines 60-61 "inner and outer frame layers 500, 600 may be a warp knitted fabric"; for mold-- see claim interpretation; the recitation “molded” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if Dandapure ‘955’s second textile results in different structural characteristics of the end product than second textile forming methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the molding with the Dandapure ‘955 reference above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art; in other words, the second textile of Dandapure ‘955 teaches the molded second textile of Claim 19 because it has the structure of Claim 19; nevertheless, see Fig. 9; Col. 6 Lines 14-18 "in 965, the bra 100 can be put in a mold frame at a high temperature…to allow the bra cups to be molded and/or to allow any laminate or attachment material or item…to melt and/or form a bond", wherein second textile is part of bra 100).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Dandapure ‘955 further teaches wherein the front portion further comprises an M-shaped layer positioned interior to the hydrophilic layer (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Evans Fig. 2 for inner support panel being M-shaped layer made interior of the layers of Dandapure ‘955 as modified in Claim 1, and therefore interior to the hydrophilic layer provided by Dandapure ‘294 acting as layer 400 in Dandapure ‘955).
Claim(s) 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dandapure et al (USPN 9210955), herein Dandapure ‘955, in view of Dandapure et al (US Publication 2023/0172294), herein Dandapure ‘294, and Evans (GB 2509745), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Van Emden et al (USPN 7682994), herein Van.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
Dandapure ‘955 does not explicitly teach wherein the hydrophilic yarn is treated with a wicking component prior to being incorporated into the hydrophilic layer.
Van teaches wherein the hydrophilic yarn is treated with a wicking component (Col. 7 Lines 43-47 "When a...polyester, for example, has a chemical treatment to it, i.e. a hydrophilic additive, to increase its surface energy, this will allow the yarn to keep its wicking properties when in contact with fluorocarbon yarns, after being washed in water"; Col. 20 Lines 10, 12, 15 "present invention also provides an article of clothing comprising a textile fabric...the article may be...bra").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dandapure ‘955’s hydrophilic yarn/layer as provided by Dandapure ‘294 with the wicking component as taught by Van in order to ensure wicking properties even after laundering (Col. 7 Lines 40-47).
As such, modified Dandapure ‘955 at least suggests wherein the hydrophilic yarn is treated with a wicking component prior to being incorporated into the hydrophilic layer (see claim interpretation; the recitation “prior to be incorporated” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if modified Dandapure '955's wicking hydrophilic yarn results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other methods making a hydrophilic yarn wicking, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the Dandapure ‘294 method above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art; in other words, the hydrophilic yarn treated with a wicking component of modified Dandapure ‘955 teaches the hydrophilic yarn treated with a wicking component prior to incorporation into the hydrophilic layer of Claim 12 because it has the structure of Claim 12).
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dandapure ‘955’s hydrophilic yarn as provided by Dandapure ‘294 to be treated with wicking prior to incorporation, especially as there are a finite number of solutions, in order to ensure thorough, more complete wicking, as opposed to treating afterwards.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Dandapure ‘294 at least suggests wherein the hydrophilic layer comprises a wicking finish ([0018] "second yarn is a hydrophilic synthetic polymer selected from…modified polyester").
Van teaches wherein polyester is modified with a wicking finish (Col. 7 Lines 43-47 "When a...polyester, for example, has a chemical treatment to it, i.e. a hydrophilic additive, to increase its surface energy, this will allow the yarn to keep its wicking properties when in contact with fluorocarbon yarns, after being washed in water"; Col. 20 Lines 10, 12, 15 "present invention also provides an article of clothing comprising a textile fabric...the article may be...bra", wherein treatment constitutes a finish).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dandapure ‘955’s hydrophilic yarn/layer as provided by Dandapure ‘294 with the wicking finish as taught by Van in order to ensure wicking properties even after laundering (Col. 7 Lines 40-47).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dandapure et al (USPN 9210955), herein Dandapure ‘955, in view of Dandapure et al (US Publication 2023/0172294), herein Dandapure ‘294, and Evans (GB 2509745), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Adams (USPN 3239586).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Dandapure ’955 at least suggests wherein the domal-shaped cup of the first textile is heat-set (see Fig. 9; Col. 6 Lines 14-18 "in 965, the bra 100 can be put in a mold frame at a high temperature…to allow the bra cups to be molded and/or to allow any laminate or attachment material or item…to melt and/or form a bond"; see claim interpretation; the recitation “heat-set” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if Dandapure ‘955’s textile results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other textile forming methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the molding of Dandapure ‘955 to heat-set above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art; in other words, the molded textile of Dandapure ‘955 teaches the heat-set textile of Claim 18 because it has the structure of Claim 18).
Nevertheless, Adams teaches heat-setting a molded textile (Col. 1 Lines 10-14 "invention relates to a process for the molding of fabrics...prepared from polyester yarns in order to form three-dimensional articles such as brassieres"; Col. 4 Lines 53-58 "The molded article must be heat set to reduce its shrinkage and make it dimensionally stable to wear and lundering. Since the molded fabric has some elastic recovery which would tend to cause some deviation from the mold shape, the fabric should be heat set while restrained by the mold”, wherein the brassiere has a cup in light of Col. 5 Lines 55-56 “corresponding to a 34B cup size brassiere”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dandapure '955’s first textile (and therefore domal-shaped cup) to be heat-set as taught by Adams as a known step especially for molded brassieres, in order to reduce shrinkage (Col. 4 Lines 53-58).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dandapure et al (USPN 9210955), herein Dandapure ‘955, in view of Dandapure et al (US Publication 2023/0172294), herein Dandapure ‘294, and Evans (GB 2509745), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Abbazia (US Publication 2023/0329360).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 19.
Dandapure ‘955 further teaches the front portion comprises an outermost panel (see Fig. 8A; Col. 2 Lines 34-38 "An outermost layer (outer layer 700) can provide an aesthetic appearance due to its seamless quality, as well as providing wicking qualities by pulling away moisture from the frame and innermost layer").
Modified Dandapure ‘955 further teaches the second textile being positioned between the outermost panel and the hydrophobic layer (see Fig. 8A of Dandapure ‘955 wherein 500 and/or 600 of the second textile is between the outermost panel 700 and the hydrophobic layer in 400 as provided by Dandapure ‘294).
Modified Dandapure ‘955 does not explicitly teach the outermost panel comprising an unmolded portion of the front portion.
However, see claim interpretation; the recitation “unmolded” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if the outermost panel forming method of Dandapure ‘955 results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other outermost panel forming methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the method with the Dandapure ‘955 above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art; in other words, the outermost panel of Dandapure ‘955 teaches outermost panel comprising the unmolded portion of the front portion of Claim 20 because it has the structure of Claim 20.
Nevertheless, Abbazia teaches the outermost panel comprising an unmolded portion of the front portion (see Fig. 4 for outermost panel; [0053] "bra cup components 102...may include advertising, a trademark, or other letters, designs, or characters, printed, painted, stamped"; [0053] "specifically, any suitable indicia 404 as is known in the art can be included, such as but not limited to, patterns, logos, emblems, images, symbols, designs, letters, words, characters, animals, advertisements, brands, etc., that may or may not be brassiere, surgical or brand related”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dandapure ‘955’s outermost panel with the unmolded portion of the front portion as taught by Abbazia as a known method of providing an element for advertising purposes ([0053]).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dandapure et al (USPN 9210955), herein Dandapure ‘955, in view of Dandapure et al (US Publication 2023/0172294), herein Dandapure ‘294, and Evans (GB 2509745), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Liu (US Publication 2017/0290377).
Regarding Claim 32, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Dandapure ‘955 does not explicitly teach a foam layer positioned adjacent to the hydrophilic layer on the inner-facing side.
However modified Dandapure ‘955 already taught a spacer fabric with a hydrophilic layer on the inner-facing side (see rejection of claim 1).
Liu teaches a foam layer positioned adjacent to the spacer fabric on an inner-facing side ([0005] "In one aspect of the invention, there is provided a brassiere cup for a bra, the cup comprising an inner foam-fabric layer for contact with a wearer's skin, and an outer spacer fabric layer is provided on an outer side of the inner foam-fabric layer, the outer side being distal from the wearer's skin").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dandapure ‘955’s spacer fabric, as provided by Dandapure ‘294, with a foam liner as taught by Liu as a known effective brassiere, especially as it is known in the art that foam liners provide shaping while ensuring a smooth appearance of garments worn over the brassiere (see extrinsic evidence Mann USPN 7252573).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Dandapure ‘955 teaches a foam layer positioned adjacent to the hydrophilic layer on the inner-facing side (the foam layer of being inner of the spacer fabric would be inner of the hydrophilic layer on the inner-facing side of the spacer fabric bra).
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 23-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dandapure et al (USPN 9210955), herein Dandapure ‘955, in view of Dandapure et al (US Publication 2023/0172294), herein Dandapure ‘294, Adams (USPN 3239586), Abbazia (2023/0329360), and Evans (GB 2509745).
Regarding Claim 23, Dandapure ‘955 teaches an upper -torso support garment (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; see Fig. 1A; Col. 1 Lines 45-46 "bra 100"; Dandapure ‘955 teaches the bra which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for support and for an upper-torso) comprising:
a front portion comprising a breast covering area (see Fig. 1A: Col. 1 Lines 45-46 "bra 100 can include a front portion 110 with bra cups 112 and 114"; Dandapure ’955 teaches the front portion which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of having an area for covering a breast, especially in light of the recitations of cups),
which comprises a three-dimensional (3D) cup having an inner-facing side and an outer-facing side (see Fig. 1A: Col. 1 Lines 45-46 "bra 100 can include a front portion 110 with bra cups 112 and 114"; wherein 3D is met inasmuch as the cup exists; nevertheless, see also Fig. 3; Col. 2 Line 24 "Fig. 3 provides…bra 100"; wherein the cup’s existence indicates an inner/outer side);
wherein the 3D cup comprises a first textile (first textile is 400; see Fig. 8A; Col. 5 Lines 5-6 "Figs. 8a…illustrate a bra assembly 800 including the layers 400, 500, 600, and 700"; Col. 5 Lines 8-10 "bra assembly 800 may include a front assembly 810 for the front portion 110 of the bra 110"; see Fig. 8A; Col. 2 Lines 27-31 "an innermost layer (inner layer 400) may be a spacer fabric that provides coverage as well as compression... The inner layer 400 may be viewed as a set of molded cups that may be attached to a bra frame", wherein the existence of a textile cup indicates first/second parts/portions).
Dandapure ‘955 does not explicitly teach wherein the first textile comprises
a hydrophilic layer oriented towards the inner-facing side and
a hydrophobic layer oriented towards the outer-facing side,
and tie yarns extending between the hydrophilic layer and the hydrophobic layer.
However, Dandapure ‘955 does teach a nylon spacer fabric (Col. 2 Lines 27-31; Col. 5 Lines 39-40 "edges of the inner layer 400 (e.g., made of nylon spacer fabric")).
Dandapure ‘294 teaches the textile (10)/spacer fabric which comprises:
a hydrophilic layer oriented towards the inner-facing side (see Fig. 1; [0040] "fabric 10 comprises a back (inner) layer 12 which is the layer next to the skin of a wearer"; [0041] "back fabric layer 12 comprises a second yarn 18 that is hydrophilic"); and
a hydrophobic layer oriented towards the outer-facing side (see Fig. 1; [0040] "face (outer) layer 14 which correspond to the layer of the fabric 10 facing the exterior and away from the skin of the wearer"; [0041] "face fabric layer 14 comprises a first yarn 23 that comprises the durable water repellency (DWR) additives or DWR finish therein thus forming a fabric outer surface that is hydrophobic"; [0042] "first yarn 23...on ...the face layer 14...can be...a nylon, a polyester...or any...combination")
and tie yarns extending between the hydrophilic layer and the hydrophobic layer ([0040] "connecting yarn 16 binds together the back fabric layer 12 and the face fabric layer 14"; [0044] “the connecting yarn 16 …can be at least a single strand yarn…each strand of the plurality of strands of the connecting yarn 16 can have independent zig-zag structure” indicating a plurality of yarns, wherein binding/connecting indicates tie).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dandapure ‘955’s nylon spacer fabric to be the spacer fabric comprising nylon of Dandapure ‘294, as a known effective material for handling moisture in garments ([0002], [0003]), which Dandapure ‘955 desires as well (Col. 2 Lines 37-38).
Dandapure ‘955 also does not explicitly teach the first textile comprising:
a molded region of the 3D cup that is heat-set
and an adjoining region that is not heat-set,
such that the molded region exhibits reduced stretch compared to the adjoining region.
However, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see claim interpretation; the recitations “heat-set” and “not being heat-set” are being treated as product-by-process limitations. Therefore, even if “heat-set” or “not heat-set” results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other region forming methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the method in the Dandapure ‘955 reference above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art; in other words, the first/second part of Dandapure ‘955 teaches the heat-set/not heat-set of Claim 23 because it has the structure of Claim 23.
Nevertheless, Adams teaches a molded region of a 3D cup being heat-set (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Col. 1 Lines 10-14 "invention relates to a process for the molding of fabrics...prepared from polyester yarns in order to form three-dimensional articles such as brassieres", where a brassiere is 3D and has a cup, especially in light of Col. 5 Lines 55-56 “corresponding to a 34B cup size brassiere”; Col. 4 Lines 53-58 "The molded article must be heat set to reduce its shrinkage and make it dimensionally stable to wear and lundering. Since the molded fabric has some elastic recovery which would tend to cause some deviation from the mold shape, the fabric should be heat set while restrained by the mold").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dandapure ‘955’s first textile 3D cup to be heat-set as taught by Adams as a known step especially for molded brassieres (which Dandapure ‘955 is as well, see Fig. 9, Col. 6 Liens 14-18), in order to reduce shrinkage (Col. 4 Lines 53-58).
Furthermore, Abbazia teaches an adjoining region of a 3D cup that is not heat-set (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 4 for outermost panel; [0053] "bra cup components 102...may include advertising, a trademark, or other letters, designs, or characters, printed, painted, stamped"; [0053] "specifically, any suitable indicia 404 as is known in the art can be included, such as but not limited to, patterns, logos, emblems, images, symbols, designs, letters, words, characters, animals, advertisements, brands, etc., that may or may not be brassiere, surgical or brand related”, wherein a cup existence indicates 3D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dandapure ‘955’s adjoining region to the 3D cup to not be heat-set as taught by Abbazia as a known method for providing an element for advertising purposes ([0053]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Dandapure ‘955 teaches such that the molded region exhibits reduced stretch compared to the adjoining region (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- modified Dandapure ‘955 teaches the heat-set/not heat-set limitations which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of exhibiting reduced stretch when comparing the 3D cup molded region and an adjoining region; furthermore, Adams teaches reducing the elastic recovery and therefore reduced stretch, as opposed to an element without heat-setting; furthermore, examiner notes that the materials of the cup—polyester layer, elastane spacer yarn, as taught by Dandapure ‘294, especially with [0040] "connecting yarn 16 binds together the back fabric layer 12 and the face fabric layer 14"; [0044] "connecting yarn can be an elastane"—is the same as that of the applicant specification and would also therefore meet the recitation).
Modified Dandapure ‘955 does not explicitly teach the garment comprising an inner support panel positioned interior to the 3D cup,
the inner support panel comprising a right leg, a left leg, a center leg portion, and an upper portion extending across an upper region of the breast covering area,
wherein the right leg, the left leg, and the center leg portion extend from the upper portion and towards a bottom edge of the front portion.
Evans teaches wherein the garment comprising an inner support panel positioned interior to the cup (see Figs. 1, 2, wherein cup is of outer panel 22; page 6 Lines 3-4 "Figure 2 shows the bra 1 of the present invention with the outer panel 22 removed from the view in order to illustrate inner panel 21"; page 6 Lines 10-12 "Openings 25 and 25a are provided in the inner panel 21 so that, during the breast feeding, a user can expose a nipple of one or both breasts for breast feeding"; page 5 Lines 22-25 "inner panel 21 is partially concealed by the outer panel 22 releasably attachment 23 and 24 allow the outer panel or panels 22 to be attached to and released"; page 5 Lines 27-31 "with the inner and/or outer panel may be connected along all or some of their periphery to the base and shoulder straps at parts 221, 222, 223...at least a part of section 223 must generally be detached to allow the outer panel 22 to be sufficiently removed from inner panel 21"; page 5 Lines 32-33 "outer panel or panels 22 may be constructed from multiple sheets of material 31, 32, and 33", wherein inner panel 21 is the M-shaped layer in Fig. 2; see also extrinsic evidence Horii et al US Publication 2014/0017977, wherein a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Evans teaches the inner panel which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for support),
the inner support panel comprising a right leg, a left leg, a center leg portion, and an upper portion extending across an upper region of the breast covering area (see Fig. 2),
wherein the right leg, the left leg, and the center leg portion extend from the upper portion and towards a bottom edge of the front portion (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dandapure ‘955’s layers (400-700) with an interior M-shaped inner support layer as taught by Evans in order to provide breast access during breast feeding (abstract).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 23.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the hydrophilic layer comprises a first textile layer and the hydrophobic layer comprises a second textile layer (the two layers are fabric and therefore textile layers),
wherein the first textile layer comprises a first knit layer and the second textile layer comprises a second knit layer ([0047] "fabric 10 is made with a knitting construction…double jersey plaited construction for example (as shown in Fig. 1)"), and
wherein the first textile layer further comprises a yarn that extends back and forth between the first knit layer and the second knit layer (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--[0040] "connecting yarn 16 binds together the back fabric layer 12 and the face fabric layer 14").
Regarding Claim 25, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 24.
Dandapure ‘294 further teaches wherein the yarn has a lower moisture transfer characteristic compared to fibers of the hydrophilic layer (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--[0044] "connecting yarn can be an elastane"; [0018] "second yarn is a hydrophilic synthetic polymer selected from…modified polyester"; Dandapure ‘294 has the same elastic/hydrophilic materials as the applicant specification and therefore would meet the recitation).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 23.
Dandapure ‘955 further teaches wherein the 3D cup is domal-shaped to form a breast cup (for domal shape – see claim interpretation; Fig. 3; Col. 2 Line 24 "Fig. 3 provides…bra 100"; Dandapure ‘955 teaches the cup which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for a breast).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 23.
Dandapure ‘955 further teaches wherein the upper-torso support garment is a bra (see Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 28, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 27.
Modified Dandapure ‘955 further teaches wherein the bra further comprises a second textile comprising a mesh textile (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Fig. 8A, at least one of 500, 600; Col. 2 Lines 32 "inner frame layer 500 and outer frame layer 600…include two layers of fabric that can provide support…while also adding compression"; Col. 3 Lines 60-61 "inner and outer frame layers 500, 600 may be a warp knitted fabric", wherein a knit fabric is a mesh textile).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 28.
Modified Dandapure ‘955 further teaches wherein the second textile covers only a portion of the front portion of the bra (see Dandapure ‘955 Fig. 8 for layers 500, 600, 700 covering other portions of the front portion of bra, such that textile 400, provided by Dandapure ‘294, would only cover a portion/constitute a different portion; furthermore, even if the textile of the bra/cup were different, Dandapure ‘955 clearly shows that the textile of Fig. 8A is for both the cup area and bra/non-cup areas).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 29.
Modified Dandapure ‘955 further teaches wherein the front portion of the bra comprises apertures that are uncovered by the second textile (see Evans Figs. 1, 2 for apertures 25, 25a uncovered by the second textile 22 of 31, 32, 33 which would correspond to Dandapure ‘955’s front portion 400-700; page 6 Lines 3-4 "Figure 2 shows the bra 1 of the present invention with the outer panel 22 removed from the view in order to illustrate inner panel 21"; page 6 Lines 10-12 "openings 25 and 25a are provided in the inner panel 21 so that, during the breast feeding, a user can expose a nipple of one or both breasts for breast feeding"; page 5 Lines 22-25 "inner panel 21 is partially concealed by the outer panel 22 releasably attachment 23 and 24 allow the outer panel or panels 22 to be attached to and released"; page 5 Lines 27-31 "with the inner and/or outer panel may be connected along all or some of their periphery to the base and shoulder straps at parts 221, 222, 223...at least a part of section 223 must generally be detached to allow the outer panel 22 to be sufficiently removed from inner panel 21"; page 5 Lines 32-33 "outer panel or panels 22 may be constructed from multiple sheets of material 31, 32, and 33"; Evans teaches the apertures and the textile which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the apertures being uncovered as recited, especially in light of the recitations),
the apertures permitting access through the second textile when the front portion is unfolded (Evans teaches the second textile apertures which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of allowing access through its apertures when the front portion is unfolded, especially in light of the aforementioned recitations).
Regarding Claim 31, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 30.
Modified Dandapure ‘955 further teaches wherein the inner support panel comprises an M-shaped geometry (see Evans Fig. 2 wherein inner panel 21 is the M-shaped layer; see also extrinsic evidence Horii et al US Publication 2014/0017977, wherein a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21, 23-32 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification--
Pertaining to remarks on page 14 that there is support for the amendments of Claim 1 in [0096], and [0097]—these paragraphs are directed to a non-elected embodiment. As best understood, the remarks may have been directed to [0083], [0084].
Pertaining to remarks on pages 14-15 that Dandapure ‘955 and Dandapure ‘294 cannot be combined because they are directed to different structural approaches and address different aspects of garment construction—examiner respectfully disagrees. Remarks do not address the actual motivation for combination, such as page 9 of the final rejection of 12/31/25. The remarks directed to how ‘955 and ‘294 are missing certain limitations are all piecemeal remarks. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Pertaining to remarks on page 15 that ‘294 does not address how such textiles would be formed into domal-shaped molded cups and therefore is not proper—examiner respectfully disagrees. In addition to being piecemeal, as ‘294 is utilized to teach the specifics of a spacer fabric, simply substituted into ‘955, claims do not require addressing how, as the claims are product claims and not method claims. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). No persuasive remarks have been presented as to how the spacer would not be modifiable as taught.
Pertaining to remarks on page 15 that no internal support panel has been taught— it is unclear whether this panel is actually referring to that already claimed in Claim 21 and taught by Evans. However, no specific remarks directed to how Evans does not teach the specific recitation has been presented.
Pertaining to remarks on page 17 that paragraphs [0022], [0032]-[0034], [0039], [0083], [0084] provide support for amendments to Claim 23—examiner respectfully disagrees. Though [0083], [0084] may provide support for the inner panel having the portions recited, no support has been found for the molded regions. See 112(a) rejection above.
Pertaining to remarks on page 17 that ‘955 and ‘294 do not teach various limitations, including the inner support panel—examiner respectfully disagrees. Similarly as aforementioned, no remarks address the actual motivation for Claim 23, on pages 21, 22 of final rejection 12/31/25. Furthermore, the inner support panel, as best understood, was previously rejected in Claim 31; as similarly aforementioned, no specific remarks directed to how Evans does not teach the specific recitation has been presented.
Pertaining to remarks on page 18 directed to Adams and Abbazia individually not teaching various recitations and therefore being improper—examiner respectfully disagrees. As aforementioned, the remarks are piecemeal. Actual combination and motivations utilizing these two references, such as would teach the currently claimed adjoining region and similarly applied to previous claims, have not been addressed.
Pertaining to remarks on page 18 that the combination of references do not teach the recitations—examiner respectfully disagrees. Remarks have not addressed the actual combinations, but merely how the references individually do not meet the entirety of limitations, which are piecemeal remarks. No motivations have actually been addressed, that would result in the claims taught.
Examiner notes that third textile 712 has not yet been properly claimed as the outermost unmolded layer. Dandapure ‘955 teaches at least three textile layers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Reinisch et al (USPN 7435155), Rabinowicz et al (US Publication 2021/0392958) directed to one molded element, one unmolded element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights