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 .
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, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 13-16 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9883703 (Shultz).
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 13-16 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by US 9883703 (Shultz).
Regarding claim 1, ‘703 discloses: A garment (50, figs. 1a and 1b) including a front portion (52) and a back portion (78), the garment comprising:
a first pair of neurobands (pairs of bands 76 are in the scope of the applicant coined term “neuroband”) extending from the front portion of the garment to the back portion of the garment over a top of the garment,
a first neuroband of the first pair of neurobands defining a first shoulder portion of the garment and a second neuroband of the first pair of neurobands defining a second shoulder portion of the garment (seen clearly in figs. 1a and 2b; par. 41 states, “The neurobands both support muscles as well activate muscles. The combination of fabrics that make up the garment have different characteristics, including different stretch characteristics, so as to work by tension and elasticity to activate and support the muscles.”); and
a seam connecting the first neuroband to the second neuroband so that the first pair of neurobands directly connect to a middle panel through seams, indirectly to each other on the back portion of the garment, the seams defining posture mounts (pairs of bands 76 are clearly shown in fig. 1b directly connected on the back portion at multiple seams/panel edge connections that are in the scope of the term “first posture mount”; see annotated fig. 1b below).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, ‘703 discloses: the first posture mount
is along a spine of a wearer when the garment is in an in-use position (multiple seams/panel edge connections that are in the scope of the term “first posture mount”; central band 82 in par. 40 shown on the spine in fig. 1b could also be considered a ‘first posture mount’ along a spine of a wearer in use; clearly shown in fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 4, ‘703 discloses: further comprising a neck aperture of the garment between the first pair of neurobands, the seam between the first pair of neurobands (the central vertical seams seen clearly in figure 1b are ‘between’ the pair of neurobands).
Regarding claim 5, ‘703 discloses: the seam extends from a lower terminal end of the connection between the first pair of neurobands upward toward a top of the garment along a center of the garment on the back portion of the garment (vertical seams of central spinal band shown in fig. 1b ‘extends’ from lower end to top of the garment as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, ‘703 discloses: the seam extends beyond the connection between the first pair of neurobands toward a bottom of the garment (central vertical seam in fig. 1b extends beyond the connection point of the pair of neurobands as claimed).
Regarding claim 8, ‘703 discloses: the first pair of neurobands extend on opposite sides of a neck aperture of the garment (right and left side bands 76 shown clearly in fig. 1b on both sides of neck aperture).
Regarding claim 9, ‘703 discloses: further comprising a second pair of neurobands (one of pair of straps 68 in fig. 1a are in the scope of the term “neurobands”), wherein a one of a second pair of extend from the front portion of the garment around a first lateral side of the garment under a first arm aperture of the garment and a second of the second pair of neurobands (second of pair of straps 68 in fig. 1a are in the scope of the term “neurobands”) extend from the front portion of the garment around a second lateral side of the garment under a second arm aperture of the garment (straps 68 are both shown in fig.1a and 2a extending from front lateral right and left sides under right and left arm apertures as claimed).
Regarding claim 13, ‘703 discloses: the second pair of neurobands taper toward a center of the garment on the front portion of the garment as the second pair of neurobands extend downward toward a bottom portion of the garment (seen clearly in annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
626
707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, ‘703 discloses: the taper creates an extension of each of the second pair of neurobands that is configured to be positioned over a lower portion of a wearer's rib cage in use position (seen clearly in fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 15, ‘703 discloses: further comprising a pair of posture mounts extending on the back portion of the garment from respective terminal ends of the first pair of neurobands of the plurality of neurobands (shown in annotated fig. 1b below).
PNG
media_image3.png
686
866
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, ‘703 discloses: the pair of posture extend downward along the back portion of the garment from the first pair of neurobands and around opposite lateral sides of the garment under arm apertures of the garment toward the front portion of the garment (fig. 12 embodiment annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
601
935
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, ‘703 discloses: zipper 54 shown on the front of the garment in fig. 1a.
Regarding claims 24-26, ‘703 discloses: further comprising a second posture mount on the back of the garment extending to the bottom of the garment and tapering towards the bottom from the first posture mount (it is noted the applicant defines the term “posture mount” in the instant specification as: “The posture mount portions may be separate panels integrated into the garment and/or may be formed by overlapping portions, such as adjacent neurobands and/or by seams between neurobands, posture mount portions, or combinations thereof.”; with this definition in mind the fig. 1b clearly shows the overlapping portions/seams that, extend vertically to the bottom of the garment from the intersection points of overlapping portions/seams of the neurobands/ “first posture mount”, can be considered to be “additional/second” posture mounts per the definition of “posture mount”.
‘703 teaches all of the claimed limitations of claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13-16 and 23-26 as stated above with the exception of the claimed location and arrangement of second pair/additional neurobands nor the explicitly cited seam locations and direct connections of the claims.
However, ‘703 does speak specifically and at length about the variability of the location and arrangement of panels and seams to provide desired therapeutic effect on muscles and posture of the wearer. It is noted that muscular lines of contraction are in 360 degrees as muscles and their connection fascia are in all 360 degrees. It is also noted human beings are of nearly infinite size and shape and their musculoskeletal system follows that same size and shape and would clearly require either more or less material to provide the therapeutic effect described in ‘703.
‘703 states, “In the embodiments, the musculoskeletal system is viewed as a linkage system. When one part moves, another part must also move to accommodate that movement. Muscles attached to bone move the bone that in turn move the body. Some embodiments are based on multiple scientific and professional medical disciplines who are aware of the type and placement of stimuli needed to achieve a desired change in biomechanics and biofeedback forces for the betterment of musculoskeletal alignment and good posture maintenance throughout the body. Accordingly, some embodiments provide a neuromuscular enhancement system for posture correction and maintenance [par. 100]”;
“In one embodiment, a posture garment is constructed with elastomeric materials having distinct properties of elasticity, tensile strength and tactile intervention. The garment may be constructed using seams that have specific stretch characteristics that are directionally placed in line with the elastomeric materials they enjoin. Seam placement and elasticity may be based on the science of human kinetics and placed in such a way to create the least obstructive means to facilitate the transfer of external loads placed onto the garment [par. 114].”;
“Elasticity is the ability of muscle to return to its original length following stretching. In some embodiments, the tension or resistance segments provide elastomeric stretch characteristic of materials used to support muscle contractions. Human movement is always dynamic and the axis of materials, such as neuroband placement, is configured not to compress muscles, but to support muscle contractions. In one embodiment, the axis of materials is configured to support the axis of rotation of the core [par. 127]”; and
“Good posture puts a body in a form that will expend the least amount of energy required to move. Good posture connects optimal body kinematics. The embodiments influence kinematics by placing the stretch characteristics of the garment system or posture control system line with the transfer of muscle force from the body limbs to the body's core or center of gravity. This directional placement may be referred to as muscle mirroring or kinetic muscle mirroring. Muscle mirroring provided by the posture garments of the embodiments differ from compression garments because the garments don't compress muscle tissue; they stretch with it, i.e., the garment substantially mirrors the muscles of the wearer especially when in motion. In this manner, the exemplary embodiments provide actionable biofeedback by mirroring muscle contractions that cannot be provided by conventional garments, such as compression garments [par. 149].”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in garment design and engineering prior to filing the invention to modify the bands/panels/seams of the garment disclosed by ‘703 to locate and arrange the bands/panels/seams in various locations and in various amounts of material on the body of the user when worn so that the bands/panels/seams can provide a desired change in biomechanics and biofeedback forces for the betterment of musculoskeletal alignment and good posture maintenance throughout the body; are placed in such a way to create the least obstructive means to facilitate the transfer of external loads placed onto the garment; and to support the axis of rotation of the core.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘703 (Shultz).
‘703 is cited as disclosing all previous claims above. ‘703 does teach the garment having additional pairs of arm wrapping bands that form and/or are part of the garment’s sleeves in figs. 5, 6, 11a, 11b, 12, 13, 14, 16a, 16b, and 21.
‘703 does not however explicitly disclose the claimed location and arrangement of second pair of neurobands per claims 10-12 nor the seam location of claim 12.
However, ‘703 does speak specifically and at length about the variability of the location and arrangement of panels and seams to provide desired therapeutic effect on muscles and posture of the wearer.
‘703 states, “In the embodiments, the musculoskeletal system is viewed as a linkage system. When one part moves, another part must also move to accommodate that movement. Muscles attached to bone move the bone that in turn move the body. Some embodiments are based on multiple scientific and professional medical disciplines who are aware of the type and placement of stimuli needed to achieve a desired change in biomechanics and biofeedback forces for the betterment of musculoskeletal alignment and good posture maintenance throughout the body. Accordingly, some embodiments provide a neuromuscular enhancement system for posture correction and maintenance [par. 100]”;
“In one embodiment, a posture garment is constructed with elastomeric materials having distinct properties of elasticity, tensile strength and tactile intervention. The garment may be constructed using seams that have specific stretch characteristics that are directionally placed in line with the elastomeric materials they enjoin. Seam placement and elasticity may be based on the science of human kinetics and placed in such a way to create the least obstructive means to facilitate the transfer of external loads placed onto the garment [par. 114].”;
“Elasticity is the ability of muscle to return to its original length following stretching. In some embodiments, the tension or resistance segments provide elastomeric stretch characteristic of materials used to support muscle contractions. Human movement is always dynamic and the axis of materials, such as neuroband placement, is configured not to compress muscles, but to support muscle contractions. In one embodiment, the axis of materials is configured to support the axis of rotation of the core [par. 127]”; and
“Good posture puts a body in a form that will expend the least amount of energy required to move. Good posture connects optimal body kinematics. The embodiments influence kinematics by placing the stretch characteristics of the garment system or posture control system line with the transfer of muscle force from the body limbs to the body's core or center of gravity. This directional placement may be referred to as muscle mirroring or kinetic muscle mirroring. Muscle mirroring provided by the posture garments of the embodiments differ from compression garments because the garments don't compress muscle tissue; they stretch with it, i.e., the garment substantially mirrors the muscles of the wearer especially when in motion. In this manner, the exemplary embodiments provide actionable biofeedback by mirroring muscle contractions that cannot be provided by conventional garments, such as compression garments [par. 149].”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in garment design and engineering prior to filing the invention to modify the bands/panels/seams of the garment disclosed by ‘703 to locate and arrange the bands/panels/seams in various locations on the body of the user when worn so that the bands/panels/seams can provide a desired change in biomechanics and biofeedback forces for the betterment of musculoskeletal alignment and good posture maintenance throughout the body; are placed in such a way to create the least obstructive means to facilitate the transfer of external loads placed onto the garment; to support the axis of rotation of the core; and by placing the stretch characteristics of the garment system or posture control system line with the transfer of muscle force from the body limbs to the body's core or center of gravity to achieve optimal body kinematics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 103 rejection when combined does teach direct connection of the neuroband pairs to each other.
The examiner never asserted that the ‘703 reference on its own disclosed the pair being in direct connection to each other.
The examiner asserts that the structure does disclose seams that do connect singular neurobands of the pairs directly by seams and only indirect connection of the neuroband pairs to each other by the same seams. Further, it is noted that ‘703 is only different from the claimed ‘direct seam connection/posture mount’ by the presence of a middle back panel that is present and indirectly connects both members of both neuroband pairs to each other.
It is noted that the claim recites, “the seams defining posture mounts”. So in the rejection the examiner is mapping the seams that connect the neurobands both directly and indirectly as corresponding to “posture mounts” per the claim’s actual recited language.
The teachings of seams once modified per the prima facie obvious nature of teachings from ‘703 regarding varying/adjusting seams, panels and to locate and arrange the bands/panels/seams in various locations and in various amounts of material on the body of the user when worn so that the bands/panels/seams can provide a desired change in biomechanics and biofeedback forces to the user result in the seam(s) fully meeting/teaching the claimed arrangement of seams as ‘posture mounts’.
Assertions regarding alleged “expansive reading of posture mounts” is not correct.
Assertion that “the examiner does not appear to rely on the modification of the number, location and placement of panels is also incorrect. The rejection, explicitly stated:
“‘703 teaches all of the claimed limitations of claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13-16 and 23-26 as stated above with the exception of the claimed location and arrangement of second pair/additional neurobands nor the explicitly cited seam locations and direct connections of the claims.
However, ‘703 does speak specifically and at length about the variability of the location and arrangement of panels and seams to provide desired therapeutic effect on muscles and posture of the wearer. It is noted that muscular lines of contraction are in 360 degrees as muscles and their connection fascia are in all 360 degrees. It is also noted human beings are of nearly infinite size and shape and their musculoskeletal system follows that same size and shape and would clearly require either more or less material to provide the therapeutic effect described in ‘703.
‘703 states, “In the embodiments, the musculoskeletal system is viewed as a linkage system. When one part moves, another part must also move to accommodate that movement. Muscles attached to bone move the bone that in turn move the body. Some embodiments are based on multiple scientific and professional medical disciplines who are aware of the type and placement of stimuli needed to achieve a desired change in biomechanics and biofeedback forces for the betterment of musculoskeletal alignment and good posture maintenance throughout the body. Accordingly, some embodiments provide a neuromuscular enhancement system for posture correction and maintenance [par. 100]”;
“In one embodiment, a posture garment is constructed with elastomeric materials having distinct properties of elasticity, tensile strength and tactile intervention. The garment may be constructed using seams that have specific stretch characteristics that are directionally placed in line with the elastomeric materials they enjoin. Seam placement and elasticity may be based on the science of human kinetics and placed in such a way to create the least obstructive means to facilitate the transfer of external loads placed onto the garment [par. 114].”;
“Elasticity is the ability of muscle to return to its original length following stretching. In some embodiments, the tension or resistance segments provide elastomeric stretch characteristic of materials used to support muscle contractions. Human movement is always dynamic and the axis of materials, such as neuroband placement, is configured not to compress muscles, but to support muscle contractions. In one embodiment, the axis of materials is configured to support the axis of rotation of the core [par. 127]”; and
“Good posture puts a body in a form that will expend the least amount of energy required to move. Good posture connects optimal body kinematics. The embodiments influence kinematics by placing the stretch characteristics of the garment system or posture control system line with the transfer of muscle force from the body limbs to the body's core or center of gravity. This directional placement may be referred to as muscle mirroring or kinetic muscle mirroring. Muscle mirroring provided by the posture garments of the embodiments differ from compression garments because the garments don't compress muscle tissue; they stretch with it, i.e., the garment substantially mirrors the muscles of the wearer especially when in motion. In this manner, the exemplary embodiments provide actionable biofeedback by mirroring muscle contractions that cannot be provided by conventional garments, such as compression garments [par. 149].”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in garment design and engineering prior to filing the invention to modify the bands/panels/seams of the garment disclosed by ‘703 to locate and arrange the bands/panels/seams in various locations and in various amounts of material on the body of the user when worn so that the bands/panels/seams can provide a desired change in biomechanics and biofeedback forces for the betterment of musculoskeletal alignment and good posture maintenance throughout the body; are placed in such a way to create the least obstructive means to facilitate the transfer of external loads placed onto the garment; and to support the axis of rotation of the core.”.
The ‘logical line of reasoning’ to the prima facie obviousness is taken explicitly from the teachings of ‘703 as quoted from ‘703 and noted above in the rejection not from the instant application as asserted by the applicant.
These are the amendments and arguments presented.
The rejection remains and is considered to be proper.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR whose telephone number is (571)272-4991. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-1730.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732