DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on January 2nd, 2025 in which claims 1-40 were presented for examination, amended by preliminary amendment on 10/27/25 to present Claims 1-26, 28, 29, 31-37 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 I, Claims 1-17 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Claim(s) 18-26, 28, 29, 31-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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Since the original election of claims was not traversed, the amendments are to undisputed withdrawn claims. However, examiner notes withdrawn claims will be considered for rejoinder should the elected independent claim, on which the withdrawn claims have been amended to depend upon, become allowable.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 C (Figs. 16A-18, 26-29), Subspecies 5 (Figs. 16B-16E) in the reply filed on 10/27/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species C (multi-layer garment) is related to Species A (elongated members of garment) and Species B (stretch properties 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 11/12/25 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 11/12/25 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 1-17). 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 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
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the same reference character has to used to designate different elements:
Though currently non-elected, for compact prosecution—Fig. 11A needs review for references “144” (twice in Fig. 11A), as they were previously utilized for [0203] “arm hole 144”
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 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:
Claim 3 “unitary elongated members comprise…extrudates…castings, or any combination thereof” is not in the specification; [0111] recites extrudates and castings, but not as a combination
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
At the outset, examiner notes that the status identifiers for Claims 18-26, 28, 29, 31-37 should read (Withdrawn) or (Withdrawn—Currently Amended)
Claim 11 Line 3 before “superior-inferior” delete “the” and substitute –a--
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
Regarding Claim(s) 3-- the recitations are being treated as a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art; more specifically:
The structure of Claim(s) 3 is unitary elongated members
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 1, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salemeh et al (US Publication 2022/095704), herein Salemeh.
Regarding Claim 1, Salemeh 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 abstract "method of making a support garment"; see Fig. 1A: [0079] "Fig. 1 illustrates a custom brassiere front portion"; Salemeh teaches the brassiere which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being a supportive for the upper torso) comprising:
a right breast-covering portion and a left breast-covering portion that comprise a multi-layer construction ([see Fig. 1; [0119] "the cups (and optionally the entire brassiere front portion) has a fabric comfort liner connected thereto…comfort liner can be connected to the brassiere cups (directly….) by any suitable technique, such as by stitching, with adhesive"; for multi-layer-- see Fig. 1; [0119] "the cups (and optionally the entire brassiere front portion) has a fabric comfort liner connected thereto…comfort liner can be connected to the brassiere cups (directly….) by any suitable technique, such as by stitching, with adhesive"; [0112] "A left lateral segment (12), a left underlying segment (13), and a left medial segment (14) are connected to the left cup around a peripheral edge portion thereof; and likewise a right medial segment (14′), a right underlying segment (13′), and a right lateral segment (12′) are all connected to the right cup"; [0112] "lateral segment, underlying segment, and medial segments configured as support structures, having a density or stiffness greater than that of the associated cup");
the muti-layer construction comprising a first layer and a second layer (second layer = [0119] at least one liner; first layer = at least one cup and its support structure of lateral, underlying, and medial segment in [0112]);
the first layer comprising a material panel comprising unitary elongated members that converge with one another at nodes to form a grid of cells (see Fig. 5B; [0083] "additively manufactured, single layer, perforated sheets comprising lattice meshes…that may be incorporated into custom garments"; [0134] "mesh unit cells that are connected…by common shared struts (e.g. the lattices of Figs. 5A-5C)"),
wherein a first unit area of the grid of cells comprise a first property (existence of area meets)
and a second unit area of the grid of cells comprises a second property (existence of area meets),
which is different from the first property ([0113] "cups and support structures …connected"; [0113] "Degree of elasticity will be less in the support structures due to the increased density (i.e. decreased pore size…)"); and
the second layer at least partially coupled to a first side of the material panel (see Fig. 1; [0119] "the cups (and optionally the entire brassiere front portion) has a fabric comfort liner connected thereto…comfort liner can be connected to the brassiere cups (directly….) by any suitable technique, such as by stitching, with adhesive").
Regarding Claim 12, Salemeh further teaches the upper-torso support garment of Claim 1, wherein, in the right breast-covering portion and in the left breast covering portion, an inner facing side of the material panel and an inner facing side of the second layer are concave (see Fig. 3 for concavity),
relative to a center bridge positioned between the right breast-covering portion and the left breast-covering portion (see Fig. 1 relative to bridge).
Regarding Claim 15, Salemeh further teaches the upper-torso garment of Claim 1, wherein the material panel is coupled via stitches to the second layer (see Fig. 1; [0119] "the cups (and optionally the entire brassiere front portion) has a fabric comfort liner connected thereto…comfort liner can be connected to the brassiere cups (directly….) by any suitable technique, such as by stitching, with adhesive").
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salemeh et al (US Publication 2022/095704), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, in view of Farmer et al (USPN 11692304), herein Farmer.
Regarding Claim 14, Salemeh teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Salemeh further teaches wherein the material panel is coupled via an adhesive to the second layer (see Fig. 1; [0119] "the cups (and optionally the entire brassiere front portion) has a fabric comfort liner connected thereto…comfort liner can be connected to the brassiere cups (directly….) by any suitable technique, such as by stitching, with adhesive").
Salemeh does not explicitly teach that the adhesive is hotmelt.
Farmer teaches that the adhesive is hotmelt (see Fig. 4; Col. 17 Line 64-Col. 18 Line 6 "Fig. 4 shows a brassiere ...that can include the film to alter the garment's stress profile. The brassiere includes…two breast cup portions 6 and 10...includes a film 12...film 8...for shaping and support"; Col. 19 Lines 23-29 "an adhesive may be used to attach a film to a fabric or foam layer. Examples of suitable adhesives include, but are not limited to, thermoset or thermoplastic adhesives, pressure sensitive adhesives, hot melt adhesives, and combinations thereof. The adhesive may be used to adhere layers and may be applied to any of the fabric, foam, fabric laminate or film").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemeh’s adhesive to be hotmelt as taught by Farmer based on availability, especially as Farmer teaches hotmelt is a known type of adhesive for cup layers.
Claim(s) 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salemeh et al (US Publication 2022/095704), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, in view of Yip (USPN 9474309), herein Yip.
Regarding Claim 16, Salemeh teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 15.
Salemeh further teaches wherein the material panel is coupled to the second layer via the stitches (see Fig. 1; [0119] "the cups (and optionally the entire brassiere front portion) has a fabric comfort liner connected thereto…comfort liner can be connected to the brassiere cups (directly….) by any suitable technique, such as by stitching, with adhesive").
Salemeh does not explicitly teach wherein the stitches are in combination with one or more additional couplings.
Yip teaches wherein stitches are in combination with one or more additional couplings in a bra (see Figs. 1, 6-9; Col. 3 Lines 51-52 "bra part 10 includes a first garment portion 12 and a second garment portion 14"; Col. 4 Lines 41-43 "first garment portion 12 and the second garment portion 14 each includes an outer layer 30, an inner layer 40"; Col. 4 Lines 45-47 "each of the outer layer 30 and the inner layer 40 includes a fabric layer 32, 42 attached to another fabric layer, such as a respective foam layer 34, 44"; Col. 4 Lines 57-62 "the fabric layers 32, 42 can be attached to the respective foam layers 34, 44 by adhesion by using adhesive, heat lamination, ultrasonic adhesion, stitching or any combination thereof").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemeh’s cup layers to be stitched in combination with at least adhesive as taught by Yip as a known effective securement for brassiere layers.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Salemeh teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Modified Salemeh further teaches wherein the one or more additional couplings comprise an adhesive, a thermal bond, or a combination thereof (see rejection of Claim 16 with Yip).
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 1-9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee et al (US Publication 2019/0246741), herein Busbee in view of Salemeh et al (US Publication 2022/095704).
Regarding Claim 1, Busbee 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. 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)"; [0120] “Fig. 20 illustrates a bra with…graded elements”; Busbee teaches the cup which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being supportive for an upper-torso) comprising:
a breast-covering portion that comprise a multi-layer construction ([0063] "cage structure that covers at least a portion of a bra cup"; [0036] "FIG. 20 illustrates a non-limiting example of an article comprising a bra cup having a curved elongate element comprising a gradient in a property (e.g., stiffness, with a stiffer portion near a base of the cup and a softer portion near a top of the cup)"; [0120] indicates a bra, and therefore right/left cups; for multi-layer-- [0054] " the cage structure is adhered to a substrate (e.g., a textile) in the absence of a separate adhesive"; "the cage structure both acts as a structural element (e.g., holding the substrate in a particular shape) and self-adheres to the substrate 210 (see, e.g., FIG. 7)");
the muti-layer construction comprising a first layer and a second layer ([0054] first layer being the cage structure; the second layer being the textile substrate 210);
the first layer comprising a material panel comprising unitary elongated members that converge with one another at nodes to form a grid of cells (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 the existence of the cage structure indicates a material panel),
wherein a first unit area of the grid of cells comprise a first property (existence of the area meets)
and a second unit area of the grid of cells comprises a second property (existence of the area meets),
which is different from the first property ([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"; wherein stiffness is a property, see [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"); and
the second layer at least partially coupled to a first side of the material panel ([0054] " the cage structure is adhered to a substrate (e.g., a textile) in the absence of a separate adhesive"; "the cage structure both acts as a structural element (e.g., holding the substrate in a particular shape) and self-adheres to the substrate 210 (see, e.g., FIG. 7)").
Busbee does not explicitly teach that the breast-covering portion/cup of the garment is a right breast-covering portion and a left breast-covering portion.
Salemeh teaches wherein a cup/breast-covering portion is of a right breast-covering portion and a left breast-covering portion of an upper-torso garment (see Fig. 1; [0119] "the cups (and optionally the entire brassiere front portion) has a fabric comfort liner connected thereto…comfort liner can be connected to the brassiere cups (directly….) by any suitable technique, such as by stitching, with adhesive").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Busbee’s cup to be of left/right portions of an upper-torso garment as taught by Salemeh as a well-known arrangement for bra cups, especially as Busbee teaches its cup being of a bra.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Busbee teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Busbee further teaches wherein the first property comprises, as compared to the second property, one or more of a different stretch property, a different cell size, a different cell shape, and a different cell density ([0051] cell size/shape for pore size; [0051] pore concentration for density).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Busbee teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Busbee teaches wherein the unitary elongated members comprise unitary elongated 3-D printed extrudates, unitary elongated castings, or any combination thereof ([0080] “cage structure is printed (e.g. 3D printed)…printing comprises extrusion”; Busbee already teaches unitary elongated members, see rejection of Claim 1, see Fig. 7 for unitary; nevertheless, see claim interpretation; the recitation “3-D printed extrudates, castings, or any combination thereof” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if Busbee’s methods results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other unitary elongated member-forming methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the method of Busbee above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art; in other words, the unitary elongated members of Busbee teaches the 3-D printed extrudates or castings of Claim 3 because it has the structure of Claim 3; see also extrinsic evidence McKeen et al USPN 10390571 as casting cage structures is a known process in the art).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Busbee teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Busbee further teaches wherein the unitary elongated members comprise a substantially homogenous material ([0051] " wherein the cage structure comprises a single integrated material”).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Busbee teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 4.
Busbee further teaches wherein the substantially homogenous material comprises an elastomer ([0045] "elongate element of the cage structure comprises a polymer. The polymer may comprise…a thermoplastic polyurethane", wherein it is known in the art that TPU is an elastomer, furthermore in light of Claim 6 depending on Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Busbee teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Busbee further teaches wherein the substantially homogenous material comprises a polyurethane ([0045] "elongate element of the cage structure comprises a polymer. The polymer may comprise…a thermoplastic polyurethane").
Regarding Claim 7, modified Busbee teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Busbee further teaches wherein the substantially homogenous material comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane ([0045] "elongate element of the cage structure comprises a polymer. The polymer may comprise…a thermoplastic polyurethane").
Regarding Claim 8, modified Busbee teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Busbee further teaches wherein the second layer comprises one or more of a knit textile, a woven textile, and a non-woven textile ([0054] "at least a portion of the cage structure is attached to a substrate (e.g., a textile) 210 (see e.g., Fig. 6)...textile comprises a nonwoven textile 500 (see, e.g., Fig. 9), a woven textile 400 (see, e.g., Fig. 8), a knit textile, or a combination thereof"; [0055] In some embodiments, the substrate (e.g., textile) is made at least in part from naturally occurring material (e.g., cotton, cellulose, silk) or synthetic material (e.g., a synthetic polymer, e.g., a polyester, a nylon, a polyether-polyurea copolymer such as spandex, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene). The substrate (e.g., textile) in some embodiments comprises a metal").
Regarding Claim 9, modified Busbee teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Busbee further teaches wherein the second layer comprises a knit textile ([0054] "at least a portion of the cage structure is attached to a substrate (e.g., a textile) 210 (see e.g., Fig. 6)...textile comprises a nonwoven textile 500 (see, e.g., Fig. 9), a woven textile 400 (see, e.g., Fig. 8), a knit textile, or a combination thereof"; [0055] In some embodiments, the substrate (e.g., textile) is made at least in part from naturally occurring material (e.g., cotton, cellulose, silk) or synthetic material (e.g., a synthetic polymer, e.g., a polyester, a nylon, a polyether-polyurea copolymer such as spandex, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene). The substrate (e.g., textile) in some embodiments comprises a metal"),
and wherein, the knit textile and the material panel comprise different stretch properties (the materials of the knit textile and material panel are different and therefore have different properties; material of knit textile/second layer—see [0054], [0055] above; for material of material panel/first layer-- [0045] "elongate element of the cage structure comprises a polymer. The polymer may comprise…a thermoplastic polyurethane").
Regarding Claim 13, modified Busbee teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Busbee further teaches wherein the material panel is coupled directly to the second layer ([0054] " the cage structure is adhered to a substrate (e.g., a textile) in the absence of a separate adhesive"; "the cage structure both acts as a structural element (e.g., holding the substrate in a particular shape) and self-adheres to the substrate 210 (see, e.g., FIG. 7)").
Claim(s) 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee et al (US Publication 2019/0246741), herein Busbee in view of Salemeh et al (US Publication 2022/095704), as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Oneyear et al (USPN 6824445), herein Oneyear, and Chhaya et al (USPN 11529227), herein Chhaya.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Busbee teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 9.
Busbee already teaches wherein the knit textile comprises wales and courses (all knits comprise wales and courses).
Busbee does not explicitly teach that the knit textile is a weft knit textile.
Oneyear teaches a weft knit textile (see Figs. 3, 4; Col. 3 Lines 2-3 "brassiere 100 has a pair of breast cups...20"; Col. 4 Lines 27-28 "inner cup liner 65 may be a woven, warp knitted, or weft knitted fabric").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Busbee’s knit textile to be weft (as opposed to warp) depending on the degree of stretchability desired, as known in the art (see extrinsic evidence Biggs et al US Publication 2007/0293937).
Modified Busbee does not explicitly teach and wherein, as compared to the unitary elongated members, the wales comprise a different longitudinal orientation.
However, modified Busbee already teaches members of a first layer (unitary elongated members of cage structure) and members of second layer (wales of knit textile, made weft by Oneyear) in a breast-related cup.
Chhaya teaches wherein the members of a first layer, as compared to members of a second layer, comprise a different longitudinal orientation in a breast-related cup (see Figs. 2D, 2G; "abstract "implant for insertion…comprises a plurality of unit cells arranged to form a three-dimensional lattice structure"; Col. 5 Lines 50-51 “implant 101 may be derived based on a construction volume (The desired or required volume) of a breast to the be constructed by the implant 101”; Col. 8 Lines 60-64 "Each lateral layer 126 of unit cells may include a first sublayer 136A (or a first group of sublayers) comprising lines 128 oriented in a first direction, and a second sublayer 136B (or second group of sublayers) of lines 129 oriented in a second direction different to the first direction"; Col. 4 Line 66-Col. 5 Line 17 "Each unit cell 102 of the plurality of unit cells may 102 include, and/or may be formed from intersecting (or e.g. criss-crossing) lines of the plurality of lines forming and/or defining the individual unit cells 102 (e.g. forming walls enclosing the individual unit cells). The plurality of lines may form and/or contribute to the overall mesh-like three-dimensional lattice structure 101. The intersecting lines may be arranged, so that each unit cell 102 formed from the intersecting lines may include or may be referred to as a pore, having a pore size. Thus, the plurality of intersecting lines may form or define the plurality of pores of the unit cell 102. For example, the intersecting lines may form or define a geometry (e.g. shape, dimension, pore size) of the individual unit cells 102 (e.g. each unit cell 102) of the three-dimensional structure 101. The plurality of unit cells 102 may be arranged to form the porous network of the three-dimensional structure 101. The porous network may refer to (and/or may include) the pores of the plurality of unit cells 102 within the three-dimensional structure 101”; Col. 14 Lines 4-6 "The compressibility of the three-dimensional structure 101 of the implant may be based on (or e.g. proportional to) the bulk porosity and/or total void space of the implant").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Busbee's breast-related layers to be at different orientations as taught by Chhaya in order to control the porosity of formed lattice structures, and therefore the compressibility (Col. 14 Lines 4-6), and thereby meet the recitation.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Busbee teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Modified Busbee at least suggests wherein the different longitudinal orientation of the wales is, as compared to the unitary elongated members, more aligned in the superior-inferior orientation of the upper-torso support garment (see rejection of Claim 10 wherein modified Busbee is capable of such an orientation).
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to which layer is more aligned ([0236] of application), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Busbee to be of the orientation as recited based on where the porosity is desired, especially as there are a finite number of solutions without unexpected results.
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: Kassel (US Publication 2009/0203295) directed to knit instead of woven textiles; Wallace et al (US Publication 2023/0093048), Todaro et al (US Publication 2022/0248775) directed to first mesh layer and second textile layer in a brassiere; Barbour et al (US Publication 2006/0025039) directed to two inner layers of mesh; Khouri (USPN 6478656), Schlueter (US Publication 2015/0018936), Akins (US Publication 2023/0320434), Harman (USPN 2457369) directed to mesh at a bra cup; Warren (USPN 8486317) directed to a molded brassiere; Brock et al (GB 1453447) directed to extruded/laminated mesh grid in a garment; dePew et al (US Publication 2025/0331579), dePew et al (US Publication 2025/0331581), Ho et al (US Publication 2023/0413926) directed to related cases; Kurz (USPN 4232620), Groshens (USPN 5153056) directed to unitary elongated members made by extrusion; Tago et al (US Publication 2022/0251379), Castelazo (USPN 10681940) directed to cast molding; Geer (USPN 7421805) directed to cast molding TPU; Muhlenfeld et al (USPN 11484076) directed to molding TPU; Casillas et al (USPN 12127608), Scott et al (USPN 8915764), Casillas et al (USPN 12063986), Hendrickson (USPN 7878881), Yuasa et al (USPN 9011199) directed to second layer as knit textile; Poegl et al (USPN 12213556), Huffa et al (US Publication 2019/0344477), McCampbell (US Publication 2016/0101333), Rousseau et al (USPN 8413661), Robinson et al (US Publication 2014/0288577), Limem et al (USPN 9655715), Vendely et al (USPN 10166023), Holschuh et al (US Publication 2020/0375270) directed to advantages of knit over woven, or weft knit over warp knit; Xing et al (USPN 10640915), Camella (US Publication 2019/0291698), Jensen et al (USPN 9932081) directed to mesh of glass and/or TPU; Staub (US Publication 2006/0223414) directed to mesh straps; Rendone (USPN 11849775) directed to spacer knit as second textile in addition to mesh of elongated members.
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