DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on October 26, 2025 has been received. Claims 1-16 and 18 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
The Examiner further notes that while Applicant has provided arguments with respect to Mitchell and Stanton, Applicant has not provided any specific arguments with respect to the additional rejections under 35 USC 103 over Bastug, Campbell, and Yeung; Bastug and Campbell; and Bastug, Campbell, and Coggiola-Belza (see pages 9-21 of the Non-Final Rejection). These rejections have been updated in light of Applicant’s claim amendments, and are provided below.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Seamless Bra with Adhesive Layer.”
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“A bra comprising a bra body and shoulder straps, the bra body comprising an inner layer, an outer layer and an adhesive layer, the inner layer and the outer layer are integrally knitted as one piece, and at least part of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer, the bra is seamless” should read: “A bra comprising a bra body and shoulder straps, the bra body comprising an inner layer, an outer layer and an adhesive layer, wherein the inner layer and the outer layer are integrally knitted as one piece, and at least part of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer, and wherein the bra is seamless” to enhance clarity, form, and readability of the claim.
Likewise, claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“A bra comprising a bra body and shoulder straps, a molded cup and a connecting strap connected to the bra body, a first end of the connecting strap is connected to the bra body, the bra body comprising an inner layer, an outer layer and an adhesive layer, the molded cup is located between the inner layer and the outer layer, the inner layer or the outer layer is provided with a perforation, and a second end of the connecting strap passes through the perforation and is connected to the molded cup, the inner layer and the outer layer are integrally knitted as one piece, and at least part of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer, the bra is seamless” should read: “A bra comprising a bra body and shoulder straps, a molded cup and a connecting strap connected to the bra body, wherein a first end of the connecting strap is connected to the bra body, the bra body comprising an inner layer, an outer layer and an adhesive layer, wherein the molded cup is located between the inner layer and the outer layer, the inner layer or the outer layer is provided with a perforation, and a second end of the connecting strap passes through the perforation and is connected to the molded cup, wherein the inner layer and the outer layer are integrally knitted as one piece, and at least part of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer, and wherein the bra is seamless” to enhance clarity, form, and readability of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 18 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 18 recites the limitation “wherein a knitting density of the inner layer and the outer layer corresponding to a lower bust area of the bra body is greater than that of an area around the lower bust area, so as to form better elasticity in the lower bust area.” The limitation is indefinite, as it is unclear what is included or excluded by the term “better elasticity.” The Examiner notes that “better” is a subjective term, and it is unclear if “better” corresponds to a lower elasticity, higher elasticity, etc. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows, in accordance with paragraph 0044 of the specification: “wherein a knitting density of the inner layer and the outer layer corresponding to a lower bust area of the bra body is greater than that of an area around the lower bust area, so as to provide improved support and compression.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 18 (regarding claim 18, as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeung et al. (herein Yeung)(US PG Pub 2002/0022433).
Regarding claim 1, Yeung discloses a bra (see Figs. 1, 2, and 9) comprising:
a bra body (bust and back covering portions of 100, 200) and shoulder straps (shoulder covering portions of 100, 200), the bra body comprising an inner layer (100), an outer layer (200), and an adhesive layer (see at least paragraphs 0048 and 0053 and claim 13),
wherein the inner layer and the outer layer are integrally knitted as one piece (see at least paragraph 011), and at least part of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer (see at least paragraphs 0048 and 0053 and claim 13), and wherein the bra is seamless (see Title, Abstract, and paragraphs 0003, 0011, and 0048).
Regarding claim 9, Yeung further discloses wherein the inner layer and the outer layer (100 and 200) are integrally joined by rib knitting (108; see at least Fig. 9 and paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 18, Yeung further discloses wherein a knitting density of the inner layer and the outer layer (100 and 200) corresponding to a lower bust area of the bra body (108) is greater than that of an area around the lower bust area (110), so as to form better elasticity in the lower bust area (see at least Fig. 9 and paragraphs 0057-0070).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, and 18 (regarding claim 18, as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (herein Mitchell)(US PG Pub 2006/0021388) in view of Yeung.
Regarding claim 1, Mitchell discloses a bra (bra formed from blank 34, see Figs. 4-8) comprising a bra body (main structure of bra excluding straps 88) and shoulder straps (88), the bra body comprising an inner layer (44) and an outer layer (46; see Figs. 4-8 and paragraphs 0030-0041), wherein the inner layer and the outer layer are integrally knitted as one piece (see paragraphs 0030-0041), and wherein the bra is seamless (see at least Abstract and paragraph 0033).
Mitchell substantially discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to further disclose wherein the bra body includes an adhesive layer, and wherein at least part of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer.
However, Yeung teaches a seamless knitted bra (see Figs. 1, 2, and 9 and paragraphs 0003, 0011, 0033, and 0048), wherein the bra includes an inner layer (100), and outer layer (200), and an adhesive layer (see at least paragraphs 0048 and 0053 and claim 13), wherein at least part of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer (see at least paragraphs 0048 and 0053 and claim 13), so as to allow portions of the inner and outer layers to be selectively attached together in a comfortable, non-abrasive manner (see paragraphs 0003, 0010-0011, 0048, and 0053).
Therefore, based on Yeung’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mitchell’s bra body to further include an adhesive layer, wherein at least part of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer; as doing so would allow portions of the inner and outer layers to be selectively attached together in a comfortable, non-abrasive manner.
Regarding claim 9, the modified bra of Mitchell (i.e., Mitchell in view of Yeung) is further disclosed wherein the inner layer and the outer layer (44 and 46 of Mitchell) are integrally joined by rib knitting (70, 72 of Mitchell; see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph 0037 of Mitchell).
Regarding claim 11, the modified bra of Mitchell (i.e., Mitchell in view of Yeung) is further disclosed wherein the inner layer and the outer layer (44 and 46 of Mitchell/100 and 200 of Yeung) are a single piece of material that is integrally knitted, after folding the material (along fold region 38 of Mitchell, see Figs. 4-8 and paragraphs 0030-0034 of Mitchell) at least some regions of the inner layer and outer layer are bonded together through the adhesive layer, thereby forming the inner layer and the outer layer on the front and back sides, respectively (see Figs. 4-8 and paragraphs 0030-0041 of Mitchell; Figs. 1, 2, and 9 and paragraphs 0033-0037, 0048, and 0053 and claim 13 of Yeung, and rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, the modified bra of Mitchell (i.e., Mitchell in view of Yeung) is further disclosed wherein a knitting density of the inner layer and the outer layer (44 and 46 of Mitchell) corresponding to a lower bust area of the bra body (lower bust area 70, 72 of Mitchell; see at least Fig. 4 of Mitchell) is greater than that of an area around the lower bust area (breast cups 56, 58 of Mitchell, which are located around the lower bust area, see at least Figs. 6 and 8 of Mitchell), so as to form better elasticity in the lower bust area (see Figs. 4-8 and paragraphs 0036-0037 of Mitchell; lower bust area 70, 72 is formed of a rib stitch “to provide a close contact to the body of the wearer” and therefore forms “better elasticity” than the jersey knit stitch of breast cups 56, 58; the Examiner also notes that rib knit stitches are known in the art to provide greater compression, support, and conformability compared to less dense stitch patterns such as jersey knit stitches, e.g., see paragraph 0029 of Mitchell which describes wherein the corresponding rib knit in a related embodiment allows the lower bust area “to function as a chest band to provide slightly firmer contact to the wearer than the first and second courses” (i.e., the body portion of the inner and outer layers)).
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastug et al. (herein Bastug)(US PG Pub 2022/0061410) in view of Campbell (US PG Pub 2014/0349550), further in view of Yeung.
Regarding claims 1-2, Bastug discloses a bra (100) comprising a bra body (102, 104) and shoulder straps (106), the bra body comprising an inner layer (122) and an outer layer (120), wherein the bra body further comprises a molded cup (108, see Figs. 1-2 and 5, paragraphs 0018-0024, and note below), wherein the molded cup is located between the inner layer and the outer layer (see Figs. 1-2 and 5 and paragraphs 0018-0024).
It is noted that the recitation of “molded” is a product-by-process limitation. 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. See MPEP 2113. 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. The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself.
Bastug substantially discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to further disclose wherein the inner layer or the outer layer is provided with a perforation, and the shoulder strap passes through the perforation and is connected to the molded cup.
However, Campbell teaches a bra (101) comprising a bra body forming an outer layer (115), a pair of shoulder straps (120), and a pair of cups (125) provided interior to the outer layer (see rear view of Fig. 1B and paragraphs 0033-0040), wherein the outer layer is provided with a perforation (140), and an extension (135) of each shoulder strap passes through the perforation and is connected to a respective cup of the pair of cups (see Fig. 1B and paragraphs 0033-0040), to allow the cup(s) to be adjustably lifted relative to the outer layer, for enhanced breast support and/or shaping (see paragraphs 0002-0007 and 0038-0040).
Therefore, based on Campbell’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Bastug’s bra, wherein the inner layer or the outer layer is provided with a perforation, and the shoulder strap passes through the perforation and is connected to the molded cup, as doing so would allow the cup(s) to be adjustably lifted relative to the outer layer, for enhanced breast support and/or shaping.
Bastug also fails to disclose wherein the bra body further comprises an adhesive layer, the inner layer and the outer layer are integrally knitted as one piece, at least a portion of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer, and the bra is seamless.
However, Yeung teaches a bra (100) comprising a bra body (100, 200) comprising an inner layer (100) and an outer layer (200) that are integrally knitted in one piece (see at least paragraph 0011), wherein the bra body further comprises an adhesive layer (see at least paragraphs 0048 and 0053 and claim 13), at least part of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer (see at least paragraphs 0048 and 0053 and claim 13), and wherein the bra is seamless (see Title, Abstract, and paragraphs 0003, 0011, and 0048), so as to provide a seamless construction between the inner and outer layers that enhances flexibility and comfort and reduces chafing and pinching (see paragraphs 0011 and 0048).
Therefore, based on Yeung’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Bastug’s inner and outer layers to be integrally knitted as one piece and bonded together in at least a portion thereof via an adhesive layer, so as to form a seamless bra construction; as doing so would provide a seamless construction between the inner and outer layers that enhances flexibility and comfort and reduces chafing and pinching.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Bastug discloses a bra (100) comprising a bra body (102, 104) and shoulder straps (106), the bra body comprising an inner layer (122) and an outer layer (120), wherein the bra body further comprises a molded cup (108, see Figs. 1-2 and 5, paragraphs 0018-0024, and note below).
It is noted that the recitation of “molded” is a product-by-process limitation. 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. See MPEP 2113. 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. The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself.
Bastug substantially discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to further disclose wherein the bra further comprises a connecting strap connected to the bra body, wherein a first end of the connecting strap is connected to the bra body, the inner layer or the outer layer is provided with a perforation, and a second end of the connecting strap passes through the perforation and is connected to the molded cup.
However, Campbell teaches a bra (101) comprising a bra body forming an outer layer (115), a pair of shoulder straps (120), and a pair of cups (125) provided interior to the outer layer (see rear view of Fig. 1B and paragraphs 0033-0040), wherein the bra further comprises a connecting strap (135) connected to the bra body, wherein a first end (top end) of the connecting strap is connected to the bra body (at least indirectly via shoulder straps 120, see Fig. 1B and paragraphs 0033-0040), and the outer layer is provided with a perforation (140), and a second end (bottom end) of the connecting strap passes through the perforation and is connected to a respective cup of the pair of cups (see Fig. 1B and paragraphs 0033-0040), to allow the cup(s) to be adjustably lifted relative to the outer layer, for enhanced breast support and/or shaping (see paragraphs 0002-0007 and 0038-0040).
Therefore, based on Campbell’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Bastug’s bra to further include a connecting strap connected to the bra body, wherein a first end of the connecting strap is connected to the bra body, the inner layer or the outer layer is provided with a perforation, and a second end of the connecting strap passes through the perforation and is connected to the molded cup, as doing so would allow the cup(s) to be adjustably lifted relative to the outer layer, for enhanced breast support and/or shaping.
Bastug also fails to disclose wherein the bra body further comprises an adhesive layer, the inner layer and the outer layer are integrally knitted as one piece, at least a portion of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer, and the bra is seamless.
However, Yeung teaches a bra (100) comprising a bra body (100, 200) comprising an inner layer (100) and an outer layer (200) that are integrally knitted in one piece (see at least paragraph 0011), wherein the bra body further comprises an adhesive layer (see at least paragraphs 0048 and 0053 and claim 13), at least part of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer (see at least paragraphs 0048 and 0053 and claim 13), and wherein the bra is seamless (see Title, Abstract, and paragraphs 0003, 0011, and 0048), so as to provide a seamless construction between the inner and outer layers that enhances flexibility and comfort and reduces chafing and pinching (see paragraphs 0011 and 0048).
Therefore, based on Yeung’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Bastug’s inner and outer layers to be integrally knitted as one piece and bonded together in at least a portion thereof via an adhesive layer, so as to form a seamless bra construction; as doing so would provide a seamless construction between the inner and outer layers that enhances flexibility and comfort and reduces chafing and pinching.
Regarding claim 4, the modified bra of Bastug (i.e., Bastug in view of Campbell and Yeung) is further disclosed wherein the connecting strap (135 of Campbell) is detachably connected (via fasteners 145 of Campbell) to the shoulder strap (120 of Campbell; see Fig. 1B and at least paragraph 0040 of Campbell).
Regarding claim 6, the modified bra of Bastug (i.e., Bastug in view of Campbell and Yeung) is further disclosed wherein an upper edge of the molded cup (125 of Campbell) is a smooth transition curve (see at least Fig. 1B of Campbell).
Regarding claim 8, the modified bra of Bastug (i.e., Bastug in view of Campbell and Yeung) is further disclosed wherein the connecting strap (135 of Campbell) is connected to an upper part of the molded cup (125 of Campbell; see at least Fig. 1B of Campbell), and at least a part of a lower part of the molded cup is connected (via lower/side elastic fasteners 130 of Campbell) to the bra body (115 of Campbell; see at least Fig. 1B and paragraphs 0033-0040 of Campbell).
Regarding claim 10, the modified bra of Bastug (i.e., Bastug in view of Campbell and Yeung) is further disclosed wherein the first end (top end) of the connecting strap (135 of Campbell) is connected to an ear of the bra body (at least indirectly via shoulder strap 120, see at least Fig. 1B of Campbell).
Regarding claim 12, Bastug discloses a bra (100) comprising a bra body (102, 104), shoulder straps (106), and a molded cup (108, see Figs. 1-2 and 5, paragraphs 0018-0024, and note below), the bra body comprising an inner layer (122) and an outer layer (120), the molded cup is located between the inner layer and the outer layer (see Figs. 1-2 and 5 and paragraphs 0018-0024).
It is noted that the recitation of “molded” is a product-by-process limitation. 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. See MPEP 2113. 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. The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself.
Bastug substantially discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to further disclose wherein the bra further comprises a connecting strap connected to the bra body, wherein a first end of the connecting strap is connected to the bra body, and the inner layer or the outer layer is provided with a perforation, and a second end of the connecting strap passes through the perforation and is connected to the molded cup.
However, Campbell teaches a bra (101) comprising a bra body forming an outer layer (115), a pair of shoulder straps (120), and a pair of cups (125) provided interior to the outer layer (see rear view of Fig. 1B and paragraphs 0033-0040), wherein the bra further comprises a connecting strap (135) connected to the bra body, wherein a first end (top end) of the connecting strap is connected to the bra body (at least indirectly via shoulder straps 120, see Fig. 1B and paragraphs 0033-0040), and the outer layer is provided with a perforation (140), and a second end (bottom end) of the connecting strap passes through the perforation and is connected to a respective cup of the pair of cups (see Fig. 1B and paragraphs 0033-0040), to allow the cup(s) to be adjustably lifted relative to the outer layer, for enhanced breast support and/or shaping (see paragraphs 0002-0007 and 0038-0040).
Therefore, based on Campbell’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Bastug’s bra to further include a connecting strap connected to the bra body, wherein a first end of the connecting strap is connected to the bra body, and the inner layer or the outer layer is provided with a perforation, and a second end of the connecting strap passes through the perforation and is connected to the molded cup, as doing so would allow the cup(s) to be adjustably lifted relative to the outer layer, for enhanced breast support and/or shaping.
Bastug also fails to disclose wherein the bra body further comprises an adhesive layer, the inner layer and the outer layer are integrally knitted as one piece, at least a portion of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer, and the bra is seamless.
However, Yeung teaches a bra (100) comprising a bra body (100, 200) comprising an inner layer (100) and an outer layer (200) that are integrally knitted in one piece (see at least paragraph 0011), wherein the bra body further comprises an adhesive layer (see at least paragraphs 0048 and 0053 and claim 13), at least part of the inner layer and the outer layer are bonded by the adhesive layer (see at least paragraphs 0048 and 0053 and claim 13), and wherein the bra is seamless (see Title, Abstract, and paragraphs 0003, 0011, and 0048), so as to provide a seamless construction between the inner and outer layers that enhances flexibility and comfort and reduces chafing and pinching (see paragraphs 0011 and 0048).
Therefore, based on Yeung’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Bastug’s inner and outer layers to be integrally knitted as one piece and bonded together in at least a portion thereof via an adhesive layer, so as to form a seamless bra construction; as doing so would provide a seamless construction between the inner and outer layers that enhances flexibility and comfort and reduces chafing and pinching.
Regarding claim 13, the modified bra of Bastug (i.e., Bastug in view of Campbell and Yeung) is further disclosed wherein the connecting strap (135 of Campbell) is detachably connected (via fasteners 145 of Campbell) to the shoulder strap (120 of Campbell; see Fig. 1B and at least paragraph 0040 of Campbell).
Regarding claim 15, the modified bra of Bastug (i.e., Bastug in view of Campbell and Yeung) is further disclosed wherein the upper edge of the molded cup (125 of Campbell) is a smooth transition curve (see at least Fig. 1B of Campbell).
Claims 5, 7, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastug, Campbell, and Yeung, as applied to claims 3 and 12 above, in view of Coggiola-Belza (US Patent No. 11,744,297).
Regarding claim 5, Bastug, Campbell, and Yeung together teach the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, but fail to further teach wherein the second end of the connecting strap is connected to a non- edge area of the molded cup. Instead, Campbell appears to depict wherein the second end (bottom end) of the connecting strap (135) is attached to an upper edge of the molded cup (125, see at least Fig. 1B).
However, Coggiola-Belza teaches a breast-supporting garment (100) comprising an outer layer (300), a pair of removable pads (200), and a pair of connecting straps (104) connecting each respective pad to the outer layer (see Figs. 1-4B and column 3, line 33 – column 4, line 56), wherein the bottom end of each connecting strap is attached (via securement member 210) to a non-edge area of the respective cup (see at least Figs. 3, 4A, and 5A), so as to allow the attachment area to be hidden from view and to protect edge stitching of the pad, while still allowing the pad to be properly supported and balanced in a substantially upright configuration (see column 4, lines 18-56).
Therefore, based on Coggiola-Belza’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Campbell’s connecting strap to be attached to a non-edge area of the molded cup, as doing so would allow the attachment area to be hidden from view and protect edge stitching of the pad, while still allowing the pad to be properly supported and balanced in a substantially upright configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Bastug, Campbell, Yeung, and Coggiola-Belza together teach the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Campbell fails to further teach wherein the connecting strap and the molded cup are bonded to each other through an adhesive layer. Campbell is silent as to the exact attachment method between the connecting strap (135) and the molded cup (125).
However, the Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art to use an adhesive layer to attach two brassiere portions together. For example, Coggiola-Belza further teaches wherein the bottom end of each connecting strap (104) is attached to the respective cup (200) via a securement member (210; see at least Figs. 3, 4A, and 5A), wherein the securement member may comprise any known mechanism for securing, locking, or coupling, such as an adhesive, hook, snap, clip, or hook and loop fastener (see column 4, lines 35-56).
Therefore, based on Coggiola-Belza’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Campbell’s connecting strap to be attached to the molded cup layer through an adhesive layer, as adhesives are well-known in the art to be suitable for securing, locking, or coupling two brassiere portions together.
Regarding claim 14, Bastug, Campbell, and Yeung together teach the limitations of claim 12, as discussed above, but fail to further teach wherein the second end of the connecting strap is connected to a non-edge area of the molded cup. Instead, Campbell appears to depict wherein the second end (bottom end) of the connecting strap (135) is attached to an upper edge of the molded cup (125, see at least Fig. 1B).
However, Coggiola-Belza teaches a breast-supporting garment (100) comprising an outer layer (300), a pair of removable cups (200), and a pair of connecting straps (104) connecting each respective pad to the outer layer (see Figs. 1-4B and column 3, line 33 – column 4, line 56), wherein the bottom end of each connecting strap is attached (via securement member 210) to a non-edge area of the respective cup (see at least Figs. 3, 4A, and 5A), so as to allow the attachment area to be hidden from view and to protect edge stitching of the pad, while still allowing the pad to be properly supported and balanced in a substantially upright configuration (see column 4, lines 18-56).
Therefore, based on Coggiola-Belza’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Campbell’s connecting strap to be attached to a non-edge area of the molded cup, as doing so would allow the attachment area to be hidden from view and protect edge stitching of the pad, while still allowing the pad to be properly supported and balanced in a substantially upright configuration.
Regarding claim 16, Bastug, Campbell, and Yeung together teach together teach the limitations of claim 12, as discussed above, but fail to further teach wherein the connecting strap and the molded cup are bonded to each other through an adhesive layer. Campbell is silent as to the exact attachment method between the connecting strap (135) and the molded cup (125).
However, the Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art to use an adhesive layer to attach two brassiere portions together. For example, Coggiola-Belza teaches a breast-supporting garment (100) comprising an outer layer (300), a pair of removable cups (200), and a pair of connecting straps (104) connecting each respective pad to the outer layer (see Figs. 1-4B and column 3, line 33 – column 4, line 56), wherein the bottom end of each connecting strap is attached to the respective cup via a securement member (210; see at least Figs. 3, 4A, and 5A), wherein the securement member may comprise any known mechanism for securing, locking, or coupling, such as an adhesive, hook, snap, clip, or hook and loop fastener (see column 4, lines 35-56).
Therefore, based on Coggiola-Belza’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Campbell’s connecting strap to be attached to the molded cup layer through an adhesive layer, as adhesives are well-known in the art to be suitable for securing, locking, or coupling two brassiere portions together.
Conclusion
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 JOCELYN BRAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-0581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, 12:00 pm - 4:00 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, Clinton Ostrup, can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/JOCELYN BRAVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights