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filed on July 21, 2025, in which claims 1-12 were presented for examination, of which claims 5 and 7-12 were withdrawn as to not being drawn to the elected embodiment, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I (Fig. 1A-2 and 3, Claims 1-4 and 6) in the reply filed on May 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “sinker surface of the knitted fabric (claim 2)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Waldman et al. “Waldman” (US Patent 12,104,297).
Regarding claim 1, Waldman discloses a swimsuit (Col. 2, lines: 5-6, and Col. 14, lines: 58-62) comprising a warp knitted fabric that has elasticity (Abstract) and comprises: an elastic yarn (200, Fig. 1-5); and a non-elastic yarn (100), wherein the swimsuit has, in at least a portion thereof, a stripe pattern (see annotated Fig. 2 below) that is continuous in one direction (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 below) and includes a recessed stripe portion (see annotated Fig. 4 below) and a protruding stripe portion (see annotated Fig. 4 below), and at least a portion of the stripe pattern includes a warp knitted fabric portion formed by a herringbone structure (see annotated Fig. 5 below, examiner notes in annotated Fig. 5 the “herringbone structure” is created by the pattern of non-elastic yarn, 100).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2-Examiner Annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
331
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4-Examiner Annotated
PNG
media_image3.png
836
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5-Examiner Annotated
Regarding claim 2, Waldman discloses a front surface of the herringbone structure is a sinker surface of the knitted fabric (examiner notes the “sinker surface of the knitted fabric” is shown in Fig. 2 and 4, where the surface of the fabric is recessed), and the herringbone structure includes at least two courses in which a direction of the non-elastic yarn is the same (as shown in Fig. 5, where at least two course of non-elastic yarn, 100, is shown to be the same).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldman.
Regarding claim 3, Waldman discloses an average height difference between the recessed stripe portion and the protruding stripe portion (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Waldman does not explicitly disclose an average height difference between the recessed stripe portion and the protruding stripe portion is 50 to 500 um.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have an average height difference between the recessed stripe portion and the protruding stripe portion is 50 to 500 um, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Waldman discloses an average pitch (D1, Fig. 4) between the protruding stripe portion and an adjacent protruding stripe portion (as shown in Fig. 4).
Waldman does not explicitly disclose an average pitch between the protruding stripe portion and an adjacent protruding stripe portion is 300 to 1500 um.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have an average pitch between the protruding stripe portion and an adjacent protruding stripe portion is 300 to 1500 um, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldman in view of Almog (US PG Pub. 2022/0030960).
Regarding claim 6, Waldman discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Waldman does not disclose a water repellent is applied to at least a portion of the swimsuit.
However, Almog teaches yet another swimsuit (Par. 0040, Col. 2, lines: 24-27 and Par. 0056, lines: 1-11), wherein Almog teaches a water repellent is applied to at least a portion of the garment (Par. 0032, lines: 1-6 and 11).
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 swimsuit disclosed by Waldman, by applying a water repellant as taught by Almog, in order to reduce drag while the swimsuit is in-use.
Conclusion
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 on (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