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
The amendment filed 3/19/26 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/9/26.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0033] the term “examples being shown as interstitial spaces” should be deleted, as the phrase implies that the original disclosure of “interstitial spaces” is not directed to 310; disagreement may warrant objections pertaining to new matter
[0034]-[0039] instances of “anti-torsion-stabilizing” should have the hyphen removed between “torsion” and “stabilizing” for consistency of term
[0039] delete “torsion-stabilizing” and substitute –anti-torsion stabilizing--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, 19, 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 2 before “generally” delete “an” and substitute –a—
Claim 1 Line 7 delete “of the lengths” and substitute –length—
Claim 1 Line 8 before “same” delete “the” and substitute –a— for proper antecedent basis
Claim 1 Line 8 before “length” delete “the” and substitute –a—for proper antecedent basis
Claim 1 Line 12 before “entire” delete “the” and substitute –an—for proper antecedent basis
Claim 1 Lines 10-11 is recommended to delete “lateral spaces, meaning”; the claim should just claim the actual definition instead of using the claim to define a term
Claims 2, 3, 4, 19: before “interstitial spaces” add –lengthwise—for clarification relative to “spaces perpendicular to the length” in Claim 1 Line 10
Claim 7 Line 2 delete “eight” and substitute –eighth—for consistency with Claim 8 amendments
Claim 9 Line 2 delete “millimeter” and substitute –millimeters—
Claim 19 Line 2 should read “one-half” with a hyphen for consistency with Claims 5, 6
Claim 19 Line 3 should read “one-eighth” with a hyphen for consistency with Claims 7, 8
Claim 20 is missing a period after the claim numbering 20
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “a single anti-torsion stabilizing member is present at any lengthwise position” in Claim 1 Lines 11-12 is considered new matter especially without specification antecedent basis. No support is found for the original disclosure indicating that a member could have any lengthwise position.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “a single anti-torsion stabilizing member” in Claim 1 Line 11 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this single member differs from “anti-torsion stabilizing members” in Claim 1 Line 5. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as being of the set in Claim 1 Line 5.
The term “wherein none of the interstitial spaces are lateral spaces…between the anti-torsion stabilizing and a single anti-torsion stabilizing and” in Claim 1 Lines 9-11 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the term “members” is missing after the term “stabilizing” or if there is some other interpretation.
Relatedly, the term “a single anti-torsion stabilizing member is present at any lengthwise position” in Claim 1 Lines 11-12 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the new matter rejection, the intended interpretation is unclear, and therefore the metes and bounds of the recitation. It is unclear if the recitation is saying that member “can be present”, which is indefinite, as the existence at a location either is or is not. It is unclear if the recitation should not have utilized the term “any”. It is unclear whether there is some other interpretation.
Relatedly, the term “a single anti-torsion stabilizing member is present at any lengthwise position generally covering the entire width of the main body” in Claim 1 Lines 11-12 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what structure the term “generally covering” is referring to—is the term modifying the position or the member?
Relatedly, the term “wherein none of the interstitial spaces are lateral spaces…between the anti-torsion stabilizing and a single anti-torsion stabilizing member is present at any lengthwise position generally covering the entire width of the main body” in Claim 1 Lines 9-12 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of a potential missing term and lack of clarity of what structure is covering, it is unclear how the two recitations (lateral space and present) are meant to be interpreted relative to one another. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as the interstitial spaces have a lengthwise direction between stabilizing members, and at least one member of the set has a position generally covering a full width of the main body.
Relatedly, the term “wherein none of the interstitial spaces are lateral spaces…between the anti-torsion stabilizing and a single anti-torsion stabilizing member is present at any lengthwise position generally covering the entire width of the main body” in Claim 1 Lines 9-12 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how a length position is utilized to cover a width, as length and width refer to differing directions.
The term “approximately one half inch” in Claim 19 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The term "approximately" in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "approximately" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not clearly provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See specification objection above—[0034] seems to indicate the term is met by ±1/8, but then [0037] seems to indicate that the term is met by ±6/16, and [0038] being further unclear in the specification does not help define the term. Examiner recommends amending similarly to Claim 6. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be met by any numeral.
The term “approximately one eighth inch” in Claim 19 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The term "approximately" in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "approximately" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not clearly provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See specification objection above— [0034] seems to indicate that the term is met by +1/8 and -1/16, but then [0038] makes it unclear whether the metes and bounds of the thickness or the width are incorrect, which calls into question whether the term has been clearly defined in the specification. Examiner recommends amending similarly to Claim 8. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be met by any numeral.
The term “said lengths” in Claim 20 Lines 1-2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 20 depends on Claim 1, which established lengths of members and also a length of the clothing strap. It is unclear which of these the term encompasses.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the width of the clothing strap" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Relatedly, the term “the width of the clothing strap” in Claim 20 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear when this term was established, and how the term relates to “entire width of the main body” in Claim 1 line 12, wherein the main body is of the clothing strap as established in Claim 1.
The term “each of said lengths covers a majority of the width of the clothing strap” in Claim 20 Lines 1-2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how length is being utilized to cover a width, as length and width refer to differing directions.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites that each member is, or generally is, rectangular; however, Claim 1, on which Claim 13 depends, recites that the members are already generally rectangular in Claim 1 Line 5. As such, it is unclear if Claim 13 should be cancelled, or if Claim 13 should delete “or generally is” to be further narrowing, or some other interpretation.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Interpretation
Ranges
Similarly as indicated on page 9 of the remarks 3/19/26:
Claim 6 “slightly larger” is interpreted 5/8, 9/16, 17/32 as defined for the length in [0034]
Claim 6 “slightly smaller” is interpreted as 3/8, 7/16, 15/32 as defined for the length in [0034]
Claim 8 “slightly larger” is interpreted as ¼, 3/16, 5/32 as defined for the width in [0034]
Claim 8 “slightly smaller” in interpreted as 1/16, 3/32, 7/64 as defined for the width in [0034]
Product by Process
Similar interpretation is applied to Claim 12 as indicated on page 8 of the office action 1/9/26.
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) 1, 2, 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR 2003/57358) in view of Henricksen (USPN 6332825) and Kogon (US Publication 2016/0037832).
Regarding Claim 1, Hong teaches an anti-torsion clothing strap (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. 2; [16] "Fig. 2 is a perspective view of a shoulder strap for clothing"; Hong teaches the strap which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being anti-torsion in clothing, inasmuch as the term “anti-torsion” has been structurally defined), comprising:
a main body, including a generally flattened profile and an underside configured to interface with an outer surface of a user's body (see Figs. 2, 3 for at least generally flattened profile and underside; [16] "anti-slip pattern (20) formed on one surface of the band portion (10) that contacts the wearer's shoulder"; Hong teaches the main body with profile and underside which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of interfacing with an outer surface of a user’s body especially in light of the recitation);
the underside of said main body (see aforementioned), comprising:
a set of anti-torsion stabilizing members, arranged in a spaced apart pattern on said underside (see Fig. 2 for spaced apart; see Fig. 3 for members making up 20; wherein a set is only the upper row; see annotated Fig. 2 below for clarification; [18] "anti-slip pattern (20) is formed in the form of an embossed protrusion over the entire area of one side of the band portion (10) that contacts the wearer's shoulder”; 18] "anti-slip pattern (20) is formed of a soft silicone resin"; Hong teaches the silicone embossed protrusions as members which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being anti-torsion and stabilizing, inasmuch as the terms have been defined);
PNG
media_image1.png
626
1014
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the lengths of said anti-torsion stabilizing members are aligned in the same direction as the length of the clothing strap and separated from one another by lengthwise interstitial spaces (see annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 below for clarification);
PNG
media_image2.png
370
485
media_image2.png
Greyscale
but wherein none of the interstitial spaces are lateral spaces, meaning spaces perpendicular to the length of the clothing strap, between the anti-torsion stabilizing members (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 below);
PNG
media_image3.png
370
485
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and a single anti-torsion stabilizing member is present at any lengthwise position (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—each member has a position, wherein each position has a length; as such, a member is present at a lengthwise position).
Hong does not explicitly teach a set of generally rectangular anti-torsion stabilizing members.
Henricksen teaches generally rectangular anti-torsion stabilizing members (see Figs. 1, 2 at least for shape; abstract "areas consisting of a thin layer of non-slip material 15 may be in the straps"; Col. 3 Lines 23-26 "The areas comprised of a thin layer of silicone rubber or latex rubber on the surface of the fabric 15 and are placed on the inner surface of the garment on the back 12, straps 17"; see Figs. 1, 2; "Fig. 1 shows the outside...and Fig. 2 shows the inside"; as such, there are at least two of 17 on each strap; Henricksen teaches the silicone members which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being anti-torsion and stabilizing, inasmuch as the terms have been structurally defined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s shape to be generally rectangular as taught by Henricksen based on aesthetic design choice, especially as it is known in the art that anti-slip shapes can vary (see extrinsic evidence DeSimone USPN 10681939).
A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Hong also does not explicitly teach and a single anti-torsion stabilizing member is present at any lengthwise position generally covering the entire width of the main body.
However, Hong only does not because there are two sets of members, instead of a single set/single row.
Kogon teaches a single set/row of anti-torsion stabilizing members present at any lengthwise position generally covering the entire width of the main body (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 5 for single row of 54 and coverage; [0034] “designs for installing a non-slipping material layer into a bra band are…fashion shapes 54”, wherein each member has a position and therefore length that generally covers the entire width; Kogon teaches the members which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being anti-torsion and stabilizing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s two set to be a single set as taught by Kogon for ease of manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong further teaches wherein said interstitial spaces are uniform (see Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong further teaches wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members comprises silicone ([18] "anti-slip pattern (20) is formed of a soft silicone resin").
Regarding Claim 11, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Hong further teaches wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members is attached to or integral with the underside and the main body (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
Hong at least suggests wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members is attached to or integral with the underside and the main body by heat fusion (see Figs. 2, 3; [18] "anti-slip pattern (20) is formed in the form of an embossed protrusion over the entire area of one side of the band portion (10) that contacts the wearer's shoulder"; see claim interpretation; the recitation “by heat fusion” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if Hong’s embossment results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other attachment/integral methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the “embossment” with the Hong reference above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art. See aforementioned rejection of Claim 11 wherein Hong has all the structure of Claim 12; in other words, the structure of Hong teaches the structure of Claim 12 because it has the structure of Claim 11).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Modified Hong further teaches wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members is, or generally is, rectangular (see rejection of Claim 12 with Henricksen for generally rectangular).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong further teaches wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members comprises rounded ends ([18] "anti-slip pattern (20) is formed in the form of an embossed protrusion over the entire area of one side of the band portion (10) that contacts the wearer's shoulder" wherein protrusion is rounded end, and the end on the surface is also round/circumferential).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong does not explicitly teach wherein the main body comprises silk.
However, Hong teaches the main body of fiber ([17] "band portion (10)…using a commonly used material such as fiber").
Kogon teaches wherein the main body comprises silk (see Fig. 6; [0003] "straps made of silk…tend to slide down"; [0035] "A non-slipping material layer can be sewn onto bra straps 91-92 to keep the article of clothing in a proper position in shoulder area").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s main body to be of silk as taught by Kogon as a known material for a brassiere, especially a non-slip brassiere (abstract).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong further teaches wherein the main body comprises at least one ply of material ([17] "band portion (10)…using a commonly used material such as fiber").
Hong does not explicitly teach wherein the material is made of silk.
Kogon teaches wherein the main body material comprises silk (see Fig. 6; [0003] "straps made of silk…tend to slide down"; [0035] "A non-slipping material layer can be sewn onto bra straps 91-92 to keep the article of clothing in a proper position in shoulder area").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s main body to be of silk as taught by Kogon as a known material for a brassiere, especially a non-slip brassiere (abstract).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong does not explicitly teach wherein the main body comprises at least two plies of material made of silk.
Henricksen teaches wherein the main body comprises at least two plies of material (see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 3 Lines 18-21 "This garment is comprised of two layers of fabric, the outer layer 13 and the inner layer 14, and this double layer gives extra support to the breasts", wherein strap main body is part of garment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong to be of two ply as taught by Henricksen such as to provide support (Col. 3 Lines 18-23) and/or for easier construction (material of straps/cups being the same).
Kogon teaches wherein the main body material comprises silk (see Fig. 6; [0003] "straps made of silk…tend to slide down"; [0035] "A non-slipping material layer can be sewn onto bra straps 91-92 to keep the article of clothing in a proper position in shoulder area").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s main body to be of silk as taught by Kogon as a known material for a brassiere, especially a non-slip brassiere (abstract).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong does not explicitly teach wherein the main body is lined with interfacing.
Henricksen further teaches wherein the main body is lined with interfacing (see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 3 Lines 18-23 "This garment is comprised of two layers of fabric, the outer layer 13 and the inner layer 14, and this double layer gives extra support to the breasts. The preferred materials for these layers of fabric are knitted fabrics comprised of absorbing or wicking yarns with an elastic yarn as part", wherein strap main body is part of garment; wherein second ply is the interfacing/lining).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong to be of the interfacing-lined main body (two ply) as taught by Henricksen such as to provide support (Col. 3 Lines 18-23) and/or for easier construction (material of straps/cups being the same).
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR 2003/57358) in view of Henricksen (USPN 6332825) and Kogon (US Publication 2016/0037832), further in view of Hoeven (US Publication 2016/0157529).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong does not explicitly teach wherein said interstitial spaces are each a one-quarter inch space.
Hoeven at least suggests wherein said interstitial spaces are each a one-quarter inch space ([0014] "distance between two adjacent protrusions is preferably between 0.5 and 2 mm" which is 0.019685” to 0.0787”, which shows that space distance ranges vary).
Hong discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the exact one-quarter inch space. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the space of Hong in the recited range, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the space ([0035]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s density of interstitial spacing to be of the range recited especially as Hoeven teaches a variation in spacing is known in the anti-slip area of bra arts (abstract) based on the amount of securement desired, as a results-effective variable.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong does not explicitly teach wherein said interstitial spaces are approximately a one-quarter inch space.
Hoeven at least suggests wherein said interstitial spaces are approximately a one-quarter inch space ([0014] "distance between two adjacent protrusions is preferably between 0.5 and 2 mm" which is 0.019685” to 0.0787”, which shows that space distance ranges can vary).
Hong discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of approximately one-quarter inch space. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the space of Hong in the recited range, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the space ([0035]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s density of interstitial spacing to be of the range recited especially as Hoeven teaches a variation in spacing is known in the anti-slip bra arts (abstract) based on the amount of securement desired, as a results-effective variable.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR 2003/57358) in view of Henricksen (USPN 6332825) and Kogon (US Publication 2016/0037832), further in view of Krieger (USPN 3254653).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong does not explicitly teach wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members is one-half inch long.
Krieger at least suggests wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members is one-half inch long (see Fig. 9; Col. 2 Lines 8-12 “resiliently compressible security juts engage the flesh…and where more than one is used in spaced relationship they engage the flesh…with a spring-like clamping and gripping action”; Col. 3 Line 45 “juts are made of…rubber”; Col. 4 Lines 44-46 "cups 40 have bar-shaped juts 41"; "juts... range in length from about 3" for the shortest jut to about 5" in length for the longest jut", which shows that spaced gripping juts lengths vary); Krieger teaches the spaced rubber gripping juts which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being anti-torsion and stabilizing, inasmuch as the term has been structurally defined).
Hong discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the member length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the member length in the range recited, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the member length ([0034]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s member length to be of the range recited, especially as Krieger teaches a variation in member length is known in the flesh grip area of bra arts based on the amount of securement desired and/or based on the size of the member area (Col. 4 Lines 44-45), as a results-effective variable.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong does not explicitly teach wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members is one-half inch long, or slightly larger or slightly smaller than a one-half inch long.
Krieger at least suggests wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members is one-half inch long, or slightly larger or slightly smaller than a one-half inch long (see claim interpretation; see Fig. 9; Col. 2 Lines 8-12 “resiliently compressible security juts engage the flesh…and where more than one is used in spaced relationship they engage the flesh…with a spring-like clamping and gripping action”; Col. 3 Line 45 “juts are made of…rubber”; Col. 4 Lines 44-46 "cups 40 have bar-shaped juts 41"; "juts... range in length from about 3" for the shortest jut to about 5" in length for the longest jut", which shows that spaced gripping juts lengths vary); Krieger teaches the spaced rubber gripping juts which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being anti-torsion and stabilizing, inasmuch as the term has been structurally defined).
Hong discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the member length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the member length in the range recited, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the member length ([0034]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s member length to be of the range recited, especially as Krieger teaches a variation in member length is known in the flesh grip area of bra arts based on the amount of securement desired and/or based on the size of the member area (Col. 4 Lines 44-45), as a results-effective variable.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR 2003/57358) in view of Henricksen (USPN 6332825) and Kogon (US Publication 2016/0037832), further in view of Pagnon (USPN 9516905).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong does not explicitly each wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members is one-eight inch wide.
Pagnon teaches wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members is one-eight inch wide (see Figs. 1, 2; for 27-- Col. 4 Lines 21-31 “inner surface 22 of each cup 20 may include one or more first inserts 27 made of a first flexible material”; Col. 5 Lines 52-56 “first and/or the second polymeric material may be chosen from silicones…which make them suitable for protracted contact with the human skin”; Claim 1 in Col. 8 Lines 55-62 "the first inserts being made of a first flexible polymer material selected among the group consisting of silicones...the first inserts including first linear elements spaced apart from each other and disposed on the inner surface of each of the cups, the first linear elements having a first width of 1 mm to 5 mm”, wherein 1-5 mm is 0.0394-0.197", and the claimed one-eight is 0.125”; for 28—Col. 6 Lines 56-59 “third inserts 28 made in a third flexible polymeric material, which may be the same…of the first…polymeric material”; Col. 7 Lines 34-36 “third linear element 28 may have a third thickness S3…preferably between 1 mm and 5 mm”; Col. 4 Lines 29-30 “shape and/or size of the inserts may take into account the need to have a good friction effect on the skin”; Pagnon teaches the silicon member which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being anti-torsion and stabilizing inasmuch as the terms have been structurally defined).
Hong discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the member width. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the member width in the range recited, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the member width ([0034]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s member width to be of the range recited, especially as Pagnon teaches a variation in member width is known in the flesh grip area of bra arts based on the amount of securement desired (Col. 4 Lines 29-30), as a results-effective variable.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong does not explicitly each wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members is one-eighth inch wide, or slightly larger or slightly smaller than one-eighth inch wide.
Pagnon teaches wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members is one-eighth inch wide, or slightly larger or slightly smaller than one-eighth inch wide (see claim interpretation; see Figs. 1, 2; for 27-- Col. 4 Lines 21-31 “inner surface 22 of each cup 20 may include one or more first inserts 27 made of a first flexible material”; Col. 5 Lines 52-56 “first and/or the second polymeric material may be chosen from silicones…which make them suitable for protracted contact with the human skin”; Claim 1 in Col. 8 Lines 55-62 "the first inserts being made of a first flexible polymer material selected among the group consisting of silicones...the first inserts including first linear elements spaced apart from each other and disposed on the inner surface of each of the cups, the first linear elements having a first width of 1 mm to 5 mm”, wherein 1-5 mm is 0.0394-0.197", and the claimed one-eighth is 0.125”; for 28—Col. 6 Lines 56-59 “third inserts 28 made in a third flexible polymeric material, which may be the same…of the first…polymeric material”; Col. 7 Lines 34-36 “third linear element 28 may have a third thickness S3…preferably between 1 mm and 5 mm”; Col. 4 Lines 29-30 “shape and/or size of the inserts may take into account the need to have a good friction effect on the skin”; Pagnon teaches the silicon member which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being anti-torsion and stabilizing inasmuch as the terms have been structurally defined).
Hong discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the member width. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the member width in the range recited, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the member width ([0034]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s member width to be of the range recited, especially as Pagnon teaches a variation in member width is known in the flesh grip area of bra arts based on the amount of securement desired (Col. 4 Lines 29-30), as a results-effective variable.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong does not explicitly teach wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members is less than 3 millimeters thick.
Pagnon teaches teach wherein each of the anti-torsion stabilizing members is less than 3 millimeters thick (see Figs. 1, 2; for 27-- Col. 4 Lines 21-31 “inner surface 22 of each cup 20 may include one or more first inserts 27 made of a first flexible material”; Col. 5 Lines 52-56 “first and/or the second polymeric material may be chosen from silicones…which make them suitable for protracted contact with the human skin”; Claim 1 in Col. 9 Lines 6-11 " wherein the first inserts have a maximum height outward of the inner surface of each of the cups of less than 1 mm when the cups are not worn, so as to provide a uniform profile to the outer surface of each of the cups during the use of the bra"; Col. 7 Lines 43, 47-50 “to ensure an optimum aesthetic appearance, each of the first inserts 27 may have such a maximum height H…less than 1 mm…same as …the third inserts 28”; Pagnon teaches the silicon member which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being anti-torsion and stabilizing, inasmuch as the terms have been structurally defined).
Hong discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the member thickness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the member thickness in the range recited, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the member width ([0034]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s member thickness to be of the range recited, especially as Pagnon teaches a variation in member thickness is known in the flesh grip area of bra arts based on the amount of securement desired (Col. 4 Lines 29-30), as a results-effective variable.
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR 2003/57358) in view of Henricksen (USPN 6332825) and Kogon (US Publication 2016/0037832), further in view of Krieger (USPN 3254653), Pagnon (USPN 9516905), and Hoeven (US Publication 2016/0157529).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Hong does not explicitly teach wherein each of said lengths of said anti-torsion stabilizing members is approximately one half inch,
wherein each width of said anti-torsion stabilizing members is approximately one eighth inch,
and wherein each interstitial space is approximately one quarter inch.
Krieger at least suggests wherein each of said lengths of said anti-torsion stabilizing members is approximately one-half inch (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 9; Col. 2 Lines 8-12 “resiliently compressible security juts engage the flesh…and where more than one is used in spaced relationship they engage the flesh…with a spring-like clamping and gripping action”; Col. 3 Line 45 “juts are made of…rubber”; Col. 4 Lines 44-46 "cups 40 have bar-shaped juts 41"; "juts... range in length from about 3" for the shortest jut to about 5" in length for the longest jut", which shows that spaced gripping juts lengths vary); Krieger teaches the spaced rubber gripping juts which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being anti-torsion and stabilizing, inasmuch as the term has been structurally defined).
Hong discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the member length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the member length in the range recited, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the member length ([0034]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s member length to be of the range recited, especially as Krieger teaches a variation in member length is known in the flesh grip area of bra arts based on the amount of securement desired and/or based on the size of the member area (Col. 4 Lines 44-45), as a results-effective variable.
Pagnon teaches wherein each width of said anti-torsion stabilizing members is approximately one-eighth inch (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Figs. 1, 2; for 27-- Col. 4 Lines 21-31 “inner surface 22 of each cup 20 may include one or more first inserts 27 made of a first flexible material”; Col. 5 Lines 52-56 “first and/or the second polymeric material may be chosen from silicones…which make them suitable for protracted contact with the human skin”; Claim 1 in Col. 8 Lines 55-62 "the first inserts being made of a first flexible polymer material selected among the group consisting of silicones...the first inserts including first linear elements spaced apart from each other and disposed on the inner surface of each of the cups, the first linear elements having a first width of 1 mm to 5 mm”, wherein 1-5 mm is 0.0394-0.197", and the claimed one-eight is 0.125”; for 28—Col. 6 Lines 56-59 “third inserts 28 made in a third flexible polymeric material, which may be the same…of the first…polymeric material”; Col. 7 Lines 34-36 “third linear element 28 may have a third thickness S3…preferably between 1 mm and 5 mm”; Col. 4 Lines 29-30 “shape and/or size of the inserts may take into account the need to have a good friction effect on the skin”; Pagnon teaches the silicon member which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being anti-torsion and stabilizing inasmuch as the terms have been structurally defined).
Hong discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the member width. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the member width in the range recited, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the member width ([0034]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s member width to be of the range recited, especially as Pagnon teaches a variation in member width is known in the flesh grip area of bra arts based on the amount of securement desired (Col. 4 Lines 29-30), as a results-effective variable.
Hoeven at least suggests wherein each interstitial spaces is approximately one-quarter inch ([0014] "distance between two adjacent protrusions is preferably between 0.5 and 2 mm" which is 0.019685” to 0.0787”, which shows that space distance ranges vary).
Hong discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the exact one-quarter inch space. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the space of Hong in the recited range, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the space ([0035]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong’s density of interstitial spacing to be of the range recited especially as Hoeven teaches a variation in spacing is known in the anti-slip area of bra arts (abstract) based on the amount of securement desired, as a results-effective variable.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Hong teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 19.
Hong further teaches wherein each of said lengths (of the anti-torsion stabilizing members) has at least partially rounded ends ([18] "anti-slip pattern (20) is formed in the form of an embossed protrusion over the entire area of one side of the band portion (10) that contacts the wearer's shoulder" wherein protrusion is rounded end, and the end on the surface is also round/circumferential).
Modified Hong further teaches wherein each of said lengths covers a majority of the width of the clothing strap (similar to the rejection of Claim 12 with Henricksen, each member would have a lengthwise position generally covering an entire width of the main body of the clothing strap).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification--
Pertaining to remarks on page 11 that the prior art does not teach an anti-torsion device—examiner respectfully disagrees and directs attention to page 10 of the office action of 1/9/26 which begins the rejections of the term. All structure pertaining to the member(s) has been met and therefore it is capable of being anti-torsion and stabilizing. Further structure would have to be claimed, assuming disclosed, to further narrow the interpretation of anti-torsion and stabilizing.
Pertaining to remarks on page 11 that the vastly different number, spacing, and size of members having anti-slip purpose in Hong would not prevent torsion—examiner respectfully disagrees. No evidence has been provided that the members are not anti-torsion. The mere existence of the members, such as by their weight, prevent torsion to some degree, due to gravity acting on the member (s). Assuming the remark on number of members refers to amendment of “single” in Claim 1, see rejection herein. As for spacing/size—all limitations have been taught in Claim 1 and the dependents, and no specific reasons have been indicated as to why the teaching or combination of teachings with their motivations are not valid.
Pertaining to remarks on page 11 that Hong is not anti-torsion due to open space along the strap between them in lateral direction—examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s own disclosure also has open space along the strap between them in the lateral direction.
Pertaining to remarks on page 11 that [Kogon] and [Henricksen] disclose different shapes without rectilinear contact straps having lengthwise spaces—examiner notes that the references were referred to in the interview to indicate that if the “single” amendment was construed more narrowly than required by broadest reasonable interpretation to be a single row instead of a double row as Hong, that Kogon and Henricksen teach utilizing singular members. The remarks are piecemeal. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, examiner notes that the claims have not claimed that a contact strap must be rectilinear, let alone a plurality of contact straps.
Pertaining to remarks on page 11 that the applicant is ready to file a 1.312 declaration—examiner notes that the declaration is 1.132, and that without being able to evaluate the contents of the declaration, it is not persuasive that there is criticality pertaining to the dimensions despite remarks in the interview indicating that dimensions are of a critical range that narrow the interpretation of the term “anti-torsion.” No specific remarks have been presented either pertaining to why the prior art does not teach the dimensions as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Takii et al (USPN 12514302) directed to strap grips; Merrill et al (USPN 11896071) directed to grip members.
Merrill et al (USPN 12575614) also considered pertinent for grip members generally extending a full width.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights