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 7/14/26 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application, with claims 10-15, 18, 19 remaining withdrawn. 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 3/19/26.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims are missing proper amendment annotations; as a courtesy, the claims are examined on their merits, but future issues may warrant a notice of non-compliance; any objections/rejections later necessary and not indicated herein related to improper amendment annotations will not be considered new objections/rejections
Claim 7 Line 3 the spacing between “g/m2to” was provided in response to a previous objection but was not properly annotated
Claim 8 Lines 4-5 “a cavity between the first foam layer and the second foam layer” was added herein to replace “the cavity”
Claim 8 Line 5 the term “an under breast supporting element” was provided in response to a previous objection but was not properly annotated (previously “a under”)
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 Interpretation
Specific Definitions
The term “about” has been specifically defined in the specification on page 2 Lines 11-14 as “within 10%, within 5%, within 1%, within 0.5%, within 0.1%, within 0.05%, within 0.01%, within 0.005%, or within 0.001% of a stated value or of a stated limit of a range, and includes the exact stated value or range.”
The definition is applied to Claims 5, 7.
Product-by-Process
Regarding Claim(s) 6, 7-- the recitations are being treated as a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art; more specifically:
the structure of Claim(s) 6 is front inner/outer fabric layers each formed from one or more yarns selected from the group consisting of a polyurethane yarn, a polyester yarn, a polyamide yarn, cotton yarn, silk yarn, and a combination of two or more thereof. Any disagreement may warrant a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection for the difference between the term “each” and “independently” without constituting a new rejection
the structure of Claim(s) 7 is inner/outer fabric layers; Any disagreement may warrant a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection for the difference between the term “each” and “independently” without constituting a new rejection
U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Specifically:
The term “bonding means” in Claim 2 Line 4 is considered “means for bonding” and will be limited to the structures on page 6 Line 34 (adhesive) and their equivalents (including and not limited to any of the examples on page 6 Line 34-page 7 Line 2)
The term “bonding means” in Claim 3 Lines 3, 4 is similarly interpreted as Claim 2 Line 5
The term “bonding means” in Claim 3 Line 5 is similarly interpreted as Claim 2 Line 5
The term “bonding means” in Claim 8 Line 9 is similarly interpreted as Claim 2 Line 5
The term “bonding means” in Claim 9 Line 3 is similarly interpreted as Claim 2 Line 5
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (USPN 8419502), herein Liu ‘502, in view of Lin et al (USPN 12389966), herein Lin, and Liu (USPN 11839241), herein Liu ‘241.
Regarding Claim 1, Liu ‘502 teaches a front panel for 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; however, see Fig. 2; Col. 2 Lines 53-56 "pad 10…for supporting a breast B in a garment such as bras…or any other breast covering garment having breast support components therein"; Liu teaches the pad/panel which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being a front of a brassiere, especially in light of the recitations), the front panel comprising
an inner fabric layer (26) with a first and second surface (see Fig. 2; Col. 3 Lines 53-54 "fabric lining layer 26 ...adhered to an inner surface of the bottom foam layer 24"; wherein the existence of the layer indicates first/second surfaces),
and an outer fabric layer (12) with a first and second surface (see Fig. 2; Col. Col. 2 Line 67-Col. 3 Line 1 "foam layer 18 is adhered to an inner surface of the top fabric layer 12"; wherein the existence of the layer indicates first/second surfaces),
a first foam layer (24) coupled to the first surface of the inner fabric layer (see Fig. 2; Col. 3 Lines 53-54 "fabric lining layer 26 ...adhered to an inner surface of the bottom foam layer 24"; Col. 3 Lines 49-50 "polyurethane...foam layer 24"; Col. 3 Lines 2-4 "preferred thermoplastic material for the foam layers …is polyurethane"; wherein adhering indicates coupled),
and a second foam layer (18) coupled to the first surface of the outer fabric layer (see Fig. 2; Col. 2 Line 67-Col. 3 Line 1 "foam layer 18 is adhered to an inner surface of the top fabric layer 12"; Col. 3 Lines 2-4 "preferred thermoplastic material for the foam layers …is polyurethane"; wherein adhering indicates coupled),
wherein the first foam layer and the second foam layer are disposed between the first surface of the inner fabric layer and the first surface of the outer fabric layer (see Fig. 2),
the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer each having an outer perimeter (see Fig. 2; Col. 3 Lines 51-53 "bottom foam layer 24 also has a perimeter corresponding to the outer perimeter of the pad 10"; Col. 2 Line 67-Col. 3 Line 2 "foam layer 18…has a perimeter corresponding to the outer perimeter of the pad 10"; Col. 2 Lines 59-60 "top fabric layer 12 and…the entire pad 10…has an outer perimeter"; Col. 2 Lines 63-65 "the outer perimeter of the top fabric layer 12 as well as most of the other layers of the pad, correspond to the outer perimeter of the pad"),
a peripheral edge of the first foam layer and a peripheral edge of the second foam layer (see Fig. 2).
Liu ‘502 does not explicitly teach wherein the outer perimeter of the outer fabric layer comprises a peripheral attaching element that folds over a peripheral edge of the first foam layer and a peripheral edge of the second foam layer,
and wherein the peripheral attaching element is coupled to the outer perimeter of the inner fabric layer.
Lin teaches an outer perimeter of an outer fabric layer (1) comprises a peripheral attaching element that folds over a peripheral edge of middle layer(s) (3) ([examiner notes Fig. 2 of Lin has been annotated incorrectly, where 2 and 3 should be swapped, especially in light of recitations] -- see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 5 Lines 60-62 "Bra 200"; Col. 4 Lines 53-67 "In an embodiment, as shown in FIG. 2, both ends of the outer fabric layer 1 extend towards the inner fabric layer 2 and are folded to contact with the outer surface of the inner fabric layer 2, so as to wrap the inner fabric from both sides of the inner fabric layer 2. Thus, the sandwich piece 3 can be wrapped to avoid that the sandwich piece 3 and the inner fabric layer 2 are exposed from the side and affect the appearance. Moreover, the outer fabric layer 1 is edge-wrapped so that the bra shoulder strap 100 is connected into a whole, which can increase the lifting force, better lift female breasts and meet people's dual needs for comfort and appearance...the joint between the outer fabric layer 1 and the inner fabric layer 2 is bonded by dispensing process 4"; Col. 5 Lines 1-5 "the folded edge of the outer fabric layer 1 is attached to the outer surface of the inner fabric layer 2 to form a new fabric layer, which not only can connect the multiple layers of fabric of the bra shoulder strap 100 into a whole, but also can increase the lifting force")
and wherein the peripheral attaching element (of 1) is coupled to the outer perimeter of the inner layer (2) (see Figs. 1, 2 and recitations above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu ‘502’s outer fabric layer to have a peripheral attaching element (fold/wrap) as taught by Lin in order to connect multiple layers as a whole and increase lifting force (Col. 5 Liens 1-5), as known in bra layers.
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 Liu ‘502 teaches wherein the outer perimeter of the outer fabric layer comprises a peripheral attaching element that folds over a peripheral edge of the first foam layer and a peripheral edge of the second foam layer (modified Liu ‘502 teaches the element folds over the foam layers, because Lin outer layer clearly folds over to the inner, and since Liu ‘502 foams are between the inner/outer layers, the outer layer with the peripheral attaching element of modified Liu ‘502 would also then fold over the foam layers).
Liu ‘502 does not explicitly teach wherein the peripheral attaching element extends along a neckline edge, an underarm edge and an under-breast edge of the outer fabric layer.
However, modified Liu ‘502’s peripheral attaching element is a foldover.
Liu ‘241 teaches wherein a foldover extends along a neckline edge, an underarm edge and an under-breast edge of the outer fabric layer (see Figs. 1A, 1B, 2A-2C where 118 is the foldover; Col. 4 Lines 60-61 "front panel 100a of the article of clothing"; Col.5 Line 2 "article of clothing is shown to be a brassiere"; Col. 5 Lines 13-14 "Front panel 100a includes an inner fabric layer 102 and an outer fabric layer 104"; Col. 5 Lines 58-59 "body structure 106...represents...front panel 100a"; Col. 6 Lines 30-35 "body structure 106 has one or more edges 116, such as side edges and top edges in the front panel 100a...also provides an edge 118 extending along a bottom...in the front panel 100a"; for foldover in multiple locations recited-- Col. 10 Lines 17-26 "article of clothing may have multiple elastic portions, using the thermoplastic strips 130 and 140, formed along various edges thereof. For instance...the edge 118 may be any of the other edges 116, such as, a side edge or a top edge, of the body structure 106 without any limitations. These elastic portions formed by the thermoplastic strips 130 and 140 allow the article of clothing 100 to expand and contract").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu '502's peripheral attaching element as provided by Lin to be at the recited edges as taught by Liu '241 as known to have the foldover structure (containing strips 130, 140) at all edges to allow expansion and contraction at desired locations (Col. 10 Lines 17-26).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Liu '502 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Liu ‘502 further teaches wherein the first foam layer and the second foam layer each have a three-dimensional shape that is configured to conform to a user's chest region (the existence indicates 3-D shape, and configured to conform inasmuch as foam is known to be flexible; see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Liu '502 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Liu ‘502 further teaches wherein each of the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer is independently formed from one or more yarns selected from the group consisting of a polyurethane yarn, a polyester yarn, a polyamide yarn, cotton yarn, silk yarn, and a combination of two or more thereof (Col. 2 Lines 57-58 "top fabric layer 12 of flexible fabric material such a nylon or nylon plus spandex blend"; Col. 3 Lines 56-57 "lining 26 is also make of nylon or nylon spandex blend"; as for independently-- see claim interpretation for product-by-process; the recitation “independently” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if “independently formed” results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other formation methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the method of Liu ‘502 above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art; in other words, the front inner/outer fabric layers formed from one or more yarns of the materials listed of Liu ‘502 teaches the independently formed of Claim 6 because it has the structure of Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Liu ‘502 teaches a garment (see Fig. 5; Col. 4 Lines 55-57 "bra manufactured with…pad of the invention in Fig. 5") comprising.
Modified Liu ‘502 teaches the front panel according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 for Liu ‘502, modified for similar reasons).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Liu '502 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Liu ‘502 further teaches wherein the garment is a brassiere or bralette (see Fig. 5; Col. 4 Lines 55-57 "bra manufactured with…pad of the invention in Fig. 5").
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (USPN 8419502), herein Liu ‘502, in view of Lin et al (USPN 12389966), herein Lin, and Liu (USPN 11839241), herein Liu ‘241, further in view of Kandegedara et al (USPN 11633306), herein Kandegedara.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Liu '502 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the peripheral attaching element is coupled to the outer perimeter of the inner fabric layer by stitching or bonding means.
However, Lin teaches the peripheral attaching element of an outer fabric layer is coupled to the outer perimeter of the inner fabric layer (see Fig. 2; Col. 5 Lines 6-7 "joint between the outer fabric layer and the inner fabric layer 2 are bonded by dispensing process 4").
Kandegedara teaches wherein a layer is coupled to another layer by stitching or bonding means (see claim interpretation for 112f; abstract "absorbent component (100) for use in a garment"; Col. 4 Lines 22-23 "usable in a...garment such as...bra"; Col. 14 Lines 11-19 "absorbent component 100 includes various layers that are bonded together…by bonding means 110…may be of bonding agent. For example, the adhesive may be an adhesive tape, liquid glue, or hotmelt powder glue...tape is a double-sided adhesive tape").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu '502's coupling as provided by Lin to be that recited by Kandegedara as known bonding means for bra layers (Col. 4 Lines 22-23; Col. 14 Lines 11-19).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Liu '502 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Liu ‘502 already teaches wherein one of the more of the following applies:
the first foam layer (24) is coupled to the first surface of the inner fabric layer (26) (see Fig. 2; Col. 3 Lines 53-54 "fabric lining layer 26 ...adhered to an inner surface of the bottom foam layer 24"); and
the second foam layer (18) is coupled to the first surface of the outer fabric layer (12) (see Fig. 2; Col. 2 Line 67-Col. 3 Line 1 "foam layer 18 is adhered to an inner surface of the top fabric layer 12").
Liu ‘502 does not explicitly teach wherein one or more of the following applies:
the first foam layer is coupled to the first surface of the inner fabric layer by a bonding means; and
the second foam layer is coupled to the first surface of the outer fabric layer by a bonding means.
Kandegedara teaches wherein a layer is coupled to another layer by stitching or bonding means (see claim interpretation for 112f; abstract "absorbent component (100) for use in a garment"; Col. 4 Lines 22-23 "usable in a...garment such as...bra"; Col. 14 Lines 11-19 "absorbent component 100 includes various layers that are bonded together…by bonding means 110…may be of bonding agent. For example, the adhesive may be an adhesive tape, liquid glue, or hotmelt powder glue...tape is a double-sided adhesive tape").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu '502's adhering/coupling to be that recited by Kandegedara as known bonding means for bra layers (Col. 4 Lines 22-23; Col. 14 Lines 11-19).
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 Liu ‘502 teaches wherein one or more of the following applies:
the first foam layer is coupled to the first surface of the inner fabric layer by a bonding means (see rejection with Kandegedara); and/or
the second foam layer is coupled to the first surface of the outer fabric layer by a bonding means (see rejection with Kandegedara).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (USPN 8419502), herein Liu ‘502, in view of Lin et al (USPN 12389966), herein Lin, and Liu (USPN 11839241), herein Liu ‘241, and/or further in view of Jagaric et al (USPN 7311583), herein Jagaric.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Liu '502 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Liu ‘502 further teaches wherein one or more of the following applies:
the first foam layer and the second foam layer are each formed from a polyurethane foam (Col. 3 Lines 2-4 "preferred thermoplastic material for the foam layers …is polyurethane").
Liu ‘502 does not explicitly teach and wherein (b) the first foam layer and the second foam layer each have a thickness of from about 2 mm to about 8 mm.
Jagaric teaches wherein the first foam layer and the second foam layer each have a thickness of from about 2 mm to about 8 mm (see claim interpretation for the definition of the term “about”, met by see Figs. 5, 8; Col. 5 Lines 36-40 "Fig. 8 illustrates in dotted line …rectangular and graduated sheet 16a, which…already been attached to as second outer cup sheet 32, e.g. 2 mm thick,…which is also made of polyurethane foam"; for before molding, see Fig. 1; Col. 4 Lines 61-62 "thickness of e.g. 7 mm polyurethane foam 16 therebetween"; Col. 5 Lines 42-45 "each of the cup sheets 16a and 32 may also include a laminate or fabric covering 33 and 34, respectively made, for example, of nylon or nylon with spandex").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu ‘502's foam thickness to be as taught by Jagaric as known thickness of foam in a breast-covering garment pad (abstract), such as for providing desired shape (Col. 1 Lines 27-28), while concealing the pad and nipple (Col. 3 Lines 6-9, 26-29; Col. 1 Lines 50-63).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (USPN 8419502), herein Liu ‘502, in view of Lin et al (USPN 12389966), herein Lin, and Liu (USPN 11839241), herein Liu ‘241, further in view of Agee et al (USPN 10660375), herein Agee.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Liu '502 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Liu ‘502 does not explicitly teach wherein the weight of each of the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer is independently from about 200 g/m2 to about 240 g/m2.
Agee teaches wherein the weight of each of the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer is independently from about 200 g/m2 to about 240 g/m2 (Col. 1 Line 14 "disclosure is directed to a brassiere"; Col. 4 Lines 59-64 "fabric forming the inner layer…exhibits a basis weight in the range of 150 grams per square meter to 200 grams per square meter"; Col. 5 Lines 60-62 "in alternative embodiments, the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer are formed from the same material"; as for independently-- see claim interpretation for product-by-process; the recitation “independently” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if “independently formed” results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other formation methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the method of Liu ‘502 above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art; in other words, the inner/outer fabric layers of Liu ‘502 teaches the independently formed of Claim 7 because it has the structure of Claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu's inner/outer fabric layers to be the weight as taught by Agee as a known arrangement for a brassiere, such as for comfort.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (USPN 8419502), herein Liu ‘502, in view of Lin et al (USPN 12389966), herein Lin, and Liu (USPN 11839241), herein Liu ‘241, further in view of Snyder (USPN 11992067), and Liu (US Publication 2021/0401069), herein Liu ‘069.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Liu '502 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Liu ‘502 further teaches wherein one or more of the following applies:(i) further comprising an additional material (22) disposed within a cavity between the first foam layer and the second foam layer (for cavity-- see Fig. 4C; existence of gel pad 270 indicates cavity; [0106] "cavity is adapted to receive a gel pad 270"; for additional material-- see Fig. 2; Col. 3 Lines 22-24 "fabric layer 22 of woven or knit elastomer containing fibers is adhered to the inner surface of the top foam layer 18”);
(iii) wherein the first foam layer and the second foam layer are not directly attached to each other (see Fig. 2, where not directly attached at least in a portion with 22).
Liu ‘502 does not explicitly teach wherein under i) the additional material is selected from the group consisting of a power mesh material and an under breast supporting element.
Snyder teaches i) the additional material is selected from the group consisting of a power mesh material and an under breast supporting element (see Figs. 1, 3; Col. 1 Line 14 "invention is directed to a supportive bra"; Col. 3 Line 61-Col. 4 Line 2 "FIG. 3 depicts an exploded view of the layers of cups 105A and 105B of supportive bra 100. Preferably each cup 105A and 105B has three layers as follows: (1) outer layer 120 (as described herein), (2) middle layer 130, and (3) inner layer 125 (as described herein). Middle layer 130 is preferably a power mesh fabric. For example, the power mesh fabric may be a four-way stretchable yet sturdy fabric. The power mesh fabric is preferably a blend of polyester and spandex").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu 502's elastomeric with the power mesh of Snyder, especially as it is known in the art that polyester/spandex power mesh is interchangeable with elastomeric (see extrinsic evidence Kasviki USPN 11219247) in a bra cup, which Liu '502 and Snyder both are, for the purposes of providing the desired level of support (Col. 1 Line 14).
Liu ‘502 also does not explicitly teach ii) wherein a back panel is coupled to the front panel by bonding means or stitching.
Liu ‘069 teaches ii) wherein a back panel is coupled to the front panel by bonding means or stitching (see claim interpretation for 112f; see Fig. 1; [0054] "formed bra cups 14a and 14b may be ...subsequently stitched or fastened by other suitable means such as ultrasonic welding to the side wings 20a and 20b of the body structure 12, to complete the article of clothing 10 (as illustrated in FIG. 1)").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu ‘502’s front/panel cup with the back panel coupling as taught by Liu ‘069 as a known effective arrangement for forming a brassiere.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Liu '502 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 8.
Liu ‘502 further teaches wherein the additional material is coupled to one or both the first foam layer and the second foam layer (Col. 3 Lines 22-24 "fabric layer 22 of woven or knit elastomer containing fibers is adhered to the inner surface of the top foam layer 18”).
Liu ‘502 does not explicitly teach wherein the additional material is coupled to one or both the first foam layer and the second foam layer by bonding means.
Kandegedara teaches layer to layer by bonding means (see claim interpretation for 112f; see Kandegedara abstract "absorbent component (100) for use in a garment"; Col. 4 Lines 22-23 "usable in a...garment such as...bra"; Col. 14 Lines 11-19 "absorbent component 100 includes various layers that are bonded together…by bonding means 110…may be of bonding agent. For example, the adhesive may be an adhesive tape, liquid glue, or hotmelt powder glue...tape is a double-sided adhesive tape").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu '502's coupling to be that recited by Kandegedara as known bonding means for bra layers (Col. 4 Lines 22-23; Col. 14 Lines 11-19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/26 for Claim 2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Pertaining to remarks beginning on page 4 that Liu ‘502 cannot be modified with a peripheral attaching element because the pad layer are laminated—examiner respectfully disagrees. Liu ‘502 has no explicit teaching away from a peripheral attaching element due to lamination. Furthermore, applicant’s own incorporation of Todaro et al (US Publication 2022/0248775) [0060] in the information disclosure statement of 3/31/26 clearly indicates that it is known in the art to have peripheral attaching element with lamination. Remarks also refer to alleged redundancy, and yet the actual motivation for modification with Lin on page 20 of the office action of 3/19/26 has not been addressed, which was not pertaining to redundancy. Redundancy is also not found persuasive as the attachment is clearly a different structure than lamination.
Pertaining to remarks beginning on page 5 pertaining to the modification with Lin and Liu ‘241 not teaching the claims—examiner respectfully disagrees. Lin teaches the peripheral attaching element/foldover at the under-breast edge, and Liu ‘241 teaches that it’s known to have such foldover in locations in addition to the under-breast edge, specifically the claimed neckline edge and underarm edge. In other words, Lin already teaches the element structure, and Liu ‘241 is indicates the locations of the element structure.
Pertaining to remarks on page 6 that Liu ‘241 structure of foldover and strips solves a different problem than that addressed by amended claim 1, specifically addressing minimizing the movement of the breasts, and does not teach the aforementioned advantages—examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the fact that the inventor may have recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In other words, the motivation does not have to be the same as the application. Furthermore, the claims do not currently claim the alleged functionality of minimizing movement. Nevertheless, even if the function were claimed, all the structure required is taught and therefore is capable of such function. The claims have yet to structurally differentiate the limitations from the prior art of record that allegedly perform the alleged advantage of minimizing movement.
Pertaining to remarks on page 6 that the combination of references does not teach the recitations—no further evidence has been provided to support the statement. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-9, 16, 17 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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