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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract contains over 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The “Specification” throughout its entirety needs to be reviewed to correct grammatical errors and spelling errors throughout. It appears that the “Specification” and “Claims” are a direct translation from a Foreign Patent Application and some of the meaning has been lost in the translation to American English from the foreign language of the parent foreign patent application. Examples of such errors are on page 17, line 3, wherein before “many” the word “for” should be deleted. And on page 18, line 4, the word “followings” should read - - following - -..
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 are unclear and indefinite and it is not exactly clear what applicant is attempting to claim such as if the ‘adhesive replaceable adhesive bra” is an actual adhesive bra that is adhereable to a wearer in use or on the interior of the wearer’s outer garment . Or if it is claiming the adhesive replaceable adhesive bra on a pre- wear or pre- use support structure of a “limiting body” that is some other type of a support structure that is used just after or during the manufacturing process.
In claim 1, lines 1-6, it appears that the limitations claimed therein is claiming the adhesive bra structure that is worn on a wearer’s body during use. However, lines 7-14 are unclear and it is not understood what lines 7-14 are claiming in regard to the adhesive bra such as if it is describing the adhesive bra on a wearer’s garment or body during wear or if the limitations are claiming an additional structure that is used after the adhesive bra is manufactured but prior to its wear on a wearer wherein the structure is a type of support packaging that stores and retains the shape of the adhesive bra prior to wear on a wearer.
It is not clear as to what the limitation of “a limiting body “ encompasses. It appears that it is a support structure that retains the shape of the adhesive bra after manufacturing and prior to wear on a wearer. The Examiner has reviewed the Specification and the terms appear to be unclear as discussed above. It is not clear as to what layers on the molded cup adhesive bra applicant is attempting to claim. Applicant needs to amend the claims to clearly claim the structure of the molded cup adhesive bra. Is the “protective surface” a commonly known release liner commonly used on an adhesive bra to protect an adhesive bra adhesive prior to use?
In claims 5, line 1 and claim 6, lines 1-2, it is not clear as to what the “limiting body” structure encompasses and how it is an attachment device and what the structure of the “Attachment device” includes. In claims 7 and 8, it is not clear as to what the “breathable holes” encompass, and as to what the function of the breathable holes includes as well as what the structure of the “limiting post” encompasses and as to what its function includes.
It is not clear if the “limiting body” is some sort of adhesive bra packaging or support structure where the adhesive bra is stored prior to wear.
In claim 9, it is not clear as to what the “limiting body” as being “a fixing colloid” encompasses and as to what its use and its structure encompasses. It is not clear if it is just another material layer of the adhesive bra.
In claim 10, it appears that the “Pressure roller” is a manufacturing element of the adhesive bra and it is not a component of the adhesive bra itself. It appears that the claim is actually attempting to claim a process of manufacturing the adhesive bra.
Claim 11 appears to be claiming a manufacturing step of adding an adhesive surface to the inner surface of the adhesive bra.
In claim 12 it is not clear as to whether the “molded cup is a layer or part of the adhesive bra itself or if it is a structure that is used to attach an adhesive bra structure to a breast of a wearer so that the adhesive bra is placeable onto the breast of a wearer in the proper location.
Claim 14, includes grammatical errors therein, such as in line 5, after “liner” where “is” should be deleted.
Claim 14 is unclear for the same reasons as in claim 12 above. IT is jot clear as to whether the “molded cup” is a part of or a layer of the adhesive bra or if it is a molded cup component that is used to attach the adhesive bra to thee skin surface of a wearer or to an inside surface of a garment and adhering the surfaces to the garment and/or the skin surface of the wearer of the adhesive bra.
In claim 14, line 14, it is not clear as to why the molded cup is being removed after the adhesive bra has been used and as to whether it is a part of the bra that is worn in use or if it is a component that assists in attaching the adhesive bra to the wearer for wear.
Claim 15, is unclear for the same reasons as in claim 13. It is not clear as to what the “slightly upward convex shape” in claims 13 and 15 encompasses.. It is not seen in the figures.
However, the claims, as best understood, have been examined on their merits.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The best prior art reference with an adhere able adhesive bra as claimed is disclosed by Fortner (US 8113910). However, Fortner does not disclose the molded cup as claimed in claims 1, 14 and 15 of applicant’s invention.
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
AS presently, best understood, none of the cited references, alone or in combination, disclose the molded cup, adhesive body, limiting body and protective surface to adhere the adhesive bra onto a wearer when worn in claims 1-11 and the method of using the adhesive bra of claim 1 as in claims 12-15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORIA M HALE whose telephone number is (571)272-4984. The examiner can normally be reached MON.-THURS..
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 1-571-272-3425. 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.
/GLORIA M HALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732