DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on September 28th, 2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Fig. 1 element “202” is not in the specification; review is needed whether it should be in [0070] as the “overlap”
Fig. 6 element “102” is not in the specification; review is needed whether there is missing disclosure in [0063], [0064] pertaining to the element
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
See related 112(b) rejection below—for compact prosecution, examiner notes that, in [0062], no material has been disclosed for “support structure covering layer 40” other than that it is “softer” than support structure 20; however, not all of the materials for support structure 20 have been disclosed (specifically, first/second U-shape strips 21, 22 materials have not been disclosed); as such, future amendments cannot claim a comparison of 40 to 20 without warranting U.S.C. 112 rejection(s)
[0043] merely indicates that 20 has greater rigidity than 10, where 10 is of nylon-spandex or polyester-spandex fabric ([0045]); however, 20 is of elements 21/22, 23, and 24; [0031], [0039], [0066], [0068], [0078], [0080] disclose the materials for element 23; and [0067] discloses the materials for element 24; however, there is no disclosure for the material of elements 21/22
Examiner notes that [0063], [0064] talk about adhesive 90 twice, but does not talk about 102 in the drawings
Review is suggested of [0066] which introduces “the first plastic bone 232 and the second plastic bone 233”; however, these elements are not properly introduced until [0068]
[0067] is missing the drawing reference numerals, and should read “while utilizing the first U-shaped strip 21, second U-shaped strip 22 and W-shaped support strip 23 to provide sufficient…soft covering sheet 24….three-layer composite fabric covering sheet 24”
[0070] needs review whether overlap should be labeled 202
[0077] is missing drawing reference numerals; “W-shaped strips 231, 234” should be corrected four times; “plastic bones 232, 233” should be corrected three times;
[0077] last sentence is recommended to clarify what structures the term “they” and “their” refer to
[0077] “W-shaped strips…when in contact with skin” needs review; as best understood, strips 231, 234 do not contact the wearer’s skin
[0079] is missing drawing reference numerals and should read “first W-shaped strips 231”
[0079] instances of “W-shaped strip” need review to read “first W-shaped strip 231”
[0081] is missing drawing reference numerals; “first W-shaped strip 231” should be corrected twice; “second W-shaped strip 234” should be corrected four times
[0083] is missing drawing reference numerals; “first W-shaped strip 231” should be corrected twice; “second W-shaped strip 234” should be corrected twice
[0090] is missing drawing reference numerals; “brassiere body 10” should be corrected twice; “breast-covering portion 11” should be corrected twice; “torso-covering portion 12” should be corrected twice; “first edge 13”; “second edge 14”
[0091] is missing drawing reference numerals; “support structure 20” should be corrected three times; “brassiere body 10” should be corrected three times; “first edge 13”;
[0092] is missing drawing reference numerals; “cushion panel 30” should be corrected three times; “terminal ends 201”; “support structure 20” should be corrected twice; “brassiere body 10”; “first edge 13” should be corrected twice”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 16, 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 3 before “wearer’s torso” delete “the” and substitute –a— for proper antecedent basis
Claim 1 Line 4 before “wearer’s underarm” delete “the” and substitute –a—
Claim 1 Line 5 before “wearer’s neckline” delete “the” and substitute –a—
Claim 3 Line 2 before “wearer’s skin” delete “the” and substitute –a—
Claim 4 Line 1 is redundant of Claim 1 Line 8
Claim 16 Line 3 before “wearer’s torso” delete “the” and substitute –a— for proper antecedent basis
Claim 16 Line 4 before “wearer’s underarm” delete “the” and substitute –a—
Claim 16 Line 5 before “wearer’s neckline” delete “the” and substitute –a—
Claim 20 Line 3 before “wearer’s torso” delete “the” and substitute –a— for proper antecedent basis
Claim 20 Line 4 before “wearer’s underarm” delete “the” and substitute –a—
Claim 20 Line 5 before “wearer’s neckline” delete “the” and substitute –a—
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term "greater rigidity" in claim 1 Lines 6-7 “support structure has greater rigidity than the brassiere body” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "greater rigidity" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification antecedent basis for the claim comes from [0043], but [0043] merely indicates that support structure 20 has greater rigidity than brassiere body 10, where 10 is of nylon-spandex or polyester-spandex fabric ([0045]); however, 20 is of elements 21/22, 23, and 24; [0031], [0039], [0066], [0068], [0078], [0080] disclose the materials for element 23; and [0067] discloses the materials for element 24; however, there is no disclosure for the material of elements 21/22; as such, the recitation is unclear as to whether the term is referring to the material of 21/22 relative to 10. Disagreement may further warrant a 112(a) enablement rejection without constituting a new rejection. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as any portion of support structure has a greater rigidity than any portion of a brassiere body, by any two materials that meet the recitation.
Relatedly, the term "softer" in claim 14 Lines 6-7 “covering sheet is softer than the first U-shaped strip” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "softer" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As aforementioned, although material for covering sheet 24 has been disclosed in [0067], no material has been disclosed for the first U-shaped strip. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met by any two materials that meet the recitation.
The term “greater rigidity” in Claim 16 Lines 6-7 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1.
The term “greater rigidity” in Claim 20 Lines 6-7 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The body of Claim 19 is the same as Claim 10; however, the dependency of Claim 19 is on Claim 11 which is on Claim 10, and therefore does not further limit. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 1, 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (CN 223068011), herein Chang, in view of Siddall-Cohen (US Publication 2014/0302747), herein Cohen.
Regarding Claim 1, Chang teaches a brassiere (see Fig. 2) comprising:
a brassiere body (see Figs. 2, 3; at least elements 1, 2; [0031] “1. Cup section…2. Back band section”) comprising
a breast-covering portion (at least 1) configured to cover a wearer's breasts when worn (see Figs. 2, 3 for 1, 4; Chang teaches the portion which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of covering as recited when worn)
and a torso-covering portion (2) configured to cover the wearer's torso surrounding the breasts when worn (see Figs. 2, 3 for 2; Chang teaches the portion 2 which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of covering as recited when worn),
the brassiere body having a first edge (145) adjacent the wearer's underarm when worn (see Figs. 2, 3; first edge = [0031] "145. curved edge"; Chang teaches the first edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being adjacent the underarm when worn) and
a second edge adjacent the wearer’s neckline when worn (see Figs. 2,3 ; Chang teaches the second edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being adjacent to the wearer’s neckline);
a support structure (at least 12) connected to the brassiere body (see Fig. 3; [0031] "12. bottom support piece"),
wherein the support structure is configured to extend around the wearer’s breasts when worn to provide breast support (see Figs. 2, 3; Chang teaches the support structure which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of extending and providing support as recited),
the support structure extending to and terminating at the first edge (see Fig. 3, where 12 extends to 145); and
a cushion panel (14) joined to the brassiere body at the first edge (see Fig. 3; 0031] "14. side push-up piece"; Chang teaches the panel which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being cushion, especially in light of [0036] “side pusher 14 is a two-layer mesh structure”; [0046] “side push piece 14 gathers the breasts from the outside in”, wherein the existence indicates cushion, inasmuch as the term has been defined).
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the support structure has greater rigidity than the brassiere body.
However, Chang teaches moldable materials ([0037] "bottom support 12 is made of a woven synthetic ribbon structure, which is soft and comfortable"; [0040] "decorative layer 4 is preferably made of lace material"; [0041] “materials of each layer of the cup 11 are stacked and molded together”).
However, Cohen teaches wherein the support structure has greater rigidity than the brassiere body with moldable materials at the cup (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Figs. 2A, 4A; [0071] "The bra cup 40 comprises materials that are generally softer than the material forming the rib 2. For example, the bra cup 40 may be formed of relatively soft, polyurethane materials. The hard polymer rib 2"; [0069] "rib 2 …formed of a polymer, e.g. nylon...generally, a rib...may be made from one or more of polycarbonate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyamide, polysulphone, nylon and a dough moulding compound...include polyester resin, glass fiber, calcium carbonate, lubricants, and catalysts"; [0058] "rib 2 is configured to position at a region of a lower edge 42 of a bra cup 40, indicated by dotted line 41...help maintain the shape of the bra cup 40 when worn, ensuring firm support for the wearer's bust"; [0034] "elongate support member may be considered to provide a rib for the bra cup…support member may be manufactured by a plastics injection or a compression moulding process").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s support structure and cup materials with that of Cohen’s to provide effective support in a moldable bra ([0034], [0058]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Chang further teaches wherein the cushion panel (14) and the brassiere body (now including 4 as part of the breast-covering portion) partially overlap at a joining position therebetween (see Figs. 2, 3, where Fig. 2 clearly shows that 14 overlaps with 4; [0031] “4. decorative layer”),
and the cushion panel is closer to the wearer's skin than the brassiere body at the joining position (Chang teaches the cushion panel and brassiere body at a joining position which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of having the cushion panel closer to skin than the bra body, especially in light of Figs. 1, 2; [0028] "Figure 1 …of the outer surface structure"; [0029] "Figure 2…of the inner surface structure", where Fig. 2 showing 14 on the interior and therefore cushion panel 14 is capable of being closer as recited).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Chang further teaches wherein a first end of the support structure terminates at the first edge (see Figs. 2, 3; see annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 below for clarification),
PNG
media_image1.png
301
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the cushion panel has a maximum width at a first location corresponding to the first end (first end being at first edge 145; wherein there is a max width along 145 in Fig. 2, where 145 is along the first end of the support structure; see annotated excerpts of Fig. 2 below for clarification).
PNG
media_image2.png
360
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
293
317
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 4.
Chang further teaches wherein the cushion panel tapers gradually from the first location toward both ends along a length direction of the cushion panel (see annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 below for clarification, wherein the direction is a length of the triangular cushion panel).
PNG
media_image4.png
340
513
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Chang further teaches wherein an extension area of the cushion panel covers at least 80% of the first edge (see Fig. 2 for at least 80% of the first edge at 145; 145 is of 14, therefore 14 extends 100%).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 6.
Chang further teaches wherein the extension area of the cushion panel covers the entire first edge (see rejection of Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Chang further teaches wherein the support structure is configured to extend between the wearer's breasts when worn and terminates at the second edge (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Chang further teaches wherein the support structure is disposed on an outer surface of the brassiere body and protrudes outward relative to the outer surface (the term “outer” is relative to a perspective; support structure is on an outermost surface relative to other layers as shown in Figs. 2, 3; wherein the support structure protrudes outward inasmuch as the structure has a dimension).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Chang further teaches a support structure covering layer (4) that at least covers the support structure (at least 12) and is bonded thereto (see Fig. 2; [0031] “4. decorative layer”; inasmuch as 4 and 12 are of the same invention, the elements are bonded, especially in light of [0041] “materials of each layer of the cup 11 are stacked and molded together”),
the covering layer being disposed on an outer side of the support structure ([0028] "Figure 1 …of the outer surface structure"; [0029] "Figure 2…of the inner surface structure"; see Fig. 2 for disposed on an outer side, especially as Fig. 2 is inner surface).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (CN 223068011), herein Chang, in view of Siddall-Cohen (US Publication 2014/0302747), herein Cohen, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Gao (NPL).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Chang teaches wherein the cushion panel (14) has a material capable of having a higher elastic modulus than a material of the breast-covering portion (now including 4) ([0036] "side pusher 14 is a two-layer mesh structure"; [0046] "side push piece 14 gathers the breasts from the outside in"; wherein breast-covering portion includes [0040] "decorative layer 4 is preferably made of lace material...which has a decorative function").
Nevertheless, Gao teaches it is known wherein mesh has a higher elastic modulus than lace (page 4 "mesh demonstrates greater durability...while lace demands careful handling"; page 4 "mesh's nylon-spandex blend offers superior stretch recovery...while lace's ...require more delicate handling to maintain structural integrity"; page 5 "mesh offers 90/10 nylon-spandex blend for maximum flexibility while elastic lace provides moderate stretch with a similar composition").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s mesh (cushion panel) to have a higher elastic modulus than Chang’s lace (part of breast-covering portion) as taught by Gao in order to provide stretch, durability, and integrity where desired (pages 4-5), especially as Chang desires similarly ([0040], [0046]).
Claim(s) 11, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (CN 223068011), herein Chang, in view of Siddall-Cohen (US Publication 2014/0302747), herein Cohen, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Waitz (USPN 6572437).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the covering layer is folded around at least part of an edge of the support structure to cover an inner side of the support structure.
However, Chang already teaches that the covering layer is the outermost surface while 12 is the support structure.
Waitz teaches that wherein the outermost covering layer is folded around at least part of an edge of the support structure to cover an inner side of the support structure (see Fig. 3; Col. 3 Lines 14-16 "breast supporting panel 25…supporting the breast of the wearer"; for fold-- see Fig. 3 for around 25-- Col. 2 Lines 56-57 "inner layer 24 and outer layer 26 fold at bottom edge 46").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s outer covering layer to be folded over the support structure as taught by Waitz in order to provide strength at the edge.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 18 is the same as the body of Claim 8. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 8 for the rejection of the body of Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 19 is the same as the body of Claim 10. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 10 for the rejection of the body of Claim 19.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (CN 223068011), herein Chang, in view of Siddall-Cohen (US Publication 2014/0302747), herein Cohen, and Waitz (USPN 6572437), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Gao (NPL).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 17 is the same as the body of Claim 2. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 2 for the rejection of the body of Claim 17.
Claim(s) 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (CN 223068011), herein Chang, in view of Siddall-Cohen (US Publication 2014/0302747), herein Cohen, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Liu (USPN 7604526).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the support structure is adhesively bonded to the brassiere body.
However, Chang already teaches the support structure (at least 12) is bonded to the brassiere body ([0041] "materials of each layer of the cup 11 are stacked and molded together").
Liu teaches wherein the support structure is adhesively bonded to the brassiere body (See Fig. 7; Col. 6 Lines 8-12 "components defining the breast cup assembly 1 of the bra are made by a molding and laminating process (preferably with use of adhesives) to define these components in their appropriate shape"; for covering-- Col. 8 Lines 51-53 "In a preferred form the under breast support strip 4 is positioned adjacent the lower periphery of one of the breast cups").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s molding with the addition of adhesive as taught by Liu as a known combination in providing an effective attachment of support structure to bra body (Col. 6 Lines 8-12).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Chang teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the covering layer is adhesively bonded to the support structure.
However, Chang already teaches the covering layer (4) is bonded to the support structure (at least 12) ([0041] "materials of each layer of the cup 11 are stacked and molded together").
Liu teaches wherein a covering layer is adhesively bonded to the support structure (See Fig. 7; Col. 6 Lines 8-12 "components defining the breast cup assembly 1 of the bra are made by a molding and laminating process (preferably with use of adhesives) to define these components in their appropriate shape"; for covering-- Col. 8 Lines 51-53 "In a preferred form the under breast support strip 4 is positioned adjacent the lower periphery of one of the breast cups").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s molding with the addition of adhesive as taught by Liu as a known combination in providing an effective attachment of support structure with a bra covering layer (Col. 6 Lines 8-12).
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (CN 223068011), herein Chang, in view of Siddall-Cohen (US Publication 2014/0302747), herein Cohen, and Liu (USPN 7604526).
Regarding Claim 16, Chang teaches a brassiere (see Fig. 2) comprising:
a brassiere body (see Figs. 2, 3; at least elements 1, 2; [0031] “1. Cup section…2. Back band section”) comprising
a breast-covering portion (at least 1) configured to cover a wearer's breasts when worn (see Figs. 2, 3 for 1, 4; Chang teaches the portion which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of covering as recited when worn)
and a torso-covering portion (2) configured to cover the wearer's torso surrounding the breasts when worn (see Figs. 2, 3 for 2; Chang teaches the portion 2 which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of covering as recited when worn),
the brassiere body having a first edge (145) adjacent the wearer's underarm when worn (see Figs. 2, 3; first edge = [0031] "145. curved edge"; Chang teaches the first edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being adjacent the underarm when worn) and
a second edge adjacent the wearer’s neckline when worn (see Figs. 2,3 ; Chang teaches the second edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being adjacent to the wearer’s neckline);
a support structure (at least 12) connected to the brassiere body (see Fig. 3; [0031] "12. bottom support piece"),
wherein the support structure is configured to extend around the wearer’s breasts when worn to provide breast support (see Figs. 2, 3; Chang teaches the support structure which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of extending and providing support as recited),
the support structure extending to and terminating at the first edge (see Fig. 3, where 12 extends to 145); and
being disposed on an outer surface of the brassiere body and protruding outward relative to the outer surface (the term “outer” is relative to a perspective; support structure is on an outermost surface relative to other layers as shown in Figs. 2, 3; wherein the support structure protrudes outward inasmuch as the structure has a dimension),
a cushion panel (14) joined to the brassiere body at the first edge (see Fig. 3; 0031] "14. side push-up piece"; Chang teaches the panel which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being cushion, especially in light of [0036] “side pusher 14 is a two-layer mesh structure”; [0046] “side push piece 14 gathers the breasts from the outside in”, wherein the existence indicates cushion, inasmuch as the term has been defined).
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the support structure has greater rigidity than the brassiere body.
However, Chang teaches moldable materials ([0037] "bottom support 12 is made of a woven synthetic ribbon structure, which is soft and comfortable"; [0040] "decorative layer 4 is preferably made of lace material"; [0041] “materials of each layer of the cup 11 are stacked and molded together”).
However, Cohen teaches wherein the support structure has greater rigidity than the brassiere body with moldable materials at the cup (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Figs. 2A, 4A; [0071] "The bra cup 40 comprises materials that are generally softer than the material forming the rib 2. For example, the bra cup 40 may be formed of relatively soft, polyurethane materials. The hard polymer rib 2"; [0069] "rib 2 …formed of a polymer, e.g. nylon...generally, a rib...may be made from one or more of polycarbonate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyamide, polysulphone, nylon and a dough moulding compound...include polyester resin, glass fiber, calcium carbonate, lubricants, and catalysts"; [0058] "rib 2 is configured to position at a region of a lower edge 42 of a bra cup 40, indicated by dotted line 41...help maintain the shape of the bra cup 40 when worn, ensuring firm support for the wearer's bust"; [0034] "elongate support member may be considered to provide a rib for the bra cup…support member may be manufactured by a plastics injection or a compression moulding process").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s support structure and cup materials with that of Cohen’s to provide effective support in a moldable bra ([0034], [0058]).
Chang also does not explicitly teach wherein the support structure being adhesively bonded to the brassiere body.
However, Chang already teaches the support structure (at least 12) is bonded to the brassiere body ([0041] "materials of each layer of the cup 11 are stacked and molded together").
Liu teaches wherein the support structure is adhesively bonded to the brassiere body (See Fig. 7; Col. 6 Lines 8-12 "components defining the breast cup assembly 1 of the bra are made by a molding and laminating process (preferably with use of adhesives) to define these components in their appropriate shape"; for covering-- Col. 8 Lines 51-53 "In a preferred form the under breast support strip 4 is positioned adjacent the lower periphery of one of the breast cups").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s molding with the addition of adhesive as taught by Liu as a known combination in providing an effective attachment of support structure to bra body (Col. 6 Lines 8-12).
THIRD REJECTION: Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, in view of Siddall-Cohen (US Publication 2014/0302747), herein Cohen, and Gao (NPL).
Regarding Claim 20, Chang teaches a brassiere (see Fig. 2) comprising:
a brassiere body (see Figs. 2, 3; at least elements 1, 2; [0031] “1. Cup section…2. Back band section”) comprising
a breast-covering portion (at least 1) configured to cover a wearer's breasts when worn (see Figs. 2, 3 for 1, 4; Chang teaches the portion which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of covering as recited when worn)
and a torso-covering portion (2) configured to cover the wearer's torso surrounding the breasts when worn (see Figs. 2, 3 for 2; Chang teaches the portion 2 which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of covering as recited when worn),
the brassiere body having a first edge (145) adjacent the wearer's underarm when worn (see Figs. 2, 3; first edge = [0031] "145. curved edge"; Chang teaches the first edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being adjacent the underarm when worn) and
a second edge adjacent the wearer’s neckline when worn (see Figs. 2,3 ; Chang teaches the second edge which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being adjacent to the wearer’s neckline);
a support structure (at least 12) connected to the brassiere body (see Fig. 3; [0031] "12. bottom support piece"),
wherein the support structure is configured to extend around the wearer’s breasts when worn to provide breast support (see Figs. 2, 3; Chang teaches the support structure which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of extending and providing support as recited),
the support structure extending to and terminating at the first edge (see Fig. 3, where 12 extends to 145); and
being further configured to extend between the wearer's breasts when worn and terminate at the second edge (see Fig. 3); and
a cushion panel (14) joined to the brassiere body at the first edge (see Fig. 3; 0031] "14. side push-up piece"; Chang teaches the panel which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being cushion, especially in light of [0036] “side pusher 14 is a two-layer mesh structure”; [0046] “side push piece 14 gathers the breasts from the outside in”, wherein the existence indicates cushion, inasmuch as the term has been defined).
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the support structure has greater rigidity than the brassiere body.
However, Chang teaches moldable materials ([0037] "bottom support 12 is made of a woven synthetic ribbon structure, which is soft and comfortable"; [0040] "decorative layer 4 is preferably made of lace material"; [0041] “materials of each layer of the cup 11 are stacked and molded together”).
However, Cohen teaches wherein the support structure has greater rigidity than the brassiere body with moldable materials at the cup (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Figs. 2A, 4A; [0071] "The bra cup 40 comprises materials that are generally softer than the material forming the rib 2. For example, the bra cup 40 may be formed of relatively soft, polyurethane materials. The hard polymer rib 2"; [0069] "rib 2 …formed of a polymer, e.g. nylon...generally, a rib...may be made from one or more of polycarbonate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyamide, polysulphone, nylon and a dough moulding compound...include polyester resin, glass fiber, calcium carbonate, lubricants, and catalysts"; [0058] "rib 2 is configured to position at a region of a lower edge 42 of a bra cup 40, indicated by dotted line 41...help maintain the shape of the bra cup 40 when worn, ensuring firm support for the wearer's bust"; [0034] "elongate support member may be considered to provide a rib for the bra cup…support member may be manufactured by a plastics injection or a compression moulding process").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s support structure and cup materials with that of Cohen’s to provide effective support in a moldable bra ([0034], [0058]).
Chang further teaches wherein the cushion panel (14) has a material capable of having a higher elastic modulus than a material of the breast-covering portion (now including 4) ([0036] "side pusher 14 is a two-layer mesh structure"; [0046] "side push piece 14 gathers the breasts from the outside in"; wherein breast-covering portion includes [0040] "decorative layer 4 is preferably made of lace material...which has a decorative function").
Nevertheless, Gao teaches it is known wherein mesh has a higher elastic modulus than lace (page 4 "mesh demonstrates greater durability...while lace demands careful handling"; page 4 "mesh's nylon-spandex blend offers superior stretch recovery...while lace's ...require more delicate handling to maintain structural integrity"; page 5 "mesh offers 90/10 nylon-spandex blend for maximum flexibility while elastic lace provides moderate stretch with a similar composition").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s mesh (cushion panel) to have a higher elastic modulus than Chang’s lace (part of breast-covering portion) as taught by Gao in order to provide stretch, durability, and integrity where desired (pages 4-5), especially as Chang desires similarly ([0040], [0046]).
Examiner Notes
Claim(s) 14, 15, as best understood from the disclosure, is/are free of U.S.C. 102/103 rejections, but is/are currently questioned under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Magrone et al (USPN 6439959) directed to a support structure with first/second U-shaped strip in a same layer, a W-shaped support strip, and a covering sheet; Vidal (US Publication 2009/0325463) directed to bra with cushion panel and support structure with greater rigidity than bra body; Misseldine (USPN 9717284) directed to bra with support structure and cushion panel; Littell (USPN 8464401) directed to wire support material; Randall et al (USPN 11172711) directed to bra with plastic support structure and foam bra body; Crompton et al (US Publication 2013/00952728) directed to plastic being more rigid than foam; Blecha et al (USPN 11246354), Roberts et al (US Publication 2024/0090596) directed to layered bras; Anderson et al (USPN 12342876), Liu (USPN 8747184), Weinerth (USPN 6966815), Moyer (USPN 6846219), Lattanzi (USPN 6053800) directed to support structure with greater rigidity than bra body; West et al (USPN 9867402) directed to protruding support structure; Avalos-Dessner et al (USPN 7922560) directed to adhesively bonding support structure parts; He et al (CN 221887717), Yip (USPN 9655387) directed to support structure adhesively bonded to bra body; Funk-Danielson et al (USPN 10368591) directed to U-shape or W-shape supports; Lien et al (USPN 11324262) directed to layers of W-shaped support strip.
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