DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 3/26/26 in which claims 1, 2, 4-18, 20, 22, 23, 25-27, 29, 30 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Objections
Claim(s) 12, 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 Line 2 before “incorporated” delete “be” and substitute –being—
Claim 15 Line 2 before “incorporated” delete “be” and substitute –being--
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 4-7, 25-27 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “a connecting yarn” in Claim 4 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this term differs from “tie yarns” in Claim 1 Line 24.
The term “a connecting yarn” in Claim 4 Line 2 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even if the term is referring to Claim 1 Line 24, it is unclear which specific singular yarn Claim 4 is referring to of the plurality of yarns established in Claim 1 Line 24.
The term “the connecting yarn” in Claim 5 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether this term refers to that of Claim 4 or a specific singular yarn of Claim 1 Line 24.
The term “the connecting yarn” in Claim 5 Line 2 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even if the term refers to that of Claim 4, it is unclear which specific singular yarn Claim 5 is referring to of the plurality of yarns established in Claim 1 Line 24.
The term “the connecting yarn” in Claim 5 Line 2 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even if the term refers to that of Claim 1, it is unclear which specific singular yarn Claim 5 is referring to of the plurality of yarns established in Claim 1 Line 24.
The term “the connecting yarn” in Claim 6 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether this term refers to that of Claim 4, of Claim 5, or a specific singular yarn of Claim 1 Line 24.
The term “the connecting yarn” in Claim 6 Line 2 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even if the term refers to that of Claim 5, it is unclear which specific singular yarn Claim 6 is referring to of the plurality of yarns established in Claim 1 Line 24.
The term “the connecting yarn” in Claim 6 Line 2 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even if the term refers to that of Claim 4, it is unclear which specific singular yarn Claim 6 is referring to of the plurality of yarns established in Claim 1 Line 24.
The term “the connecting yarn” in Claim 6 Line 2 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even if the term refers to that of Claim 1, it is unclear which specific singular yarn Claim 6 is referring to of the plurality of yarns established in Claim 1 Line 24.
The term “a lower portion” in Claim 25 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this lower portion differs from that in Claim 23 Line 9. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered the same. Though Claim 25 is currently not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for failing to further limit due to a recitation of a “center area of the front portion”, the recitations seem redundant of Claim 23.
The term “a first lateral leg” in Claim 25 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this lower portion differs from that in Claim 23 Line 11. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered the same. Though Claim 25 is currently not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for failing to further limit due to a recitation of a “center area of the front portion”, the recitations seem redundant of Claim 23.
The term “a second lateral leg” in Claim 25 Line 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this lower portion differs from that in Claim 23 Line 13. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered the same. Though Claim 25 is currently not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for failing to further limit due to a recitation of a “center area of the front portion”, the recitations seem redundant of Claim 23.
The term “a center leg” in Claim 25 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this lower portion differs from that in Claim 23 Line 15. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered the same. Though Claim 25 is currently not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for failing to further limit due to a recitation of a “center area of the front portion”, the recitations seem redundant of Claim 23.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically:
Claim 9 fails to further limit, as it indicates that the spacer mesh is knit. However, Claim 8, on which Claim 9 depends, already claims the same, that the textile frame is a spacer mesh (Claim 8) that is knit (Claim 1 Line 22 “textile frame comprises a spacer knit”).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
See pages 8-9 of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-11, 14-17, 20, 23, 25-27, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montford et al (US Publication 2018/0070653), herein Montford, in view of Dandapure et al (US Publication (2023/0172294), herein Dandapure.
Regarding Claim 1, Montford 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; however, see Fig. 2; [0016] "bra 100"; Montford teaches the bra/garment which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of supporting an upper-torso) comprising:
a front portion (see Fig. 1) comprising:
an inner-facing side and an outer-facing side (see Figs. 1, 2; [0016] "Fig. 1 illustrates…exterior layer 102…Fig. 2 illustrates…interior layer 202");
a first lateral edge, a second lateral edge (see Figs. 2, 6 where the front portion interior layer 202 has first/second edges where 602 terminates at 207, being an edge when worn, in light of [0016] “respective side wing portion 205, 207 that wraps around the side of a wearer”, wherein the wrap/bend indicates an edge, inasmuch as applicant specification has also indicates “edges” in front Fig. 11 relative to back Fig. 12; nevertheless, outermost edges of 202 can also be considered first/second edges)
and a lower edge extending between the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge (see Fig. 2 where at least 226 is located, if not also 224 and its mirror counterpart; [0018] "main material structure of bra 100 may be constructed primarily from a single piece of material that forms the cups, the side wings and back portions of the garment, and in some embodiments, the material may be knitted in a variety of patterns to provide different properties in different areas of the garment. For example, FIG. 2 shows three different knitting patterns: a knitting pattern for the lower edge of the garment 224; an under-bust knitting pattern 226; and, a side wing knitting pattern 228");
a first breast covering area and a second breast covering area between the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge (see Fig. 2 for between; [0016] "cup portions 204, 206" of [0016] "interior layer 202"; Montford teaches the interior layer with areas which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for covering first/second breasts, especially in light of the cup portions),
a frame that is coupled to the inner-facing side (see Fig. 6; [0025] "the external support platform 602 may be attached to the garment by laminating, stitching, knitting, fusing or by other means known in the art at a center line of a garment interposed between the laterally-shaped cups 504 and at the side wing portion 206"),
the frame comprising:
a lower portion extending along an underband region of the front portion (see Fig. 2 for lower portion of 602 which runs along the underband region of 224, 226, 228);
a first lateral leg extending upward from a first side of the lower portion, the first lateral leg positioned adjacent to the first lateral edge; a second lateral leg extending upward from a second side of the lower portion, the second lateral leg positioned adjacent to the second lateral edge; and a middle leg extending upward from the lower portion between the first breast covering and the second breast covering area to a neckline edge of the front portion (see Figs. 2, 3, 6 for 602 having the extent; see Figs. 2, 6 especially for first/second lateral legs adjacent to the first/second lateral edges, and the middle leg extending as recited; wherein legs are directly adjacent to the edges of the front portion as delineated by 205, 207 and 602; wherein legs are adjacent to the edges of the front portion as delineated by the outermost edges of 202, inasmuch as the term adjacent has been defined; wherein Fig. 2 clearly shows an extent of the middle leg extending to a neckline edge as recited).
Montford does not explicitly teach that the frame is a textile,
wherein the textile frame comprises a spacer knit having a first knit layer and a second knit layer spaced apart from one another,
and having a plurality of tie yarns interlooped between the first knit layer and the second knit layer,
wherein the knit first layer comprises a hydrophilic layer
and the second knit layer comprises a hydrophobic layer.
However, Montford at least suggests that the support frame is a textile ([0021] "internal bust support 402 may be a stabilizing fabric", wherein [0019], [0025] indicate materials of 602 capable of being textile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montford’s external support to be a fabric similar to its internal support for easier manufacturing and/or for stabilizing ([0021]).
Nevertheless, Dandapure teaches a textile (10) comprising:
wherein the textile comprises a spacer knit having a first knit layer and a second knit layer spaced apart from one another ([0047] "fabric 10 is made with a knitting construction…double jersey plaited construction for example (as shown in Fig. 1)", wherein Fig. 1 shows a spacer knit),
and having a plurality of tie yarns interlooped between the first knit layer and the second knit layer (see Fig. 1 for interloop and between; [0040] "connecting yarn 16 binds together the back fabric layer 12 and the face fabric layer 14"; wherein bind/connect indicates tie; for plurality-- [0044] “connecting yarn 16 is preferably a zig-zag structure between the back fabric layer 12 and the face fabric layer 14. The connecting yarn 16 can be…multiple strands. Each strand of the plurality of strands of the connecting yarn 16 can have independent zig-zag structure”);
wherein the knit first layer comprises a hydrophilic layer (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
and the second knit layer comprises a hydrophobic layer (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 Montford’s external support frame 602 to be the spacer fabric of Dandapure, as a known effective material for handling moisture in garments ([0002], [0003]), contributing to appearance and/or comfort ([0003]), which Montford would desire as well in a nursing garment ([0001]), especially as both Dandapure and Montford utilize similar materials, such as nylon and/or spandex (see Montford [0019], [0025]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Montford already teaches wherein the first knit layer defines the hydrophilic layer of the textile frame and the second knit layer defines the hydrophobic layer of the textile frame (see rejection with Dandapure in Claim 1 teaching as such for the modified textile frame of Montford).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Modified Montford further teaches wherein the textile frame further comprises a connecting 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--see Dandapure Fig. 1; [0040] "connecting yarn 16 binds together the back fabric layer 12 and the face fabric layer 14").
Regarding Claim 5, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 4.
Dandapure further teaches wherein the connecting yarn comprises a hydrophobic yarn (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--[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 Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Dandapure further teaches wherein the connecting yarn comprises an elastic yarn (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--[0044] "connecting yarn can be an elastane").
Regarding Claim 7, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 6.
Dandapure further teaches wherein the elastic yarn comprises a bare elastic yarn (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- [0044] has no indication of covering, and therefore is bare).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Modified Montford further teaches wherein the textile frame comprises a spacer mesh (see Dandapure 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 Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 8.
Dandapure 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)").
Regarding Claim 10, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Modified Montford further teaches wherein the W-shaped textile frame comprises a knit tubular jacquard textile (see claim interpretation; see Dandapure 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 Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Dandapure 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 Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Dandapure 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 Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 14.
Dandapure 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 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’s 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 reference method in Montford 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 Montford 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 Montford’s hydrophobic yarn as provided by Dandapure 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 Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Dandapure 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 Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Modified Montford further teaches wherein an inner-most face of the textile frame comprises the first knit layer (see Dandapure 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/first knit layer is the innermost-face of the front portion when modifying Montford layer 602 in Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Modified Montford further teaches an outer textile positioned external to the first breast covering area and the second breast covering area and positioned external to the textile frame (see Montford Figs. 1, 3; [0016] "exterior layer 102" which is external to both the interior layer 202 and the textile).
Regarding Claim 23, Montford 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; however, see Fig. 2; [0016] "bra 100"; Montford teaches the bra/garment which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of supporting an upper-torso) comprising:
a front portion (see Fig. 1) comprising:
an inner-facing side and an outer-facing side (see Figs. 1, 2; [0016] "Fig. 1 illustrates…exterior layer 102…Fig. 2 illustrates…interior layer 202");
a first lateral edge, a second lateral edge (see Figs. 2, 6 where the front portion interior layer 202 has first/second edges where 602 terminates at 207, being an edge when worn, in light of [0016] “respective side wing portion 205, 207 that wraps around the side of a wearer”, wherein the wrap/bend indicates an edge, inasmuch as applicant specification has also indicates “edges” in front Fig. 11 relative to back Fig. 12; nevertheless, outermost edges of 202 can also be considered first/second edges)
and a lower edge extending between the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge (see Fig. 2 where at least 226 is located, if not also 224 and its mirror counterpart; [0018] "main material structure of bra 100 may be constructed primarily from a single piece of material that forms the cups, the side wings and back portions of the garment, and in some embodiments, the material may be knitted in a variety of patterns to provide different properties in different areas of the garment. For example, FIG. 2 shows three different knitting patterns: a knitting pattern for the lower edge of the garment 224; an under-bust knitting pattern 226; and, a side wing knitting pattern 228");
a first breast covering area and a second breast covering area (see Fig. 2; [0016] "cup portions 204, 206" of [0016] "interior layer 202"; Montford teaches the interior layer with areas which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for covering first/second breasts, especially in light of the cup portions); and
a frame (602) coupled to the inner-facing side of the front portion (see Figs. 2, 3, 6; [0025] "external support platform 602 overlays the interior layer 202 of the material support of the bra, extending along the underside of a first laterally-separate cup 206, and generally may be visible on the inwardly-facing side of the bra"; for coupled-- see Fig. 6; [0025] "the external support platform 602 may be attached to the garment by laminating, stitching, knitting, fusing or by other means known in the art at a center line of a garment interposed between the laterally-shaped cups 504 and at the side wing portion 206"),
the frame comprising:
a lower portion positioned beneath the first breast covering area and the second breast covering area (see Fig. 2 for lower portion of 602 beneath at least portions of cup portions 204, 206),
a first lateral leg extending upward from the lower portion along the first lateral edge of the front portion, a second lateral leg extending upward from the lower portion along the second lateral edge of the front portion (see Figs. 2, 3, 6 for the extent; see Figs. 2, 6 especially for first/second lateral legs adjacent to the first/second lateral edges wherein legs are directly adjacent to the edges of the front portion as delineated by 205, 207 and 602; wherein legs are adjacent to the edges of the front portion as delineated by the outermost edges of 202, inasmuch as the term adjacent has been defined);
a center leg extending upward from the lower portion between the first breast covering area and the second breast covering area to a neckline edge of the front portion (wherein Fig. 2 clearly shows an extent of the middle leg extending to a neckline edge as recited),
wherein the first breast covering area comprises a first terminal edge and the second breast covering area comprises a second terminal edge (see Fig. 1, wherein first/second terminal edges are of 102/202 at the cup portions, wherein cup edges are formed at the pattern 226);
wherein the frame is coupled to the first terminal edge and the second terminal edge such that the frame forms a boundary around at least a portion of each of the first breast covering area and the second breast covering area (as aforementioned for frame coupled-- see Fig. 6; [0025] "the external support platform 602 may be attached to the garment by laminating, stitching, knitting, fusing or by other means known in the art at a center line of a garment interposed between the laterally-shaped cups 504 and at the side wing portion 206"; as such, 602 is coupled to the edges at least eventually; see Fig. 2 where textile frame forms a boundary around at least a portion of the cups 204/206).
Montford does not explicitly teach that the frame is a textile,
wherein at least a portion of the textile frame comprises a spacer knit having a first knit layer and a second knit layer spaced apart from one another,
wherein the knit first layer comprises a hydrophilic layer
and the second knit layer comprises a hydrophobic layer.
However, Montford at least suggests that the support frame is a textile ([0021] "internal bust support 402 may be a stabilizing fabric", wherein [0019], [0025] indicate materials of 602 capable of being textile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montford’s external support to be a fabric similar to its internal support for easier manufacturing and/or for stabilizing ([0021]).
Nevertheless, Dandapure teaches a textile (10) comprising:
wherein at least a portion of the textile comprises a spacer knit having a first knit layer and a second knit layer spaced apart from one another ([0047] "fabric 10 is made with a knitting construction…double jersey plaited construction for example (as shown in Fig. 1)", wherein Fig. 1 shows a spacer knit, especially further in light of [0040] "connecting yarn 16 binds together the back fabric layer 12 and the face fabric layer 14"; [0044] “connecting yarn 16 is preferably a zig-zag structure between the back fabric layer 12 and the face fabric layer 14”),
wherein the knit first layer comprises a hydrophilic layer (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
and the second knit layer comprises a hydrophobic layer (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 Montford’s external support frame 602 to be the spacer fabric of Dandapure, as a known effective material for handling moisture in garments ([0002], [0003]), contributing to appearance and/or comfort ([0003]), which Montford would desire as well in a nursing garment ([0001]), especially as both Dandapure and Montford utilize similar materials, such as nylon and/or spandex (see Montford [0019], [0025]).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 23.
Modified Montford further teaches wherein the textile frame comprises a lower portion that is positioned proximate to the lower edge of the front portion (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Montford Fig. 2 for 602 which has been modified by Dandapure to be textile spacer fabric),
a first lateral leg extending upward from the lower portion along the first lateral edge of the front portion (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Montford Fig. 2),
a second lateral leg extending upward from the lower portion along the second lateral edge of the front portion (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Montford Fig. 2),
and a center leg extending upward from the lower portion to a center area of the front portion (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Montford Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 25.
Montford further teaches wherein the first lateral leg is positioned between the first lateral edge and the first breast covering area (see Fig. 2),
the second lateral leg is positioned between the second lateral edge and the second breast covering area (see Fig. 2),
and the center leg is positioned between the first breast covering area and the second breast covering area (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 26.
Modified Montford further teaches wherein the textile frame has a W-shape (see Montford Fig. 2 for 602 shape).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Montford further teaches wherein the first lateral leg extends upward from the lower portion to a first armhole edge of the front portion, and the second lateral leg extends upward from the lower portion to a second armhole edge of the front portion (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Montford further teaches wherein the textile frame is positioned beneath the first breast covering area and the second breast covering area (see Montford Fig. 2 where 602 is beneath at least a portion of 204, 206).
Claim(s) 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montford et al (US Publication 2018/0070653), herein Montford, in view of Dandapure et al (US Publication (2023/0172294), herein Dandapure, further in view of Van Emden et al (USPN 7682994), herein Van.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
Montford 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 Montford’s hydrophilic yarn/layer as provided by Dandapure 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 Montford 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 Montford’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 method in Montford 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 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 Montford’s hydrophilic yarn as provided by Dandapure 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 Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Dandapure 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 Montford’s hydrophilic yarn/layer as provided by Dandapure 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 Montford et al (US Publication 2018/0070653), herein Montford, in view of Dandapure et al (US Publication (2023/0172294), herein Dandapure, further in view of Wang (US Publication 2020/0307150).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Montford does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the hydrophobic layer and the hydrophilic layer comprises recycled polyester.
Wang teaches wherein the hydrophobic layer comprises recycled polyester (see Fig. 2 for spacer; [0013] "fabric structure 10…includes an outer fabric layer 12, an inner fabric layer 14 and a central fabric layer 16"; [0013] "The central fabric layer 16 is interposed between the outer fabric layer 12 and the inner fabric layer 14. The central fabric layer 16 consists of a plurality of wave-like fibers 161... the wave-like fibers 161 are intertwined between the outer fabric layer 12 and the inner fabric layer 14"; [0014] "outer fabric layer 12 and the inner fabric layer 14 are knitted"; [0015] "outer fabric layer 12 is knitted with...recyclable material (such as PET)", wherein it is known in the art that PET is a type of polyester; [0017] "fabric structure of the present invention may be used as the cloth for female 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 Montford’s hydrophobic layer’s polyester as provided by Dandapure to be of recycled polyester as taught by Wang as a known material for an outermost layer of a brassiere, especially in the context of wanting heat dissipation ([0017]) such as in bras ([0004]), which Montford is as well ([0001]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montford et al (US Publication 2018/0070653), herein Montford, in view of Dandapure et al (US Publication (2023/0172294), herein Dandapure, further in view of McBride (US Publication 2017/0105458).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Montford does not explicitly teach wherein the first breast covering area and the second breast covering area comprise a first foam pad and a second foam pad.
However, Montford does teach first/second areas capable for breast covering at the interior/exterior layers (see rejection of Claim 1; Figs. 1-3; [0019] “layers 102, 202”; [0017] “cup portions 204, 206”).
McBride teaches wherein the first breast covering area and the second breast covering area comprise a first foam pad and a second foam pad ([0027] "bra may selectively include padding, such as…foam…which is removably disposed between the cups 12 and breasts of a wearer, such as in pockets formed in the interior surface of the cups 12").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montford’s bra to have the first/second foam pads as taught by McBride in order to help keep the aesthetic appearance of a wearer of the bra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-18, 20, 22, 23, 25-27, 29, 30 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 17 that Montford teaches a support structure/element 602 that extends around the torso of the wearer rather than terminating at the lateral edges based on [0020]-[0024] and therefore does not teach the claims—examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims currently do not require termination at an edge. Examiner notes that the claims can be read in light of the specification to help disclose what is included within broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, but that limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969), MPEP 2111.
Furthermore, Pertaining to remarks on page 17 that Montford teaches a support structure/element 602 that extends around the torso of the wearer rather than terminating at the lateral edges based on [0020]-[0024] and therefore does not teach the claims—examiner respectfully disagrees. In Fig. 2 of Montford, which remarks replicate, 602 clearly is not illustrated as extending around the entirety of the torso. Fig. 6, as directed to in the office action, also shows that 602 clearly has a limited extent, ending at [0016] “side wing portion…207”. Remarks seem to be directed to the combination of patterns 224, 226, 228.
Pertaining to remarks on page 17 that “the claimed textile frame….extends only across the front portion”—examiner respectfully disagrees. Similarly as aforementioned, such a remark is not claimed. The current broadest reasonable interpretation does not require limiting the extent to only across the front portion. Even if the limitation were amended, as aforementioned, 602 clearly has such a limited extent.
Pertaining to remarks on page 17 that the textile frame of the invention extent toward the armhole edges and terminate and those edges rather than continuing around and therefore Claim 1 is not met—examiner respectfully disagrees. First, armhole edges are not claimed until new Claim 29. Secondly, termination is not required under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Furthermore, 602 clearly extends as recited.
Pertaining to remarks on page 17 that Dandapure ‘294 does not teach or suggest certain recitations—the remarks are piecemeal and are met by Montford. 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 18 that the office action did not teach certain recitations—examiner notes that the remarks are directed to amended limitations. However, the amended limitations are directed to the same concepts as previously recited— for example, Claim 4 of the previous rejection seems to have incorporated all the recitations currently argued. However, no specific remarks of why the rejection of Claim 4 is incorrect. Furthermore, the examiner already explained in the interview of 10/9/25 that the spacer knit is taught by Dandapure ‘294.
Furthermore, the remarks on page 18 indicate that the combination does not teach the limitations—examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the actual motivation to combine the references has not been argued.
Pertaining to remarks on page 19 that amended Claim 23 is not taught—examiner respectfully disagrees, and again indicates that the amendments are directed to same concepts as previously recited, such as in Claim 4, and no specific remarks are provided as to why Claim 4 does not teach the recitations.
Furthermore, the remarks on page 19 indicate that the combination does not teach the limitations—examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the actual motivation to combine the references has not been argued.
Pertaining to remarks about Claim 23 further requiring coupling to terminal edges—there is no specific remark as to why the prior art does not teach this structure. Attention is directed to the rejection herein.
Even if amendments were such that termination points of the frame extend to an edge, examiner notes that the term “edge” is broad, and that Montford still shows as such.
Even if amendments were made such that specific termination points of the frame were provided relative to outermost edges of the front portion, attention is directed to at least the pertinent art in the conclusion section herein, wherein such extents are known in the art. An edge is formed at any bend, and no explicit seams further delimiting edges between front/rear portions, or even individual front/rear panels, of the elected embodiment have been provided in the original disclosure.
No further suggestions are able to be provided at this time.
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: MacColl et al (USPN 11553740), Reinisch et al (USPN 8128457), Anderson et al (USPN 12342876), Roberts et al (US Publication 2024/0090596) directed to extent of W-shape frame in a brassiere; Blecha et al (USPN 11246354) directed to brassiere with front/back portions; Lien et al (USPN 11324262), Randall et al (USPN 11172711) directed to a W-shaped frame for breasts.
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