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 11/17/25 has been entered. Claims 1-18, 20, 22, 23, 25-27 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following:
Clarification is requested of Fig. 11 in light of Fig. 13 and [0097] as to what the “triangular” side pieces were (see annotated original Fig. 11 below); it is unclear whether these pieces were:
outer textile 1105 (as they are not seen in Fig. 13 when the outer textile 1105 is removed, but instead that area is all “cross-hatch” of the textile 100/W-shaped frame structure 1314 in Fig. 13), or
textile 100/W-shape frame structure 1314 in light of [0097] “right leg portion 1316 forms the first front lateral edge 1116….left leg portion 1320 forms the second front lateral edge 1118” and therefore are incorrectly illustrated in Fig. 11 and should instead be the “cross-hatch” in Fig. 13
PNG
media_image1.png
247
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 W-shaped layer), especially in light of related application 16/898,644 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) 19, 21, 24, 28 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As a courtesy, the response herein is examined on its merits; however, future formality issues may warrant a notice of non-compliance
Claims 19, 21, 24, 28 status identifier is missing parentheses; the status identifier should read “(Cancelled)”; see CFR 1.121;
Claim 28 has not been amended based on the previously submitted (original) set of claims of 9/26/24, such as due to the spacing in Line 2
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 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) 1-11, 14-17, 20, 23, 25-27 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 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),
a W-shaped frame that is coupled to the inner-facing side, the W-shaped frame comprising a lower portion, a pair of lateral leg portions, and a center leg portion, wherein the center leg portion extends upward between each of the first breast covering area and the second breast covering area from an underband to a neckline region (see Figs. 2, 3, 6; for W-shaped-- [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"; for underband—[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"; see Figs. 2, 6 especially for portions and extent).
Montford does not explicitly teach that the frame is a textile, the textile comprising
a hydrophilic layer oriented towards the inner -facing side
and a hydrophobic layer oriented towards the outer-facing side.
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]).
Dandapure teaches a textile (10) comprising:
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 Montford’s external support 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.
Dandapure 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 Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Dandapure 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 Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 3.
Modified Montford further teaches wherein the W-shaped textile frame further comprises a yarn that extends back and forth between the first knit layer and the second knit layer (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 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 Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Dandapure further teaches wherein the yarn comprises an elastic yarn ([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 ([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 W-shaped 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)"; wherein knits are mesh).
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 be 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 at least a portion of an inner-most face of the front portion comprises the hydrophilic 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 would be a portion of the innermost-face of the front portion in Montford layer 602).
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 W-shaped 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 front lateral edge and a second front lateral edge, and a lower edge extending between the first front lateral edge and the second front lateral edge (see Fig. 2 for edges; for lower edge-- [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 positioned between the first front lateral edge and the second front lateral edge and above the lower edge (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);
a frame that is coupled to the inner-facing side (see Figs. 2, 3, 6; for W-shaped-- [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"),
the frame extending along the first front lateral edge, the lower edge, and the second front lateral edge (see Fig. 2),
wherein the frame comprises a center leg portion that extends upward from the lower edge between the first breast covering area and the second breast covering area to a neckline edge (see Figs. 2, 3, 6; for W-shaped-- [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"; see Figs. 2, 6 especially for portions and extent).
Montford does not explicitly teach that the frame is a textile, and wherein the textile comprises
a hydrophilic layer oriented towards the inner -facing side
and a hydrophobic layer oriented towards the outer-facing side.
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]).
Dandapure teaches a textile (10) comprising:
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 Montford’s external support 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 (602) comprises a lower portion that is positioned proximate to the lower edge (see Fig. 2),
a first leg portion extending from the lower portion and along the first front lateral edge (see Fig. 2),
a second leg portion extending from the lower portion and along the second front lateral edge (see Fig. 2),
and the center leg portion extending form the lower portion to a center area of the textile (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Montford teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 25.
Montford further teaches wherein the first leg portion is positioned between the first front lateral edge and the first breast covering area (see Fig. 2),
the second leg portion is positioned between the second front lateral edge and the second breast covering area (see Fig. 2),
and the center leg portion 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 has a W-shape (see Fig. 2 for 602).
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 (2023/0177294), 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 be 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 be 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 (2023/0177294), 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 (2023/0177294), 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
The drawings are still objected to based on the remarks 11/17/25 page 1 indicating that the triangular side pieces have been removed from Fig. 11 as “these pieces are part of the outer textile”; Fig. 11 clearly shows the front portion with the outer textile 1105; as such, it is unclear why these pieces alone have been removed; it is further unclear whether original Fig. 11 was inadvertently incorrectly illustrated.
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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18, 20, 22, 23, 25-27 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 4 that substituting Dandapure’s moisture-management knit in place of Montford’s laminated structural platform would remove the structural support that Montford relies on—examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Montford does not teach a laminated structural platform—Montford teaches in [0025] that platform 602 may be attached to the garment “by laminating, stitching, knitting, fusing or by other means”, but is not in and of itself a laminate structure.
Next, no evidence has been provided that Dandapure does not provide structural support. Especially as Dandapure utilizes similar materials as Montford, this is not found persuasive-- see Dandapure wherein the third yarn 24 of the second layer face fabric layer 14 can be nylon, polyester, and/or spandex ([0042]). See also Dandapure wherein the fourth yarn 20 of the back fabric layer 12 can also be nylon, polyester, and/or spandex ([0043]). Montford utilizes nylon, polyester, and/or spandex ([0025] “platform 620 may be…the same stretchable material as the interior and exterior layers of the garment, although the invention is not so limited”; [0019] “bra 100 is constructed with an interior layer 202…and an exterior layer 102…created from…stretchable material…blend of …nylon and…spandex...it will be appreciated, however, that there are numerous types of materials…suitable”).
Additionally, the actual motivation for combination on page 15 of the office action was not addressed.
Furthermore, pertaining to remarks on page 4 that Montford is to retain shape and resist deformation—this seems to be directed to [0021] regarding element 402, wherein the rejection was instead directed to 602.
Pertaining to remarks on page 5 that neither Montford nor Dandapure teach or suggest amended claim 1—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).
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: Qin (US Publication 2024/0225139) directed to inner-facing W-shaped textile in a brassiere; Der Hoeven (USPN 11464261) directed to inner-facing W-shape structure of foam in a brassiere; Feigenbaum et al (USPN 5033986), Pinon et al (US Publication 2025/0290238) directed to an inner-facing W-shaped textile that has a center leg portion extending to the neckline edge in a brassiere.
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