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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation one or more additional modesty layers in selected regions of the garment, the modesty layers. "Modesty layer" renders the claim indefinite since it does not provide an ascertainable scope of protection, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have not be able to discern which zone refers to as "modest". For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner is interpreting modesty layer to be any layer that covers the body.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 11, 14-18, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoldo (US2025/0040627 A1) in view of Bishop (US2020/0375506 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bertoldo discloses a method of 3D printing a garment (abstract) comprising: 3D printing a first filament [0028-0029] layer extending in a first direction (see 12 a in figure 1); and 3D printing a second filament layer over the first filament layer, the second filament layer extending in a second direction different than the first direction [0068] such that the first and second filament layers overlap one another at a plurality of contact points and collectively define a plurality of open cells [0091-0093, 0062].
Bertoldo does not explicitly disclose a 3d printing band region of the garment comprising an auxetic pattern. However, analogous apparel art, Bishop, discloses using auxetic material [0065]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have incorporated auxetic pattern, as disclosed by Bishop into the method taught by Bertoldo for the benefit of having mechanical properties such as high energy absorption and fraction resistance. Further, MPEP 2144.05 states Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Therefore, it would be in the skillset of one ordinary skill to swap one material for another given its properties. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Bertoldo discloses further comprising printing a third filament layer over the second filament layer, the third filament layer extending in the first direction (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Bertoldo discloses printing a fourth filament layer over the third filament layer (see figure 1). Bertoldo does not explicitly disclose the fourth filament layer extending in the second direction. However, Bertoldo discloses altering the orientation or matching them [0073]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the fourth filament layer extending in the second direction given the limited number of options. MPEP 2144.04 states it’s obvious to try is a prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Regarding claim 4, Bertoldo discloses wherein each cell of the plurality of open cells has minimum height of 1.2 mm and a maximum height of 5.1 mm when the garment is in a relaxed configuration [0074] but does not explicitly disclose a minimum width of 1.8 mm and a maximum width of 3.5 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention also incorporated a width range since width dimension it transmit a pulling force on specific regions and the range can be utilized to selectively better distribute pulling forces and potentially increase comfort. MPEP 2144.05 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 6, Bertoldo does not explicitly disclose the auxetic pattern comprises a plurality of cells each comprising a bowtie shape. However, MPEP 2144.04 states It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a bowtie shape since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination.
Regarding claim 7, Bertoldo discloses wherein one or more filament layers comprises thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) [0080-0081].
Regarding claim 11, Bertoldo discloses a method of 3D printing a garment (abstract) comprising: 3D printing a first filament layer [0028-0029] extending in a first direction (see 12 a in figure 1); and 3D printing a second filament layer over the first filament layer, the second filament layer extending in a second direction different than the first direction such that the first and second layers overlap one another at a plurality of contact points and collectively define a plurality of open cells forming a main body of the garment [0068], wherein the plurality of open cells are arranged in one or more patterns to form a plurality of regions, each region having a modulus of elasticity different from the modulus of elasticity of each of the other regions [0072]; 3D printing a third filament layer over the second filament layer, the third filament layer extending in the first direction (see figure 1); 3D printing a fourth filament layer over the third filament layer (see figure 1),
the fourth filament layer extending in the second direction (Bertoldo does not explicitly disclose the fourth filament layer extending in the second direction. However, Bertoldo discloses altering the orientation or matching them [0073]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the fourth filament layer extending in the second direction given the limited number of options. MPEP 2144.04 states it’s obvious to try is a prima facie evidence of obviousness);
3D printing a plurality of coupling portions coupled to the main body; and coupling each coupling portion of the plurality of coupling portions to one or more other coupling portions to form the garment into a three-dimensional structure [0079].
Bertoldo does not explicitly disclose a 3d printing band region of the garment comprising an auxetic pattern. However, analogous apparel art, Bishop, discloses using auxetic material [0065]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have incorporated auxetic pattern, as disclosed by Bishop into the method taught by Bertoldo for the benefit of having mechanical properties such as high energy absorption and fraction resistance.
Regarding claim 14, Bishop does not explicitly disclose one or more additional modesty layers in selected regions of the garment, the modesty layers configured to increase opacity of the garment in the selected region such that the wearer’s skin is not visible through the garment in the selected region (see figure 2 c in Bishop, regions cover the chest area).
Regarding claim 15, Bishop teaches one or more pockets [0086].
Regarding claim 16, Bishop teaches wherein the coupling portions comprise a plurality of fasteners which are 3D printed as part of the garment [0072].
Regarding claim 17, Bertoldo does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between a center point of two adjacent first filament layers is 0.1 mm and a distance between a center point of two adjacent second filament layers is 0.1 mm. However, Bertoldo discloses different structures and heights of the layers [0072-0074]. MPEP 2144.05 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 18, Bertoldo discloses comprising coupling one or more fabric layers to the garment [0072].
Regarding claim 22, Bishop depicts wherein the garment comprises a plurality of regions including a cup region, an upper cup region disposed above the cup region, a first lower cup region disposed below the cup region, and a second lower cup region disposed below the first lower cup region (see figure 2A and 2B).
As for wherein the upper cup region and the second lower cup region comprise a higher cell density than the cup region and the first lower cup region to provide additional support and reduced stretch, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the second lower cup region have a greater cell density for the benefit of providing support since it would be in the skillset of one ordinary skill to experiment different density levels based on design needs. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoldo (US2025/0040627 A1) in view of Bishop (US2020/0375506 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of NPL, Innovation in textiles.
Regarding claim 8, Bertoldo does not explicitly disclose coupling portions using ultrasonic welding. However, it is conventionally known to use ultrasonic welding to put material together. However, NPL, discloses uses ultrasonic welding (under fabric power) since it is conventionally well known. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoldo (US2025/0040627 A1) in view of Bishop (US2020/0375506 A1) in view of NPL, Innovation in textiles, as applied to claim 8, in view of Hurd (US 2013/0316615 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Bertoldo does not explicitly disclose using a heat press. However, it is conventionally well known to use heat press. Analogous sports bra art, Hurd, discloses using a heat press to couple material together [0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a heat pressing step since it is conventionally well known. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertoldo (US2025/0040627 A1) in view of Bishop (US2020/0375506 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Miller et al (US 2024/0156182 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Bertoldo does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of regions comprises first, second, third, and fourth regions, the first region being configured as a cup region comprising a first cup portion and a second cup portion, the second region being disposed between the first cup portion and the second cup portion, the third region being configured as a band region configured to extend around a wearer's ribcage, and the fourth region being configured as a strap region comprising a first strap portion and a second strap portion; wherein the first region has a greater amount of horizontal stretch than the fourth region. However, analogous art, Bishop, discloses wherein the plurality of regions comprises first, second, third, and fourth regions, the first region (232) being configured as a cup region comprising a first cup portion and a second cup portion (234), the second region (230) being disposed between the first cup portion and the second cup portion, the third region (210) being configured as a band region configured to extend around a wearer's ribcage, and the fourth region (214) being configured as a strap region comprising a first strap portion and a second strap portion (see figures 2A and 2b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the plurality of regions comprises first, second, third, and fourth regions, the first region being configured as a cup region comprising a first cup portion and a second cup portion, the second region being disposed between the first cup portion and the second cup portion, the third region being configured as a band region configured to extend around a wearer's ribcage, and the fourth region being configured as a strap region comprising a first strap portion and a second strap portion based on design needs of the final product.
Further, Bertoldo does not explicitly disclose wherein the first region has a greater amount of horizontal stretch than the fourth region. However, analogous art, Miller et al, discloses different regions of the material in the bra with different elastic modulus and stretch characteristics in different areas [0017, 0040]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the first region has a greater amount of horizontal stretch than the fourth region as disclosed by Miller et al since KSR states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 21, Bishop discloses comprising a fifth region configured as a first lower cup region positioned axially under the first and second cup portions, and a sixth region configured as a second lower cup region positioned axially under the first lower cup region (see figure 2B). As for the second lower cup region comprising areas of greater cell density configured to provide additional support by reducing the amount of stretch in the second lower cup region, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the second lower cup region have a greater cell density for the benefit of providing support since it would be in the skillset of one ordinary skill to experiment different density levels based on design needs. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues modesty has been defined. However, modesty layer" renders the claim indefinite since it does not provide an ascertainable scope of protection, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have not be able to discern which zone refers to as "modest."
Applicant argues Bishop does not disclose the band region comprises an auxetic pattern. However, Bishop discloses [0065] using auxetic materials. Further, the rejections is based on the combination of Bishop and Bertoldo. 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).
Further, MPEP 2144.05 states Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Stevens et al (US 2023/0015684 A1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights