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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Species A, and Species W in the response filed 1/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-12 14-15, and 18 read on the elected invention/species; claims 19-26 are withdrawn by Applicant as being directed to a non-elected invention/species. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-12 14-15, and 18 are therefore presented for examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/5/2025 and 6/5/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: Figure 6 includes reference numbers (608, 610, 612, 614) placed on shaded/hatched surfaces. 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) states: “Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.” Reference numbers 608, 610, 612, 614 are not referring to surfaces and would be more clear and distinct if placed outside the shaded/hatched regions similar to 606 and 602.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied, namely “are described” in line 2. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “fourth stretching module zone” in line 3 should likely be “fourth stretching modulus zone”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maheshwari (US 2017/0290376).
Regarding claim 1, Maheshwari discloses: An article of clothing (128) including an engineered woven fabric (130) comprising: a single-layer woven portion (130 in areas other than the bra cup areas that form pocket 172) having at least one warp yarn and at least one weft yarn (“having warp and weft yarns woven throughout” paragraph 75), the single-layer woven portion engineered with a first stretching modulus zone with a first level of stretchability (second zone 136; “mid-back region having woven stretch zone B” paragraph 71) and a second stretching modulus zone with a second level of stretchability (fifth zone 142; “front band region having third lockout zone C” paragraph 72), the first level of stretchability being greater than the second level of stretchability (“woven support and stability that restricts movement via lockout zones […] while at the same time (and as part of the same woven material 1030) providing woven stretch characteristics to permit shaping and/or structure via stretch zones” paragraph 74; “a lockout zone of an engineered knit or engineered woven bra may include a maximum of 20% stretch from an original position, while adjacent stretch zones may be configured to permit stretch greater than 20%” paragraph 83); and a double-layer woven portion (fourth portion 140; “a woven outer panel 168 opposite a woven internal panel 170 that includes an internal pocket 172 for positioning a cup liner or other feature inside the bra front” paragraph 74) seamlessly joined with the single layer woven portion (“the engineered woven bra 166 may be woven for assembly with minimal seaming, such as a single seam 174 between the back wing edges 156 and front wing edges 158, while still including additional woven layers or integrated woven structures, such as the integrated pocket 172” paragraph 74; as described, the pocket is an integrated woven structure meaning it is seamlessly joined with the single layer portion as the only seam in the garment is a single seam between the back wing edges and front wing edges) having two independent woven layers each having at least one warp yarn and at least one weft yarn (168, 170; see paragraph 74), the double-layer woven portion forming a pocket with closed edges seamlessly joined with the single-layer woven portion and an opening (“a woven outer panel 168 opposite a woven internal panel 170 that includes an internal pocket 172 for positioning a cup liner or other feature inside the bra front” paragraph 74; see figure 12; as described in paragraph 74, the pocket is an integrated woven structure meaning it is seamlessly joined with the single layer portion as the only seam in the garment is a single seam between the back wing edges and front wing edges); wherein the single-layer woven portion is engineered such that the second stretching modulus zone is disposed around the closed edges of the pocket to provide support around the pocket (see figures 10, 11, and 12; the fifth zone 142 is in the band region which is around closed bottom edges of the pocket 172, which is located in the bust region as it is intended to hold a bra cup; Examiner notes that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation and it is understood that the lockout zone 142 provides support around the pocket because it has a lockout/no stretch construction).
Regarding claim 2, Maheshwari discloses: The article of clothing of claim 1, wherein the second stretching modulus zone is a no-stretch zone (“lockout zone C characteristics of the third zone 18 may be characterized […] to provide both widthwise and lengthwise lockout associated with a band region 30” paragraph 57; “locked out material preventing stretch” paragraph 77), a reverse twill weave, or a plain weave.
Regarding claim 9, Maheshwari discloses: The article of clothing of claim 1, wherein the single-layer woven portion comprises two or more warp yarns and two or more weft yarns, and/or wherein the double-layer woven portion comprises two or more warp yarns and two or more weft yarns (168, 170; see paragraph 74; each layer in the double-layer portion has at least one warp yarn and at least one weft yarn, therefore the double-layer portion as a whole must have at least two warp yarns and at least two weft yarns in total including both layers; Examiner also notes that the “and/or” limitation is given its broadest reasonable interpretation which is “or”, so only one of the two listed limitations is required to meet the claim).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5, 10-12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maheshwari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyle (US 2016/0120246).
Regarding claim 5, Maheshwari contemplates, “the different stretch properties of the zones may be achieved by adjusting […] yarn selections” (paragraph 31) and “a yarn type utilized within the stretch zone B may include a lightweight, high-stretch, elastic yarn” (paragraph 32), but does not explicitly disclose: The article of clothing of claim 1, wherein the first stretching modulus zone comprises an elastane yarn, wherein the elastane yarn is added in the warp direction and/or the weft direction of the first stretching modulus zone.
However, Boyle teaches “typically, woven fabrics do not stretch unless Lycra, elastic, or spandex fibers are woven into the fabric at the same time” (paragraph 17) and “woven fabrics having a relatively higher Lycra, elastic, or spandex content can be used for the stretch panels” (paragraph 18).
Boyle teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of woven garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select specifically an elastane (Examiner notes that elastane is a generic name for spandex/Lycra®) yarn to add stretch to the stretch zone B of Maheshwari, as taught by Boyle, because elastane is a known material in the art suitable for adding stretch to woven materials and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Maheshwari contemplates, “within each lockout or stretch zone, in some aspects, a variably level of lockout or stretch may be zonally positioned” (paragraph 75), but does not explicitly disclose: The article of clothing of claim 1, wherein the double-layer woven portion is engineered with a third stretching modulus zone with a third level of stretchability and a fourth stretching module zone with a fourth level of stretchability, the third level of stretchability being greater than the fourth level of stretchability.
However, Boyle teaches a pocket construction with an inner layer with stretch (“rear pocket inner layer 26 in the form of a stretch panel” paragraph 25) and an outer layer with no stretch (“rear pocket outer layer 62 can comprise a woven fabric, and in turn, can provide rigidity to the pocket 24” paragraph 25; “typically woven fabrics do not stretch” paragraph 17).
Boyle teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of woven garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the pocket of Maheshwari such that the inner layer is engineered with a third stretching modulus zone with a third level of stretchability and the outer layer is engineered with a fourth stretching modulus with a fourth level of stretchability, the third level of stretchability being greater than the fourth level of stretchability, as taught by Boyle, in order to provide greater support to the user’s breasts while still maintaining fit and mobility (see paragraphs 25-26 of Boyle).
Regarding claim 11, Maheshwari as modified discloses: The article of clothing of claim 10, wherein the fourth stretching modulus zone is a no-stretch modulus zone (as modified, the fourth stretching modulus zone on the outer layer of the pocket of Maheshwari is a no stretch modulus zone).
Regarding claim 12, Maheshwari contemplates, “the different stretch properties of the zones may be achieved by adjusting […] yarn selections” (paragraph 31) and “a yarn type utilized within the stretch zone B may include a lightweight, high-stretch, elastic yarn” (paragraph 32), but does not explicitly disclose: The article of clothing of claim 10, wherein the third stretching modulus zone comprises an elastane yarn, wherein the elastane yarn is added in the warp direction and/or the weft direction of the third stretching modulus zone.
However, Boyle further teaches “typically, woven fabrics do not stretch unless Lycra, elastic, or spandex fibers are woven into the fabric at the same time” (paragraph 17) and “woven fabrics having a relatively higher Lycra, elastic, or spandex content can be used for the stretch panels” (paragraph 18).
Boyle teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of woven garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select specifically an elastane (Examiner notes that elastane is a generic name for spandex/Lycra®) yarn to add stretch to the fabric in the third stretching modulus zone of Maheshwari, as taught by Boyle, because elastane is a known material in the art suitable for adding stretch to woven materials and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 18, Maheshwari does not explicitly disclose: The article of clothing of claim 1, wherein one woven layer of the two independent woven layers forming the double-layer woven portion has a level of stretchability that is greater than the other woven layer.
However, Boyle teaches a pocket construction with an inner layer with stretch (“rear pocket inner layer 26 in the form of a stretch panel” paragraph 25) and an outer layer with no stretch (“rear pocket outer layer 62 can comprise a woven fabric, and in turn, can provide rigidity to the pocket 24” paragraph 25; “typically woven fabrics do not stretch” paragraph 17).
Boyle teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of woven garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the pocket of Maheshwari such that the inner layer has a greater stretchability than the outer layer, as taught by Boyle, in order to provide greater support to the user’s breasts while still maintaining fit and mobility (see paragraphs 25-26 of Boyle).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maheshwari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morales (US 2018/0119318).
Regarding claim 7, Maheshwari does not explicitly disclose: The article of clothing of claim 1, wherein the first stretching modulus zone is a ripstop weave.
However, Morales teaches a stretch woven fabric with a ripstop weave (“a woven rip-stop fabric 10 (FIG. 1) is formed by weaving mechanical stretch weft yarns 12 into spun warp yarns 14” paragraph 20).
Morales teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of woven garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the first stretching modulus zone of Maheshwari with specifically a ripstop weave, as taught by Morales, in order to provide a material that is “resistant to wear, is capable of stretching for comfort, and can withstand multiple washes” (Morales, paragraph 23), which will increase the durability and longevity of the garment while maintaining comfort and elasticity.
Claim(s) 8, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maheshwari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weening (US 2017/0233904).
Regarding claim 8, Maheshwari contemplates, “within each lockout or stretch zone, in some aspects, a variably level of lockout or stretch may be zonally positioned” (paragraph 75), but does not explicitly disclose: The article of clothing of claim 1, wherein the single-layer woven portion comprises at least one additional stretching modulus zone with a level of stretchability different from the first and the second level of stretchability.
However, Weening teaches a woven fabric with various seamlessly joined zones (see paragraph 76) with different attributes including elasticity (see paragraph 70) in which there is a transition zone between adjacent zones that includes a gradient of the attributes between adjacent zones (“the transition zone may be in the nature of a zone that progressively changes in one or more attributes from one side to another. For example, it may be in the natures of a continuum, gradient, or spectrum of attributes between adjacent or nearby zones of other types so that there is a smooth transition of selected zone-type attributes from one zone, through the transition zone, to the other zone” paragraph 83).
Weening teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of woven materials for garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a transition with a gradient in the level of stretchability between the zones of Maheshwari, as taught by Weening, in order to create “a smooth transition of [elasticity] from one zone, through the transition zone, to the [next] zone” (Maheshwari, paragraph 83), which would increase both comfort and durability in comparison to a hard boundary between the zones. Examiner notes that this transition zone would be an additional stretching modulus zone that has a level of stretchability that is different than both the first and second levels of stretchability.
Regarding claim 14, Maheshwari does not explicitly disclose: The article of clothing of claim 1, further comprising a gradient in the level of stretchability of the single-layer woven portion that increases in stretchability as a distance from the opening of the pocket increases.
However, Weening teaches a woven fabric with various seamlessly joined zones (see paragraph 76) with different attributes including elasticity (see paragraph 70) in which there is a transition zone between adjacent zones that includes a gradient of the attributes between adjacent zones (“the transition zone may be in the nature of a zone that progressively changes in one or more attributes from one side to another. For example, it may be in the natures of a continuum, gradient, or spectrum of attributes between adjacent or nearby zones of other types so that there is a smooth transition of selected zone-type attributes from one zone, through the transition zone, to the other zone” paragraph 83).
Weening teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of woven materials for garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a transition with a gradient in the level of stretchability between all of the zones of Maheshwari, as taught by Weening, in order to create “a smooth transition of [elasticity] from one zone, through the transition zone, to the [next] zone” (Maheshwari, paragraph 83), which would increase both comfort and durability in comparison to a hard boundary between the zones.
Regarding claim 15, Maheshwari as modified discloses: The article of clothing of claim 14, wherein the second stretching modulus zone is a no-stretch zone disposed adjacent to the opening of the pocket (the zone 142 is a lockout zone C; “lockout zone C characteristics of the third zone 18 may be characterized […] to provide both widthwise and lengthwise lockout associated with a band region 30” paragraph 57; “locked out material preventing stretch” paragraph 77; Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); wherein the first stretching modulus zone is located a distance away from the opening of the pocket (zone 136; see figure 10; Examiner notes that the limitation “a distance away from the opening of the pocket” is very broad and does not specify a particular range or limit to the claimed distance, so any distance is considered to be “a distance”); and wherein the gradient in the level of stretchability increases from the second level of stretchability in the second stretching modulus zone to the first level of stretchability in the first stretching modulus zone (as modified, there is a gradient transition in the level of stretchability between all of the zones of Maheshwari; since the first level of stretchability is greater than the second level of stretchability, the gradient in the level of stretchability would increase from the second level of stretchability in the second stretching modulus zone to the first level of stretchability in the first stretching modulus zone as modified).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Shannon (US 7159621), Castello (US 3602914), Goldsmith (US 2208256), and Hill (US 1423524) teach relevant garment/pocket constructions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/CLINTON T OSTRUP/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights