DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/14/25 has been entered. Claims 1-21, 23-32 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have not overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 7/16/25.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
Abstract is recommended to be amended as being directed to the elected embodiment (such as the M-shaped layer), especially in light of related application 16/898,651 that currently has the same abstract
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0027] “a tuck stitches” need review whether it should read “tuck stitches”
[0038] “hydrophilic layer of the first textile” should read “hydrophilic layer of the second textile”
[0068] “first layer 100” should read “first layer 110”
[0095] “coupled direction” should read “coupled directly”
[0096] after “band 1122” add a closing parenthesis
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 23 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 Line 6 after “first part of the” add –first--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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) 23-31 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 “wherein the 3D cup comprises a first textile having a first part and second part, the first part being heat-set and the second part not being heat-set…each of the first part and the second part comprise a hydrophilic layer …and a hydrophobic layer…” in Claim 23 Lines 4-10 is considered new matter. As aforementioned in the previous 112(b) rejection of 7/16/25, no disclosure was found as to how the first/second parts relate to the hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers (attention is directed to pages 5, 6 of office action 7/16/25 “Though the specification provides antecedent basis for the recitation, the terms “first part” and “second part” have not been utilized elsewhere in the specification for clarity. Though [0040] talks about heat setting tie yarns, it is unclear whether this first part is referring to tie yarns while the second part is referring to outer/inner layers 110/112; though [0073] indicates layer 710 being molded and [0082] indicates layer 712 being unmolded, it is unclear whether the second part is referring to 710/712”). As such, no support is found for this amendment.
The term “wherein the bra comprises a second textile…comprising: a hydrophilic layer…a hydrophobic layer” in Claim 28 is considered new matter. Nowhere is there disclosure found that there is both a first textile (established Claim 23, on which Claim 28 eventually depends on) having hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers and a second textile also having hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers. The only layer having hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers is a single layer, specifically textile 100 shown in Fig. 7.
The term “front portion of the bra comprises apertures that are uncovered by the second textile” in Claim 30 is considered new matter. The structure of the body of Claim 30 is only supported by element 712 being the “second textile.” However, 712 is never disclosed as having hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers, which Claim 28 requires of the second textile, on which Claim 30 depends. It is further noted that the recitation of [0074], pertaining to Fig. 7, that “first textile 100 may form at least part of an innermost-facing surface of the front portion 510” is not support for 712 being also of hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers of textile 100. This conclusion is further confirmed as [0082] clearly indicates 712 is not molded, while [0075] indicates that textile 100 is molded, which clearly indicates that 712 and 100 are not the same.
The term “second textile comprises an M-shaped layer” in Claim 31 is considered new matter. The structure of the body of Claim 31 is only supported by element 810 being the “second textile.” However, 810 is never disclosed as having hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers, which Claim 28 requires of the second textile, on which Claim 31 depends. It is further noted that the recitation of [0074], pertaining to Fig. 7, that “first textile 100 may form at least part of an innermost-facing surface of the front portion 510” is not support for 810 being also of hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers of textile 100. This conclusion is further confirmed as [0083] clearly indicates 810 as mesh, which clearly indicates that 810 and 100 are not the same.
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) 23-31 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “wherein the 3D cup comprises a first textile having a first part and second part, the first part being heat-set and the second part not being heat-set…each of the first part and the second part comprise a hydrophilic layer …and a hydrophobic layer…” in Claim 23 Lines 4-10 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. As aforementioned in the previous 112(b) rejection of 7/16/25, no disclosure was found as to how the first/second parts relate to the hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers (attention is directed to pages 5, 6 of office action 7/16/25 “Though the specification provides antecedent basis for the recitation, the terms “first part” and “second part” have not been utilized elsewhere in the specification for clarity. Though [0040] talks about heat setting tie yarns, it is unclear whether this first part is referring to tie yarns while the second part is referring to outer/inner layers 110/112; though [0073] indicates layer 710 being molded and [0082] indicates layer 712 being unmolded, it is unclear whether the second part is referring to 710/712”). Especially in light of the 112(a) new matter rejections, it is unclear how the interpret the recitations. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, a similar interpretation as in the office action of 7/16/25 will be taken.
The term “wherein the bra comprises a second textile…comprising: a hydrophilic layer…a hydrophobic layer” in Claim 28 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. See related 112(a) rejection--nowhere is there disclosure found that there is both a first textile (established Claim 23, on which Claim 28 eventually depends on) having hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers and a second textile also having hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers. The only layer having hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers is a single layer, specifically textile 100 shown in Fig. 7. As such, it is unclear where this second textile is located, or if applicant, for Claim 28 alone, intended to recite that textile 100 has a first portion and a second portion, Claim 28 is directed to a second portion (not of the cups). Especially in light of the 112(a) new matter rejections, it is unclear how the interpret the recitations. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, a similar interpretation as in the office action of 7/16/25 will be taken.
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. Even if Claims 23, 28 were interpreted as being first/second portions of textile 100, Claim 30 would still be indefinite. See related 112(a) rejection--The structure of the body of Claim 30 is only supported by element 712 being the “second textile,” which renders the interpretation of first/second textile being first/second portions of textile 100 incorrect. Furthermore, element 712 is never disclosed as having hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers, which Claim 28 requires of the second textile, on which Claim 30 depends. The specification, as indicated in the 112(a) new matter rejections, does not further provide clarity. Especially in light of the issues presented in the 112(a) new matter rejections, it is unclear how the interpret the recitations. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, a similar interpretation as in the office action of 7/16/25 will be taken.
