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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 10/31/25. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 4, 9, 14 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1 and 4-20 are pending in this application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In the instant case there does not appear to be any means for language in the claims and/or language to be considered under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 AIA
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Working US 6071175 A (herein after Working).
Regarding claim 20, Working discloses an abdominal support belt (2), comprising: a waist support portion (6) having a first upper edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9) and a first lower edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9), wherein the waist support portion (6) is configured to extend around a user's waist region (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9) and along both sides of the user when worn (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9); and a lower abdominal support portion (4) having a second upper edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9) and a second lower edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9), wherein the waist support portion (6) and the lower abdominal support portion (4) are connected at a junction (as seen in annotated Figure 4), and the lower abdominal support portion (4) is configured to be positioned over a lower abdominal region of the user when worn (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9); wherein the lower abdominal support portion (4) and wherein a central width of the lower abdominal support portion (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9) is greater than widths at its opposing ends (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9 and also seen in Figure 2).
[AltContent: textbox (A first upper edge. )]
[AltContent: textbox (A second upper edge. )]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An abdominal support belt. )]
[AltContent: textbox (A lower abdominal support portion (9).)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A first lower edge.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The lower abdominal support portion is configured to be positioned over a lower abdominal region of the user when worn.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A second lower edge. )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The first lower edge slopes downwardly toward the junction.)][AltContent: textbox (A waist support portion. )][AltContent: textbox (The waist support portion and the lower abdominal support portion are connected at a junction.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
700
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Wherein a central width of the lower abdominal support portion is greater than widths at its opposing ends.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
700
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 AIA
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 4, 6, 7, 9- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Working US 6071175 A (herein after Working) in view of Gundel US 0939012 A (herein after Gundel).
Regarding claim 1, Working discloses an abdominal support belt (2, Abstract, Col 1, lines 5-7), comprising: a waist support portion (6) having a first upper edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9) and a first lower edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9), wherein the waist support portion (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9) is configured to extend around a user's waist region (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9) and along both sides of the user when worn (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9); and a lower abdominal support portion (4) having a second upper edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9) and a second lower edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9), wherein the waist support portion (6) and the lower abdominal support portion (4) are connected at a junction (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9), and the lower abdominal support portion (4) is configured to be positioned over a lower abdominal region (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9) of the user when worn, and the first lower edge slopes downwardly toward the junction (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9), and an upper abdominal support portion (40) configured to be positioned over a region of the user between a lower chest edge and an area above the navel when worn (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9).
[AltContent: textbox (A first upper edge. )]
[AltContent: textbox (A second upper edge. )]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An abdominal support belt. )]
[AltContent: textbox (A lower abdominal support portion (9).)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A first lower edge.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The lower abdominal support portion is configured to be positioned over a lower abdominal region of the user when worn.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A second lower edge. )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The first lower edge slopes downwardly toward the junction.)][AltContent: textbox (A waist support portion. )][AltContent: textbox (The waist support portion and the lower abdominal support portion are connected at a junction.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
700
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Working is silent to wherein the upper abdominal support portion and the waist support portion are integrally formed as a single piece.
Gundel discloses wherein the upper abdominal support portion (as seen in annotated Figure 1 and 2) and the waist support portion (as seen in annotated Figure 1 and 2) are integrally formed as a single piece (as seen in annotated Figure 1 and 2).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The upper abdominal support portion.)][AltContent: textbox (The waist support portion.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The upper abdominal support portion and the waist support portion are integrally formed as a single piece.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
560
337
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Working and Gundel are analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to waist supports.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the belt of Working by constructing the upper abdominal support portion and the waist support portion being integrally formed as a single piece as taught by Gundel, in order to make the belt easier to donn, doff and adjust when worn. The modification would be a simple modification to allow the wearer the ability to adjust the belt and each of the portions easily while worn.
Regarding claim 4, the modified abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses the upper abdominal support portion (8 of Working) and the waist support portion (6 of Working) are cut from the same sheet material (Col 5, lines 6-11 of Working).
Regarding claim 6, the modified abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses the first lower edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9 of Working) is configured to terminate at or below an iliac crest of the user's pelvis when worn (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9 of Working).
Regarding claim 7, the modified abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses the lower abdominal support portion (4 of Working) is curved downwardly from a central region to opposing ends (while slight, portion 4 shows a curve downwards in the central portion towards the opposing ends).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (Portion 4 shows a curve downwards in the central portion in the direction of the opposing ends.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
692
435
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the modified abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses the upper abdominal support portion (as seen in annotated Figures 1 of Gundel) comprises a left strap (as seen in annotated Figures 1 of Gundel) and a right strap (as seen in annotated Figures 1 of Gundel) detachably connected to each other (Col 2, lines 60 -63 of Gundel), and the left strap (as seen in annotated Figures 1 of Gundel) and the right strap (as seen in annotated Figures 1 of Gundel) are configured to extend from the waist support portion to a front side of the user when worn (as seen in annotated Figures 1 of Gundel).
[AltContent: textbox (Right strap)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Left strap)]
PNG
media_image2.png
560
337
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the modified abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses the connection position of the left strap (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Gundel) and the right strap (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Gundel) is adjustable (Col 2, lines 60 -63 of Gundel – the pins being capable of adjustment to best suit the comfort of the wearer) to adapt the length of the upper abdominal support portion for different users (Col 2, lines 60 -63 of Gundel – the pins being capable of adjustment to best suit the comfort of the wearer).
Regarding claim 11, the modified abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses the straps are connected via hook-and-loop fasteners (36,46 of Working) a hook surface (46 of Working), and a loop surface (36 of Working), wherein one of the left strap (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Gundel) or the right strap (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Gundel) have a certain length (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Gundel) to allow adjustable connection of the left strap and the right strap (Col 2, lines 60 -63 of Gundel – the pins being capable of adjustment to best suit the comfort of the wearer).
Regarding claim 12, the modified abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses the lower abdominal support portion (4 of Working) is detachably connected to the waist support portion (6, Col. 4, lines 36-46, via 30 and 32 at 34 of Working).
Regarding claim 13, the modified abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses the lower abdominal support portion (4 of Working) and the waist support portion (6 of Working) are connected via hook-and-loop fasteners (34, 14 of Working), wherein one of the lower abdominal support portion (4 of Working) or the waist support portion is provided with hook surface (34, 14 of Working), and the other is provided with loop surface (34, 14 - Col. 4, lines 36-46, via 30 and 32 at 34 and 14 of Working); and the hook surface or loop surface on the waist support portion (34, 14 of Working) is arranged obliquely on a side of the user when worn (as seen in Figure 4 of Working).
[AltContent: textbox (The hook surface or loop surface on the waist support portion is arranged obliquely on a side of the user when worn.)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hook and loop fastener.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connection junction)][AltContent: textbox (Lower abdominal support portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Waist support portion.)]
PNG
media_image4.png
342
430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
667
492
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Working US 6071175 A (herein after Working) in view of Gundel US 0939012 A (herein after Gundel) as applied to claims 1 and 4, and further in view of Kohrherr US 20160050982 A1 (herein after Kohrherr).
Regarding claim 5, the abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses all the limitations of claim 5 except they do not disclose the sheet material comprises a first outer layer, a second outer layer, and an adhesive layer disposed between the first outer layer and the second outer layer.
Kohrherr discloses the sheet material comprises a first outer layer (paragraph 0024), a second outer layer (paragraph 0024), and an adhesive layer (paragraph 0024) disposed between the first outer layer and the second outer layer (paragraph 0024).
Kohrherr is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to garments capable of providing support to the abdomen of the wearer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the configuration of the material used to make the belt of Working and Gundel by constructing the sheet material with a first outer layer, a second outer layer, and an adhesive layer disposed between them as taught by Kohrherr in order to ensure the layers of material do not stretch independently. The modification would be a simple modification to provide better support to the belly during wear.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Working US 6071175 A (herein after Working) in view of Gundel US 0939012 A (herein after Gundel) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Javaid US 20140221892 A1 (herein after Javaid).
Regarding claim 8, the abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses all the limitations of claim 8 except they do not disclose the second upper edge includes a notch configured to avoid the navel when worn.
Javaid teaches the second upper edge (as seen in annotated Figure 4) includes a notch (as seen in annotated Figure 4) configured to avoid the navel when worn (as seen in annotated Figure 4).
[AltContent: textbox (The second upper edge includes a notch configured to avoid the navel when worn.)]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
297
395
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Javaid is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to waist supports.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the lower abdominal support portion of Working and Gundel by constructing the second upper edge including a notch configured to avoid the navel when worn as taught by Javaid, in order to prevent irritation. The modification would be a simple modification to, ensure the belt does not rub against the naval areas and cause discomfort.
Claims 14, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Working US 6071175 A (herein after Working) in view of Dillard US 20220175052 A1 (herein after Dillard).
Regarding claim 14, Working discloses an abdominal support belt (2), comprising: a waist support portion (6) having a first upper edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9) and a first lower edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9), wherein the waist support portion (6) is configured to extend around a user's waist region (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9) and along both sides of the user when worn (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9); and a lower abdominal support portion (4) having a second upper edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9) and a second lower edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9), wherein the waist support portion (6) and the lower abdominal support portion (4) are connected at a junction (as seen in annotated Figure 4), and the lower abdominal support portion (4) is configured to be positioned over a lower abdominal region of the user when worn (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9); wherein the first lower edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9) is configured to terminate at or below an iliac crest of the user's pelvis when worn (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9).
However, Working is silent to the lower abdominal support portion is curved downwardly from a central region to opposing ends.
Dillard discloses the lower abdominal support portion is curved downwardly (as seen in annotated Figure 5) from a central region to opposing ends (as seen in annotated Figure 5).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image7.png
305
527
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Working and Dillard are analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to waist supports.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the lower abdominal support portion of Working by constructing the lower abdominal support portion is curved downwardly from a central region to opposing ends as taught by Dillard, in order to better shape the belt to the wearers stomach. The modification would be a simple modification to, provide a better fit and more comfortable support belt.
Regarding claim 15, the modified abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses the first lower edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9 of Working) slopes downwardly toward the junction (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9 of Working).
Regarding claim 16, the modified abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses an upper abdominal support portion (8 of Working) configured to be positioned over a region of the user between a lower chest edge (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9 of Working) and an area above the navel when worn (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9 of Working).
Regarding claim 18, the modified abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses the upper abdominal support portion (8 of Working) and the waist support portion (6 of Working) are cut from the same sheet material (Col 5, lines 6-11 of Working).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Working US 6071175 A (herein after Working) in view of Dillard US 20220175052 A1 (herein after Dillard) as applied to claim 14 and further in view of Gundel US 0939012 A (herein after Gundel).
Regarding claim 17, the modified abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses all of the limitations of claim 17, however they do not teach the upper abdominal support portion and the waist support portion are integrally formed as a single piece.
Gundel teaches the upper abdominal support portion and the waist support portion are integrally formed as a single piece. (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Gundel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the belt of Working and Dillard by constructing the upper abdominal support portion and the waist support portion being integrally formed as a single piece as taught by Gundel, in order to make the belt easier to don, doff and adjust when worn. The modification would be a simple modification to allow the wearer the ability to adjust the belt and each of the portions easily while worn.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Working US 6071175 A (herein after Working) in view of Dillard US 20220175052 A1 (herein after Dillard) as applied to 14, and further in view of Kohrherr US 20160050982 A1 (herein after Kohrherr).
Regarding claim 19, the abdominal support belt of the combined references discloses all the limitations of claim 19 except they do not disclose the sheet material comprises a first outer layer, a second outer layer, and an adhesive layer disposed between the first outer layer and the second outer layer.
Kohrherr discloses the sheet material comprises a first outer layer (paragraph 0024 of Kohrherr), a second outer layer (paragraph 0024 of Kohrherr), and an adhesive layer (paragraph 0024 of Kohrherr) disposed between the first outer layer (paragraph 0024 of Kohrherr) and the second outer layer (paragraph 0024 of Kohrherr).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the configuration of the material used to make the belt of Working and Dillard by constructing the sheet material with a first outer layer, a second outer layer, and an adhesive layer disposed between them as taught by Kohrherr in order to ensure the layers of material do not stretch independently. The modification would be a simple modification to provide better support to the belly during wear.
Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not convincing. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards structural elements included in the amended claims and thus do not apply to the combinations of references used to teach the limitations of the amended claims in the current rejection and/or the manner in which prior art has been applied in the current rejection. In view of Applicant's amendments, the search has been updated, and a rejection on the amended claims is applied above.
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 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 CATHERINE M FERREIRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5916, fax number (571) 270-6916. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 9:00 am- 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS, at (571) 272-3425. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Catherine M. Ferreira/
Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights