DETAILED ACTION
This is Office action is based on the amendments filed March 30, 2026 for application 19/036,299. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-19 have been amended; claims 1-19 are currently pending.
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 .
Drawings
The replacement drawings received on March 30, 2026 are acceptable.
Specification
The substitute specification received on March 30, 2026 is acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 30, 2026 with respect to combination of Keum et al. (US 2022/0087329) and Lu et al. (US 2018/0229052) in view of the amendments to independent claims 1 and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, and 16-19 are 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.
Claims 2 and 3 each recite the limitation “the breast cover part” in line 3 of claim 2 and lines 3-4 of claim 3; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, the limitation “the breast cover part” has been interpreted as “the at least one of the pair of breast cover parts” as previously recited in the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the at least one vertical support member” in lines 4-5; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, the limitation “the at least one vertical support member” has been interpreted as “at least one vertical support member”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “two lateral support members” in lines 1-2; however, since claim 5 previously recites “the at least one lateral support member comprises a plurality of lateral support members”, it is unclear whether or not the “two lateral support members” are part of or in addition to the previously recited plurality of lateral support members. For examination purposes, the limitation “two lateral support members” has been interpreted as “two lateral support members of the plurality of support members”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the breast cover part” in line 4; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation “the breast cover parts” has been interpreted as “one of the pair of breast cover parts”.
Claim 12 contains the trademark/trade name Velcro®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. For examination purposes, the limitation “a Velcro® (hook and loop fastener) binding structure” has been interpreted as simply “a hook and loop fastener binding structure”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the breast cover part” in line 3-4; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, the limitation “the breast cover part” has been interpreted as “the least one of the pair of breast cover parts” as previously recited in claim 16.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “at least one cutout portion” in line 7; however, since claim 19 also previously recites the same limitation in line 2, it is unclear whether or not the recitation in line 7 is intended to refer to the same previously recited at least one cutout portion or introduce another at least one cutout portion. For examination purposes, the recitation of “at least one cutout portion” in line 7 has been interpreted as “the at least one cutout portion” in order to clearly refer to the same previously recited at least one cutout portion.
Claims 17 and 18 are included in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependence from rejected claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-10, and 13-15 are allowed.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Keri J. Nelson whose telephone number is 571-270-3821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachael E. Bredefeld, can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 6/8/2026
Prosecution Insights