The term “second textile comprises an M-shaped layer” in Claim 31 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even if Claims 23, 28 were interpreted as being first/second portions of textile 100, Claim 31 would still be indefinite. See related 112(a) rejection-- the structure of the body of Claim 31 is only supported by element 810 being the “second textile,” which renders the interpretation of first/second textile being first/second portions of textile 100 incorrect. Furthermore, 810 is never disclosed as having hydrophilic/hydrophobic layers, which Claim 28 requires of the second textile, on which Claim 31 depends. The specification, as indicated in the 112(a) new matter rejections, does not further provide clarity. Especially in light of the 112(a) new matter rejections, it is unclear how the interpret the recitations. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, a similar interpretation as in the office action of 7/16/25 will be taken.
Dependent claims are further rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Interpretation
See pages 7-8 of the office action 7/16/25.
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 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.
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 textile which comprises:
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).
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).
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, 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 Dandapure’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, 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 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").
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’s first textile 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, 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) 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, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Evans (GB 2509745).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Dandapure ‘955 does not explicitly teach wherein the front portion further comprises an M-shaped layer positioned interior to the hydrophilic layer.
Evans teaches wherein the front portion further comprises an M-shaped layer positioned interior to a multi-layer front portion (see Figs. 1, 2; 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).
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 the M-shaped layer positioned interior to the multi-layer of the front portion as taught by Evans in order to provide breast access during breast feeding (abstract).
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, 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).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 23-29 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), and Abbazia (2023/0329360).
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 having a first part and a second part (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—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 each of the first part and the second part comprises 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 at the first/second parts (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 first 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").
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, and therefore first/second parts, to each 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 part being heat-set
and the second part not being heat-set
such that the first part of the first textile has reduced stretch compared to the second part of the first textile.
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 first/second part 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 the first part 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"; 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 part being the cup textile 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 a second part of a cup not being 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”).
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 cup second part 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 first part of the first textile has reduced stretch compared to the second part of the first textile (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 reduced stretch when comparing the first/second parts; 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).
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 textile further comprises a yarn that extends back and forth between the first knit layer and the second knit layer ([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 ([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 (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Fig. 8A), the second textile comprising:
a hydrophilic layer oriented towards the inner-facing side (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"); and
a hydrophobic layer oriented towards the outer-facing side (Dandapure ‘294 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...nylon").
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 (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—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).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 30, 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), and Abbazia (2023/0329360), as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Evans (GB 2509745).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 29.
Dandapure ‘955 does not explicitly teach wherein the front portion of the bra comprises apertures that are uncovered by the second textile,
the apertures permitting access through the second textile when the front portion is unfolded.
Evans teaches wherein the front portion of the bra comprises apertures (25, 25a) that are uncovered by the second textile (22 of 31, 32, 33) (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Figs. 1, 2; 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 (21) when the front portion is unfolded (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Evans teaches the inner layer/stealth layer 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).
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 the stealth layer positioned interior to the multi-layer of the front portion as taught by Evans in order to provide breast access during breast feeding (abstract).
Regarding Claim 31, modified Dandapure '955 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 30.
Evans further teaches wherein the second textile comprises an M-shaped layer positioned interior to the front portion of the bra (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see rejection of Claim 30; 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/25 pertaining to Claims 1-21, 32 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 23-31 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, see reasons below.
The substitute specification submitted 11/14/25 is not entered as it does not provide amendment annotations. As such, previous specification objections have been reiterated. It is also noted that abstract amendments should be on a page separate from specification amendments.
Pertaining to remarks on pages 12-15 for Claims 1-11, 14-17, 19 that Dandapure ‘955 cannot be modified by Dandapure ‘294 because it would destroy the base reference because ‘955 desires to wick/expel moisture while ‘294 desires to conceal moisture, and therefore the references are performing opposite functions—examiner respectfully disagrees. Though ‘955 is being modified to have a different moisture management function, that of ‘294’s, in the substitution of one spacer fabric for another, the references are still in the same art of endeavor of managing moisture, and perform the same function/purpose of keeping moisture away from a user. As such, the functions are not opposing one another, and the modification by ‘294 does not destroy ‘955.
Pertaining to remarks on page 16 for the rejection of Claim 22 to be withdrawn—examiner notes that Claim 22 has been cancelled by applicant.
The remarks on page 16 for Claims 23-29 (and applied to Claims 30, 31 as well) are similarly addressed as indicated above for Claim 1.
Pertaining to remarks on page 17 requesting that the office provide official notice/evidence how Abbazia teaches not heat-set for Claim 23—first, attention is directed to the claim interpretation section of the previous office action of 7/16/25, along with the rejection on pages 7-8 of the office action 7/16/25, wherein the limitations of heat set and not heat set in Claim 23 were indicated as being interpreted as being product by process. As such, no additional references, such as Adams or Abbazia, are necessary. However, to further prove the point, Adams and Abbazia were provided. Nevertheless, to further clarify—Abbazia teaches printing, painting, and stamping indicia on a brassiere, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art understands such methods are without heat-setting, such molding in applicant’s own application, especially without any heat-setting or molding recited. As further evidence, see extrinsic evidence Sherwin Williams wherein one of ordinary skill understands that painting is to be without heat (and therefore without heat-setting), and especially to be without molding. See also extrinsic evidence Skill Builder NPL, at least minutes 7:48-8:20, and extrinsic evidence Skill Builder NPL, at least minutes 8:32-8:53. See also extrinsic evidence Painter NPL for an explanation of paint curing, which is not heat-setting or molding. No heat-setting or molding is disclosed, as paint drying requires evaporation, not heating, heat-setting, or molding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Lin (US Publication 2007/0049163) directed to brassiere foam lining.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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