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 1/11/26. As directed by the amendment, claim 1 has been amended; claims 2-4 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 5-17 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Molard CA 3148306 A1 (herein after Molard).
Regarding claim 1, Molard discloses a clothing article for a pregnant female (Abstract, 10), the clothing article (page 2, lines 8, 9 and 15 - as seen in highlighted text translation) comprising: a front-side fabric-region (as seen in annotated Figure 3), configured to cover at least genitalia of the pregnant female (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4); a rear-side fabric-region (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4), configured to cover the buttocks of the pregnant female (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4); a waistband (34, 36) connecting the front-side fabric-region and the rear-side fabric region (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4), configured to encircle the waist of the pregnant female (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4); a right-leg fabric region (as seen in annotated Figure 3), extending downwardly from the waistband (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4), configured to cover at least a portion of a right leg or a right hip or a right thigh of the pregnant female (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4); a left-leg fabric region (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4), extending downwardly from the waistband (34), configured to cover at least a portion of a left leg or a left hip or a left thigh of the pregnant female (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4); a lower-back covering fabric region (18, as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4), wherein the waistband (36, 34) and the movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap (30 – “…the
belt 30 is an attached elastic band…”) are two distinct and separate fabric elements (as seen in annotated Figure 4 – “…a belly band 34 which extends, in the service position, in front of the pregnant woman…;… a dorsal band 36 which extends, in the service position, behind the pregnant woman,. …;…
The belt 30 is arranged so as to extend, in the position of service, at least in part above the belly,
…;… when the device is intended to be used in the summer, the veil 20 (the material covering the belly) may be absent. The device is then devoid of material between the belly band and the panty part. The function of the belt 30 is to ensure an elastic support on the woman pregnant in a way to maintain the device in the service position, to prevent it from falls….”); extending upwardly from a rear side of the waistband (34), and configured to cover a lower back of the pregnant female (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4); a movable and adjustable along a plurality of positions (30, as seen in Figures 4 and 5) belly-support fabric-made elastic strap (30, page 13, line 15 - as seen in highlighted text translation) that is integrally and non-detachably connected (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4) to the lower-back covering fabric region (18, as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4); wherein the movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap (30, page 13, line 15 - as seen in highlighted text translation) is movable via angular pivoting (Col 5, lines 7-9, as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4) between at least: a lower position (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4), in which the movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap covers at least a portion of a lower-third of a pregnant belly of the pregnant female (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4), and an upper position (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4), in which the movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap (30, page 13, line 15 - as seen in highlighted text translation) covers at least a portion of an upper-third of the pregnant belly of the pregnant female (as seen in annotated Figure 3 and 4), and wherein, when the movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap (30) is at said upper position (as seen in annotated Figure 4), the clothing article provides a front-side uncovered aperture (as seen in annotated Figure 4) to a portion of a front- side of the pregnant belly (as seen in annotated Figure 4), wherein said front-side uncovered aperture is bound at its top by said movable belly- support fabric-made elastic strap (30), wherein said front-side uncovered aperture is bound at its bottom by said waistband (34 as seen in annotated Figure 4).
.
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Front-sided -Uncovered aperture portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap (30).)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Waistband/belly band (34).)]
PNG
media_image1.png
628
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (The movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap is movable via angular pivoting between at least: a lower position, in which the movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap covers at least a portion of a lower-third of a pregnant belly of the pregnant female.)][AltContent: textbox (An upper position, in which the movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap covers at least a portion of an upper-third of the pregnant belly of the pregnant female. )]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A waistband connecting the front-side fabric-region and the rear-side fabric region, configured to encircle the waist of the pregnant female.)][AltContent: textbox (A front-side fabric-region, configured to cover at least genitalia of the pregnant female. )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A lower-back covering fabric region, extending upwardly from a rear side of the waistband, and configured to cover a lower back of the pregnant female.)][AltContent: textbox (A movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap that is integrally and non- detachably connected to the lower-back covering fabric region.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A rear-side fabric-region, configured to cover the buttocks of the pregnant female.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
628
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A left-leg fabric region, extending downwardly from the waistband, configured to cover at least a portion of a left leg or a left hip or a left thigh of the pregnant female.)][AltContent: textbox (A right-leg fabric region, extending downwardly from the waistband, configured to cover at least a portion of a right leg or a right hip or a right thigh of the pregnant female.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
556
315
media_image2.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 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molard CA 3148306 A1 (herein after Molard) in view of Dillard US 20220175052 A1 (herein after Dillard).
Regarding claim 5, the modified clothing article for a pregnant female of the combined references discloses all the limitations of claim 5 but it does not disclose the belly-support fabric-made elastic strap is a fabric element that is external to, and separate from, the waistband, and at least partially overlaps externally with the waistband.
Dillard discloses the belly-support fabric-made elastic strap is a fabric element (paragraph 0007 and 0009, as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Dillard) that is external to, and separate from, the waistband (as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Dillard), and at least partially overlaps externally with the waistband (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard).
[AltContent: textbox (The waistband and the belly-support fabric-made elastic strap are two distinct and separate fabric elements.)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The belly-support fabric-made elastic strap is a fabric element that is external to, and separate from, the waistband, and at least partially overlaps externally with the waistband.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
405
792
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
621
236
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Molard and Dillard are analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to abdominal support devices.
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 strap portions of Molard by constructing the waistband and the belly-support fabric-made elastic strap as two distinct and separate fabric elements as taught by Dillard, in order to be able to adjust them separately. The modification would be a simple modification to allow the wearer to adjust the device or one of the bands independently of the other band to provide a better fit as the belly grows.
Regarding claim 7, the modified clothing article for a pregnant female of the combined references discloses the waistband is integrally and continuously connected to a belly-support fabric-region (as seen in Figure 5 of Dillard via 112), that is configured to cover at least a lower one-tenth of the pregnant belly (as seen in Figure 1 of Dillard), and that remains at all times in direct contact with the waistband (as seen in Figure 5 of Dillard via 112), wherein the waistband and the belly-support fabric-region lack any gap or aperture between them (depending on what stage of pregnancy, the aperture created by the overlapping bands depends on the size of the wearers belly ranging from no aperture or gap between the two portions to a large aperture at the end of the pregnancy); wherein the belly-support fabric-region (as seen in annotated Figures 1 and 5 of Dillard), and the movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap (as seen in annotated Figures 1 and 5 of Dillard), are two distinct and different fabric elements (as seen in annotated Figures 1 and 5 of Dillard).
Regarding claim 10, the modified clothing article for a pregnant female of the combined references discloses the lower-back covering fabric region comprises: an upper sub-region (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard), a central sub-region (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard), a lower sub-region (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard); wherein the upper sub-region (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard) is integrally connected to an upper elastic band (paragraph 0007, as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard), that is configured to encircle an upper region of the pregnant belly (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard); wherein the lower sub-region is integrally connected to a lower elastic band (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard), that is configured to encircle a lower region of the pregnant belly (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard); wherein the upper elastic band (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard) and the lower elastic band (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard) are generally parallel to each other (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard), and are vertically spaced apart from each other (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard).
[AltContent: textbox (The upper elastic band and the lower elastic band are generally parallel to each other and are vertically spaced apart from each other.)][AltContent: textbox (Lower-back covering region.)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An upper sub-region.)][AltContent: textbox (A lower sub-region.)][AltContent: textbox (A central sub-region.)]
PNG
media_image4.png
621
236
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the modified clothing article for a pregnant female of the combined references discloses the central sub-region comprises an elastic X-shaped fabric component (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard), that connects the upper elastic band and the lower elastic band (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard).
Regarding claim 12, the modified clothing article for a pregnant female of the combined references discloses the upper sub-region (106, as seen in annotated Figures 1 and 5 of Dillard) and the lower sub-region (106 of Dillard) of the lower-back covering fabric region have (as seen in annotated Figures 1 and 5 of Dillard) a first level of elasticity (paragraph 0007 of Dillard); wherein the central sub-region (101, as seen in annotated Figures 1 and 5 of Dillard) of the lower-back covering fabric region has a second, different, level of elasticity (paragraph 0013 of Dillard).
Regarding claim 13, the modified clothing article for a pregnant female of the combined references discloses the clothing article is long pants (as seen in Figures 1 and 2 of Dillard) that cover more than half of leg-length of the pregnant female (as seen in Figures 1 and 2 of Dillard).
Regarding claim 14, Molard discloses wherein the clothing article is long leggings (page 2, lines 8, 9 and 15- as seen in highlighted text and as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 4) that cover more than half of leg-length of the pregnant female (as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 17, Molard discloses the clothing article is an undergarment or underwear (page 3 line 4).
Claims 6, 8, 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Molard CA 3148306 A1 (herein after Molard) in view of Dillard US 20220175052 A1 (herein after Dillard) as applied to claim 1, 7, 10, 11 above, and further in view of Working US 6071175 A (herein after Working).
Regarding claim 6, the clothing article for a pregnant female of the combined references disclose all the limitations of claim 6 except they do not disclose the waistband is formed of a first set of yarns, which has a first level of elasticity and which provides to the pregnant belly a first level of support; wherein the movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap is formed of a second, different, set of yarns, which has a second, different, level of elasticity and which provides to the pregnant belly a second, different, level of support.
Working teaches the waistband is formed of a first set of yarns (Col 4, lines 7-9 - nylon), which has a first level of elasticity and which provides to the pregnant belly a first level of support (Col 4, lines 7-9- elastic nylon webbing); wherein the movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap is formed of a second (Col 3, lines 37-40- elastic or inelastic cotton), different, set of yarns (Col 3, lines 37-40-cotton), which has a second, different, level of elasticity (Cotton and nylon depending on the weight and material construction would be capable of having different levels of elasticity) and which provides to the pregnant belly a second, different, level of support (heavier weight and less elasticity will provide better support while thinner weight material and greater elasticity will provide less elasticity – Working teaches the use of different materials, Col 3, lines 37-40-cotton and Col 4, lines 7-9 – nylon, that would be capable of having different elasticities and as such would have different levels of support).
Working is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to abdominal support devices.
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 material configuration of Molard and Dillard by constructing the waistband is formed of a first set of yarns, which has a first level of elasticity and which provides to the pregnant belly a first level of support; wherein the movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap is formed of a second, different, set of yarns, which has a second, different, level of elasticity and which provides to the pregnant belly a second, different, level of support as taught by Working, in order to provide differing levels of support and elasticity to either strap portion. The modification would be a simple modification to provide different properties to the different portions of the garment; allowing for stretch and comfort or stretch resistance and support as the belly grows.
Regarding claim 8, the modified clothing article for a pregnant female of the combined references discloses the belly-support fabric-region is formed of a first set of yarns (Col 3, lines 37-40- elastic or inelastic cotton), which has a first level of elasticity (Cotton and nylon depending on the weight and material construction would be capable of having different levels of elasticity) and which provides to the pregnant belly a first level of support (heavier weight and less elasticity will provide better support while thinner weight material and greater elasticity will provide less elasticity – Working teaches the use of different materials, Col 3, lines 37-40-cotton and Col 4, lines 7-9 – nylon, that would be capable of having different elasticities and as such would have different levels of support); wherein the movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap is formed of a second (Col 23-35 – nylon webbing), different, set of yarns, which has a second, different, level of elasticity (Cotton and nylon depending on the weight and material construction would be capable of having different levels of elasticity) and which provides to the pregnant belly a second, different, level of support (heavier weight and less elasticity will provide better support while thinner weight material and greater elasticity will provide less elasticity – Working teaches the use of different materials, Col 3, lines 37-40-cotton and Col 4, lines 7-9 – nylon, that would be capable of having different elasticities and as such would have different levels of support).
Regarding claim 9, the modified clothing article for a pregnant female of the combined references discloses all the limitations of claim 9 and further discloses wherein the movable belly-support fabric-made elastic strap has a third level of elasticity (paragraph 0013 of Dillard – cotton, spandex, polyester, nylon, lyocel, rayon, polyamide, or viscose capable of having differing elasticities) to enable upwardly pulling and moving of the belly-support fabric-made elastic strap (as seen in Figure 1 of Dillard) to cover said portion of the upper-third of the pregnant belly (as seen in Figure 1 of Dillard) the combined references are silent to the waistband has a first level of elasticity to enable the waistband to remain encircling the waist of the pregnant female; wherein the belly-support fabric-region has a second level of elasticity to enable upwardly stretching of the belly-support fabric-region to cover said lower one-tenth of the pregnant belly; wherein the second level of elasticity is greater than the first level of elasticity.
Working discloses the waistband has a first level of elasticity (Col 4, lines 7-9 of Working - elastic nylon webbing) to enable the waistband to remain encircling the waist of the pregnant female (as seen in annotated Figures 8 and 9 of Working); wherein the belly-support fabric-region has a second level of elasticity (Col 3, lines 37-40 of Working - elastic or inelastic cotton - cotton and nylon depending on the weight and material construction would be capable of having different levels of elasticity) to enable upwardly stretching of the belly-support fabric-region to cover said lower one-tenth of the pregnant belly (as seen in Figures 8 and 9 of Working); wherein the second level of elasticity is greater than the first level of elasticity (cotton and nylon depending on the weight and material construction would be capable of having different levels of elasticity).
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 movable belly-support fabric of Molard and Dillard by constructing the waistband having a first level of elasticity to enable the waistband to remain encircling the waist of the pregnant female; and the belly-support fabric-region having a second level of elasticity to enable upwardly stretching of the belly-support fabric-region to cover said lower one-tenth of the pregnant belly; with the second level of elasticity is greater than the first level of elasticity as taught by Working, in order to allow the wearer the ability to easily position the band and the belly cover to provide the best comfort and support. The modification would be a simple modification to provide the wearer the ability to position the additional support easily and adjust as need be for the best support and comfort as the belly grows over time.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molard CA 3148306 A1 (herein after Molard) in view of Dillard US 20220175052 A1 (herein after Dillard) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kohrherr US 20190029333 A1 (herein after Kohrherr).
Regarding claim 15, the clothing article for a pregnant female of the combined references discloses all the limitations of claim 15 except they do not disclose the clothing article is short pants that cover not more than half of leg-length of the pregnant female.
Kohrherr teaches the clothing article is short pants (paragraph 0032) that cover not more than half of leg-length of the pregnant female (paragraph 0032).
Molard and Kohrherr are analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to pregnancy garments.
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 design of the lower torso garment of Molard by constructing the clothing article being short pants that cover not more than half of leg-length of the pregnant female as taught by Kohrherr, in order to provide the wearer to be comfortable. The modification would be a simple modification to allow the wearer to wear the garment comfortably in the summer or warmer months.
Regarding claim 16, the modified clothing article for a pregnant female of the combined references discloses the clothing article is short leggings (paragraph 0032 of Kohrerr) that cover not more than half of leg-length of the pregnant female (paragraph 0032 of Kohrerr).
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 design of the lower torso garment of Molard by constructing the clothing article being short leggings that cover not more than half of leg-length of the pregnant female as taught by Kohrherr, in order to provide the wearer to be comfortable. The modification would be a simple modification to allow the wearer to wear the garment comfortably in the summer or warmer months.
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 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.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that the combined references do not teach two distinct and separate fabric elements, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Molard teaches a waistband (36 and 34) and movable belt upper portion (30), two distinct pieces (“…the belt 30 is an attached elastic band…” and as seen in annotated Figure 4 – “… belly band 34 which extends, in the service position, in front of the pregnant woman…;… a dorsal band 36 which extends, in the service position, behind the pregnant woman,. …;… The belt 30 is arranged so as to extend, in the position of service, at least in part above the belly,…;… when the device is intended to be used in the summer, the veil 20 may be absent. the
device is then devoid of material between the belly band and the panty part. The function of the belt 30 is to ensure an elastic support on the woman pregnant in a way to maintain the device in the service position, to prevent it from falls….”, these structural elements are two distinct pieces. The belly band that as seen in annotated Figure 4, goes around the back and below the belly is one distinct piece and the belt that goes above the belly a second distinct piece that is separate from the belly band).
In response to the applicant’s argument’s that Molards elements are not two distinct and separate fabric elements, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, Molard teaches a waistband (36 and 34) and movable belt upper portion (30), two distinct pieces (“…the belt 30 is an attached elastic band…” and as seen in annotated Figure 4 – “… belly band 34 which extends, in the service position, in front of the pregnant woman…;… a dorsal band 36 which extends, in the service position, behind the pregnant woman,. …;… The belt 30 is arranged so as to extend, in the position of service, at least in part above the belly,…;… when the device is intended to be used in the summer, the veil 20 may be absent. the
device is then devoid of material between the belly band and the panty part. The function of the belt 30 is to ensure an elastic support on the woman pregnant in a way to maintain the device in the service position, to prevent it from falls….”), these structural elements are two distinct pieces. The belly band that as seen in annotated Figure 4, goes around the back and below the belly is one distinct piece and the belt that goes above the belly a second distinct piece that is separate from the belly band ( “…When the device is intended to be used in the summer, the veil 20 (the material covering the belly) may be absent. The device is then devoid of material between the belly band and the panty part. The function of the belt 30 is to ensure an elastic support on the woman pregnant in a way to maintain the device in the service position, to prevent it from falls…”).
In response to the applicant’s arguments that the combined references do not enable a portion of the pregnant belly to be either covered or uncovered, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in annotated Figures 1, 4 and 5 of Molard, 34, 36 and 30, can be positioned in multiple positions; 1) covering the belly, 2) positioned below the belly and 3) and with element 34 below the belly and element 30 above the belly exposing the belly.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Figure 4
Belly uncovered with belt 30 above the belly, 34 below.)]
PNG
media_image5.png
617
376
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
606
367
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
620
377
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1
Belly covered.)][AltContent: textbox (Figure 5
34, 36 are Positioned below the belly.)]
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Molard does not cover the belly in its basic form; the examiner respectfully disagrees. Molard teaches the ability to position the waistband and the belt in various locations. Its unclear what the applicant refers to as the “basic form”, yet as shown above, annotated Figures 1, 4 and 5 of Molard, 34, 36 and 30, can be positioned in multiple positions; 1) covering the belly, 2) positioned below the belly and 3) and with element 34 below the belly and element 30 above the belly exposing the belly.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Molard does not provide for easy transition between a covered or uncovered form of the device, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Annotated Figures 1, 4 and 5 of Molard, 34, 36 and 30, can be positioned in multiple positions; 1) covering the belly, 2) positioned below the belly and 3) and with element 34 below the belly and element 30 above the belly exposing the belly.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that the upper and lower belly can be covered with the middle portion uncovered, which is not possible in Molard unless an additional "veil" accessory is added, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As clearly shown in annotated Figures 1, 4 and 5 of Molard, 34, 36 and 30, can be positioned in multiple positions; 1) covering the belly, 2) positioned below the belly and 3) and with element 34 below the belly and element 30 above the belly exposing the belly without the need for an additional accessory.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that no teaching or suggestion in Dillard that either of the straps can be moved up / down to cover a central area of the belly, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in annotated Figures 1, 4 and 5 of Molard, 34, 36 and 30, can be moved up and down and positioned in multiple positions; 1) covering the belly, 2) positioned below the belly and 3) and with element 34 below the belly and element 30 above the belly exposing the belly.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that neither Working nor Kohrherr disclose or suggest a device comprising a waistband and a belly-support strap as two distinct and separate fabric elements. Working is not used to teach a waistband and a belly-support strap as two distinct and separate fabric elements, Dillard teaches the belly-support fabric-made elastic strap is a fabric element (paragraph 0007 and 0009, as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Dillard) that is external to, and separate from, the waistband (as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Dillard), and at least partially overlaps externally with the waistband (as seen in annotated Figure 1 of Dillard), and as seen in annotated Figures 1, 4 and 5 of Molard, 34, 36 and 30, can be moved up and down and positioned in multiple positions; 1) covering the belly, 2) positioned below the belly and 3) and with element 34 below the belly and element 30 above the belly exposing the belly.
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