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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 13, 24, and 29 filed on 07/28/2025 are acknowledged by the examiner.
Claims 1-12, 14-17, 21-22, 26-27, and 30-32 remain cancelled.
Claims 13, 18-20, 23-25, 28-29, and 33-45 are currently pending and are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: Thorneburg is non-analogous art. Thorneburg pertains to athletic hosiery for impact absorption, whereas the present application concerns selective compression for therapeutic support. Thorneburg’s sock is not a compression band, does not utilize elastic tape-and-pad system, and does not address the need to apply localized compressive force in a manner responsive to anatomical sensitivity or pathology. Thorneburg fails both prongs: it is not from the same field of endeavor, as it concerns footwear for athletic impact cushioning, not medical compression devices, and it is not reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed in the instant application—namely, applying higher localized compression to a body area via a pad with an elastic fabric layer that is stiffer longitudinally than the surrounding elastic tape.
Examiner’s response: In response to applicant's argument that Thorneburg is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Thorneburg is considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, which is the layer of elastic fabric of the pad having a higher longitudinal stiffness than the elastic tape, and Thorneburg similarly teaches elastic fabric material that is part of a cushion/pad that has a higher longitudinal stiffness than the surrounding elastic fabric. The elastic fabric material of Thorneburg is analogous to the elastic fabric material of Cox, as they both disclose elastic fabric materials, and thus is reasonably pertinent, as Thorneburg teaches a layer of elastic fabric of a pad/cushion can have a longitudinal stiffness than a surrounding elastic fabric/tape.
Applicant’s argument: The claimed pad is not an entire glued patch; only the two ends are affixed to the tape. GRANGE ‘464 fails to teach or suggest a pad comprising “a layer of viscoelastic and a layer of elastic fabric” that is attached only at two opposite longitudinal ends. Rather, GRANGE ‘464 discloses a structure in which the pad is enclosed by flaps and seams that form a pocket (see Fig. 8, seams 51), with the covering at least partially or fully stitched around the periphery of the pad. This construction provides shock absorption and helps limit perspiration, but it is structurally and functionally distinct from the claimed configuration. Attempting to modify Cox’s fully glued pad by substituting GRANGE ‘464’s pocketed or peripherally seamed pad would contradict the teachings of both references. There is no articulated reason or motivation to combine these teachings in the manner proposed by the Office Action, and doing so would require impermissible hindsight using the present application as a roadmap.
Examiner’s response: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., only the two longitudinal ends are affixed to the tape) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim states “the pad having two opposite longitudinal ends attached to the elastic tape” (lines 5-6) and also claims “a surface of the pad between the two opposite longitudinal ends, and facing the elastic tape, is not attached to the elastic tape” (lines 8-9), which GRANGE ‘464 still reads on, as the seams 51 of GRANGE ‘464 are provided at two opposite longitudinal ends and a surface of the pad 5 between these two ends are not attached to the elastic tape. The claim does not state that the pad is only attached at the two opposite longitudinal ends as Applicant argues. Further, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is stated in the office action that modifying the attachment mechanism of the pad of Cox to be sewn would provide better comfort as the sewn pad allows for more flexibility and a durable attachment mechanism, and further, Cox also contemplates other attachment methods of the pad thus opening up the reference for modification, see Col. 3 lines 3-6 of Cox. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant’s argument: The Examiner suggests that Grange might overlap the 1-4 mm thickness range with the claimed 0.3-1 mm. But 1-4 mm in Grange is for shock-absorbing trim layers (lines 137-141), quite different from the thin layer in the present device that confers skin adhesion. Reducing from 1 mm down to 0.3 mm or up to 1 mm is not a trivial matter because it changes mechanical properties from shock absorption to localized compression adherence. Grange also discloses flaps, pockets, and layering that hamper the distinct “two-ends-only” partial attachment and stiffer pad concept. Absent an explicit impetus to alter Grange’s shock-absorber arrangement into a partial-attachment compression device, the cited combination is hindsight-driven.
Examiner’s response: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2144.05 I. Therefore, Grange discloses the thickness to be 1 mm and thus overlaps the range that is claimed. Further, Grange is not the primary reference that is being modified to have partial attachment of the pad. Grange is only disclosed as a teaching reference to teach the claimed thickness of the layer of viscoelastic material.
Applicant’s argument: The Office Action again concedes that Cox, Grange ‘464, Rapp, and Grange are silent with respect to the layer of elastic fabric having a higher longitudinal stiffness than the elastic, and instead relies solely on Thorneburg to supply the missing limitation. Specifically, the rejection attempts to rely on inherency, asserting that Grange discloses or renders obvious a pad (elements 4,7) with an elastic fabric layer having higher longitudinal stiffness than the elastic tape (i.e., sleeve 6). However, Grange does not teach or suggest any stiffness differential between the pad and the surrounding elastic sleeve. To the contrary, Grange expressly states that both the sleeve and the pad may be made of the same material which contradicts the claimed requirement in claim 13 that “the layer of elastic fabric of the pad has a higher longitudinal stiffness than the elastic tape.” The Office Action also contends that Thorneburg cures this deficiency. However, Thorneburg’s dense terry loops form an arch shock absorber in a sock, not a tape with an end-attached pad. Increasing loop density may yield local cushioning but does not necessarily yield “higher longitudinal stiffness” for an adhesive compression pad. No portion of Thorneburg indicates it aims to increase restraining pressure. Instead, it “cushions and protects” the foot arch.
Examiner’s response: As Applicant stated, the Office Action concedes that Grange is silent with respect to the layer of elastic fabric having a higher longitudinal stiffness than the elastic, and thus introduces Thorneburg to supply the missing limitation, therefore, the arguments regarding Grange are moot as the office action does not rely on inherency regarding this claim limitation as Grange is not disclosed to teach it as Thorneburg id relied upon. Further, Thorneburg teaches pad C having a denser and thicker fabric than the tape 14, and thus the pad C has a higher longitudinal stiffness than the tape 14 when attempting to move/stretch, as the denser and thicker fabric means the material resists stretching more than the tape 14 layer of fabric thus exhibiting higher longitudinal stiffness. Therefore, Thorneburg still reads on this claim.
Applicant’s argument: Rapp is a “pressure-sensing compression bandage” that includes a layer 25 with a PET substrate plus conductive tracks. PET is not elastic (Young’s modulus ~2 GPa). This negates the possibility of local traction differences. Rapp never shows a partial-attached pad with a stiffer fabric layer. Indeed, Rapp’s purpose is to measure uniform pressure distribution, not produce local compression. Rapp explicitly focuses on uniform compression over the entire bandage and accurate pressure measurement, rather than imparting any localized higher compression or stiffening segment.
Examiner’s response: Rapp discloses an elastic layer 45 which has a first tape segment 45c and a second tape segment 45a. Rapp discloses in [0064] that the different tape segments 45c, 45a have differing elasticities, where tape segment 45c has the lower elasticity and tape segment 45a has the highest elasticity, therefore, tape segment 45c has a higher longitudinal stiffness than tape segment 45a as the tape segment 45c has the lowest elasticity.
Applicant’s argument: No “pre-formed” curvature or “spring-like forces” in the pad itself. The device relies on local traction maintained by the adhesive contact. The Office Action relies on the addition of Goldman to cure this deficiency. However, Goldman taches a “pre-curved, pre-stressed” pressure member with an inherent spring force that imposes pressure. The newly amended claims disclaim or exclude such “pre-tensioned” or “pre-formed” shape. This is recited in claims 12 and 24 as “the pad is neither pre-formed nor pre-tensioned so as to impart any compressive force by itself.”
Examiner’s response: In light of the amendments to the claims, the primary reference Cox reads on this claim limitation. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, Goldman still reads on the claim limitation of “the first tape segment is configured to exert a greater compression on the body area it covers than that exerted by the second tape segment.”
Applicant’s argument: Claim 29 is directed to “a method of applying” the claimed supporting or compressing device by placing it on the body such that the first tape segment is pulled with greater traction than the second, resulting in the first segment exerting greater localized compression. Crucially, the claim requires that the first segment remains stable in the absence of continued traction due to adhesion to the skin, a feature enabled by the viscoelastic layer and greater longitudinal stiffness of the pad. In other words, the user selectively pulls harder on the stiffer, pad-containing segment, causing it to apply higher local pressure, which is then retained after placement due to the device’s structure and skin adhesion characteristics. The second tape segment, by contrast, is pulled less and exerts lower compression. This is not simply a matter of tightening the whole device, it is a method of achieving differential compression through selective traction and segment-specific adhesion.
Examiner’s response: Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant’s argument: Goldstein’s disclosure is inapposite. The Office Action attempts to rely on Goldstein to suggest that applying different tensions is conventional. But Goldstein teaches only general tension modulation, not the claimed differential application with segment specific structural and adhesive behavior. Goldstein mentions (col. 6, li. 39-42) that “with more or less tension and stretching, the position at which tabs 16 attach is changed.” This simply reflects the ordinary function of an elastic bandage or wrap, the user can pull tighter or looser as he see fits. Goldstein does not disclose or suggest: a pad attached only at two opposite ends; a first tape segment with higher longitudinal stiffness than a second segment; a viscoelastic adhesive layer of 0.3-1 mm; or any mechanism whereby the device has adhesive on the stiffer segment’s underside that remains stable “in the absence of traction force.” It is these combination of features that allow for the first segment exerting greater localized compression. Goldstein’s device does not contemplate selective traction on a stiffer segment that remains fixed due to adhesive and material properties. Thus Goldstein does not teach or suggest the claim 29 of specifically “placing the device by applying a greater traction force on the first tape segment so that the first tape segment remains stable (due to adhesion) and exerts a distinctly higher compression.” Even assuming that Cox, GRANGE ‘464, Rapp, or Thorneburg disclosed the physical structure of the claimed device (which they do not), claim 29 requires a very specific method of application: selectively tensioning the first, stiffer segment, and relying on adhesion to retain its elongation after application. Goldstein nowhere suggests such a technique or functional result.
Examiner’s response: In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Goldstein reference is introduced as a teaching reference, and thus Goldstein does not need to teach a pad attached only at two opposite ends; a first tape segment with higher longitudinal stiffness than a second segment; a viscoelastic adhesive layer of 0.3-1 mm, as these claim limitations are already taught by a different reference. Further, Goldstein teaches “placing the supporting or compressing device on the body area by applying to the first tape segment a traction force greater than the traction force applied to the second tape segment,” and thus the combination of Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 in view of Rapp in view of Grange in view of Thorneburg further in view of Goldstein results in the configuration of the first tape segment is stable in the absence of the traction force by virtue of the adhesion of the inner face of the first tape segment to the body area covered by the support or compressing device, and such that the first tape segment exerts a greater compression on the body area it covers than that exerted by the second tape, as a greater traction force is applied to the first tape segment of Cox than to the second tape segment of Cox, as taught by Goldstein, and thus the first tape segment of Cox remains stable due to the adhesion of Cox and exerts a greater compression on the body area it covers.
Applicant’s argument: Applicant respectfully notes that none of the cited references, particularly including Thorneburg which was discussed in greater detail above, identifies or addresses the specific problem faced by the inventor, namely: how to configure a pad with higher longitudinal stiffness than the surrounding elastic tape to exert localized compression, while also providing skin adhesion sufficient to retain different local elongations after removal of varied traction forces. Thorneburg is directed to an athletic sock for jogging or running—clearly a different field of endeavor, not medical compression or support devices. Goldstein pertains to a variable-width wrap with optional adjustment via hook-and-loop fasteners. It describes general tensioning but it does not involve a stiffer pad segment or any mechanism for maintaining localized elongation via adhesion. Rapp focuses on pressure-sensing using inelastic materials such as PET sensor tracks, not on achieving or controlling compression through stiffness contrasts in elastic fabrics. It offers no teaching on exerting or retaining local compression force through layered construction.
Examiner’s response: In response to applicant's argument that Thorneburg, Goldstein, and Rapp are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as discussed above, Thorneburg is still considered analogous art as it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, which is the layer of elastic fabric of the pad having a higher longitudinal stiffness than the elastic tape, and Thorneburg similarly teaches elastic fabric material that is part of a cushion/pad that has a higher longitudinal stiffness than the surrounding elastic fabric. The elastic fabric material of Thorneburg is analogous to the elastic fabric material of Cox, as they both disclose elastic fabric materials, and thus is reasonably pertinent, as Thorneburg teaches a layer of elastic fabric of a pad/cushion can have a longitudinal stiffness than a surrounding elastic fabric/tape. Goldstein is considered analogous art as it is considered to be in the same field of endeavor as Goldstein’s device is also a supporting or compressing device. Rapp is also considered analogous art as it is also a supporting or compressing device. Rapp also discloses the use of an elastic layer, see [0064].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13, 18-20, 23-25, 28-29, and 33-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 13, 24, and 29 have been amended to state “the pad is neither pre-formed nor pre-tensioned so as to impart any compressive force by itself,” however, the specification does not discuss this, and therefore, is considered new matter.
Claims 18-20, 23, 25, 28, and 33-45 are rejected for depending on a previously rejected claim.
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) 13, 18, 20, 24, 25, 28, 37, 38, 43, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (referred to as “Cox”) (US 6,284,941 B1) in view of GRANGE (referred to as “GRANGE ‘464”) (US 2016/0206464 A1) in view of Rapp et al. (referred to as “Rapp”) (US 2016/0242964 A1) in view of Grange (WO 2010/007243 A1) in view of Thorneburg (US 4,255,949) further in view of Goldman et al. (referred to as “Goldman”) (US 2016/0022504 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Cox discloses a supporting or compressing device (40) (see Fig. 1; bandage 40 is made from an elastic fabric material and thus may apply compression and supports a user’s wound/scar when placed on the skin of a user) comprising:
an elastic tape (42) configured to be wound around a limb or a joint of a user and on itself (see Fig. 1; definition of tape is “a narrow flexible strip or band,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tape, and thus elongated flexible member 42 is interpreted as an elastic tape as elongated flexible member 42 is made of an elastic material (see claims 6 and 7 and Col. 3 lines 12-17 where the flexible member 42 may be made from an elastic fabric) and is a narrow strip that is configured to be wrapped or wound around a limb or joint of a user and on itself, as for example bandage 40 is capable of being wrapped around a finger and then back on itself);
a pad (50) consisting of a layer of viscoelastic material (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 26-29; treatment pad 50 is a layer of silicone gel which is a viscoelastic material), the pad (50) having two opposite longitudinal ends attached to the elastic tape (40) (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 3-6; the treatment pad 50 has two opposite longitudinal ends that are attached or fixed to bandage 40 as treatment pad 50 may be attached to flexible member 42 via adhesive or some other attachment means), wherein
the pad (50) is disposed directly adjacent to the elastic tape (42) (see Fig. 1; the treatment pad is disposed or arranged directly adjacent or near the elongated flexible member 42), and
a first tape segment consisting of the pad (50) and a segment of the elastic tape (42) extending between the two opposite longitudinal ends of the pad (50) (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox; a first tape segment is labeled in Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox, which consists of treatment pad 50 and consists of a segment of the elongated flexible member 42 that extends between the two opposite longitudinal ends of treatment pad 50 which is also labeled in the annotated Fig. 1 as longitudinal ends);
a second tape segment distinct from the first tape segment (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox; a second tape segment is labeled in Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox, which is distinct from the first tape segment as this portion of bandage 40 does not include treatment pad 50 making it recognizably different/distinct from the first tape segment);
wherein:
the first tape segment has an outer face; and an inner face opposite to the outer face configured to contact with a skin of the user when the elastic tape (42) is wound around the limb or the joint of the user and on itself (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox; the first tape segment labeled in Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox has an outer face, which is the surface of treatment pad 50 that is attached to flexible member 42 and thus is not shown in the figure, and the first tape segment has an opposite inner face which is the surface that is shown in Fig. 1 and is labeled in Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox that is configured to contact with a skin of the user when elongated flexible member 42 is wound around the limb or joint of the user and on itself),
the second tape segment has an outer face; and an inner face opposite to the outer face and configured to contact with a skin of the user and a part of the outer face when the elastic tape (42) is wound around the limb or the joint of the user and on itself (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox; the second tape segment labeled in Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox has an outer face, which is the second side 46 that is not shown in the figure as it is facing away, and the second tape segment has an opposite inner face, which is the first side 44, which is also labeled as the inner face in annotated Fig. 1 of Cox, that is configured to contact with a skin of the user and a part of the outer face or second side 46 when the elongated flexible member 42 is wound around the limb or the joint of the user and on itself), the inner face being configured to have an adhesion with the skin of the user and the part of the outer face (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox and Col. 3 lines 2-3; an adhesive is applied on the first side 44 of flexible member 42, which is the inner face of the second tape segment, and thus is configured to have an adhesion with the skin of the user and the part of the outer face),
the pad (50) is attached to an inner face (44) of the elastic tape (42) (see Fig. 1; treatment pad 50 is attached to first side 44 of elongated flexible member 42, which is an inner face as it is arranged on the inside of elongated flexible member 42 when a user wears the bandage 40), an inner face of the pad (50) forming the inner face of the first tape segment (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox; the inner face of the treatment pad 50 is labeled in Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox as inner face, and forms the inner face of the first tape segment),
the pad (50) is neither pre-formed nor pre-tensioned so as to impart any compressive force by itself (see Fig. 1; the treatment pad 50 is neither pre-formed nor pre-tensioned so as to impart any compressive force by itself),
the layer of viscoelastic material is configured to contact with the skin of the user (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 58-62; the treatment pad 50 which is a layer of silicone gel is configured to contact the skin of the user), such that, in combination with compression forces exerted by the elastic tape (42) and the pad (50) when the elastic tape (42) is wound around the limb or the joint of the user and on itself while being locally stretched under different local traction forces, the second tape segment retains local elongations resulting from the different local traction forces, after removal of the different local traction forces (when elongated flexible member 42 is wound or wrapped around the limb or joint of a user and on itself while being locally stretched under different local traction forces, for example if elongated flexible member 42 is wrapped around a finger of a user, the second tape segment retains local elongations resulting from the different local traction forces after removal of the different local traction forces as the adhesive of the second tape segment will keep the second tape segment in its position on the skin).
Cox is silent on a layer of elastic fabric attached to the layer of viscoelastic material, a surface of the pad between the two opposite longitudinal ends, and facing the elastic tape, is not attached to the elastic tape; the first tape segment having a higher longitudinal stiffness than the second tape segment; the inner face [of the first tape segment] being configured to have an adhesion with the skin of the user; the layer of elastic fabric of the pad has a higher longitudinal stiffness than the elastic tape; the layer of viscoelastic material has a thickness in a range of 0.3 mm to 1 mm and is configured to have an adhesion with the skin of the user, such that, in combination with compression forces exerted by the elastic tape and the pad when the elastic tape is wound around the limb or the joint of the user and on itself while being locally stretched under different local traction forces, the first tape segments retain local elongations resulting from the different local traction forces, after removal of the different local traction forces, and the first tape segment is configured to exert a greater compression on the body area it covers than that exerted by the second tape segment.
However, GRANGE ‘464 teaches an analogous supporting or compressing device (see Figs. 2-8 and [0038]-[0039]; this is an elastic sleeve wherein the elastic sleeve implicitly may apply compression), and an analogous pad (5) consisting of a layer of viscoelastic material (see Figs. 2-8 and [0041]; pad 5 is made of a viscoelastic material), and a layer of elastic fabric (52) attached to the layer of viscoelastic material (5) (see Figs. 2-8 and [0017], [0042]; fabric 52 is a layer of elastic fabric as disclosed in [0017], and this elastic fabric is attached to pad 5, which is made of a viscoelastic material, and thus is a layer of viscoelastic material), and a surface of the pad (5) between the two opposite ends, and facing the elastic tape (1a, 1b), not being attached to the elastic tape (1a, 1b) (see Figs. 7-8 and Annotated Fig. 8 of GRANGE ‘464; a surface of pad 5 between two opposite longitudinal ends, which are labeled in annotated Fig. 8, and facing the elastic layers 1a,1b, which is interpreted as elastic tape as it is a band of elastic material, is not attached to the elastic layer 1a, 1b, as the pad 5 is attached to elastic layer 1a, 1b around the peripheral of pad 5 via seams 51), providing to reduce irritation to skin of a user, and providing better comfort as the sewn pad allows for more flexibility and a durable attachment mechanism.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the pad (50) in device of Cox with a layer of elastic fabric attached to the layer of viscoelastic material as taught by GRANGE ‘464 and to have modified the attachment mechanism of pad (50) of Cox to be sewn, as Cox contemplates other attachment methods, see Col. 3 lines 3-6 of Cox, such that a surface of the pad between the two opposite longitudinal ends, and facing the elastic tape, is not attached to the elastic tape as taught by GRANGE ‘464 via seams 51 to have provided an improved supporting or compressing device that provides to reduce irritation to skin of a user, and provides better comfort as the sewn pad allows for more flexibility and a durable attachment mechanism.
Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 discloses the invention as discussed above.
Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 is silent on the first tape segment having a higher longitudinal stiffness than the second tape segment; the inner face [of the first tape segment] being configured to have an adhesion with the skin of the user; the layer of elastic fabric of the pad has a higher longitudinal stiffness than the elastic tape; the layer of viscoelastic material has a thickness in a range of 0.3 mm to 1 mm and is configured to have an adhesion with the skin of the user, such that, in combination with compression forces exerted by the elastic tape and the pad when the elastic tape is wound around the limb or the joint of the user and on itself while being locally stretched under different local traction forces, the first tape segments retain local elongations resulting from the different local traction forces, after removal of the different local traction forces, and the first tape segment is configured to exert a greater compression on the body area it covers than that exerted by the second tape segment.
However, Rapp teaches an analogous supporting or compressing device (5) (see Fig. 1A; compression bandage 5 applies compression to a limb and thus is a compressing device), and teaches an analogous first tape segment (45c) and an analogous second tape segment (45a), the first tape segment (45c) having a higher longitudinal stiffness than the second tape segment (45a) (see Fig. 4 and [0064]-[0064]; the compression bandage 5 comprises an elastic layer 45, which is made up of three areas or segments 45a, 45b, 45c with differing elasticities, and area 45c is a first tape segment and is less elastic compared to area 45a which has greater elasticity, and thus area 45c has a higher longitudinal stiffness than area 45a, as area 45c is less elastic and thus will elongate less than area 45a in the longitudinal direction), providing differing stiffnesses to help keep the first tape segment in place preventing it from shifting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first tape segment in the device of Cox in view of GRANGE ’464 to have a higher longitudinal stiffness than the second tape segment as taught by Rapp to have provided an improved supporting or compressing device that provides differing stiffnesses helps keep the first tape segment in place preventing it from shifting.
Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 further in view of Rapp discloses the invention as discussed above.
Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 further in view of Rapp is silent on the inner face [of the first tape segment] being configured to have an adhesion with the skin of the user; the layer of elastic fabric of the pad has a higher longitudinal stiffness than the elastic tape; the layer of viscoelastic material has a thickness in a range of 0.3 mm to 1 mm and is configured to have an adhesion with the skin of the user, such that, in combination with compression forces exerted by the elastic tape and the pad when the elastic tape is wound around the limb or the joint of the user and on itself while being locally stretched under different local traction forces, the first tape segments retain local elongations resulting from the different local traction forces, after removal of the different local traction forces, and the first tape segment is configured to exert a greater compression on the body area it covers than that exerted by the second tape segment.
However, Grange teaches an analogous supporting or compressing device (1’) (see Fig. 7D, see line 10 where this is an elastic sleeve wherein elastic sleeves implicitly may apply compression), and an analogous layer of viscoelastic material (4) (see lines 63-68, see further lines 137-139; layer 4 is a layer of polydimethylsiloxane which is a viscoelastic material), the inner face [of the first tape segment] being configured to have an adhesion with the skin of the user (see Annotated Fig. 7D of Grange; the first tape segment is labeled in Annotated Fig. 7D of Grange, and face 4a is an inner face of the first tape segment, which is configured to have an adhesion with the skin of the user as face 4a has sufficient adhesiveness to stick to the skin, see lines 126-127); the layer of viscoelastic material (4) has a thickness in a range of 0.3 mm to 1 mm and is configured to have an adhesion with the skin of the user (see lines 126-127 and lines 140-141; the thickness of layer 4 is preferably 1 and 4 mm, and thus can be 1 mm which is in the claimed range of the thickness, and layer 4 is configured to have an adhesion with the skin of the user as layer 4 has sufficient adhesiveness to stick to the skin, see lines 126-127), such that, in combination with compression forces exerted by the elastic tape (6) and the pad (4, 7) when the elastic tape (6) is wound around the limb or the joint of the user while being locally stretched under different local traction forces, the first tape segment retains local elongation resulting from the different local traction forces, after removal of the different local traction forces (see Annotated Fig. 7D; the first tape segment is implicitly capable of this function based on the structure being sufficiently present of an inner face 4a configured to adhere to the skin and thus hold onto any local elongations of the sleeve 6 and the sleeve 6 being elastic thus being able to be stretched and create compression forces), providing sufficient adhesiveness to stick to the skin and thus ensure the maintenance of the device on the area to be protected for several hours (see lines 126-127), and providing sufficient thickness of the pad so that it is comfortable when a user wears the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the inner face of the first tape segment in the device of Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 further in view of Rapp to have an adhesion with the skin of the user as taught by Grange, and to have modified the thickness of the layer of viscoelastic material (50 of Cox) in the device of Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 further in view of Rapp to have a thickness of 1 mm as taught by Grange to have provided an improved supporting or compressing device that provides sufficient adhesiveness to stick to the skin and thus ensure the maintenance of the device on the area to be protected for several hours (see lines 126-127), and provides sufficient thickness of the pad so that it is comfortable when a user wears the device.
Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 in view of Rapp further in view of Grange discloses the invention as discussed above.
Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 in view of Rapp further in view of Grange is silent on the layer of elastic fabric of the pad has a higher longitudinal stiffness than the elastic tape, and the first tape segment is configured to exert a greater compression on the body area it covers than that exerted by the second tape segment.
However, Thorneburg teaches an analogous sleeve (sock, Figs. 1-4), wherein the sleeve is provided with an analogous tape layer (14) (see Fig. 3; formed by only body yarn B) and analogous pad and fabric layer (C) (see Figs. 1-4 and Col. 4 lines 46-53; analogous absorber cushion), wherein the layer of fabric of the pad (C) has a higher longitudinal stiffness than the tape (14) (see Col. 4 lines 46-53 and Col. 5 lines 18-37; the layer C has a denser and thicker fabric than the tape 14 therefore the layer C has a higher longitudinal stiffness than the tape 14 when attempting to move/stretch/alter), providing a layer of elastic fabric with a higher longitudinal stiffness than the elastic tape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the layer of elastic fabric (63 of Grange) of the pad (50 of Cox) in the device of Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 in view of Rapp further in view of Grange to have a higher longitudinal stiffness than the elastic tape as taught by Thorneburg to have provided an improved supporting or compressing device that has a layer of elastic fabric with a higher longitudinal stiffness than the elastic tape so that the layer of elastic fabric that forms a pocket is sufficiently rigid to keep the pad in place.
Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 in view of Rapp in view of Grange further in view of Thorneburg discloses the invention as discussed above.
Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 in view of Rapp in view of Grange further in view of Thorneburg is silent on the first tape segment is configured to exert a greater compression on the body area it covers than that exerted by the second tape segment.
However, Goldman teaches an analogous supporting or compressing device (10) (pressure bandage 10 applies pressure or compression to a user), and teaches an analogous first tape segment (the first tape segment is the segment or area of pressure bandage 10 that comprises treatment device 22, see Fig. 2c) and an analogous second tape segment (the second tape segment is the segment or area of pressure bandage 10 to the left of treatment device 22, that is pointed out as element 19a in Fig. 2c), and the first tape segment is configured to exert a greater compression on the body area it covers than that exerted by the second tape segment (see Fig. 2c and [0060], [0064]; the treatment device 22 applies pressure P over treatment area 114, and the pressure applied via the treatment device 22 is greater on the body area it covers than that exerted by the second tape segment), providing to promote healing and/or reduce scarring when the bandage is secured to the skin of the patient (see [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first tape segment in the device of Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 in view of Rapp in view of Grange further in view of Thorneburg to exert a greater compression on the body area it covers than that exerted by the second tape segment as taught by Goldman to have provided an improved supporting or compressing device that provides to promote healing and/or reduce scarring when the bandage is secured to the skin of the patient (see [0064]).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox.
PNG
media_image2.png
468
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of GRANGE ‘464.
PNG
media_image3.png
362
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7D of Grange.
Regarding claim 18, Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 in view of Rapp in view of Grange in view of Thorneburg further in view of Goldman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 13.
GRANGE ‘464 further teaches an analogous supporting or compressing device (see Fig. 2) configured to surround a limb or joint of a user (see Fig. 2 where the device surrounds the hand and more specifically the joint in the thumb, [0009]), comprising an analogous elastic tape (1) (see Fig. 7 and [0038]-[0039]; the elastic tape 1 is made of a layer of elastic material) and an analogous pad (5,52) comprising an analogous layer of viscoelastic material (5) and an analogous layer of elastic fabric (52) attached to the layer of viscoelastic material (5) (see Fig. 7, 8, and [0041], [0042], [0017]; pad 5 is made from a viscoelastic material, and pad 5 can be adhered onto a piece of elastic fabric 52), wherein GRANGE ‘464 further teaches that the elastic fabric layer (52) has a lower stiffness in a longitudinal direction of the tape than in a transverse direction (see [0039]; the fabric 52 is disclosed to have an elasticity of 85%-115% in the direction of the warp (longitudinal) and has an elasticity of 65%-95% in the weft direction (transverse) wherein then on average the longitudinal direction is less stiff (more elastic) or has a lower stiffness than in the transverse direction), providing to allow the device to be made in only a few standard sizes as this will allow the fabric to easily conform to any shape or size (see [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elastic fabric (63 of Grange) in the device of Cox in view of Grange in view of Rapp further in view of Thorneburg to have a lower stiffness in a longitudinal direction of the elastic tape than in a transverse direction of the elastic tape as taught by Grange2 to have provided an improved supporting or compressing device that only needs to be made in a few standard sizes as this will allow the fabric to easily conform to any shape or size (see [0007]).
Regarding claim 20, Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 in view of Rapp in view of Grange in view of Thorneburg further in view of Goldamn discloses the invention as discussed in claim 13. Cox in view of GRANGE ‘464 in view of Rapp in view of Grange in view of Thorneburg further in view of Goldamn further discloses wherein the inner face of the first and second tape segments is formed by a layer of a polymer gel (see Col. 3 lines 26-29 of Cox; the inner face of the first tape segment is made up of treatment pad 50 of Cox, which is a layer of silicone gel material, and thus is a polymer gel, and see Col. 3 lines 18-25 of Cox; the inner face of the second tape segment can be formed by a layer of silicone adhesive, which is a polymer, and silicone adhesive is known in the art to implicitly be in the form of a gel, see https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/58042, https://www.elkem.com/products/silicones/medical-grade-silicones/soft-skin-adhesives, https://polymerscience.com/p-derm-medical/silicone-gel-adhesives/, and https://boydbiomedical.com/articles/choosing-the-best-medical-tape-silicone-vs-acrylic).
Regarding claim 24, Cox discloses a method of manufacturing a supporting or compressing device (40) (see Fig. 1; bandage 40 is made from an elastic fabric material and thus may apply compression and supports a user’s wound/scar when placed on the skin of a user), the method comprising:
providing an elastic tape (42) configured to be wound around a limb or a joint of a user and on itself (see Fig. 1; definition of tape is “a narrow flexible strip or band,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tape, and thus elongated flexible member 42 is interpreted as an elastic tape as elongated flexible member 42 is made of an elastic material (see claims 6 and 7 and Col. 3 lines 12-17 where the flexible member 42 may be made from an elastic fabric) and is a narrow strip that is configured to be wrapped or wound around a limb or joint of a user and on itself, as for example elongated flexible member 42 is capable of being wrapped around a finger and then back on itself); and
attaching a pad (50) to the elastic tape (42) at two opposite ends of the pad (50) (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 3-6; treatment pad 50 is attached to elongated flexible member 42 at two opposite ends of the treatment pad 50 as treatment pad 50 may be attached to flexible member 42 via adhesive, also see Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox, as the two opposite ends are labeled as longitudinal ends in the annotated fig. 1), the pad (50) being disposed directly adjacent to the elastic tape (42) (see Fig. 1; the treatment pad is disposed or arranged directly adjacent or near the elongated flexible member 42), such that the device comprises:
a first tape segment consisting of the pad (50) and a segment of the elastic tape (40) extending between the two opposite ends of the pad (50) (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox; a first tape segment is labeled in Annotated Fig. 1, and consists of treatment pad 50 and a segment or portion of bandage 40 extending between the two opposite ends of treatment pad 50 labeled as longitudinal ends); and
a second tape segment distinct from the first tape segment (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox; a second tape segment is labeled in Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox, which is distinct from the first tape segment as this portion of bandage 40 does not include treatment pad 50 making it recognizably different/distinct from the first tape segment),
wherein:
the first tape segment has an outer face; and an inner face opposite to the outer face and configured to contact with a skin of the user when the elastic tape (42) is wound around the limb or the joint of the user and on itself (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox; the first tape segment labeled in Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox has an outer face, which is the surface of treatment pad 50 that is attached to flexible member 42 and thus is not shown in the figure, and the first tape segment has an opposite inner face which is the surface that is shown in Fig. 1 and is labeled in Annotated Fig. 1 of Cox that is configured to contact with a skin of the user when elongated flexible member 42 is wound around the limb or joint of the user and on it