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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on March 19, 2026, in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination, are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,986,877 and claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,369,650. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations regarding the “leg portion, front pouch, gusset, support sling, left fabric panel, right fabric panel, and horizontal seam” in claims 1-20 are similar in scope to claims 1-20 of US Patent 10,986,877 and claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,369,650.
Examiner has reviewed the Remarks filed March 19, 2026, regarding holding the Double Patenting rejection in abeyance until agreement is reached in the present application, in Page 1. To maintain clarity of the record, Examiner will
present the Double Patenting rejection until it is overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants 1st Argument: Turning to the prior art, as admitted by the Office, Frantz fails to teach a support element including an elastomeric strip of material. See Office Action, p. 5. The rejection of Claim 1 thus relies on Jung teaching a support element that includes an elastomeric strip as the basis for modifying the pouch 108 of Frantz. Office Action, p. 5.¹ However, Jung does not disclose a support element having a strip of elastomeric material, as the elastomeric material of Jung is the purported support element of Jung. Thus, the Office's rationale for looking to Jung to cure the deficiencies of Frantz fails, and thereby the combination of Jung and Frantz fails to teach each and every limitation of Claim 1. As shown below, Jung is directed to a male undergarment having a front-base opening, and discloses elastic bands 36, 38, and 40 positioned across that opening to bias the fabric edges toward a closed position. These elastic bands are standalone closure elements that are not part of, attached to, integrated with, or positioned on any underlying support element, and Jung discloses no panel, sling, or other fabric support structure upon which an elastomeric strip is separately disposed. Thus, at most, Jung teaches a support element that consists of an elastomeric strip, rather than a support element that includes at least one elastomeric strip. Thus, the Office's assertion that Jung 1 More particularly, the Office states that "Jung teaches yet another lower torso garment, wherein Jung teaches a support element (combination of 40, 38, and 36, Fig. 2), includes at least one strip of elastomeric material (36 and 40, Col. 3, lines: 58-65, Col. 4, lines: 4-7, Fig. 2)" (emphasis added). teaches a support element including an elastomeric strip, which forms the basis of the Office's assertion that the combination of Frantz and Jung disclose every element of Claim 1, is incorrect.
Examiners Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jung teaches a support element (combination of 40, 38, and 36, Fig. 2), having at least one strip elastomeric material (36 and 40, Col. 3, lines: 58-65, Col. 4, lines: 4-7, Fig. 2), as claimed by the Applicant in claim 1. The support element of Jung is used to modify the existing support element of Frantz, in order to provide additional support to the genitals and enhanced user comfort, as explained below. Claim 1 does not further define the orientation/positioning of at least one strip of elastomeric material with respect to the support element, what it functional accomplishes, and/or how it is attached to the pouch/garment. Therefore, due to how broad the Applicants claims are, Frantz in view of Jung disclose the limitations of claim 1, as claimed.
Applicants 2nd Argument: Modifying Frantz to add elastomeric strips to these integrally knit regions would require introducing separately attached components into a construction specifically designed to provide a more comfortable undergarment without them. Such a modification would displace the very principle through which Frantz achieves the benefits of its design. Because Frantz's support function is achieved entirely through selectively chosen stitch patterns with held stitches that are integrally knit into the fabric, there are no discrete regions within the pouch 108 to modify with the addition of the elastomeric strips. Adding elastomeric strips would therefore require abandoning Frantz's integrally knit approach and replacing it with a structurally different
approach, thus constituting a fundamental redesign that changes Frantz's basic operating principle. This is precisely the type of "substantial reconstruction and redesign" that renders a combination legally impermissible. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813. Furthermore, because Frantz already achieves its intended function without additional
elastic components, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to modify Frantz's pouch with Jung's elastic closure bands. The stated rationale that the combination would "provide additional support to the genitals and enhanced user comfort" is conclusory and does not provide the “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” required to sustain an obviousness rejection.
Examiners Response: Examiners respectfully disagrees. It is Applicants opinion that adding at least one strip of elastomeric material teaches away from the disclosure of Frantz and/or makes the invention of Frantz inoperable. Frantz does not explicitly state it cannot have additional elastic structures added to it, and/or that incorporating different structures must be of the same knitted construction as the pouch of Frantz. Although a motivation was not explicitly stated from the Specification of Jung, MPEP 2144, Section I states “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).”
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize by incorporating at least one strip of elastomeric material as taught by Jung, one of the results from doing so would be to provide additional support to the genitals and enhanced user comfort, as explained below.
Applicants 3rd Argument: As set forth above, Frantz's pouch 108 is an integrally knit region within a seamless, circularly knit fabric, defined by being provided in a seamless construction rather than by seams connecting fabric panels. Ingels's sling panels, by contrast, are designed to function within a conventionally sewn garment including a seam-defined pouch structure. Incorporating Ingels's sling panels into Frantz would therefore not simply involve adding a sling to an existing pouch, it would displace the very principle through which Frantz achieves support. As shown below, Ingels's sling panels 130 are specifically designed to be anchored along their vertical side edge 135, base edge 133, and upper tip 131 to the inner surface of the front panel. In Frantz, however, the edges of the pouch 108 are not defined by sewn seams but are instead continuous, integrally knit stitch regions 110, leaving no discrete seam line or panel edge to which Ingels's sling panels could be anchored in the manner Ingels contemplates. Even if one were to simply stitch the sling panels onto Frantz's stitch regions 110 surrounding the pouch 108, doing so would require introducing additional seams and fabric panels into a construction specifically designed to eliminate them, directly contrary to Frantz's stated design objective of decreasing the number of separate fabric pieces that are sewn together when forming a finished garment. Frantz, 1 [0016]. Requiring such a fundamental restructuring of Frantz by introducing additional fabric panels and seams to implement the claimed support sling is precisely the type of modification that is impermissible under In re Ratti and MPEP 2143.01, as it would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of Frantz as well as a change in the basic principle under which Frantz was designed to operate. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813. For at least this reason, the rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be withdrawn and the claim be allowed.
Examiners Response: Examiners respectfully disagrees. Contrary to Applicants statement regarding the secondary reference, Ingels, using seams/sewing, Ingels does not explicitly state it uses seams, stitches, and/or sewing, and that their pouch is used in sewn garments. Frantz, the primary reference, has a pouch (108) with stitches around it (shown within stitch area 110), which Examiner has interpreted to be “seams”, since Applicant does not disclose metes and bounds for what constitutes a “seam”; as explained below in the rejection of claim 9.
Frantz does not explicitly state that additional support structures cannot be incorporated into the garment, nor does Frantz disclose that adding such structures would render the invention inoperable or incompatible with its intended purpose. Applicant’s argument that incorporation of the support sling of Ingels would necessarily require substantial reconstruction, additional seams, or additional fabric panels is unsupported by the references and appears to be based on speculation regarding a particular method of manufacture. However, the claims do not recite any specific manufacturing method, seam construction, or assembly process. The manner in which the structures are formed or assembled is therefore not limiting. The proposed modification merely involves incorporating the known support sling of Ingels into the pouch region of Frantz to provide additional support, which would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as explained below in the rejection of claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frantz et al. “Frantz” (US PG Pub. 20150320118) in view of Jung (US Patent 4,377,008).
Regarding claim 1, -Frantz discloses a lower torso garment (100, Fig. 1), comprising: a waistband (106) positioned at an upper end of the lower torso garment (see annotated Fig. 1 below); a body region (102) coupled to the waistband (106, Fig. 1) and extending between the waistband (106) and a lower end of the lower torso garment (see annotated Fig. 1 below); two leg openings (opening of 103) proximate to the lower end (see annotated Fig. 1 below); and a pouch (108) positioned on a front portion of the body region (front of 102 in Fig. 1), wherein the pouch (108) includes a support element (combination of 112, 114, 116, 120, and 104).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1-Examiner Annotated
Frantz does not explicitly disclose at least one strip of elastomeric material.
However, Jung teaches yet another lower torso garment, wherein Jung teaches a support element (combination of 40, 38, and 36, Fig. 2), includes at least one strip of elastomeric material (36 and 40, Col. 3, lines: 58-65, Col. 4, lines: 4-7, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support element of Frantz, by incorporating at least one strip of elastomeric material as taught by Jung, in order to provide additional support to the genitals and enhanced user comfort, while the lower body garment is in use.
Regarding clam 2, Frantz in view of Jung disclose a gusset (104 of Frantz) positioned proximate to the lower end (see annotated Fig. 1 above of Frantz) and coupled to the pouch (108) via a horizontal seam (combination of 118 and 120).
Regarding clam 3, Frantz in view of Jung disclose the support element (combination of 112, 114, 116, 120, and 104 of Frantz) is at least partially coupled to the pouch (108) via the horizontal seam (combination of 118 and 120, as shown in Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding clam 4, Frantz in view of Jung disclose the support element (combination of 112, 114, 116, 120, and 104 of Frantz) comprises: a first panel (114, left side of Fig. 1) extending between a bottom of the pouch (see annotated Fig. 1 above of Frantz) and a top of the pouch (see annotated Fig. 1 above); and a second panel (114, right side of Fig. 1) extending between the bottom of the pouch (see annotated Fig. 1 above) and the top of the pouch (see annotated Fig. 1 above) , wherein the first panel and the second panel (114) are each coupled to the pouch (108, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Frantz in view of Jung disclose the at least one strip of elastomeric material (36 and 40 of Jung, Col. 3, lines: 58-65, Col. 4, lines: 4-7, Fig. 2) includes a first strip of elastomeric material (36) positioned on the first panel (left side of 10, Fig. 2 of Jung) and a second strip of elastomeric material (40) positioned on the second panel (right side of 10, Fig. 2 of Jung).
Regarding claim 6, Frantz in view of Jung disclose the first panel and the second panel (114 of Frantz) are each at least partially defined by: a first short edge (edge of 114, left side) coupled to the pouch (108) proximate to the lower end of the lower torso garment (as shown in Fig. 1); a second short edge (edge of 114, right side) coupled to the pouch (108) proximate to the upper end of the lower torso garment (as shown in Fig. 1); a first long edge (edge of 116) extending between the first and second short edges (edges of 114, as shown in Fig. 1), the first long edge (edge of 116, left side) coupled to the pouch along a lateral edge of the pouch (as shown in Fig. 1); and a second long edge (edge of 116, right side) located opposite the first long edge (as shown in Fig. 1), the second long edge (edge of 116, right side) at least partially decoupled from the pouch and the body region (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Frantz in view of Jung disclose the first short edge of the first panel (edge of 114, left side) and the first short edge of the second panel overlap (edge of 114, right side, examiner notes “overlap” when the lower torso garment is viewed from its side).
Regarding claim 15, Frantz discloses a lower torso garment (100, Fig. 1), comprising: a body region (102) defined by an upper end and a lower end (see annotated Fig. 1 above), the body region including first and second leg portions (103) defining first and second leg openings (openings of 103), respectively, proximate to the lower end (see annotated Fig. 1 above); a waistband (106) coupled to the body region (102) proximate to the upper end (see annotated Fig. 1 above); a gusset (combination of 118 and 120) coupled to the body region (102) and positioned between the first and second leg portions (103, as shown in Fig. 1); and a pouch (108) coupled to the body region (102) via at least a first lateral seam and a second lateral seam (116), the pouch further comprising a support element (combination of 112 and 114).
Frantz does not explicitly disclose a first elastomeric element.
However, Jung teaches yet another lower torso garment, wherein Jung teaches a support element (combination of 40, 38, and 36, Fig. 2), includes a first elastomeric element (36 and 40, Col. 3, lines: 58-65, Col. 4, lines: 4-7, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support element of Frantz, by incorporating a first elastomeric element as taught by Jung, in order to provide additional support to the genitals and enhanced user comfort, while the lower body garment is in use.
Regarding claim 16, Frantz in view of Jung disclose the support element (combination of 112 and 114 of Frantz) includes a first support panel (114) coupled to the first lateral seam (116) and a second support panel (114) coupled to the second lateral seam (116), and the first elastomeric element (36 of Jung) is positioned on the first support panel (30 of Jung, examiner notes due to combination presented above, the elastomeric element of Jung is incorporated into the panels 114 of Frantz) and a second elastomeric element (38) is positioned on the second support panel (32 of Jung/114 of Frantz).
Regarding claim 17, Frantz in view of Jung disclose the first elastomeric element (36 of Jung) extends along a first free edge of the first support panel (inner edge of 30 aligned within opening 34 / inner edge of 114 against pouch 108 of Frantz), the first free edge (inner edge of 114 of Frantz) located opposite the first lateral seam (116 in Fig. 1), and the second elastomeric element (38 of Jung) extends along a second free edge of the second support panel (inner edge of panel 13 aligned within opening 34 / inner edge of 114 against pouch 108 of Frantz), the second free edge (inner edge of 114 of Frantz) located opposite the second lateral seam (116).
Regarding claim 18, Frantz in view of Jung disclose the support element (combination of 112, 114, 116, 120, and 104 of Frantz) is positioned on an interior of the pouch (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the lower torso garment can be turned inside out, where the support element, combination of 112, 114, 116, 120, and 104 , would be on the interior of the pouch) and provided in the form of a first support panel (114, the left side of the garment) coupled to the pouch (108) along the first lateral seam (116) and a second support panel (114, the right side of the garment) coupled to the pouch (108) along the second lateral seam (116).
Regarding claim 19, Frantz in view of Jung disclose an opening (Par. 0019, lines: 5-7) configured to receive at least a portion of an external male genitalia of a wearer is at least partially defined by a first interior edge of the first support panel and a second interior edge of the second support panel (“configured to…second support panel” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function).
Regarding claim 20, Frantz in view of Jung disclose at least one overlap area formed by a portion of the first support panel and a portion of the second support panel that overlap (examiner notes “overlap” presented when the lower torso garment is viewed from its side).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frantz in view of Jung, further in view of Ingels (US Patent 9,375,035)
Regarding claim 8, Frantz in view of Jung disclose the first panel and the second panel (114).
They do not disclose a twist.
However, Ingels teaches yet another lower torso garment, wherein Ingels teaches the first panel (130, Fig. 1) and the second panel (140) are each constructed of a fabric including a twist (as shown in Fig. 1 and 2, where panel 140 is shown curled from its side and bending inward), wherein the twist is positioned and located between the first short edge (135) and the second short edge (145) of each of the first panel and the second panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel disclosed by Frantz in view of Jung, by incorporating a twist as taught by Ingels, in order to enhance structural of said garment.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frantz in view of Ingels and Jung.
Regarding claim 9, Frantz discloses a lower torso garment (100, Fig. 1), comprising: a waistband (106) positioned at an upper end of the lower torso garment (see annotated Fig. 1 above); a body region (102) coupled to the waistband and extending between the upper end of the lower torso garment and a lower end of the lower torso garment (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above); a pouch (108) defined by: a first lateral seam (116) coupling the pouch (108) to a first side of the body region (left side of garment); a second lateral seam (116) coupling the pouch (108) to a second side of the body region (right side of garment); an upper seam coupling the pouch to the waistband (106, Par. 0019, lines: 17-19, examiner notes the “held stitches” are considered to be the “upper seam”); and a lower seam (combination of 118 and 120) coupling the pouch (108) to the body region (102, as shown in Fig. 1) and located opposite the upper seam (Par. 0019, lines: 17-19); a support element (combination of 112 and 114) coupled to the pouch (108) by the first lateral seam (116) and the second lateral seam (116).
Frantz does not disclose a support sling coupled to the pouch.
However, Ingels teaches yet another lower torso garment, wherein Ingels teaches a support sling (combination of 130 and 140, Fig. 1, 2, and 6) coupled to a pouch (120 and 160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support element disclosed by Frantz, by incorporating a support sling as taught by Ingels, in order to provide additional support to the genitals and enhanced user comfort, while the lower torso garment is in use.
They do not disclose at least one elastic element positioned on the support sling.
However, Jung teaches yet another lower torso garment, wherein Jung teaches a support element (combination of 40, 38, and 36, Fig. 2) coupled to panels (30 and 32), includes at least one elastic element (36, Col. 3, lines: 58-65, Col. 4, lines: 4-7, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support sling of Frantz in view of Ingels, by incorporating at least one elastic element as taught by Jung, in order to provide additional support to the genitals and enhanced user comfort, while the lower body garment is in use.
Regarding claim 10, Frantz in view of Ingels and Jung disclose the pouch (108 of Frantz) includes a pass-through fly opening (Par. 0019, lines: 5-7).
Regarding claim 11, Frantz in view of Ingels and Jung disclose the support sling (combination of 130 and 140, Fig. 1, 2, and 6 of Ingels) further comprises: a first fabric panel (130, Fig. 1) including a first lateral edge (edge of 135) that is coupled to the pouch (120) along the first lateral seam (116 of Frantz, examiner notes due to the combination the sling of Ingels is incorporated into pouch, 108, of Frantz, which includes edge 135 and first fabric panel, 130); and a second fabric panel (140 of Ingels) including a second lateral edge (145) that is coupled to the pouch (120) along the second lateral seam (116 of Frantz, examiner notes due to the combination the sling of Ingels is incorporated into pouch, 108, of Frantz, which includes edge 145 and second fabric panel, 140).
Regarding claim 12, Frantz in view of Ingels and Jung disclose the first fabric panel (130, Fig. 1 of Ingels) includes a first inner edge (134) extending between the upper seam (Par. 0019, lines: 17-19 of Frantz) and the lower seam (combination of 118 and 120, Fig. 1) and located opposite the first lateral seam (116), the second fabric panel (140) includes a second inner edge (144) extending between the upper seam (Par. 0019, lines: 17-19 of Frantz) and the lower seam (combination of 118 and 120, Fig. 1) and located opposite the second lateral seam (116), the at least one elastic element further comprises: a first elastic element (36 of Jung) extending along the first inner edge of the first fabric panel (inner edge of 32); and a second elastic element (38) extending along the second inner edge of the second fabric panel (inner edge of 30).
Regarding claim 13, Frantz in view of Ingels and Jung disclose further comprising a first overlap area (see annotated Fig. 1 below of Ingels, examiner notes the “first overlap area” is shown on the exterior of the lower body garment) defined by an overlap between a first portion of the first fabric panel (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and a first portion of the second fabric panel (see annotated Fig. 1 below) proximate to the lower seam (combination of 118 and 120 of Frantz).
PNG
media_image2.png
493
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1-Examiner Annotated
Regarding claim 14, Frantz in view of Ingels and Jung disclose further comprising a second overlap area (see annotated Fig. 1 above of Ingels, examiner notes the “second overlap area” is shown as the interior of the lower body garment) defined by an overlap between a second portion of the first fabric panel (see annotated Fig. 1 above) and a second portion of the second fabric panel (see annotated Fig. 1 above) proximate to the upper seam (Par. 0019, lines: 17-19 of Frantz).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISSA TOMPKINS can be reached at (571) 272-3425. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights