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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 6/22/26. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, and 11 have been amended; claims 9-10 and 12-18 have been cancelled, and claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In the instant case there does not appear to be any means for language in the claims and/or language to be considered under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso US 20110003533 A1 (herein after Caruso) in view of Gordon US 20140273734 A1 (herein after Gordon).
Regarding claim 1, Caruso discloses a garment (Abstract), formed as a dress (paragraph 0004, 0040 – Caruso stating that other garments can be realized which could include dresses, comprising: a main body(as seen in annotated Figures 2 and 3); and a shaping region (Abstract, paragraphs 0007, 0016 and 0(paragraph 0026 and 0036); 035, as seen in annotated Figures 2 and 3) comprising an inner fabric layer (paragraph 0032) and an outer fabric layer (2) in direct contact with one another (as seen in annotated Figures 2 and 3); wherein on a front side of the garment (as seen in annotated Figures 2), the shaping region extends vertically from a position below a bust of the garment (as seen in annotated Figures 2) to a position configured to sit below the navel of a wearer (as seen in annotated Figures 2); wherein at least one of the inner fabric layer (as seen in annotated Figures 2 and 3) and the outer fabric layer (2) comprises a bonding adhesive incorporated into the fabric (paragraph 0026 and 0036); and wherein the two layers of fabric are bonded together (as seen in annotated Figure 3).
.
[AltContent: textbox (On a front side of the garment, the shaping region extends vertically from a position below a bust of the garment to a position configured to sit below the navel of a wearer.)]
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A shaping region.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Wherein the two layers of fabric are bonded together.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An outer fabric layer in direct contact with one another.)][AltContent: textbox (An inner fabric layer.)][AltContent: textbox (A main body.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
391
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Caruso is silent to wherein the shaping region extends vertically along an entire back side of the garment.
Gordon teaches the shaping region extends vertically along an entire back side of the garment (12, 14, 16, as seen in annotated Figure 4B).
[AltContent: textbox (The shaping region extends from a shoulder-area of the garment to a bottom edge of the garment.)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
448
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Caruso and Gordon are analogous art to the claimed invention in that they relate to shaping garments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the garment of Caruso, making the garment as a dress and constructing the shaping region extends vertically along an entire back side of the garment as taught by Gordon in order to provide uniformed compression around the entire torso. The modification would be a simple modification to provide a more sleek silhouette.
Regarding claim 11, the modified garment of the combined references discloses wherein the shaping region extends along sides of the garment from armpits of a wearer to thighs of said wearer (as seen in annotated Figure 2 and 3 of Caruso).
Regarding claim 22, the modified garment of the combined references discloses wherein the dress has straps (as seen in Figures 6A, 6B and 6C of Gordon) or sleeves (as seen in Figures 8A, 8B and 8C of Gordon) and the shaping region extends from a shoulder-area of the garment to a bottom edge of the garment (paragraphs 0043, 0044 and 0045, a seen in annotated Figure 4B of Gordon).
[AltContent: textbox (The shaping region extends from a shoulder-area of the garment to a bottom edge of the garment.)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
448
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso US 20110003533 A1 (herein after Caruso) in view of Gordon US 20140273734 A1 (herein after Gordon) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yeung US 20240389692 A1 (herein after Yeung)
Regarding claim 2, the combined references teach all the limitations of claim 2, however they do not disclose wherein the bonding adhesive is incorporated into the fabric as a repeating pattern.
Yeung discloses the bonding adhesive is incorporated into the fabric as a repeating pattern (paragraph 0021 and 0061).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Wherein at least one of the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer. )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A bonding adhesive incorporated into the fabric. )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An outer fabric layer in direct contact with one another. )][AltContent: textbox (Wherein the two layers of fabric are bonded together.)][AltContent: textbox (An inner fabric layer. )]
PNG
media_image3.png
481
246
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yeung is analogous art to the claimed invention in that they relate to garments having reinforced regions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the garment of Caruso and Gordon by constructing the bonding adhesive being incorporated into the fabric as a repeating pattern as taught by Yeung in order to reduce the weight and bulk of reinforced region and allow the fabric to better stretch and conform to the user. The modification would be a simple modification to create a more comfortable garment when worn.
Regarding claim 5, the modified garment of the combined references discloses wherein both the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer comprise the bonding adhesive (paragraph 0021 and 0061 of Yeung).
Regarding claim 6, the modified garment of the combined references discloses wherein the outer fabric layer has a heavier fabric weight than the inner fabric layer (paragraph 0052 and 0053 of Yeung).
Regarding claim 7, the modified garment of the combined references discloses wherein the inner fabric layer is visible on an interior surface of the garment (as seen in annotated Figure 10 and 13 of Yeung).
Regarding claim 8, the modified garment of the combined references discloses wherein the outer fabric layer and the inner fabric layer are formed from separate pieces of fabric (as seen in annotated Figure 10 and 13 of Yeung), or wherein the inner layer and the outer layer are formed from a continuous piece of folded fabric.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso US 20110003533 A1 (herein after Caruso) in view of Gordon US 20140273734 A1 (herein after Gordon) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Melendez US 20180310641 A1 (herein after Melendez).
Regarding claim 4, the modified garment of the combined references discloses all the limitations of claim 4 and further discloses wherein the inner fabric layer comprises the bonding adhesive (paragraph 0026 and 0036 of Caruso), however, they do not disclose the outer fabric layer does not comprise the bonding adhesive, or wherein the outer fabric layer comprises the bonding adhesive and the inner fabric layer does not.
Melendez teaches the bonding adhesive (paragraph 0005 and 0011 of Melendez), or wherein the outer fabric layer comprises the bonding adhesive and the inner fabric layer does not.
Melendez is analogous art to the claimed invention in that they relate to body shaping garments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the garment of Caruso and Gordon by constructing the outer fabric layer not having a bonding adhesive, or wherein the outer fabric layer has the bonding adhesive the inner fabric layer does not as taught by Melendez, in order to be able to hide the shaping portion of the garment with a layer of material that is not bound to the inner layer. The modification would be a simple modification to create a shaping garment that discreetly hides the shaping under portions; giving the appearance of smoother lines without looking like one is wearing a shaping garment.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso US 20110003533 A1 (herein after Caruso) in view of Gordon US 20140273734 A1 (herein after Gordon) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Stuart GB 2605995 A (herein after Stuart).
Regarding claim 3, the garment of the combined references discloses all the limitations of claim 3 except they do not disclose wherein the bonding adhesive is thermally activated.
Stuart wherein the bonding adhesive is thermally activated (Page 1, line 26).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bonding adhesive)]
PNG
media_image4.png
673
355
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
647
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Stuart is analogous art to the claimed invention in that they relate to body shaping garments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the garment of Caruso and Gordon by constructing the adhesive to have been activated by heat as taught by Stuart, in order to adhere the layers together. The modification would be a simple modification to obtain the ability to securely adhere the layers together by means other than seams in specific locations to ensure they maintain their body shaping capability with less bulk and weight and without the layers separating during wear.
Claim 21, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso US 20110003533 A1 (herein after Caruso) in view of Gordon US 20140273734 A1 (herein after Gordon) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Melarti US 20090270012 A1 (herein after Melarti)
Regarding claim 21, the garment of the combined references discloses all the limitations of claim 21 except they do not disclose wherein the dress is a strapless dress.
Melarti teaches wherein the dress is a strapless dress (paragraphs 0047 and 0051).
Melarti is analogous art to the claimed invention in that they relate to garments with compressive regions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the garment of Caruso and Gordon by constructing the dress being a strapless dress as taught by Melarti in order to provide design options to the wearer. The modification would be a simple modification to allow the wearer the ability to wear a sleeveless garment comfortably with figure flattering capabilities.
ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not convincing. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards structural elements included in the amended claims and thus do not apply to the combinations of references used to teach the limitations of the amended claims in the current rejection and/or the manner in which prior art has been applied in the current rejection. In view of Applicant's amendments, the search has been updated, and a rejection on the amended claims is applied above.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Yeung does not teach using the layered structure in any zones beyond a waistband, much less in a dress, and much less along the back side of a dress. Yueng is merely used to teach the bonding adhesive is incorporated into the fabric as a repeating pattern (paragraph 0021 and 0061). While Caruso and Gordon are used to teach the garment types, Yeung (paragraph 0061 and as seen in annotated Figures 4, 5 and 6) shows the layered portion that begins at the waist but clearly extends down the side of the leg covering the hips, specifically in in the back region, covering a portion of the buttock, and extending across the back lower torso region.
[AltContent: textbox (Back)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hips)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Front)][AltContent: textbox (Waist)]
PNG
media_image6.png
505
321
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
281
171
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In response to the applicant’s arguments the Yeung does not teach any patterned adhesive or for extending the claimed construction of the shaping region vertically along an entire back side of a dress. Again, as shown above, Yueng is merely used to teach the bonding adhesive is incorporated into the fabric as a repeating pattern (paragraph 0021 and 0061). While Caruso and Gordon are used to teach the garment types, and Gordon teaches the shaping region extends vertically along an entire back side of the garment (12, 14, 16, as seen in annotated Figure 4B), Yeung (paragraph 0061 and as seen in annotated Figures 4, 5 and 6) shows the layered portion that begins at the waist but clearly extends down the side of the leg covering the hips, specifically in in the back region, covering a portion of the buttock, and extending across the back lower torso region.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M FERREIRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5916, fax number (571) 270-6916. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 9:00 am- 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Catherine M. Ferreira/
Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights