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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2 in the reply filed on 09/01/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious search and examination burden. This is found persuasive, and the restriction requirement mailed 08/13/2026 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “covering private area of a user” in line 4. It appears that this limitation should read --covering a private area of a user--. 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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a second connecting part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previously recited first connecting part.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN 222565133 U), herein Lin, in view of Yardley (US 12,310,424).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a pair of invisible underpants with an anti-embarrassment crotch structure, comprising an underparts body, the underparts body comprising a front panel (1) and a back panel (2) connected together, wherein: the front panel has a crotch covering a private area of a user, the crotch comprising an inner lining structure (4, 5) located on an inner side of the front panel; the inner lining structure comprises a skin-contact layer (5), a control layer (42), and a protective layer (43); the skin-contact layer, the control layer, and the protective layer are stacked sequentially on the front panel, forming a crotch gusset structure with an edge thickness varying stepwise (Fig. 5); wherein the control layer is stacked on a side of the protective layer facing the body and has an area smaller than that of the protective layer, and four edges thereof are inset to form a first step; the protective layer has an area smaller than that of the skin-contact layer, and four edges thereof are inset to form a second step; the skin-contact layer is stacked on a side of the control layer facing the body and has an area smaller than that of the front panel, and four edges thereof are inset to form a third step (Fig. 5); an edge of the skin-contact layer is respectively bonded to an edge of the protective layer and the front panel, forming a continuous stepped edge sealing structure (pages 3-4; Fig. 1, 3, 5, 6).
Lin does not disclose the specific material of the control layer. Yardley teaches a pair of invisible underpants with an anti-embarrassment crotch structure (110), comprising an underparts body, the underparts body comprising a front panel and a back panel connected together, wherein: the front panel has a crotch covering private area of a user, the crotch comprising an inner lining structure (120, 140) located on an inner side of the front panel; the inner lining structure comprises a skin-contact layer (120), a control layer (220), and a protective layer (230); the skin-contact layer, the control layer, and the protective layer are stacked sequentially on the front panel, forming a crotch gusset structure with an edge thickness varying stepwise. The control layer may be formed of a 3d mesh fabric which is soft, breathable, and provides a buffer between the protective layer and the body (column 3, line 62-column 6, line 21; Fig. 1A-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the control layer of non-stretch mesh fabric, as taught by Yardley, in order to use a material which is soft, breathable, and provides a buffer between the protective layer and the body. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Lin does not disclose that the control layer has a thickness in a range from 1.0mm to 2.0mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the control layer with a thickness in a range from 1.0mm to 2.0mm, in order to provide a control layer which is sufficiently thick to provide a buffer between the protective layer and the body, but sufficiently thin to avoid a bulky and uncomfortable crotch structure. The claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Lin does not disclose that the protective layer is made of a sandwich-structure material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the protective layer of a sandwich-structure material in order to use a material with sufficient rigidity to hide the shape of the user’s crotch, while also remaining flexible enough for comfort for the wearer. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Lin does not disclose that the protective layer has a thickness in a range from 1.0mm to 5.0mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the protective layer with a thickness in a range from 1.0mm to 5.0mm, in order to provide a protective layer which is sufficiently thick to hide the shape of the user’s crotch, but sufficiently thin to avoid a bulky and uncomfortable crotch structure. The claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses that one side of the control layer is fully bonded to the protective layer (paragraph 0039, line 4-5).
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses that a spacing between the first step and the second step is less than a spacing between the second step and the third step; the edge thickness of the crotch gusset structure decreases stepwise from inside outward (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses that two sides of the front panel are connected to corresponding sides of the back panel through conforming fit and/or stitching, forming a second connecting part; when the underparts body is laid flat, the second connecting part is located on a front side of the underparts body (paragraph 0045; Fig. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses that the inner lining structure further comprises a padding layer (41) arranged between the skin-contact layer and the control layer, wherein one surface of the padding layer is fully bonded to the control layer, and the other surface is not bonded to the skin-contact layer (paragraph 0039, lines 3-5, 7-8; Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 8, Lin does not disclose the central of edge transition thickness of the crotch gusset structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the crotch gusset structure with a central thickness in a range from 3.0 to 18.0mm, and an edge transition thickness in a range from 0.1 to 8.0 mm, in order to provide a crotch gusset structure which is sufficiently thick to hide the shape of the user’s crotch, but sufficiently thin to avoid a bulky and uncomfortable crotch structure, particularly at the edges. The claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses that a shape and an area size of the padding layer are identical to those of the control layer (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Lin does not disclose that the padding layer is made of a sandwich-structure material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the padding layer of a sandwich-structure material in order to use a material with sufficient rigidity to hide the shape of the user’s crotch, while also remaining flexible enough for comfort for the wearer. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Lin does not disclose that the padding layer has a thickness in a range from 1.0mm to 5.0mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the padding layer with a thickness in a range from 1.0mm to 5.0mm, in order to provide a protective layer which is sufficiently thick to hide the shape of the user’s crotch, but sufficiently thin to avoid a bulky and uncomfortable crotch structure. The claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Lin does not disclose that the crotch gusset structure has a central thickness in a range from 3.0 to 18.0mm, and an edge transition thickness in a range from 0.1 to 8.0 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the crotch gusset structure with a central thickness in a range from 3.0 to 18.0mm, and an edge transition thickness in a range from 0.1 to 8.0 mm, in order to provide a crotch gusset structure which is sufficiently thick to hide the shape of the user’s crotch, but sufficiently thin to avoid a bulky and uncomfortable crotch structure, particularly at the edges. The claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Yardley, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Boser (US 2014/0243778).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lin and Yardley does not disclose a connecting part at the bottom of the front and back panels. Boser teaches a pair of underpants wherein a bottom of the front panel (220) is connected to a bottom of the back panel (240), forming a first connecting part (260); when the underparts body is laid flat, the first connecting part is located at a rear side of the underparts body; a bottom of a pad (280) extends away from the back panel until overlapping with the first connecting part. The seam cannot be seen when the undergarment is worn by the user (paragraphs 0020, 0022; Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first connecting part, as taught by Boser, to the underpants of Lin and Yardley in order to provide a seam which aids in manufacturing the underpants and which cannot be seen when the undergarment is worn by the user, providing comfort and improved aesthetics for the user.
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses that the skin-contact layer comprises an upper edge line and a lower edge line; the upper edge line extends toward a waistband, and the lower edge line extends toward the first connecting part; left and right sides of the inner lining structure are gradually narrow and transition from the upper edge line to the lower edge line (Fig. 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M PRANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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 at (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.
/SHARON M PRANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
