DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on January 2nd, 2025 in which claims 1-32 were presented for examination, amended by preliminary amendment on 10/27/25 to present claims 2-4, 12-32 for examination.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims
Applicant’s election of Group II, Claims 14-24 in the reply filed on 10/27/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim(s) 2-4, 12, 13, 25-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/25.
Since the original election of claims was not traversed, the amendments are to undisputed withdrawn claims. However, examiner notes withdrawn claims will be considered for rejoinder should the elected independent claim, on which the withdrawn claims have been amended to depend upon, become allowable.
Species: Original Traversal Persuasive
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B (Figs. 5-15, 26-29) the reply filed on 10/27/25 is acknowledged, and the election of Subspecies and withdrawn Claims 16-18 is not applicable due to the specific species election. However, the traversal is on the ground(s) that Species B (stretch properties of garment) is related to Species A (elongated members of garment), as set forth on page 5 of the restriction requirement of 8/27/25.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, a courtesy call was made to attorney of record Andrew O’Brien on 11/21/25 to provide a corrected species requirement, and an election over the phone. See below.
Corrected Species Requirement/Election (Traversal Not Persuasive)
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A—Figs. 1A-18
Species B—Figs. 19-21
Species C—Figs. 22-25
Should applicant elect any of Species A-C, applicant is required to further elect one of the following subspecies:
Subspecies 1-- Figs. 1A-3E
Subspecies 2-- Figs. 1A-17
Should applicant elect Subspecies 2, applicant is required to further elect one of the following subspecies:
Group A’-- Figs. 16A, 7
Group B’-- Figs. 16B-16E
The species/subspecies/groups are independent or distinct because:
Species A—upper torso garment
Species B—lower torso shorts
Species C—lower torso leggings
In addition:
Subspecies 1--garment with single layer (mesh textile)
Subspecies 2--garment with double layer (mesh textile and second textile)
Furthermore:
Group A’-- garment with pocket
Group B’--garment without pocket
In addition, these species/subspecies/groups are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species/subspecies/groups, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species/subspecies/groups, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species/subspecies/groups as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species/subspecies/groups to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species/subspecies/groups or grouping of patentably indistinct species/subspecies/groups, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species/subspecies/groups requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species/subspecies/groups or grouping of patentably indistinct species/subspecies/groups.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species/subspecies/groups, or groupings of patentably indistinct species/subspecies/groups from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species/subspecies/groups unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species/subspecies/groups.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species/subspecies/groups which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
During a telephone conversation with Andrew O’Brien on 11/21/25 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Species A, Subspecies 2, Group B’ (Figs. 1A-17 with upper torso garment, double layer, no pocket, any mesh textile) subject to the restricted claim limitations (and therefore examination of only Claims 14-24). Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Traversal was made due to the stance that there is no undue search burden. This is not found persuasive because the embodiments would require multiple different fields of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Claim 14 “first coupling portion that is unitary with the first material panel…second coupling portion that is unitary with the first material panel; a seam…joining the first coupling portion to the second coupling portion” is not in the drawings
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the same reference character has been used to designate different elements:
Fig. 11A needs review for references “144” (twice in Fig. 11A), as they were previously utilized for [0203] “arm hole 144”
Though currently non-elected, for compact prosecution-- the drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
[0126] Fig. 1C does not include “perimeter border demarcation (e.g., 5C)”
Beginning in [0243], “1013a” is not in Fig. 16C
Beginning in [0243], “1013b” is not in Fig. 16C
Beginning in [0243], “1013c” is not in Fig. 16C
Beginning in [0243], “1013d” is not in Fig. 16C
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:
The abstract is requested for review as it should be directed to the elected embodiment, and should therefore differ from the abstract of related case 19/008,600 (US Publication 2025/0221470), in which a different embodiment was elected
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At the outset, both the terms “hotmelt” and “hot melt” have been utilized in the specification; consistency is required, or a statement in the specification that “hotmelt/hot melt” are the same
[0034] “front portion of Fig. 16C” should read “front portion of Fig. 16B”
[0066] first sentence—the term “waveform” should have quotation marks around it
[0086] “second breast-covering portion can include a breast cup” should have the term “6” after “portion”
[0104] “can very” should read “can vary”
[0168] “main body 90” should read “main body 85”
[0203] “call-outs D, E, and F in Fig. 5” should read “Fig. 9”
[0231] as “second textile 1012” is established, it is recommended to establish that “mesh textile 1010” is a first textile
[0237] “textile1016” is missing a space
[0251] After “In some examples” add –(e.g. Fig. 17)—in order to mention Fig. 17 in the detailed description; otherwise, the figure is only mentioned in the description of drawings
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 16-18 is not found in the specification, though related disclosure is found in [0210] and [0219]; the recitations should be placed in an appropriate section of the specification, such as the summary
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) 14-24 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “first coupling portion that is unitary with the first material panel…second coupling portion that is unitary with the first material panel; a seam…joining the first coupling portion to the second coupling portion” in Claim 14 Lines 4-9 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the recitation should read that the second coupling portion is unitary with the second material panel, such that the recitation is referring to, for example, 152a and 152b of Fig. 11A and [0219]. Otherwise, it is unclear how two couplings of the same panel are joined together. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as though the second coupling portion is unitary with the second material panel.
The term “thicknesses of the first material panel, the second material panel, and the seam” in Claim 19 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 15, on which Claim 19 depends, already established “wherein the first material panel comprises a first thickness”. As such, the antecedent basis of Claim 19 establishing a different thickness of the first material panel is not clear as to whether it was intentional and to what structure the term refers to. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term “thickness of the first material panel” in Claim 19 will be considered the same as Claim 15.
The term “third property” in Claim 22 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. There cannot be a third without also first/second. Claim 22 establishes a first, but a second property was established only in Claim 20, which Claim 22 does not directly or indirectly depend on. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 22, depending on Claim 21, will be interpreted as though Claim 21 depended on Claim 20.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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) 14, 16-18, 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnin et al (US Publication 2009/0305608), herein Bonnin, in view of Busbee et al (US Publication 2019/0246741), herein Busbee.
Regarding Claim 14, Bonnin 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. 1; [0001] "invention relates to textile lingerie article…which is concave…such as a brassiere cup"; Bonnin teaches the brassiere cup 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 first material panel (see Fig. 1 for 1a other than the area for [0027] “heated strip 4”; [0026] “to join together edge-to-edge…two contiguous pieces, for example 1a and 1b”),
a first coupling portion that is unitary with the first material panel (for first coupling portion--see Fig. 4 for portion of 1a that is for [0027] "heated strip 4"; see Fig. 4 for unitary);
a second material panel (see Fig. 1 for 1b other than the area for [0027] “heated strip 4”),
a second coupling portion that is unitary with the first material panel (see Fig. 4 for portion of 1b that is for [0027] "heated strip 4"; see Fig. 4 for unitary);
a seam comprising a thermal weld joining the first coupling portion to the second coupling portion (see Fig. 4; [0026] "to join together edge-to-edge…two contiguous pieces…1a and 1b…welding operation is carried out"; [0027] "blower 25…activate the heat-bondable surface of a reinforcing strip 4, which is placed on the wrong side of the pieces 1a, 1b welded edge to edge by the weld seam 3").
Bonnin does not explicitly teach the first material panel comprising first unitary elongated members that converge with one another at nodes to form a first grid of cells;
the second material panel comprising second unitary elongated members that converge with one another at nodes to form a second grid of cells.
However, Bonnin already taught that the panels are of a brassiere cup ([0001]).
Busbee teaches the first material panel comprising first unitary elongated members that converge with one another at nodes to form a first grid of cells (see Fig. 20; [0063] "a cage structure with a gradient in stiffness between a first region and a second region is provided. In some embodiments, a cage structure for a bra cup (e.g., that comprises an underwire for a bra)"; wherein one of first/second region is first material panel; [0120] “Fig. 20 illustrates a bra with…graded elements”; see Figs. 1 for cell; see Fig. 7 for grid; [0040] “cage structure comprises a cell 100 or a plurality of cells 100 (see, e.g. Fig. 1). The cell…comprises one or more elongate elements 110 and zero or more nodes 120 attached to one more elongate elements (see, e.g., Fig. 1)”; although recitations may be directed to a different embodiment, such as Figs. 1, 7, it is understood that Fig. 20 having the same terms and concepts as recited for Fig. 1 as applicable would also have the recitations apply to Fig. 20; wherein at least a portion of the cage structure indicates a first material panel),
the second material panel comprising second unitary elongated members that converge with one another at nodes to form a second grid of cells (see aforementioned for the other of first/second region with similar cell/grid structure recitations; nevertheless, any two areas of Fig. 20 cage structure can be of first/second material panels, furthermore in light of [0063] "the cage structure (e.g., that comprises an underwire) for a bra comprises a gradient in stiffness, wherein the stiffness of the cage structure is greater near the base of the cup (e.g., near the underwire) and the stiffness of the cage structure is less near the top of the bra cup"; [0051] “In some embodiments, a difference in properties between a first portion and a second portion of the cage structure may comprise a gradient of one or more properties of the cage structure...wherein the property or properties is/are e.g., color, average stiffness, average Shore A hardness, average pore size, pore concentration, average density, average hardness, average degree of cross-linking, average chemical composition, average largest dimension of particles (e.g., reinforcing particles), weight percent of particles (e.g., reinforcing particles), volume percent of particles (e.g., reinforcing particles), compression strength, slip resistance, abrasion resistance, heat deflection temperature, and/or coefficient of thermal expansion").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonnin’s textile with the cage structure of Busbee to provide desired properties in the area(s) as desired ([0051], [0063]).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Bonnin teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 14.
Modified Bonnin further teaches wherein the first material panel comprises a first quantity of filament layers (Busbee’s teaching of at least one filament layer indicates a first quantity at the first material panel of Bonnin)
and the first coupling portion comprises a second quantity of filament layers (Busbee’s teaching of at least one filament layer indicates a second quantity at the first coupling portion of Bonnin).
Modified Bonnin at least suggests wherein the coupling portion quantity of filament layers is less than the first quantity of filament layers of the first material panel (see Busbee Fig. 20; [0073] “the cage structure (e.g. polymeric cage structure)”; [0073] “stiffness of a cage structure (e.g., comprising polyurethane) printed onto a bra cup”; see Fig. 3; [0019] “Fig. 3…cage structure”; [0095] “printing one or more polymer layers (e.g., 2 polymer layers, 3 polymer layers, [four] polymer layers…Fig. 3”; it is understood that Fig. 20 having the same terms and concepts as recited for Fig. 3 as applicable would also have the recitations apply to Fig. 3; wherein [0051] indicates that stiffness can vary between top/base of the cup, and [0063] indicates that not only can stiffness vary, but an average density; wherein a difference in the quantity of layers would affect the average density; as such, Bonnin’s first material and coupling portion, also being of a cup as taught by Busbee, can have varying density and varying quantity of filament layers between top/base).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonnin’s first coupling portion to have less layers/less average density than the first material panel, in order to have the desired (amount of) properties in the desired areas.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Bonnin teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Modified Bonnin at least suggests wherein the second quantity is about one-half the first quantity (see rejection of Claim 16, especially Busbee [0095] “one or more polymer layers (e.g., 2 polymer layers, 3 polymer layers, [four] polymer layers”, indicating there can be 2 layers and 4 layers).
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the quantity of filament layers (see specification objection for lack of antecedent basis), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonnin’s second quantity to be about one-half the first quantity (such as 2 and 4) for the desired (amount of) properties in the desired areas.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Bonnin teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 17.
Modified Bonnin further teaches wherein the first quantity is four and the second quantity is two ([0095] for 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Bonnin teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 14.
Busbee further teaches wherein first cells of the first grid comprise a first property (the existence of 1a meets having a first property) and
second cells of the second grid comprise a second property (the existence of 1b meets having a second property),
which is different from the first property ([0051], [0063], wherein degrees of stiffness or other properties can differ).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Bonnin teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 14.
Modified Bonnin further teaches wherein the first coupling portion comprises third unitary elongated members that converge with one another at nodes to form a third grid of cells (see Bonnin, where first coupling portion is portion of 1a at 4; wherein 1a is of the elongated members based on Busbee and meet the recitation).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Bonnin teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 21.
Busbee further teaches wherein first cells of the first grid comprise a first property (the existence of 1a meets having a first property) and
third cells of the third grid comprise a third property (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--the existence of 1a at 4 meets having a third property),
which is different from the first property ([0051], [0063], wherein degrees of stiffness, cell size, cell density, or other properties can vary).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Bonnin teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 22.
Busbee at least suggests wherein the first property is cell size, and wherein the third cells comprise a smaller cell size ([0051], wherein “pore size” indicates cell size; inasmuch [0063] indicates that stiffness is greater in lower portion and [0051] indicates stiffness along with cell size is the difference in properties, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that cell size can similarly be different in lower/upper portion of cup and therefore meet the recitation, such that a section of upper/lower portion of 1a at 4 is different from a section of lower/upper portion of 1a not at 4 in that it has a smaller cell size).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonnin’s third cells such that at least a section is smaller than at least a section of the first cells as taught by Busbee in order to provide desired properties in desired areas.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Bonnin teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 22.
Busbee at least suggests wherein the first property is cell density, and wherein the third cells comprise a higher cell density ([0051], wherein “pore concentration” indicates cell density; inasmuch [0063] indicates that stiffness is greater in lower portion and [0051] indicates stiffness along with cell size is the difference in properties, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that cell density can similarly be different in lower/upper portion of cup and therefore meet the recitation, such that a section of upper/lower portion of 1a at 4 is different from a section of lower/upper portion of 1a not at 4, in that it has a higher cell density).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonnin’s third cells such that at least a section is of a higher cell density than at least a section of the first cells as taught by Busbee in order to provide desired properties in desired areas.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnin et al (US Publication 2009/0305608), herein Bonnin, in view of Busbee et al (US Publication 2019/0246741), herein Busbee, further in view of Shih (USPN 6514590), herein Shih ‘590.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Bonnin teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 14.
Bonnin further teaches wherein the first material panel comprises a first thickness (the existence of the first panel indicates a first thickness),
and the first coupling portion comprises a second thickness (the existence of the first coupling portion indicates a second thickness).
Bonnin does not explicitly teach wherein the second thickness is about half the first thickness.
Shih ‘590 teaches wherein the second thickness of the coupling portion is about half the first thickness of the material panel (see Figs. 3, 4; abstract "seam structure includes a base edge joint having a L-shaped cross section provided at an end edge of the first…sheet and a covering edge joint having a L-shaped cross section provided at an end edge of the second…sheet"; Col. 3 Lines 19-23 "thickness of the root portion 31a equals to the thickness of the first...sheet 21 and he end portion 31b is reduced to a ...preferably half of the thickness of the first...sheet 21"; Col. 3 Lines 30-34 "thickness of the roots portion 32a equals to the thickness of the second...sheet 22 and the end portion 32b is reduced to...preferably half of the thickness of the second rubber sheet 22"; Col. 3 Lines 50-58 "to connect the first and second rubber sheets 21, 22 edge-to-edge, adhesive substance is evenly applied to both the base connecting surface 311 and the covering connection surface 321. Then, press the covering connection surface 321 against the base connection surface 311 until the base and covering connection surfaces 311, 321 are firmly adhered with each other, so that the covering edge joint 32 is overlappingly connected on top of the base edge joint 31 to form the seam structure 30 of the present invention").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonnin’s thicknesses to be as recited as Shih ‘590 in order to increase the connection surface area between panels without increasing thickness and/or to provide waterproof and/or insulative features (Col. 1 Line 55-Col. 2 Line 2), especially being in the same art of endeavor as garments (Col. 1 Lines 7-12).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnin et al (US Publication 2009/0305608), herein Bonnin, in view of Busbee et al (US Publication 2019/0246741), herein Busbee, and Shih (USPN 6514590), herein Shih ‘590, further in view of Shih (USPN 6124010), herein Shih ‘010.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Bonnin teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 15.
Modified Bonnin does not explicitly teach wherein thicknesses of the first material panel, the second material panel, and the seam are in a range between about 0.4 mm and about 0.55 mm.
However, Shih ‘590 of modified Bonnin already taught L-shape first/second materials in the context of a seam.
Shih ‘010 at least suggests first thicknesses of the first material panel, the second material panel, and the seam are in a range between about 0.4 mm and about 0.55 mm for L-shape first/second materials in the context of a seam (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—for shape-- see Fig. 7; Col. 6 Lines 3-11 "wherein each of the base and covering connection surfaces 311, 321 of the base and covering edge joints 31, 32 has a L-shaped cross section to respectively define a base horizontal connection surface 311a and a covering horizontal connection surface 321a. The seam structure 30a of this third alternative mode can also achieve similar advantages such as increasing the connection surface area without increasing the thickness of the foam sheets 21, 22"; for thicknesses-- Col. 1 Lines 49-55 "conventional seam structure…thickness of the foam sheet 11 or 12 must only be varied from 2 mm to 7 mm. No foam sheet thinner than 2mm can be used because it is extremely difficult to firmly glue such thin end edge together"; wherein Shih ‘010 teaches desiring thicknesses below 2 mm, encompassing the range).
Nevertheless, in the case that the prior art of Shih ‘010 lacks sufficient specificity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shih ‘010’s range of thicknesses from less than 2 mm into between about 0.4 mm and about 0.55 mm and thereby meet the range as claimed, as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see applicant specification [0209]) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonnin’s thicknesses, as provided by Shih ‘590, to be in the range recited, especially in light of Shih ‘010, depending on the degree of insulation desired, especially as Shih ‘010 has similar motivations as Shih ‘590, such as desiring to increase connection surface area, such as in order to increase adhesion, waterproofing and insulation, especially in the same art of endeavor as garments (Shih ‘010 Col. 6 Lines 9-11; Col. 2 Lines 20-28), and especially as Shih ‘010’s specifically discloses modifying prior art (Fig. 2) similar to Bonnin (Fig. 4).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 14, 20 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 19/008,298 (de Pew et al US Publication 2025/0221471) in view of Bonnin et al (US Publication 2009/0305608), herein Bonnin.
The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference application are compared in the table below.
Claim 1 of the reference application 19/008,298 recites all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Specifically, the upper-torso garment is taught inasmuch as ‘298 teaches the garment with regions which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for support for an upper-torso, especially as there is a region for a ribcage, wherein each of the first/second material panels, being first/second cup portions as taught by Claim 12 of the reference application, are formed by first/second filament layers forming open cells and contacting one another at nodes thereby being unitary elongated members converging with one another at nodes to form grids of cells; wherein the plurality of coupling portions coupled to the main body having first/second material panels indicates first/second coupling portions unitary with first and/or second material panels (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections).
As such, Claim 1 of the reference application 19/008,298 recites all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application except “a seam comprising a thermal weld joining the first coupling portion to the second coupling portion.”
However, Bonnin teaches a seam comprising a thermal weld joining the first/second cup portions (see Fig. 4; [0026] "to join together edge-to-edge…two contiguous pieces…1a and 1b…welding operation is carried out"; [0027] "blower 25…activate the heat-bondable surface of a reinforcing strip 4, which is placed on the wrong side of the pieces 1a, 1b welded edge to edge by the weld seam 3"; wherein Bonnin teaches a seam/thermal weld between first/second cup portions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reference application with Bonnin as an effective method of coupling regions together.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this modification teaches a seam comprising a thermal weld joining the first/second coupling portions (Bonnin’s first/second cup portions are thermal welded/seamed, wherein the first/second cup portions are coupled to first/second coupling portions; as such, the thermal weld seam at least eventually joins the first/second coupling portions).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
856
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
342
808
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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: Diaz et al (USPN 10368590) having varying knit properties in the brassiere straps and cups; Mientjes et al (USPN 11213078) directed to strap seams in a brassiere similar to applicant’s; Reinisch et al (USPN 8128457) directed to mesh/seam at strap; Fellouhe et al (US Publication 2008/0196136) directed to garment seams; dePew (US Publication 2025/0331579), dePew et al (US Publication 2025/0331581), dePew et al (USPN 2025/0221470), Ho et al (US Publication 2023/0413926) directed to related applications; Wanzenboeck et al (USPN 8745829) directed to welding layers; Hadley (USPN 3314844) directed to coupling portion being partial thickness of a panel thickness; Fujikawa et al (USPN 6851125) directed to grid coupling portion of seams; Punsal (USPN 8900032) directed to back seam in a brassiere similar to applicant’s; Keum et al (US Publication 2024/0055146) directed to mesh brassiere strap; Kiln (GB 526433) directed to underband.
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