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 3/12/26 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 2/5/26.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 9 has been amended to curvilinear based on claim interpretation on page 4 of the office action 2/5/26 but has not been added to the specification
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 Line 2 before “positioned” add –configured to be—; otherwise, a U.S.C. 101 rejection may be warranted for positively claiming a nipple
Claim 15 Line 3 before “positioned” add –configured to be—for reasons aforementioned
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 “stretched open” Claim 1 Lines 4, 9, 10 is considered new matter. There is no specification antecedent basis for the term. Specification only recites [0015], [0058] “non-stretched state” and [0058] “opening 21 is stretched.” However, no configuration for what constitutes “open” has been disclosed.
The term “opening being configured to be stretched…upon insertion of a molded cup” in Claim 1 Lines 2-4 is considered new matter. There is no specification antecedent basis for the term. [0058] recites “opening 21 is stretched” and [0059] recites “insertion of the molded cup through the opening”. However, there is no disclosure that there is stretch upon/in relation to the insertion of a molded cup.
Relatedly, The term “opening being configured to be stretched open upon insertion of a molded cup” in Claim 1 Lines 2-4 is considered new matter. There is no specification antecedent basis for the term. However, there is no disclosure that there is a configuration of “stretch open” upon/in relation to the insertion of a molded cup.
The term “edge of the opening possesses…elasticity provided by the elastic adhesive film to resist tearing” in Claim 1 Lines 7-9 is new matter. There is no specification antecedent basis for the term. [0026] indicates that it is the existence of the strip that prevents tearing, and does not disclose the elastic adhesive film being part of the effect.
The term “an edge of the opening possesses both structural strength provided by the reinforcement strip and elasticity provided by the elastic adhesive film to resist tearing and maintain deformability” in Claim 1 Lines 7-9 is new matter. There is no specification antecedent basis for the term. [0026] recites that the existence of the strip prevents deformation, and there is no disclosure pertaining to maintaining deformation, let alone relative to a strip or elastic adhesive film or opening edge or tearing.
The term “an edge of the opening possesses both structural strength provided by the reinforcement strip and elasticity provided by the elastic adhesive film to resist tearing and maintain deformability when the opening is stretched open” in Claim 1 Lines 7-10 is new matter. Similarly as aforementioned, there is no specification antecedent basis for the configuration of stretched open, and therefore no support for such a configuration relative to an opening edge or strip or elastic adhesive film or tearing or deformation.
Claim 11 Lines 4-5 are rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1.
Claim 11 Lines 9-11 are rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1.
Claim 18 Lines 3-4 are rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1.
Claim 18 Lines 10-12 are rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1.
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 “stretched open” in Claim 1 Lines 4, 9, 10 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the lack of antecedent basis, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the configuration is. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met, especially as a functional limitation, with the existence of an opening, and the capacity to stretch.
The term “a molded cup” in Claim 1 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this molded cup is different from that established in Claim 1 Line 4. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 11 will be interpreted as though “the opening being configured to be stretched open upon insertion of the molded cup” occurs after “a molded cup disposed within the accommodation space”.
The term “maintain deformability” in Claim 1 Line 9 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the lack of antecedent basis, it is unclear what the metes and bounds are. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met, especially as a functional limitation, with the existence of the strip and elastic adhesive film at an opening edge.
The term “stretched open” in Claim 11 Lines 5, 11 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 and will be similarly interpreted.
The term “a molded cup” in Claim 11 Line 6 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 and will be similarly interpreted.
The term “maintain deformability” in Claim 11 Line 10 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 and will be similarly interpreted.
The term “stretched open” in Claim 18 Lines 4, 12 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 and will be similarly interpreted.
The term “a molded cup” in Claim 18 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 and will be similarly interpreted.
The term “maintain deformability” in Claim 18 Line 11 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 and will be similarly interpreted.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Interpretation
Based on Fig. 4, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “linear” in Claim 11 Line 4 “linear side edges” will be interpreted as including “curvilinear”
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.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (US Publication 2022/0330626) in view of Joannou (USPN 12213540) and Jarvis (USPN 9788594).
Regarding Claim 1, Wiese teaches a brassiere (see Fig. 1; [0021] "garment pad system 13 generally comprises a garment pad 1 having a plurality of securing mechanisms 2 and a garment 5"; [0027] "garment pad 1 may be used with various garments 5 such as…sports bras") comprising:
a housing forming an accommodation space therein (see Fig. 1; [0027] "garment 5 having a pad pocket 10 adapted to receive a pad. Pocket 10 may be formed between an outer layer 8 of garment 5 and an inner layer 9 of garment 5 that touches the body 11"; Wiese teaches the pocket/space formed by housing outer/inner layers 8, 9 which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of accommodating),
the housing having an opening communicating between interior and exterior of the accommodation space (see Fig. 1; [0027] "inlet 11 located along inner layer 9 that allows access to pocket 10");
the opening being configured to be stretched open upon insertion of a molded cup (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--[0025] “garment 5 to stretch and adjust to the user’s body…knitted fabric may be selected from the construction of sports bras due to intermeshing weaves of material which may contain spandex, allowing for large extensibility and a high recovery rate”; Wiese teaches the opening and on a stretch garment which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of stretching open upon insertion of a cup, especially in light of [0027]);
a molded cup disposed within the accommodation space ([0027] "garment pad 1 may be inserted and/or removed into pocket 10 through inlet 11"; [0032] "garment pad 1 may be manufactured ..through a pad molding machine"); and
an elastic adhesive film ([0024] "garment pad 1 may have multiple securing mechanisms 2 that can be used to secure pad 1 to garment 5. Securing mechanisms may take a number of forms such as adhesives…fasteners and the like… securing mechanisms 2 may be pieces of heat activated adhesives (also referred to as heat sensitive adhesives) such as thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) hot melt adhesive…securing mechanisms 2 may include a TPU hot melt double-sided adhesive film"; wherein applicant specification [0044] indicates polyurethane adhesive as meeting the term elastic adhesive).
Wiese does not explicitly teach a reinforcement strip,
wherein the reinforcement strip is bonded via the elastic adhesive film to a peripheral region of the opening.
Joannou teaches a reinforcement strip (see Figs. 3a, 3b; Col. 4 Lines 34-35 "garment is a brassiere"; Col. 4 Line 64-Col. 5 Line 3 "The reinforcement member 307 having an elongated rectangular shape is designed to be stitched into fabric surrounding slit 304 (FIG. 3A), it being understood that the rectangular shape is only exemplary and other shapes, e.g. circular rings or oval members, may be substituted therefor. This improves reinforcement to the slit and edge section of the garment"; Col. 5 Lines 5-6 "reinforcement member is made from a solid rigid material such as a ridged polymer or metal"),
wherein the reinforcement strip is attached to a peripheral region of the opening (Col. 4 Line 64-Col. 5 Line 3 for “stitched”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese’s garment slit/opening with a reinforcement strip as taught by Joannou in order to provide reinforcement to garment slits, especially in brassieres (Col. 5 Lines 2-4).
Modified Wiese does not explicitly teach wherein the reinforcement strip is bonded via the elastic adhesive film to a peripheral region of the opening (see Joannou, wherein the attachment is via stitching).
However, Jarvis teaches wherein a reinforcement element is bonded via adhesive or stitching to a peripheral region of an opening (see Fig. 2; Col. 6 Lines 15-32 "eyelet reinforcement portions 202 may be formed and connected to the upper 206 using known means of attachment, such as stitching, adhesives...mating snap fit components").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese’s stitching reinforcement attachment, as provided by Joannou, with the adhesive reinforcement attachment taught by Jarvis, as a simple substitution of one reinforcement attachment type for another, as taught by Jarvis, as being interchangeable attachments for aperture reinforcements.
As such, modified Wiese teaches all of the elements of the instant invention as discussed in detail above except providing the adhesive (for the reinforcement strip) being elastic film. Although modified Wiese does not directly teach this limitation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Wiese by making its adhesive (for the reinforcement strip) to be of elastic film. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a commonly used material, in the apparel art, to make adhesive of elastic film on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, the use of elastic adhesive film would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a well-known material for an adhesive is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742,82, USPQ2d 1382, 1396 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese’s reinforcement strip’s adhesive to be the elastic adhesive film taught by Wiese for the molded cup for easier manufacturing, such as the adhesive already being available.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Wiese teaches such that an edge of the opening possesses both structural strength provided by the reinforcement strip and elasticity provided by the elastic adhesive film to resist tearing and maintain deformability when the opening is stretched open (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Wiese teaches the opening and therefore an edge; Wiese modified by Joannou teaches the reinforcement strip at the opening and therefore edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of providing structural strength; Wiese modified by Jarvis teaches the elastic adhesive film at the opening and therefore edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of providing elasticity; as such, modified Wiese teaches opening edge, reinforcement strip, and elastic adhesive film which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of resisting tearing and maintaining deformability when the opening is stretched).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Wiese teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Wiese further teaches wherein the reinforcement strip is continuously arranged along a circumferential direction of the peripheral region of the opening (see Joannou Figs. 3a, 3b for entire circumferential direction of the peripheral region of the opening).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Wiese teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Wiese further teaches wherein the molded cup is fixed to the housing at fixation regions (see Figs. 1, 4 for the securing mechanisms 2 providing fixation points in a region) comprising
an upper fixation region configured to be positioned above a wearer's nipple during use (see Fig. 4 for one upper securing mechanism 2 at an upper fixation region; Wiese teaches the upper fixation region which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being above a wearer’s nipple during use) and
a lower fixation region configured to be positioned below the wearer's nipple during use (see Fig. 4 for two lower securing mechanisms 2 at a lower fixation region; Wiese teaches the lower fixation region which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being below the wearer’s nipple during use).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Wiese teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 6.
Wiese further teaches wherein the molded cup is adhesively fixed to the housing at the fixation regions (see Figs. 1, 4; [0024] "garment pad 1 may have multiple securing mechanisms 2 that can be used to secure pad 1 to garment 5. Securing mechanisms may take a number of forms such as adhesives…fasteners and the like").
Regarding Claim 8, modified Wiese teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 6.
Wiese further teaches wherein the upper fixation region has an extension length smaller than that of the lower fixation region (see Fig. 4; the upper region only has one adhesive delineating the upper region while the lower region’s extension is between two adhesives; therefore the upper has an extension length smaller than the lower).
Regarding Claim 18, Wiese teaches a brassiere (see Fig. 1; [0021] "garment pad system 13 generally comprises a garment pad 1 having a plurality of securing mechanisms 2 and a garment 5"; [0027] "garment pad 1 may be used with various garments 5 such as…sports bras") comprising:
a housing forming an accommodation space therein (see Fig. 1; [0027] "garment 5 having a pad pocket 10 adapted to receive a pad. Pocket 10 may be formed between an outer layer 8 of garment 5 and an inner layer 9 of garment 5 that touches the body 11"; Wiese teaches the pocket/space formed by housing outer/inner layers 8, 9 which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of accommodating),
the housing having an opening communicating between interior and exterior of the accommodation space (see Fig. 1; [0027] "inlet 11 located along inner layer 9 that allows access to pocket 10");
the opening being configured to be stretched open upon insertion of a molded cup (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--[0025] “garment 5 to stretch and adjust to the user’s body…knitted fabric may be selected from the construction of sports bras due to intermeshing weaves of material which may contain spandex, allowing for large extensibility and a high recovery rate”; Wiese teaches the opening and on a stretch garment which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of stretching open upon insertion of a cup, especially in light of [0027]);
a molded cup disposed within the accommodation space ([0027] "garment pad 1 may be inserted and/or removed into pocket 10 through inlet 11"; [0032] "garment pad 1 may be manufactured ..through a pad molding machine");
and fixed to the housing at fixation regions (see Figs. 1, 4 for the securing mechanisms 2 providing fixation points in a region; [0024] "garment pad 1 may have multiple securing mechanisms 2 that can be used to secure pad 1 to garment 5. Securing mechanisms may take a number of forms such as adhesives…fasteners and the like…securing mechanisms 2 may be pieces of heat activated adhesives (also referred to as heat sensitive adhesives) such as thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) hot melt adhesive…securing mechanisms 2 may include a TPU hot melt double-sided adhesive film"; wherein applicant specification [0044] indicates polyurethane adhesive as meeting the term elastic adhesive) comprising
an upper fixation region positioned above a wearer's nipple during use (see Fig. 4 for one upper securing mechanism 2 at an upper fixation region; Wiese teaches the upper fixation region which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being above a wearer’s nipple during use) and
a lower fixation region positioned below the wearer's nipple during use (see Fig. 4 for two lower securing mechanisms 2 at a lower fixation region; Wiese teaches the lower fixation region which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being below the wearer’s nipple during use),
an elastic adhesive film ([0024] "garment pad 1 may have multiple securing mechanisms 2 that can be used to secure pad 1 to garment 5. Securing mechanisms may take a number of forms such as adhesives…fasteners and the like… securing mechanisms 2 may be pieces of heat activated adhesives (also referred to as heat sensitive adhesives) such as thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) hot melt adhesive…securing mechanisms 2 may include a TPU hot melt double-sided adhesive film"; wherein applicant specification [0044] indicates polyurethane adhesive as meeting the term elastic adhesive).
Wiese does not explicitly teach and a reinforcement strip continuously bonded via the elastic adhesive film along a circumferential direction of a peripheral region of the opening.
Joannou teaches a reinforcement strip (see Figs. 3a, 3b; Col. 4 Lines 34-35 "garment is a brassiere"; Col. 4 Line 64-Col. 5 Line 3 "The reinforcement member 307 having an elongated rectangular shape is designed to be stitched into fabric surrounding slit 304 (FIG. 3A), it being understood that the rectangular shape is only exemplary and other shapes, e.g. circular rings or oval members, may be substituted therefor. This improves reinforcement to the slit and edge section of the garment"; Col. 5 Lines 5-6 "reinforcement member is made from a solid rigid material such as a ridged polymer or metal"),
wherein the reinforcement strip is continuously attached along a circumferential direction of a peripheral region of the opening (Col. 4 Line 64-Col. 5 Line 3 for “stitched”, wherein Fig. 3a show the stitch being continuous circumferentially as recited).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese’s garment slit/opening with a reinforcement strip as taught by Joannou in order to provide reinforcement to garment slits, especially in brassieres (Col. 5 Lines 2-4).
Modified Wiese does not explicitly teach wherein the reinforcement strip is bonded via the elastic adhesive film along the circumferential direction (see Joannou, wherein the attachment is via stitching).
However, Jarvis teaches wherein a reinforcement element is bonded via adhesive or stitching to a peripheral region of an opening (see Fig. 2; Col. 6 Lines 15-32 "eyelet reinforcement portions 202 may be formed and connected to the upper 206 using known means of attachment, such as stitching, adhesives...mating snap fit components").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese’s stitching reinforcement attachment, as provided by Joannou, with the adhesive reinforcement attachment taught by Jarvis, as a simple substitution of one reinforcement attachment type for another, as taught by Jarvis, as being interchangeable attachments for aperture reinforcements.
As such, modified Wiese teaches wherein the reinforcement strip is continuously bonded via adhesive along a circumferential direction of the peripheral region of the opening (inasmuch as the stitching was continuous, so would the substitute adhesive).
Therefore, modified Wiese teaches all of the elements of the instant invention as discussed in detail above except providing the adhesive (for the reinforcement strip) being elastic film. Although modified Wiese does not directly teach this limitation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Wiese by making its adhesive (for the reinforcement strip) to be of elastic film. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a commonly used material, in the apparel art, to make adhesive of elastic film on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, the use of elastic adhesive film would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a well-known material for an adhesive is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742,82, USPQ2d 1382, 1396 (2007).
As such, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese’s reinforcement strip’s adhesive to be the elastic adhesive film taught by Wiese for the molded cup for easier manufacturing, such as the adhesive already being available.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Wiese teaches such that an edge of the opening possesses both structural strength provided by the reinforcement strip and elasticity provided by the elastic adhesive film to resist tearing and maintain deformability when the opening is stretched open (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Wiese teaches the opening and therefore an edge; Wiese modified by Joannou teaches the reinforcement strip at the opening and therefore edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of providing structural strength; Wiese modified by Jarvis teaches the elastic adhesive film at the opening and therefore edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of providing elasticity; as such, modified Wiese teaches opening edge, reinforcement strip, and elastic adhesive film which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of resisting tearing and maintaining deformability when the opening is stretched).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Wiese teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 18.
The body of Claim 19 is the same as the body of Claim 7. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 7 for the rejection of the body of Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Wiese teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 18.
The body of Claim 20 is the same as the body of Claim 8. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 8 for the rejection of the body of Claim 20.
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama et al (WO 2019/198214), herein Ishiyama, in view of Joannou (USPN 12213540), Jarvis (USPN 9788594), and Wiese (US Publication 2022/0330626).
Regarding Claim 1, Ishiyama teaches a brassiere (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; see Figs. 1-5; [0019] "upper body garment 1"; Ishiyama teaches the garment which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being a brassiere, inasmuch as the structure has been claimed for the term) comprising:
a housing forming an accommodation space therein ([0019] "upper body garment 1 comprises a main body part 2 configured to cover the torso...cup body 4 covering the bust of the wearer"; [0020] "front side of the main body part 2 is a bust part 5…back side of the main body 2 forms an upper back portion 6...bust portion 5 and the upper back portion 6 are continuous on both sides of the main body portion 2"; [0026] "Fig. 4 is a front view showing the upper-body garment shown in Fig. 1 turned inside out. As shown in the future, in the upper-body garment 1, a lining portion 13 is joined to the back side (skin side) of the bust portion 5. By joining the backing portion 13, a storage pocket S for storing the cup body 4 is formed on the back side of the bust portion 5", wherein accommodation space is storage pocket S),
the housing having an opening communicating between interior and exterior of the accommodation space ([0029] "an opening 15 is formed in the front center of the lining 13");
the opening being configured to be stretched open upon insertion of a molded cup (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--[0029] “lining portion 13…made of a stretchable fabric”; Ishiyama teaches the opening and on a stretch garment which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of stretching open upon insertion of a cup, especially in light of [0020]);
a molded cup disposed within the accommodation space (see Fig. 3; [0023] "cup body 4 has a pair of left and right cups 11, 11 and a connecting portion 12…integrally molded"; disposed within--[0023] "cup body 4 is placed in the bust area 5").
Ishiyama does not explicitly teach a reinforcement strip,
wherein the reinforcement strip is attached to a peripheral region of the opening.
Joannou teaches a reinforcement strip (see Figs. 3a, 3b; Col. 4 Lines 34-35 "garment is a brassiere"; Col. 4 Line 64-Col. 5 Line 3 "The reinforcement member 307 having an elongated rectangular shape is designed to be stitched into fabric surrounding slit 304 (FIG. 3A), it being understood that the rectangular shape is only exemplary and other shapes, e.g. circular rings or oval members, may be substituted therefor. This improves reinforcement to the slit and edge section of the garment"; Col. 5 Lines 5-6 "reinforcement member is made from a solid rigid material such as a ridged polymer or metal"),
wherein the reinforcement strip is attached to a peripheral region of the opening (Col. 4 Line 64-Col. 5 Line 3 for “stitched”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishiyama’s garment opening with a reinforcement strip as taught by Joannou in order to provide reinforcement to garment slits, especially in brassieres (Col. 5 Lines 2-4), and/or especially as Ishiyama is also concerned with durability of the opening ([0046]).
Modified Ishiyama does not explicitly teach an elastic adhesive film,
wherein the reinforcement strip is bonded via the elastic adhesive film to a peripheral region of the opening (see Joannou, wherein the attachment is via stitching).
However, Jarvis teaches wherein a reinforcement element is bonded via adhesive or stitching to a peripheral region of an opening (see Fig. 2; Col. 6 Lines 15-32 "eyelet reinforcement portions 202 may be formed and connected to the upper 206 using known means of attachment, such as stitching, adhesives...mating snap fit components").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishiyama’s stitching reinforcement attachment, as provided by Joannou, with the adhesive reinforcement attachment taught by Jarvis, as a simple substitution of one reinforcement attachment type for another, as taught by Jarvis, as being interchangeable attachments for aperture reinforcements.
As such, modified Ishiyama teaches all of the elements of the instant invention as discussed in detail above except providing the adhesive being elastic film. Although modified Ishiyama does not directly teach this limitation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ishiyama by making its adhesive of elastic film. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a commonly used material, in the apparel art, to make adhesive of elastic film on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, the use of elastic adhesive film would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a well-known material for an adhesive is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742,82, USPQ2d 1382, 1396 (2007).
Nevertheless, Wiese teaches adhesive being an elastic film (see Figs. 1, 4; [0024] "garment pad 1 may have multiple securing mechanisms 2 that can be used to secure pad 1 to garment 5. Securing mechanisms may take a number of forms such as adhesives…fasteners and the like… securing mechanisms 2 may be pieces of heat activated adhesives (also referred to as heat sensitive adhesives) such as thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) hot melt adhesive…securing mechanisms 2 may include a TPU hot melt double-sided adhesive film"; wherein applicant specification [0044] indicates polyurethane adhesive as meeting the term elastic adhesive).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishiyama’s adhesive, as provided by Jarvis, to be elastic film as taught by Wiese, as a known workable adhesive for elements in brassiere garments ([0024]), especially as Ishiyama already discloses similar adhesive films/sheets in use ([0039], [0056]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Ishiyama teaches such that an edge of the opening possesses both structural strength provided by the reinforcement strip and elasticity provided by the elastic adhesive film to resist tearing and maintain deformability when the opening is stretched open (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Ishiyama teaches the opening and therefore an edge; Ishiyama modified by Joannou teaches the reinforcement strip at the opening and therefore edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of providing structural strength; Ishiyama modified by Jarvis and Wiese teaches the elastic adhesive film at the opening and therefore edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of providing elasticity; as such, modified Ishiyama teaches opening edge, reinforcement strip, and elastic adhesive film which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of resisting tearing and maintaining deformability when the opening is stretched).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ishiyama teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Ishiyama further teaches wherein the housing comprises an inner layer and an outer layer stacked together ([0034] "as shown in Fig. 4, the backing portion 13 is joined to the back side of the bust portion 5 in a joining region L"),
the inner and outer layers being unbonded in a region corresponding to the accommodation space and at least partially bonded together in overlapping regions outside the accommodation space to form the accommodation space between the inner and outer layers (see Figs. 4, 5; [0039] "in the joining region L, a plurality of adhesive portion P are provided").
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ishiyama teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 3.
Ishiyama further teaches wherein the opening is disposed on the inner layer ([0026] "Fig. 4 is a front view showing the upper-body garment shown in Fig. 1 turned inside out"; [0029] "an opening 15 is formed in the front center of the lining 13").
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ishiyama teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 4.
Modified Ishiyama further teaches wherein the reinforcement strip is bonded via the elastic adhesive film to a surface of the inner layer facing the outer layer (see Joannou Fig. 3a; Col. 4 Lines 58-61 "garment comprises front portion 302 and slit 303...positioned on edge section 305 of the front portion, and is reinforced with a double stitched seam 304 providing reinforcement to the slit"; since seam 304 is visible from front/outer layer but reinforcement member 307 is not, that means 307 is attached to the surface of the inner layer facing the outer layer; therefore, when modifying with bonding/adhesive as in Claim 1, the attaching elastic adhesive film would be at the same location).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ishiyama teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Ishiyama further teaches wherein the opening has an elongated shape with edge portions (see Fig. 4; see Fig. 4; [0057] "opening is exemplified as being substantially elliptical with pointed upper and lower ends”) comprising
two side edges (see Fig. 4; [0057])
and two end edges (see Fig. 4; [0057]),
the side edges being curvilinear (see Fig. 4; [0057]).
Ishiyama Fig. 4 does not explicitly teach the end edges being arcuate.
Ishiyama Fig. 8C embodiment teaches wherein the opening has an elongated shape with edge portions (see Fig. 8C; [0057] “alternatively, for example, as shown in Fig. 8C, an oval opening 15C may be used. The opening 15C has a rectangular central portion and substantially semicircular longitudinal ends”) comprising
two side edges (see Fig. 8C; [0057])
and two end edges (see Fig. 8C; [0057])
the end edges being arcuate (see Fig. 8C; [0057] semicircular ends).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishiyama Fig. 4’s end edges to be arcuate as taught by Fig. 8C for aesthetic design choice, especially as 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.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Ishiyama teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 9.
Modified Ishiyama further teaches wherein the end edges are circular arcs (see Fig. 8C) having,
in a non-stretched state of the brassiere, a diameter greater than a spacing between the side edges (the diameter is greater than one space/area between the side edges; see annotated excerpt of Fig. 8C below for clarification as an example; Ishiyama teaches the diameter greater than a spacing which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of measuring as such in a non-stretched state as recited; wherein this same interpretation applies to Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Ishiyama teaches a brassiere (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; see Figs. 1-5; [0019] "upper body garment 1"; Ishiyama teaches the garment which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being a brassiere, inasmuch as the structure has been claimed for the term) comprising:
a housing forming an accommodation space therein ([0019] "upper body garment 1 comprises a main body part 2 configured to cover the torso...cup body 4 covering the bust of the wearer"; [0020] "front side of the main body part 2 is a bust part 5…back side of the main body 2 forms an upper back portion 6...bust portion 5 and the upper back portion 6 are continuous on both sides of the main body portion 2"; [0026] "Fig. 4 is a front view showing the upper-body garment shown in Fig. 1 turned inside out. As shown in the future, in the upper-body garment 1, a lining portion 13 is joined to the back side (skin side) of the bust portion 5. By joining the backing portion 13, a storage pocket S for storing the cup body 4 is formed on the back side of the bust portion 5", wherein accommodation space is storage pocket S),
the housing having an elongated opening communicating between interior and exterior of the accommodation space (see Fig. 4 for elongated; [0029] "an opening 15 is formed in the front center of the lining 13");
the opening having edge portions (see Fig. 4) comprising
two linear side edges (see Fig. 4; [0057])
and two end edges (see Fig. 4; [0057]);
the opening being configured to be stretched open upon insertion of a molded cup (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--[0029] “lining portion 13…made of a stretchable fabric”; Ishiyama teaches the opening and on a stretch garment which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of stretching open upon insertion of a cup, especially in light of [0020]);
a molded cup disposed within the accommodation space (see Fig. 3; [0023] "cup body 4 has a pair of left and right cups 11, 11 and a connecting portion 12…integrally molded"; disposed within--[0023] "cup body 4 is placed in the bust area 5").
Ishiyama Fig. 4 does not explicitly teach the end edges being arcuate.
Ishiyama Fig. 8C embodiment teaches wherein the elongated opening having edge portions comprising two linear side edges and a two arcuate end edges (see Fig. 8C; [0057] “alternatively, for example, as shown in Fig. 8C, an oval opening 15C may be used. The opening 15C has a rectangular central portion and substantially semicircular longitudinal ends”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishiyama Fig. 4’s opening shape to be that of Fig. 8C for aesthetic design choice, especially as Ishiyama indicates such alternatives.
Ishiyama does not explicitly teach an elastic adhesive film and a reinforcement strip continuously bonded via the elastic adhesive film along a circumferential direction of the peripheral region of the opening.
Joannou teaches a reinforcement strip (see Figs. 3a, 3b; Col. 4 Lines 34-35 "garment is a brassiere"; Col. 4 Line 64-Col. 5 Line 3 "The reinforcement member 307 having an elongated rectangular shape is designed to be stitched into fabric surrounding slit 304 (FIG. 3A), it being understood that the rectangular shape is only exemplary and other shapes, e.g. circular rings or oval members, may be substituted therefor. This improves reinforcement to the slit and edge section of the garment"; Col. 5 Lines 5-6 "reinforcement member is made from a solid rigid material such as a ridged polymer or metal"),
wherein the reinforcement strip is continuously attached along a circumferential direction of the peripheral region of the opening (Col. 4 Line 64-Col. 5 Line 3 for “stitched”, wherein Fig. 3a show the stitch being continuous circumferentially as recited).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishiyama’s garment slit/opening with a reinforcement strip as taught by Joannou in order to provide reinforcement to garment slits, especially in brassieres (Col. 5 Lines 2-4), and/or especially as Ishiyama is also concerned with durability of the opening ([0046]).
As such, modified Ishiyama teaches wherein the reinforcement strip is continuously bonded via adhesive along a circumferential direction of the peripheral region of the opening (inasmuch as the stitching was continuous, so would the substitute adhesive).
Modified Ishiyama does not explicitly teach wherein the reinforcement strip is bonded via the elastic adhesive film along a peripheral region of an opening (see Joannou, wherein the attachment is via stitching).
However, Jarvis teaches wherein a reinforcement element is bonded via adhesive or stitching along a peripheral region of an opening (see Fig. 2; Col. 6 Lines 15-32 "eyelet reinforcement portions 202 may be formed and connected to the upper 206 using known means of attachment, such as stitching, adhesives...mating snap fit components").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishiyama’s stitching reinforcement attachment, as provided by Joannou, with the adhesive reinforcement attachment taught by Jarvis, as a simple substitution of one reinforcement attachment type for another, as taught by Jarvis, as being interchangeable attachments for aperture reinforcements.
As such, modified Ishiyama teaches all of the elements of the instant invention as discussed in detail above except providing the adhesive being elastic film. Although modified Ishiyama does not directly teach this limitation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ishiyama by making its adhesive to be of elastic film. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a commonly used material, in the apparel art, to make adhesive of elastic film on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, the use of elastic adhesive film would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a well-known material for an adhesive is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742,82, USPQ2d 1382, 1396 (2007).
Nevertheless, Wiese teaches adhesive being an elastic film (see Figs. 1, 4; [0024] "garment pad 1 may have multiple securing mechanisms 2 that can be used to secure pad 1 to garment 5. Securing mechanisms may take a number of forms such as adhesives…fasteners and the like… securing mechanisms 2 may be pieces of heat activated adhesives (also referred to as heat sensitive adhesives) such as thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) hot melt adhesive…securing mechanisms 2 may include a TPU hot melt double-sided adhesive film"; wherein applicant specification [0044] indicates polyurethane adhesive as meeting the term elastic adhesive).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishiyama’s adhesive, as provided by Jarvis, to be elastic film as taught by Wiese, as a known workable adhesive for elements in brassiere garments ([0024]), especially as Ishiyama already discloses similar adhesive films/sheets in use ([0039], [0056]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Ishiyama teaches such that an edge of the opening possesses both structural strength provided by the reinforcement strip and elasticity provided by the elastic adhesive film to resist tearing and maintain deformability when the opening is stretched open (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Ishiyama teaches the opening and therefore an edge; Ishiyama modified by Joannou teaches the reinforcement strip at the opening and therefore edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of providing structural strength; Ishiyama modified by Jarvis and Wiese teaches the elastic adhesive film at the opening and therefore edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of providing elasticity; as such, modified Ishiyama teaches opening edge, reinforcement strip, and elastic adhesive film which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of resisting tearing and maintaining deformability when the opening is stretched).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Ishiyama teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 12 is the same as the body of Claim 3. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 3 for the rejection of the body of Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Ishiyama teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
The body of Claim 13 is the same as the body of Claim 4. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 4 for the rejection of the body of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Ishiyama teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 13.
The body of Claim 14 is the same as the body of Claim 5. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 5 for the rejection of the body of Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Ishiyama teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
Ishiyama does not explicitly teach wherein the molded cup is fixed to the housing at fixation regions comprising
an upper fixation region positioned above a wearer's nipple during use
a lower fixation region positioned below the wearer's nipple during use.
However, Ishiyama does teach wherein the molded cup is fixed to the housing at a fixation region ([0029] "opening 15 is a portion for attaching and detaching the cup body 4 to and from the storage pocket S").
Wiese further teaches wherein the molded cup is fixed to the housing at fixation regions (see Figs. 1, 4 for the securing mechanisms 2 providing fixation points in a region) comprising
an upper fixation region positioned above a wearer's nipple during use (see Fig. 4 for one upper securing mechanism 2 at an upper fixation region; Wiese teaches the upper fixation region which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being above a wearer’s nipple during use) and
a lower fixation region positioned below the wearer's nipple during use (see Fig. 4 for two lower securing mechanisms 2 at a lower fixation region; Wiese teaches the lower fixation region which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being below the wearer’s nipple during use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishiyama’s molded cup to have the securing mechanisms/fixation regions as taught by Wiese in order to provide natural and comfortable use of the garment while still being able to secure the cup ([0007], [0010], [0025]), especially as Ishiyama already teaches a cup body fixable to the pocket/housing.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Ishiyama teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 15.
Modified Ishiyama further teaches wherein the molded cup is adhesively fixed to the housing at the fixation regions (see rejection of Claim 15 with Wiese).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Ishiyama teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 15.
Modified Ishiyama further teaches wherein the upper fixation region has an extension length smaller than that of the lower fixation region (see Wiese Fig. 4; the upper region only has one adhesive delineating the upper region while the lower region’s extension is between two adhesives; therefore the upper has an extension length smaller than the lower).
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 8 that Wiese does not teach the recitations because there is no recognition that the opening experiences repeated stretching, and is focused on keeping the pad in place and not on opening durability—examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the remarks are directed to functionalities. Furthermore, repeated stretching and durability are not claimed terms. Additionally, even if the terms were claimed, and as currently claimed, Wiese teaches all of the claimed structure which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the functions as remarked.
Pertaining to remarks on page 8 that Wiese does not teach the recitations because it does not teach a need for reinforcement—examiner respectfully disagrees. Wiese does not teach away from such a modification, and therefore is valid for modification to teach a reinforcement structure.
Pertaining to remarks on page 8 that Joannou is intended to receive an attachment portion of a back strap and therefore does not teach the recitations—examiner respectfully disagrees. The modification is only of the reinforcement piece, not the strap. Furthermore, in response to such an argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and/or MPEP 707.07(f).
Pertaining to remarks on page 8 that Joannou does not teach repeatedly stretched slit and therefore does not teach the recitations—examiner respectfully disagrees as similarly aforementioned. Modified Wiese teaches the claimed structure which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of meeting such a functionality.
Pertaining to remarks on page 8 that Jarvis is for footwear eyelets and is not directed to brassieres or deforming openings and therefore cannot be used to teach the recitations—examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the office action 2/5/26 on pages 6, 7, Jarvis is in the same art of endeavor as using a fastening element to attach a reinforcement, which modified Wiese is also directed to.
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that alleged the office action reasonings for modification are “all because it would be a ‘simple substitution’ or ‘design choice’”—examiner respectfully disagrees, and directs attention to pages 6, 7 of the office action of 2/5/26 where additional motivations were given. Page 6 indicates the motivation for modifying Wiese with Joannou was due to providing reinforcement. Page 7 does indicate the motivation for modifying with Jarvis as a simple substitution, but for the purposes of effectively providing reinforcement. Page 7 also indicates the modification for modifying Wiese’s film as provided by Jarvis to be elastic for easy manufacturing. None of these motivations have actually been addressed by the remarks. Design choice was not a mentioned motivation until the rejection of Claim 9 on pages 17, 18 of the office action 2/5/26, wherein the rejection has not actually been addressed (see below pertaining to Ishiyama).
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that the rigid member of Joannou would resist deformation and therefore does not teach the recitations—examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims are not directed to resisting deformation. Even if the remarks are directed to the amendment of “maintain deformability” or “configured to be stretched”, the amendment is directed to the capability of the opening, and not the member. As the remarks themselves admit, the elastic film would still allow such a function for the opening. Furthermore, see the rejection herein (Wiese [0025]), wherein the garment material, and therefore the opening, is elastic and therefore would also further teach the recitation.
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that Wiese’s elastic adhesive film to bond the reinforcement strip would teach away from Wiese’s intention—examiner respectfully disagrees. The remarks have misconstrued the (first) rejection. The adhesive film is taught by Jarvis, wherein the film is made elastic as already taught by Wiese for easy manufacturing. In other words, only the elastic material from Wiese is utilized, as the adhesive film is already taught by Jarvis to bond.
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that Jarvis is not about elastic adhesive films— attention is directed to the immediately aforementioned. Jarvis teaches the adhesive film, made to be elastic as already taught by Wiese.
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that synergistic effects are not taught—examiner respectfully disagrees, and reiterates that all structure claimed has been met which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the functional effects.
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that Wiese’s spaced adhesive points do not provide continuous reinforcement—examiner respectfully disagrees. The reinforcement strip itself is continuous, and therefore provides continuous reinforcement. Furthermore, it is unclear if remarks intend to argue that structural strength is not taught because the reinforcement is not continuous, merely in light of [0045]. Claims have to explicitly relate the structure (“reinforcement strip 50 is continuously arranged along the opening 21 edge”) to the function (“structural strength”) in order for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the function of “structural strength” to be narrowed, which has not yet been. However, even if claimed, the strip is continuous as aforementioned and would meet the limitation.
Especially as the motivations for combinations have not been addressed, 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).
Pertaining to remarks on page 11 that there is hindsight—examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Examiner also notes that the remarks never addressed the SECOND REJECTION utilizing Ishiyama et al (WO 2019/198214) beginning page 13 of the office action 2/5/26 which can be construed as an agreement with the rejection and/or an incomplete response (see MPEP 710.01 “failure to address a rejection”; MPEP 714.03). As a courtesy, the amendment has been prosecuted on its merits, but future issues may warrant a notice of non-responsiveness.
Similar examiner responses apply to the rejection of Ishiyama as indicated above. See also the rejection herein, especially Ishiyama [0029] for a stretchable opening. Additionally, no evidence has been provided that using the material and form of adhesive of Wiese (being elastic and film) as a known type of bond is incompatible to utilize for Jarvis’ bond modifying Ishiyama.
Summarily, remarks focus heavily on functionalities but have not actually claimed any differentiating structure related to the functionalities.
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: Sheu (US Publication 2016/0050989), Shaltz Haslup et al (US Publication 2025/0288777), Spanel (USPN 2068997), Spanel (USPN 2068998) directed to reinforcement strips for an opening; Bentley et al (US Publication 2016/0050995), Ariely et al (US Publication 2023/0035969) directed to shape of reinforcement cavity.
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