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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 3/20/2026 has been received; Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suess (US 2022/0256943).
Regarding Claim 1, Suess discloses a brassiere (Figure 1 & Para. 11) comprising: a cup body (100) configured to cover a wearer's breast when worn; and a lifting structure (106) disposed on an inner side of the cup body and spanning between two opposing edges of the cup body (Figure 1), the lifting structure configured to apply a gathering force from the edges toward a center of the cup body when worn (Para. 35, 38-40), wherein lifting structure is a separate component attached to the inner side of the cup body (Para. 34-38, 41 & 42, each component molded to each other through layers) and is connected only to edges of the cup body while remaining unconnected to the central portion of the cub body (Figure 1, Para. 34-38, 41 & 42).
Regarding Claim 3, Suess discloses the lifting structure comprises a single lifting member (106).
Regarding Claim 4, Suess discloses the lifting structure comprises a first lifting member (106) and a second lifting member (124), the first and second lifting members at least partially overlapping (Para. 38-40).
Regarding Claim 5, Suess discloses the first lifting member extends transversely along a position between a center and a lower edge of the wearer's breast when worn (Figure 1), and is configured to provide upward lifting to support breast weight and prevent sagging (Para. 38); and the second lifting member extends vertically along a position between the center and a side edge of the wearer's breast when worn (Figure 1), and is configured to provide lateral tension to gather the breast and prevent outward expansion (Para. 38).
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.
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.
Claims 2 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suess (US 2022/0256943).
Regarding Claim 2, Suess disclose a length of the lifting structure appears to be less than 80% of an outer contour diameter of the cup body (Figure 1). Suess does not specifically disclose a length of the lifting structure appears to be less than 80% of an outer contour diameter of the cup body. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of length for the outer contour diameter in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of providing support and lift, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the length involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 6, Suess does not specifically disclose at least a portion of the lifting structure is made of mesh fabric. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the lifting structure as claimed, since it is well 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. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using mesh matrix would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claims 7-9, 11-17, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suess (US 2022/0256943) in view of Magrone (WO 02/07547) .
Regarding Claim 7, Suess does not specifically disclose the lifting structure is fixed to the cup body via stitched seams or an elastic adhesive film. However, Magrone discloses the use of stitching to connect parts of the brassiere (Page 5, lines 16-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stitch the pieces of the brassiere together, as taught by Magrone, in order to create a three dimensional brassiere.
Regarding Claim 8, Suess is silent to a shoulder strap connected to the cup body. However, Magrone discloses a shoulder strap connected to the cup body (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include shoulder straps, as taught by Magrone, in order to create a three dimensional complete brassiere.
Regarding Claim 9, Suess is silent to a torso-covering portion connected to and surrounding the cup body. However, Magrone discloses a torso-covering portion connected to and surrounding the cup body (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a torso-covering portion connected to and surrounding the cup body, as taught by Magrone, in order to create a three dimensional complete brassiere.
Regarding Claim 11, Suess discloses a brassiere (Figure 1 & Para. 11) comprising: a cup body (100) configured to cover a wearer's breast when worn; a lifting structure (106) disposed on an inner side of the cup body and spanning between two opposing edges of the cup body (Figure 1), the lifting structure configured to apply a gathering force from the edges toward a center of the cup body when worn (Para. 35 38-40) wherein lifting structure is a separate component attached to the inner side of the cup body (Para. 34-38, 41 & 42, each component molded to each other through layers) and is connected only to edges of the cup body while remaining unconnected to the central portion of the cub body (Figure 1, Para. 34-38, 41 & 42). Suess disclose a length of the lifting structure appears to be less than 80% of an outer contour diameter of the cup body (Figure 1). Suess does not specifically disclose a length of the lifting structure appears to be less than 80% of an outer contour diameter of the cup body. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of length for the outer contour diameter in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of providing support and lift, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the length involves only routine skill in the art. Suess is silent to a shoulder strap connected to the cup body. However, Magrone discloses a shoulder strap connected to the cup body (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include shoulder straps, as taught by Magrone, in order to create a three dimensional complete brassiere.
Regarding Claim 12, Suess discloses the lifting structure comprises a single lifting member (106).
Regarding Claim 13 , Suess discloses the lifting structure comprises a first lifting member (106) and a second lifting member (124), the first and second lifting members at least partially overlapping (Para. 38-40).
Regarding Claim 14, Suess discloses the first lifting member extends transversely along a position between a center and a lower edge of the wearer's breast when worn (Figure 1), and is configured to provide upward lifting to support breast weight and prevent sagging (Para. 38); and the second lifting member extends vertically along a position between the center and a side edge of the wearer's breast when worn (Figure 1), and is configured to provide lateral tension to gather the breast and prevent outward expansion (Para. 38).
Regarding Claim 15, Suess does not specifically disclose at least a portion of the lifting structure is made of mesh fabric. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the lifting structure as claimed, since it is well 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. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using mesh matrix would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding Claim 16, Suess does not specifically disclose the lifting structure is fixed to the cup body via stitched seams or an elastic adhesive film. However, Magrone discloses the use of stitching to connect parts of the brassiere (Page 5, lines 16-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stitch the pieces of the brassiere together, as taught by Magrone, in order to create a three dimensional brassiere.
Regarding Claim 17, Suess is silent to a torso-covering portion connected to and surrounding the cup body. However, Magrone discloses a torso-covering portion connected to and surrounding the cup body (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a torso-covering portion connected to and surrounding the cup body, as taught by Magrone, in order to create a three dimensional complete brassiere.
Regarding Claim 19, Suess disclose a brassiere (Figure 1 & Para. 11) comprising: a cup body (100) configured to cover a wearer's breast when worn; a lifting structure (106) disposed on an inner side of the cup body and spanning between two opposing edges of the cup body (Figure 1), the lifting structure configured to apply a gathering force from the edges toward a center of the cup body when worn (Para. 35, 38-40) wherein lifting structure is a separate component attached to the inner side of the cup body (Para. 34-38, 41 & 42, each component molded to each other through layers) and is connected only to edges of the cup body while remaining unconnected to the central portion of the cub body (Figure 1, Para. 34-38, 41 & 42). Suess is silent to a torso-covering portion connected to and surrounding the cup body and a shoulder strap connected to the cup body. However, Magrone discloses a torso-covering portion connected to and surrounding the cup body (Figure 1) and a shoulder strap connected to the cup body (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a torso-covering portion connected to and surrounding the cup body and shoulder straps, as taught by Magrone, in order to create a three dimensional complete brassiere.
Regarding Claim 20, Suess disclose a length of the lifting structure appears to be less than 80% of an outer contour diameter of the cup body (Figure 1). Suess does not specifically disclose a length of the lifting structure appears to be less than 80% of an outer contour diameter of the cup body. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of length for the outer contour diameter in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of providing support and lift, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the length involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suess (US 2022/0256943) in view of Watrin (US 2006/0223415) .
Regarding Claim 10, Suess is silent to a surface of the lifting structure is coated with an anti-slip material. However, Watrin disclose the use of silicone as a coated anti-slip material (Para. 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include lifting structures coated with an anti-slip material, as taught by Watrin, in order to create adhesive properties that provide anti-slip features.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suess (US 2022/0256943) in view of Magrone (WO 02/07547) in further view of Watrin (US 2006/0223415) .
Regarding Claim 18, Suess is silent to a surface of the lifting structure is coated with an anti-slip material. However, Watrin disclose the use of silicone as a coated anti-slip material (Para. 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include lifting structures coated with an anti-slip material, as taught by Watrin, in order to create adhesive properties that provide anti-slip features.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm 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 at 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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights