DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Rejection for Application 18/111,199 filed February 17, 2023. This application is a continuation of PCT/US21/45487 filed August 11, 2021 which claims priority to Provisional Application 63/067,764 filed August 19, 2020. Claims 1, 3-5 and 10-19 are currently pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 19.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 19 indicated in the Office action filed December 15, 2025 is overcome by the amendment and is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ingimundarson actually teaches away from the use of a rigid anterior abdominal panel, as recited by amended Claim 1, instead specifically teaching that panel 36 has notches 44 to "facilitate bending of the panel" and further comprises apertures to "allow[] the panel to bend in an anatomically friendly manner."
This argument is unpersuasive as Applicant is arguing 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 combination as set forth in the office action filed December 15, 2025 for claim 1 only relies on Ingimundarson to teach the shape of the anterior abdominal panel. The rigidity of the panel is a property of the material used in making the panel and is not being modified in view of Ingimundarson. The material of Joseph is already a thermoformable material that is formable between 140 to 250 degrees Fahrenheit and rigid below that range so the notch may be used to provide flexibility at high temperatures and be rigid below 140 degree Fahrenheit. This does not teach away from the combination as Ingimundarson discloses in [0047] that “the panel become semi-rigid or rigid against the wearer's back due to the pressure exerted by the compression system and due to a cylindrical effect that occurs because of the panel being urged to conform to the anatomy of the wearer.”
Applicant argues that while "a portion near the notch 44" widens, the width of each extension does not have "a respective width that increases continuously along a respective length of extension from the rigid central portion to the respective rounded distal end," as specifically recited by amended Claim 1 and as shown for anterior abdominal panel 230 in at least FIG. 7B of the instant application.
This argument is unpersuasive as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the broadest reasonable interpretation of Ingimundarson’s panel shown in Fig. 6 does increases in width continuously along a respective length of extension from the rigid central portion to the respective rounded distal end. The point at which the extensions begin may be the narrowest point of the notch and the point at where the rounded distal end begins may be the point at where the notch reaches a maximum width as the extension beyond that point is rounded and distal the central portion. This results in a respective width that increases continuously along a respective length of extension from the rigid central portion to the respective rounded distal end.
PNG
media_image1.png
128
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0135672 (Joseph) in view of US 2014/0081189 (Ingimundarson).
Regarding claim 1, Joseph discloses an orthopedic sacroiliac brace (Joseph discloses an orthopedic brace as shown in Figs. 3A-3E. [0049] discloses that the back brace 100 is configured for use as a sacroiliac belt and [0061] discloses that the back brace 200 is similar in many respects to the back brace 100.), comprising:
a belt portion (Back brace 200 is made up of a first front panel 206 and a second front panel 208 which are interpreted as forming a belt since they wrap around the user. See [0064] and Fig. 3A.);
a first posterior sacral panel coupled to the belt portion and configured to be disposed directly posterior of a first posterior side of an ilium of a user (First back panel 202 comprises a first support 232 and is coupled to the first front panel 206. See [0061] and Fig. 3A. The first support 232 is interpreted as a first posterior sacral panel because the first support 232 is posterior the user and is capable of being disposed directly posterior of a first posterior side of an ilium of a user when the brace is placed around the pelvic region of the user.);
a second posterior sacral panel coupled to the belt portion and configured to be disposed directly posterior of a second posterior side of the ilium (Second back panel 204 comprises a second support 232 is coupled to the second front panel 208. See [0061] and Fig. 3A. The second support 232 is interpreted as a second posterior sacral panel because the second support 232 is posterior the user and is capable of being disposed directly posterior of a second posterior side of an ilium of a user when the brace is placed around the pelvic region of the user.); and
a rigid anterior abdominal panel configured to be disposed against an anterior portion of an abdomen of the user and coupled to the belt portion (Anterior insert 259 is disposed in a pocket 258 of one or both front panels 206, 208. See [0067] and Fig. 3C. Anterior insert 259 is interpreted as an anterior abdominal panel because the anterior insert is positioned generally on the anterior of the wearer when the brace is placed around the pelvic region of the user. Additionally, Joseph discloses in [0051] that a thermoformable material used in the invention is heat formable within a target temperature range, and is rigid or generally rigid below a minimum temperature. [0051] discloses that an example thermoformable temperature is between 140 to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. [0067] discloses that the insert 259 is made of a thermoformable polymer. Therefore, the insert 259 is rigid when below 140 degrees Fahrenheit.), the rigid anterior abdominal panel comprising:
a rigid central portion configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn (The insert 259 comprises a central portion as shown in Fig. 3D. which is configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn.); and
first and second rigid extensions that each extend away from the rigid central portion in opposite directions (The insert 259 comprises first and second extensions that each extend away from the central portion in opposite directions as shown in Fig. 3D.),
wherein each of the rigid first and second extensions: has a respective rounded distal end (Fig. 3D; insert 259.),
is configured to be disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of a first and a second anterior side of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn (The first and second extensions of insert 259 are capable of being disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of the first and second sides of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn. See [0067].); and
wherein adjustably tightening the belt portion around the user causes the first and second posterior sacral panels to apply respective anterior forces to the first and second posterior sides of the ilium, and causes the rigid anterior abdominal panel to simultaneously apply a posterior force to the abdomen of the user, thereby providing adjustable stabilizing support, compression and/or alignment to the sacroiliac joints of the user (According to [0069], closure system 210 tightens the back brace 200 and can be easily released. Therefore, the first and second supports 232 are capable of adjustably applying compressive force to the first and second posterior sides of the ilium and in turn the sacroiliac joint of the user. Additionally, anterior insert 259 is positioned generally on the anterior of the wearer and is capable of adjustably applying a compressive force to the abdomen of the user and in turn the sacroiliac joint of the user as a result of tightening the closure system 210.).
PNG
media_image2.png
166
152
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3D of Joseph
Joseph does not disclose the rigid central portion having a substantially circular or ellipsoid form factor; and wherein each of the rigid first and second extensions: has a respective width that increases continuously along a respective length of extension from the rigid central portion to the respective rounded distal end.
However, Ingimundarson discloses a posterior panel but states in [0045] that, “It should be remembered, however, that the same concepts and methods described may be similarly used for anterior panels adapted for a spinal orthosis.” [0049]-[0050] discloses the features of Fig. 6 which show a central portion, main body 52, and first and second extension, lateral supports 42. The body 52 is substantially an ellipsoid in shape and bulges with respect to the lateral support 42 at notches 44. Additionally, the lateral supports 42 increase in width continuously along a respective length of the support away from the central portion in the notch section 44 of the panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
128
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Ingimundarson
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for the shape of the insert 259 of Joseph to be that of panel 36 of Ingimundarson such that the rigid central portion has a substantially circular or ellipsoid form factor (the central portion of the insert 259 of Joseph is substantially ellipsoid in shape in view of Ingimundarson.); and each of the rigid first and second extensions: has a respective width that increases continuously along a respective length of extension from the rigid central portion to the respective distal end (Each of the extensions of the insert 259 of Joseph have a width that increase along a length of the extension away from the central portion to the respective distal end in view of Joseph.).
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the panel 36 is shaped as such so that the central portion can provide support around an incision or sensitive area of the body ([0050]) and so that the lateral supports may support wearers with different body shapes ([0012]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that a panel having a larger surface area distributes any applied force over that area to reduce local pressures applied to a wearer. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the central portion of insert 259 substantially circular or ellipsoidal and for each of the rigid first and second extensions to increase in width continuously along a respective length of extension away from the rigid central portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape that is absent of persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed component is significant is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, Joseph in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace of Claim 1, wherein the rigid anterior abdominal panel is disposed within an anterior abdominal housing configured to be removably or adjustably coupled to the belt portion (Pocket 258 contains the insert 259 and is disposed on one or both front panels 206, 208. See [0067]. The pocket 258 is interpreted as an anterior abdominal housing as the pocket 258 houses the insert 259 and is capable of being removably coupled to the front panels 206, 208.).
Regarding claim 4, Joseph in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace of Claim 3.
Joseph in view of Ingimundarson, as applied above, does not disclose wherein a user-facing surface of the anterior abdominal housing is textured to reduce slippage or drifting of the anterior abdominal housing while the brace is worn.
However, Joseph further discloses a plurality of grip strips 150 provided on an interior face of front panels 106, 108 and discloses that “Strips 150 may be arranged in other shapes or configurations than those depicted”. See [0054] and Fig. 1B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to add the grips strips 150 to the interior face of front panels 206, 208 and interior to the pocket 258 as taught by Joseph such that a user-facing surface of the anterior abdominal housing is textured to reduce slippage or drifting of the anterior abdominal housing while the brace is worn (Grip strips 150 are disposed on the interior face of the front panels 206, 208 and the pocket 258. The grips strips 150 provide a texture to reduce slippage and drifting of the pocket 258 while the brace is worn.).
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Joseph teaches that the grip strips 150 prevent shifting of the back brace ([0054]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that the grips strips are disclosed in another embodiment of the same invention.
Regarding claim 5, Joseph in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace of claim 1.
Joseph in view of Ingimundarson, as applied above, does not disclose wherein the rigid anterior abdominal panel is substantially flat.
However, Ingimundarson further discloses a posterior panel but states in [0045] that, “It should be remembered, however, that the same concepts and methods described may be similarly used for anterior panels adapted for a spinal orthosis.” [0048] discloses a flat flexible non-lateral posterior panel 28.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for the anterior insert 259 of Joseph to be flat as taught by Ingimundarson such that the rigid anterior abdominal panel is substantially flat (The insert 259 is flat in view of Ingimundarson and remains rigid). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the flat shape allows for the panel to lay firmly against the user’s back to conform to the user ([0047]). It is expected that the flat shape would allow the panel to lay firmly against the user’s abdominal region when worn on the anterior side of the user. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 10, Joseph in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace of Claim 1, wherein the belt portion comprises: a first belt portion (First front panel 206 is interpreted as a first belt portion. See [0061].);
a second belt portion (Second front panel 208 is interpreted as a second belt portion. See [0061].); and
a plurality of laces that couple adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions with an adjustable spacing (D) therebetween (One or more laces 262 are interpreted as a plurality of laces and are coupled adjacent first ends of the fronts panels 206, 208 with an adjustable spacing between as seen in Fig. 3B. See [0069].),
the first posterior sacral panel being coupled proximate to the first end of the first belt portion and the second posterior sacral panel being coupled proximate to the first end of the second belt portion (First and second supports 232 are coupled proximate the first ends of front panels 206, 208, respectively. See Fig. 3B.).
Regarding claim 11, Joseph in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace of Claim 10, wherein the first and second posterior sacral panels are permanently secured within respective pockets disposed proximate to the first end of the corresponding first and second belt portions (First and second supports 232 are disposed within pockets in the respective back panels 202, 204. See [0061]. The supports 232 sewn or glued so that they are permanently secured within the back panels 202, 204 forming their own pockets and proximate to the first ends of front panels 206, 208.).
Regarding claim 12, Joseph in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace of Claim 10, wherein the first and second posterior sacral panels are removably secured proximate to the first end of the corresponding first and second belt portions (The first and second supports 232 are removably disposed within pockets in the respective back panels 202, 204 and proximate the first ends of front panels 206, 208. See [0061].).
Regarding claim 13, Joseph in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace of Claim 10, wherein the first and second belt portions comprise fastening straps at respective second ends configured to adjust an amount of tension in the belt portion based at least in part on an amount of overlap between the second ends of the first and second belt portions and, thereby, contribute to the adjustable stabilizing support, compression and/or alignment to the sacroiliac joint (Attachment means 256 is hook and loop material and is provided on the second ends of front panels 206, 208 on either the outer face 244 and/or inner face 246 to facilitate attachment of front panel 206 overlapping front panel 208, or vice versa. See [0066]. The attachment means are interpreted as fastening straps. Therefore, the attachment means allows for an adjustable amount of tension in the front panels 206, 208 based at least in part on an amount of overlap between the second ends of the front panels 206, 208. The attachment means and front panels 206, 208 thereby adjustably compress the sacroiliac joint when worn.).
Regarding claim 14, Joseph in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace of Claim 13, wherein the fastening straps comprise one or more gripping features configured to be grasped by the user while adjusting the amount of tension in the first and second belt portions ([0066] also discloses that the central end 242 of one or both of the front panels 206, 208 comprise a mitten pocket 254 on the outer face 244. The mitten pocket 254 is interpreted as a gripping feature as it allows the user to grab the mitten pocket 254 and adjust the amount of tension of the front panels 206, 208.).
Regarding claim 15, Joseph in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace of Claim 10, wherein the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions a plurality of times, thereby forming a plurality of passes of the plurality of laces (Fig. 3A shows a plurality of laces 262 extending between the adjacent and facing first ends of the front panels 206, 208 a plurality of times. See [0069].).
Regarding claim 16, Joseph in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace of Claim 15, wherein: a first subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along a path that is substantially parallel to a longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions (Fig. 3A shows a first subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces 262 that extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the front panels 206, 208 along a path that is substantially parallel to a longitudinal extent of the front panels 206, 208.); and
a second subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along paths that are askew from the longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions such that passes in pairs of the second subset of the plurality of passes cross one another in a substantially X-shaped pattern (Fig. 3A shows a second subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces 262 that extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the front panels 206, 208 along paths that are askew from the longitudinal extent of the front panels 206, 208 such that passes in pairs of the second subset of the plurality of passes cross one another in a substantially X-shaped pattern).
PNG
media_image3.png
232
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3A of Joseph
Regarding claim 17, Joseph in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace of Claim 15, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of laces extend along a portion of the second belt portion and attach to an adjustment mechanism ([0069] discloses that the laces 262 extend along a portion of the front panel 208 to attach to reel 260. Reel 260 is interpreted as an adjustment mechanism. See Fig. 3A.).
Regarding claim 18, Joseph in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace of Claim 17.
Joseph in view of Ingimundarson, as applied above, does not disclose wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a pull tab configured to decrease the spacing "D" when the pull tab is pulled away from the user's body while the brace is at least partially secured around the user.
However, Ingimundarson further discloses a pulley system 116 comprising cables 138 that are adjusted by the pulling of a handle 128. See [0060] and Fig. 16. The cables 138 are analogous to the plurality of laces 262 of Joseph and the handle 128 of Ingimundarson is interpreted as a pull tab.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to attach the laces 262 of Joseph to the handle 128 of Ingimundarson in place of the reel 260 such that the adjustment mechanism comprises a pull tab configured to decrease the spacing "D" when the pull tab is pulled away from the user's body while the brace is at least partially secured around the user (The adjustment mechanism of Joseph in view of Ingimundarson is the handle 128 of Ingimundarson which is interpreted as a pull tab. The handle 128 when combined with the laces 262 of Joseph is capable of decrease the spacing "D" when the handle 128 is pulled away from the user's body while the brace is at least partially secured around the user.).
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the handle 128 allows for a user to pull the handle to adjust the tension of the brace ([0060]) which provides a mechanism for ease of adjustment. Additionally, a handle is an alternative mechanism to a reel since both the handle and reel are used to adjust the tension of a pulley or lace system as is generally known in the art. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to orthoses with a plurality of lace passes used to adjust the tension of the orthoses.
Regarding claim 19, Joseph discloses a method of using an orthopedic sacroiliac brace for providing pelvic sacral support (Joseph discloses an orthopedic brace as shown in Figs. 3A-3E. [0049] discloses that the back brace 100 is configured for use as a sacroiliac belt and [0061] discloses that the back brace 200 is similar in many respects to the back brace 100.), the method comprising:
coupling a rigid anterior abdominal panel to a belt portion of the brace (Back brace 200 is made up of a first front panel 206 and a second front panel 208 which are interpreted as forming a belt since they wrap around the user. See [0064] and Fig. 3A. Anterior insert 259 is disposed in a pocket 258 of one or both front panels 206, 208. See [0067] and Fig. 3C. Anterior insert 259 is interpreted as an anterior abdominal panel because the anterior insert is positioned generally on the anterior of the wearer when the brace is placed around the pelvic region of the user. Additionally, Joseph discloses in [0051] that a thermoformable material used in the invention is heat formable within a target temperature range, and is rigid or generally rigid below a minimum temperature. [0051] discloses that an example thermoformable temperature is between 140 to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. [0067] discloses that the insert 259 is made of a thermoformable polymer. Therefore, the insert 259 is rigid when below 140 degrees Fahrenheit.), the rigid anterior abdominal panel comprising:
a rigid central portion configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of a user when the brace is worn (The insert 259 comprises a central portion as shown in Fig. 3D. which is configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn.); and
first and second rigid extensions that each extend away from the rigid central portion in opposite directions (The insert 259 comprises a central portion as shown in Fig. 3D. which is configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn.);
wherein each of the first and second rigid extensions: has a respective rounded distal end (Fig. 3D; insert 259.).
PNG
media_image2.png
166
152
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3D of Joseph
Joseph does not disclose or directly disclose the rigid central portion having a substantially circular or ellipsoid form factor; wherein each of the first and second rigid extensions has a respective width that increases continuously along a respective length of extension from the rigid central portion to the respective rounded distal end; disposing the belt portion of the brace around a waist of the user such that: a first posterior sacral panel, coupled to the belt portion, is disposed directly posterior of a first posterior side of an ilium of the user, a second posterior sacral panel, coupled to the belt portion, is disposed directly posterior of a second posterior side of the ilium, the first rigid extension of the rigid anterior abdominal panel is disposed directly anterior of a first sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of a first anterior side of the ilium of the user, and the second rigid extension of the rigid anterior abdominal panel is disposed directly anterior of a second sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of a second anterior side of the ilium of the user; and adjustably tightening the belt portion around the waist of the user such that the first and second posterior sacral panels are caused to apply respective anterior forces to the first and second posterior sides of the ilium, and the rigid anterior abdominal panel is caused to simultaneously apply a posterior force to the abdomen of the user, thereby providing adjustable stabilizing support, compression and/or alignment to the first and second sacroiliac joints of the user.
However, Joseph discloses that front panels 206, 208 wrap around the wearer at the lower back. See [0061] and [0064]. Back panels 202, 204 both contain supports 232 and are positioned on the sides of the wearer on the back. Additionally, according to [0069], closure system 210 tightens the back brace 200 and can be easily released. Therefore, the first and second supports 232 are capable of adjustably applying compressive force to the wearer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to place the back brace 200 of Joseph over the posterior of the pelvis of a user such that Joseph teaches disposing a belt portion of the brace around a waist of a user such that a first posterior sacral panel, coupled to the belt portion, is disposed directly posterior of a first posterior side of an ilium of the user, and a second posterior sacral panel, coupled to the belt portion, is disposed directly posterior of a second posterior side of the ilium (Front panels 206, 208 are interpreted as a belt portion and wrap around the wearer at the lower back. See [0061] and [0064]. Back panels 202, 204 both contain supports 232 that are interpreted as a first and second posterior sacral panel, respectively. See [0061]. The back panels 202, 204 are positioned on the side of the wearer on the back at the pelvis. Therefore, the first and second supports 232 are disposed directly posterior to a respective first and second posterior side of the ilium of a user.); and adjustably tightening the belt portion around the waist of the user such that the first and second posterior sacral panels are caused to apply respective anterior forces to the first and second posterior sides of the ilium, thereby providing adjustable stabilizing support, compression and/or alignment to a sacroiliac joint of the user (According to [0069], closure system 210 tightens the back brace 200 and can be easily released. Therefore, the first and second supports 232 are capable of adjustably applying compressive force to the wearer which, due to the modification, applies the anterior force to the first and second posterior sides of the ilium for applying compression to a sacroiliac joint of the user.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Joseph teaches that the back brace 100 is configured for use as a sacroiliac belt. Using the back brace 200 as a sacroiliac belt would allow the back brace 200 to treat a wearer with pelvic injuries. Additionally, while the back brace 200 does not explicitly state is it used for the pelvis, it comprises the same structure as the claimed belt and would merely require repositioning which is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that Joseph and the instant invention are drawn to back braces.
Additionally, Ingimundarson discloses a posterior panel but states in [0045] that, “It should be remembered, however, that the same concepts and methods described may be similarly used for anterior panels adapted for a spinal orthosis.” [0049]-[0050] discloses the features of Fig. 6 which show a central portion, main body 52, and first and second extension, lateral supports 42. The body 52 is substantially an ellipsoid in shape and bulges with respect to the lateral support 42 at notches 44. Additionally, the lateral supports 42 increase in width continuously along a respective length of the support away from the central portion in the notch section 44 of the panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
128
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Ingimundarson
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for the shape of the insert 259 of Joseph to be that of panel 36 of Ingimundarson such that the rigid central portion has a substantially circular or ellipsoid form factor (the central portion of the insert 259 of Joseph is substantially ellipsoid in shape in view of Ingimundarson.); and wherein each of the first and second rigid extensions has a respective width that increases continuously along a respective length of extension from the rigid central portion to the respective rounded distal end (Each of the extensions of the insert 259 of Joseph have a width that increase along a length of the extension from the central portion to the respective rounded distal end in view of Joseph.).
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the panel 36 is shaped as such so that the central portion can provide support around an incision or sensitive area of the body ([0050]) and so that the lateral supports may support wearers with different body shapes ([0012]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that a panel having a larger surface area distributes any applied force over that area to reduce local pressures applied to a wearer. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the central portion of insert 259 substantially circular or ellipsoidal and for each of the rigid first and second extensions to increase in width continuously along a respective length of extension away from the rigid central portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape that is absent of persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed component is significant is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 10-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 in view of US 2014/0135672 (Joseph) and US 2014/0081189 (Ingimundarson). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, claims 14 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 claim the limitations of the present application’s claim 1 except a rigid anterior abdominal panel, the rigid anterior abdominal panel comprising: a rigid central portion having a substantially circular or ellipsoid form factor and configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn; and first and second rigid extensions that each extend away from the rigid central portion in opposite directions, wherein each of the rigid first and second extensions: has a respective rounded distal end, and has a respective width that increases continuously along a respective length of extension from the rigid central portion to the respective rounded distal end, and is configured to be disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of a first and a second anterior side of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn.
However, Joseph discloses an anterior insert 259 that is disposed in a pocket 258 of one or both front panels 206, 208. See [0067] and Fig. 3C. Anterior insert 259 is interpreted as an anterior abdominal panel because the anterior insert is positioned generally on the anterior of the wearer when the brace is placed around the pelvic region of the user. Additionally, Joseph discloses in [0051] that a thermoformable material used in the invention is heat formable within a target temperature range, and is rigid or generally rigid below a minimum temperature. [0051] discloses that an example thermoformable temperature is between 140 to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. [0067] discloses that the insert 259 is made of a thermoformable polymer. Therefore, the insert 259 is rigid when below 140 degrees Fahrenheit. The insert 259 comprises a central portion as shown in Fig. 3D. which is configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn. The insert 259 comprises first and second extensions that each extend away from the central portion in opposite directions as shown in Fig. 3D. The first and second extensions of insert 259 are capable of being disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of the first and second sides of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn. See [0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to make the anterior support of U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 as taught by Joseph such that the combination comprises a rigid anterior abdominal panel (The anterior support is thermoformable material and rigid at room temperature.), the rigid anterior abdominal panel comprising: a rigid central portion configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn (The shape of the anterior support comprises a central portion and is configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn.); and first and second rigid extensions that each extend away from the rigid central portion in opposite directions, and is configured to be disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of a first and a second anterior side of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn (The shape of the anterior support comprises first and second rigid extensions that each extend away from the rigid central portion in opposite directions, and is configured to be disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of a first and a second anterior side of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn); has a respective rounded distal end (Fig. 3D; insert 259). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Joseph teaches that the insert provides support to the abdominal region of the wearer ([0067]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to body orthotics.
Additionally, Ingimundarson discloses a posterior panel but states in [0045] that, “It should be remembered, however, that the same concepts and methods described may be similarly used for anterior panels adapted for a spinal orthosis.” [0049]-[0050] discloses the features of Fig. 6 which show a central portion, main body 52, and first and second extension, lateral supports 42. The body 52 is substantially an ellipsoid in shape and bulges with respect to the lateral support 42 at notches 44. Additionally, the lateral supports 42 increase in width continuously along a respective length of the support away from the central portion in the notch section 44 of the panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
128
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Ingimundarson
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for the shape of the anterior support of U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 to be that of panel 36 of Ingimundarson such that the rigid central portion has a substantially circular or ellipsoid form factor (The central portion of the insert 259 of Joseph is substantially ellipsoid in shape in view of Ingimundarson.); and each of the rigid first and second extensions: has a respective width that increases continuously along a respective length of extension from the rigid central portion to the respective rounded distal ends (Each of the extensions of the insert 259 of Joseph have a width that increase along a length of the extension away from the central portion in view of Joseph.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the panel 36 is shaped as such so that the central portion can provide support around an incision or sensitive area of the body ([0050]) and so that the lateral supports may support wearers with different body shapes ([0012]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that a panel having a larger surface area distributes any applied force over that area to reduce local pressures applied to a wearer. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the central portion of insert 259 substantially circular or ellipsoidal and for each of the rigid first and second extensions to increase in width continuously along a respective length of extension away from the rigid central portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape that is absent of persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed component is significant is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 1, but does not claim wherein the anterior abdominal panel is disposed within an anterior abdominal housing configured to be removably or adjustably coupled to the belt portion.
However, Joseph discloses that pocket 258 contains the insert 259 and is disposed on one or both front panels 206, 208. See [0067]. The pocket 258 is interpreted as an anterior abdominal housing as the pocket 258 houses the insert 259 and is capable of being removably coupled to the front panels 206, 208.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 to claim an anterior abdominal housing as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Joseph teaches that the pocket 258 contains the insert 259 ([0067]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to back braces.
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 3, but does not disclose wherein a user-facing surface of the anterior abdominal housing is textured to reduce slippage or drifting of the anterior abdominal housing while the brace is worn.
However, Joseph discloses a plurality of grip strips 150 provided on an interior face of front panels 106, 108 and discloses that “Strips 150 may be arranged in other shapes or configurations than those depicted”. See [0054] and Fig. 1B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 to claim a user-facing surface of the anterior abdominal housing is textured to reduce slippage or drifting of the anterior abdominal housing while the brace is worn as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Joseph teaches that the grip strips 150 prevent shifting of the back brace ([0054]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to back braces.
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 1, but does not claim wherein the anterior abdominal panel is substantially flat and rigid or semi-rigid.
However, Joseph discloses in [0051] that a thermoformable material used in the invention is heat formable within a target temperature range, and is rigid or generally rigid below a minimum temperature. [0051] discloses that an example thermoformable temperature is between 140 to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. [0067] discloses that the insert 259 is made of a thermoformable polymer. Therefore, the insert 259 is semi-rigid at least when below 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, Ingimundarson discloses a posterior panel but states in [0045] that, “It should be remembered, however, that the same concepts and methods described may be similarly used for anterior panels adapted for a spinal orthosis.” [0048] discloses a flat flexible non-lateral posterior panel 28.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 to claim wherein the anterior abdominal panel is substantially flat and rigid or semi-rigid in view of Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the flat shape allows for the panel to conform to the user ([0047]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 1, wherein the belt portion comprises: a first belt portion (Claim 14: “a pair of front panels”);
a second belt portion (Claim 14: “a pair of front panels”); and
a plurality of laces that couple adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions with an adjustable spacing (D) therebetween (Claim 14: “a first lace coupled to a first tensioning mechanism”; “a second lace coupled to a second tensioning mechanism”),
the first posterior sacral panel being coupled proximate to the first end of the first belt portion and the second posterior sacral panel being coupled proximate to the first end of the second belt portion (Claim 14: “a pair of front panels, each having a lateral end and a ventral end, wherein the lateral end of each front panel is releasably coupled to the lateral end of each back panel”).
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 10, but does not claim wherein the first and second posterior sacral panels are permanently secured within respective pockets disposed proximate to the first end of the corresponding first and second belt portions.
However, Joseph discloses the first and second supports 232 are disposed within pockets in the respective back panels 202, 204. See [0061]. The supports 232 sewn or glued so that they are permanently secured within the back panels 202, 204 forming their own pockets and proximate to the first ends of front panels 206, 208.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 to claim wherein the first and second posterior sacral panels are permanently secured within respective pockets disposed proximate to the first end of the corresponding first and second belt portions as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the pockets secure the supports 232 to the back panels ([0061]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 10, wherein the first and second posterior sacral panels are removably secured proximate to the first end of the corresponding first and second belt portions (Claim 14: “a pair of front panels, each having a lateral end and a ventral end, wherein the lateral end of each front panel is releasably coupled to the lateral end of each back panel”).
Regarding claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 10, wherein the first and second belt portions comprise fastening straps at respective second ends configured to adjust an amount of tension in the belt portion based at least in part on an amount of overlap between the second ends of the first and second belt portions and, thereby, contribute to the adjustable stabilizing support, compression and/or alignment to the sacroiliac joint (Claim 14: “wherein the ventral end of each front panel includes an attachment means configured to allow one of the front panels to releasably attach to the other of the front panels generally over the abdomen of the wearer”).
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 13, but does not claim wherein the fastening straps comprise one or more gripping features configured to be grasped by the user while adjusting the amount of tension in the first and second belt portions.
However, Jospeh discloses in [0066] that the central end 242 of one or both of the front panels 206, 208 comprise a mitten pocket 254 on the outer face 244. The mitten pocket 254 is interpreted as a gripping feature as it allows the user to grab the mitten pocket 254 and adjust the amount of tension of the front panels 206, 208.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 to claim wherein the fastening straps comprise one or more gripping features configured to be grasped by the user while adjusting the amount of tension in the first and second belt portions as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the mitten pockets allow the user to adjust the brace ([0066]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 10, but does not claim wherein the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions a plurality of times, thereby forming a plurality of passes of the plurality of laces.
However, Joseph discloses in Fig. 3A that a plurality of laces 262 extending between the adjacent and facing first ends of the front panels 206, 208 a plurality of times. See [0069].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 to claim wherein the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions a plurality of times, thereby forming a plurality of passes of the plurality of laces as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the plurality of laces allow for adjustment of the brace ([0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 15, but does not claim wherein: a first subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along a path that is substantially parallel to a longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions; and a second subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along paths that are askew from the longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions such that passes in pairs of the second subset of the plurality of passes cross one another in a substantially X-shaped pattern.
However, Joseph’s Fig. 3A shows a first subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces 262 that extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the front panels 206, 208 along a path that is substantially parallel to a longitudinal extent of the front panels 206, 208. Fig. 3A shows a second subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces 262 that extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the front panels 206, 208 along paths that are askew from the longitudinal extent of the front panels 206, 208 such that passes in pairs of the second subset of the plurality of passes cross one another in a substantially X-shaped pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 to claim wherein: a first subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along a path that is substantially parallel to a longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions; and a second subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along paths that are askew from the longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions such that passes in pairs of the second subset of the plurality of passes cross one another in a substantially X-shaped pattern as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the plurality of laces allow for adjustment of the brace ([0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 15, but does not claim wherein at least a portion of the plurality of laces extend along a portion of the second belt portion and attach to an adjustment mechanism.
However, Joseph’s [0069] discloses that the laces 262 extend along a portion of the front panel 208 to attach to reel 260. Reel 260 is interpreted as an adjustment mechanism. See Fig. 3A.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 to claim wherein at least a portion of the plurality of laces extend along a portion of the second belt portion and attach to an adjustment mechanism as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the plurality of laces allow for adjustment of the brace ([0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 17, but does not claim wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a pull tab configured to decrease the spacing "D" when the pull tab is pulled away from the user's body while the brace is at least partially secured around the user.
However, Ingimundarson discloses a pulley system 116 comprising cables 138 that are adjusted by the pulling of a handle 128. See [0060] and Fig. 16. The cables 138 are analogous to the plurality of laces 262 of Joseph and the handle 128 of Ingimundarson is interpreted as a pull tab.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 9,655,761 to claim wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a pull tab configured to decrease the spacing "D" when the pull tab is pulled away from the user's body while the brace is at least partially secured around the user as taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the handle 128 allows for a user to pull the handle to adjust the tension of the brace ([0060]) which provides a mechanism for ease of adjustment. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 10-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 in view of US 2014/0135672 (Joseph) and US 2014/0081189 (Ingimundarson). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 claim the limitations of the present application’s claim 1 except a rigid anterior abdominal panel, the rigid anterior abdominal panel comprising: a rigid central portion having a substantially circular or ellipsoid form factor and configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn; and first and second rigid extensions that each extend away from the rigid central portion in opposite directions, wherein each of the rigid first and second extensions: has a respective width that increases continuously along a respective length of extension away from the rigid central portion, and is configured to be disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of a first and a second anterior side of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn.
However, Joseph discloses an anterior insert 259 that is disposed in a pocket 258 of one or both front panels 206, 208. See [0067] and Fig. 3C. Anterior insert 259 is interpreted as an anterior abdominal panel because the anterior insert is positioned generally on the anterior of the wearer when the brace is placed around the pelvic region of the user. Additionally, Joseph discloses in [0051] that a thermoformable material used in the invention is heat formable within a target temperature range, and is rigid or generally rigid below a minimum temperature. [0051] discloses that an example thermoformable temperature is between 140 to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. [0067] discloses that the insert 259 is made of a thermoformable polymer. Therefore, the insert 259 is rigid when below 140 degrees Fahrenheit. The insert 259 comprises a central portion as shown in Fig. 3D. which is configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn. The insert 259 comprises first and second extensions that each extend away from the central portion in opposite directions as shown in Fig. 3D. The first and second extensions of insert 259 are capable of being disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of the first and second sides of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn. See [0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to make the anterior support of U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 as taught by Joseph such that the combination comprises a rigid anterior abdominal panel (The anterior support is thermoformable material and rigid at room temperature.), the rigid anterior abdominal panel comprising: a rigid central portion configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn (The shape of the anterior support comprises a central portion and is configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn.); and first and second rigid extensions that each extend away from the rigid central portion in opposite directions, and is configured to be disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of a first and a second anterior side of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn (The shape of the anterior support comprises first and second rigid extensions that each extend away from the rigid central portion in opposite directions, and is configured to be disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of a first and a second anterior side of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn); has a respective rounded distal end (Fig. 3D; insert 259). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Joseph teaches that the insert provides support to the abdominal region of the wearer ([0067]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to body orthotics.
Additionally, Ingimundarson discloses a posterior panel but states in [0045] that, “It should be remembered, however, that the same concepts and methods described may be similarly used for anterior panels adapted for a spinal orthosis.” [0049]-[0050] discloses the features of Fig. 6 which show a central portion, main body 52, and first and second extension, lateral supports 42. The body 52 is substantially an ellipsoid in shape and bulges with respect to the lateral support 42 at notches 44. Additionally, the lateral supports 42 increase in width continuously along a respective length of the support away from the central portion in the notch section 44 of the panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
128
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Ingimundarson
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for the shape of the anterior support of U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 to be that of panel 36 of Ingimundarson such that the rigid central portion has a substantially circular or ellipsoid form factor (The central portion of the insert 259 of Joseph is substantially ellipsoid in shape in view of Ingimundarson.); and each of the rigid first and second extensions: has a respective width that increases continuously along a respective length of extension from the rigid central portion to the respective rounded distal ends (Each of the extensions of the insert 259 of Joseph have a width that increase along a length of the extension away from the central portion in view of Joseph.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the panel 36 is shaped as such so that the central portion can provide support around an incision or sensitive area of the body ([0050]) and so that the lateral supports may support wearers with different body shapes ([0012]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that a panel having a larger surface area distributes any applied force over that area to reduce local pressures applied to a wearer. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the central portion of insert 259 substantially circular or ellipsoidal and for each of the rigid first and second extensions to increase in width continuously along a respective length of extension away from the rigid central portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape that is absent of persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed component is significant is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace Claim 2, but does not claim wherein the anterior abdominal panel is disposed within an anterior abdominal housing configured to be removably or adjustably coupled to the belt portion.
However, Joseph discloses that pocket 258 contains the insert 259 and is disposed on one or both front panels 206, 208. See [0067]. The pocket 258 is interpreted as an anterior abdominal housing as the pocket 258 houses the insert 259 and is capable of being removably coupled to the front panels 206, 208.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 to claim an anterior abdominal housing as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Joseph teaches that the pocket 258 contains the insert 259 ([0067]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to back braces.
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 3, but does not disclose wherein a user-facing surface of the anterior abdominal housing is textured to reduce slippage or drifting of the anterior abdominal housing while the brace is worn.
However, Joseph discloses a plurality of grip strips 150 provided on an interior face of front panels 106, 108 and discloses that “Strips 150 may be arranged in other shapes or configurations than those depicted”. See [0054] and Fig. 1B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 to claim a user-facing surface of the anterior abdominal housing is textured to reduce slippage or drifting of the anterior abdominal housing while the brace is worn as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Joseph teaches that the grip strips 150 prevent shifting of the back brace ([0054]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to back braces.
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 1, but does not claim wherein the anterior abdominal panel is substantially flat and rigid or semi-rigid.
However, Joseph discloses in [0051] that a thermoformable material used in the invention is heat formable within a target temperature range, and is rigid or generally rigid below a minimum temperature. [0051] discloses that an example thermoformable temperature is between 140 to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. [0067] discloses that the insert 259 is made of a thermoformable polymer. Therefore, the insert 259 is semi-rigid at least when below 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, Ingimundarson discloses a posterior panel but states in [0045] that, “It should be remembered, however, that the same concepts and methods described may be similarly used for anterior panels adapted for a spinal orthosis.” [0048] discloses a flat flexible non-lateral posterior panel 28.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 to claim wherein the anterior abdominal panel is substantially flat and rigid or semi-rigid in view of Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the flat shape allows for the panel to conform to the user ([0047]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 1, wherein the belt portion comprises: a first belt portion (Claim 14: “a pair of front panels”);
a second belt portion (Claim 14: “a pair of front panels”); and
a plurality of laces that couple adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions with an adjustable spacing (D) therebetween (Claim 14: “a first lace coupled to a first tensioning mechanism”; “a second lace coupled to a second tensioning mechanism”),
the first posterior sacral panel being coupled proximate to the first end of the first belt portion and the second posterior sacral panel being coupled proximate to the first end of the second belt portion (Claim 14: “a pair of front panels, each having a lateral end and a ventral end, wherein the lateral end of each front panel is releasably coupled to the lateral end of each back panel”).
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 10, but does not claim wherein the first and second posterior sacral panels are permanently secured within respective pockets disposed proximate to the first end of the corresponding first and second belt portions.
However, Joseph discloses the first and second supports 232 are disposed within pockets in the respective back panels 202, 204. See [0061]. The supports 232 sewn or glued so that they are permanently secured within the back panels 202, 204 forming their own pockets and proximate to the first ends of front panels 206, 208.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 to claim wherein the first and second posterior sacral panels are permanently secured within respective pockets disposed proximate to the first end of the corresponding first and second belt portions as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the pockets secure the supports 232 to the back panels ([0061]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 10, wherein the first and second posterior sacral panels are removably secured proximate to the first end of the corresponding first and second belt portions (Claim 14: “a pair of front panels, each having a lateral end and a ventral end, wherein the lateral end of each front panel is releasably coupled to the lateral end of each back panel”).
Regarding claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 10, wherein the first and second belt portions comprise fastening straps at respective second ends configured to adjust an amount of tension in the belt portion based at least in part on an amount of overlap between the second ends of the first and second belt portions and, thereby, contribute to the adjustable stabilizing support, compression and/or alignment to the sacroiliac joint (Claim 14: “wherein the ventral end of each front panel includes an attachment means configured to allow one of the front panels to releasably attach to the other of the front panels generally over the abdomen of the wearer”).
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 13, but does not claim wherein the fastening straps comprise one or more gripping features configured to be grasped by the user while adjusting the amount of tension in the first and second belt portions.
However, Jospeh discloses in [0066] that the central end 242 of one or both of the front panels 206, 208 comprise a mitten pocket 254 on the outer face 244. The mitten pocket 254 is interpreted as a gripping feature as it allows the user to grab the mitten pocket 254 and adjust the amount of tension of the front panels 206, 208.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 to claim wherein the fastening straps comprise one or more gripping features configured to be grasped by the user while adjusting the amount of tension in the first and second belt portions as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the mitten pockets allow the user to adjust the brace ([0066]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 10, but does not claim wherein the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions a plurality of times, thereby forming a plurality of passes of the plurality of laces.
However, Joseph discloses in Fig. 3A that a plurality of laces 262 extending between the adjacent and facing first ends of the front panels 206, 208 a plurality of times. See [0069].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 to claim wherein the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions a plurality of times, thereby forming a plurality of passes of the plurality of laces as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the plurality of laces allow for adjustment of the brace ([0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 15, but does not claim wherein: a first subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along a path that is substantially parallel to a longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions; and a second subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along paths that are askew from the longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions such that passes in pairs of the second subset of the plurality of passes cross one another in a substantially X-shaped pattern.
However, Joseph’s Fig. 3A shows a first subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces 262 that extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the front panels 206, 208 along a path that is substantially parallel to a longitudinal extent of the front panels 206, 208. Fig. 3A shows a second subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces 262 that extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the front panels 206, 208 along paths that are askew from the longitudinal extent of the front panels 206, 208 such that passes in pairs of the second subset of the plurality of passes cross one another in a substantially X-shaped pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 to claim wherein: a first subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along a path that is substantially parallel to a longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions; and a second subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along paths that are askew from the longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions such that passes in pairs of the second subset of the plurality of passes cross one another in a substantially X-shaped pattern as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the plurality of laces allow for adjustment of the brace ([0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 15, but does not claim wherein at least a portion of the plurality of laces extend along a portion of the second belt portion and attach to an adjustment mechanism.
However, Joseph’s [0069] discloses that the laces 262 extend along a portion of the front panel 208 to attach to reel 260. Reel 260 is interpreted as an adjustment mechanism. See Fig. 3A.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 to claim wherein at least a portion of the plurality of laces extend along a portion of the second belt portion and attach to an adjustment mechanism as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the plurality of laces allow for adjustment of the brace ([0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 17, but does not claim wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a pull tab configured to decrease the spacing "D" when the pull tab is pulled away from the user's body while the brace is at least partially secured around the user.
However, Ingimundarson discloses a pulley system 116 comprising cables 138 that are adjusted by the pulling of a handle 128. See [0060] and Fig. 16. The cables 138 are analogous to the plurality of laces 262 of Joseph and the handle 128 of Ingimundarson is interpreted as a pull tab.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 10,517,749 to claim wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a pull tab configured to decrease the spacing "D" when the pull tab is pulled away from the user's body while the brace is at least partially secured around the user as taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the handle 128 allows for a user to pull the handle to adjust the tension of the brace ([0060]) which provides a mechanism for ease of adjustment. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 10-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 in view of US 2014/0135672 (Joseph) and US 2014/0081189 (Ingimundarson). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, claims 13 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 claim the limitations of the present application’s claim 1 except a rigid anterior abdominal panel, the rigid anterior abdominal panel comprising: a rigid central portion having a substantially circular or ellipsoid form factor and configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn; and first and second rigid extensions that each extend away from the rigid central portion in opposite directions, wherein each of the rigid first and second extensions: has a respective width that increases continuously along a respective length of extension away from the rigid central portion, and is configured to be disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of a first and a second anterior side of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn.
However, Joseph discloses an anterior insert 259 that is disposed in a pocket 258 of one or both front panels 206, 208. See [0067] and Fig. 3C. Anterior insert 259 is interpreted as an anterior abdominal panel because the anterior insert is positioned generally on the anterior of the wearer when the brace is placed around the pelvic region of the user. Additionally, Joseph discloses in [0051] that a thermoformable material used in the invention is heat formable within a target temperature range, and is rigid or generally rigid below a minimum temperature. [0051] discloses that an example thermoformable temperature is between 140 to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. [0067] discloses that the insert 259 is made of a thermoformable polymer. Therefore, the insert 259 is rigid when below 140 degrees Fahrenheit. The insert 259 comprises a central portion as shown in Fig. 3D. which is configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn. The insert 259 comprises first and second extensions that each extend away from the central portion in opposite directions as shown in Fig. 3D. The first and second extensions of insert 259 are capable of being disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of the first and second sides of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn. See [0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to make the anterior support of U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 as taught by Joseph such that the combination comprises a rigid anterior abdominal panel (The anterior support is thermoformable material and rigid at room temperature.), the rigid anterior abdominal panel comprising: a rigid central portion configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn (The shape of the anterior support comprises a central portion and is configured to be disposed directly anterior of at least the sacrum of the user when the brace is worn.); and first and second rigid extensions that each extend away from the rigid central portion in opposite directions, and is configured to be disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of a first and a second anterior side of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn (The shape of the anterior support comprises first and second rigid extensions that each extend away from the rigid central portion in opposite directions, and is configured to be disposed directly anterior of a respective sacroiliac joint and at least a portion of the corresponding one of a first and a second anterior side of the ilium of the user when the brace is worn); has a respective rounded distal end (Fig. 3D; insert 259). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Joseph teaches that the insert provides support to the abdominal region of the wearer ([0067]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to body orthotics.
Additionally, Ingimundarson discloses a posterior panel but states in [0045] that, “It should be remembered, however, that the same concepts and methods described may be similarly used for anterior panels adapted for a spinal orthosis.” [0049]-[0050] discloses the features of Fig. 6 which show a central portion, main body 52, and first and second extension, lateral supports 42. The body 52 is substantially an ellipsoid in shape and bulges with respect to the lateral support 42 at notches 44. Additionally, the lateral supports 42 increase in width continuously along a respective length of the support away from the central portion in the notch section 44 of the panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
128
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Ingimundarson
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for the shape of the anterior support of U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 to be that of panel 36 of Ingimundarson such that the rigid central portion has a substantially circular or ellipsoid form factor (The central portion of the insert 259 of Joseph is substantially ellipsoid in shape in view of Ingimundarson.); and each of the rigid first and second extensions: has a respective width that increases continuously along a respective length of extension from the rigid central portion to the respective rounded distal ends (Each of the extensions of the insert 259 of Joseph have a width that increase along a length of the extension away from the central portion in view of Joseph.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the panel 36 is shaped as such so that the central portion can provide support around an incision or sensitive area of the body ([0050]) and so that the lateral supports may support wearers with different body shapes ([0012]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that a panel having a larger surface area distributes any applied force over that area to reduce local pressures applied to a wearer. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the central portion of insert 259 substantially circular or ellipsoidal and for each of the rigid first and second extensions to increase in width continuously along a respective length of extension away from the rigid central portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape that is absent of persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed component is significant is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace Claim 2, but does not claim wherein the anterior abdominal panel is disposed within an anterior abdominal housing configured to be removably or adjustably coupled to the belt portion.
However, Joseph discloses that pocket 258 contains the insert 259 and is disposed on one or both front panels 206, 208. See [0067]. The pocket 258 is interpreted as an anterior abdominal housing as the pocket 258 houses the insert 259 and is capable of being removably coupled to the front panels 206, 208.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 to claim an anterior abdominal housing as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Joseph teaches that the pocket 258 contains the insert 259 ([0067]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to back braces.
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 3, but does not disclose wherein a user-facing surface of the anterior abdominal housing is textured to reduce slippage or drifting of the anterior abdominal housing while the brace is worn.
However, Joseph discloses a plurality of grip strips 150 provided on an interior face of front panels 106, 108 and discloses that “Strips 150 may be arranged in other shapes or configurations than those depicted”. See [0054] and Fig. 1B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 to claim a user-facing surface of the anterior abdominal housing is textured to reduce slippage or drifting of the anterior abdominal housing while the brace is worn as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Joseph teaches that the grip strips 150 prevent shifting of the back brace ([0054]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to back braces.
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 1, but does not claim wherein the anterior abdominal panel is substantially flat and rigid or semi-rigid.
However, Joseph discloses in [0051] that a thermoformable material used in the invention is heat formable within a target temperature range, and is rigid or generally rigid below a minimum temperature. [0051] discloses that an example thermoformable temperature is between 140 to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. [0067] discloses that the insert 259 is made of a thermoformable polymer. Therefore, the insert 259 is semi-rigid at least when below 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, Ingimundarson discloses a posterior panel but states in [0045] that, “It should be remembered, however, that the same concepts and methods described may be similarly used for anterior panels adapted for a spinal orthosis.” [0048] discloses a flat flexible non-lateral posterior panel 28.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 to claim wherein the anterior abdominal panel is substantially flat and rigid or semi-rigid in view of Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the flat shape allows for the panel to conform to the user ([0047]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 1, wherein the belt portion comprises: a first belt portion (Claim 14: “a pair of front panels”);
a second belt portion (Claim 14: “a pair of front panels”); and
a plurality of laces that couple adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions with an adjustable spacing (D) therebetween (Claim 14: “a first lace coupled to a first tensioning mechanism”; “a second lace coupled to a second tensioning mechanism”),
the first posterior sacral panel being coupled proximate to the first end of the first belt portion and the second posterior sacral panel being coupled proximate to the first end of the second belt portion (Claim 14: “a pair of front panels, each having a lateral end and a ventral end, wherein the lateral end of each front panel is releasably coupled to the lateral end of each back panel”).
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 10, but does not claim wherein the first and second posterior sacral panels are permanently secured within respective pockets disposed proximate to the first end of the corresponding first and second belt portions.
However, Joseph discloses the first and second supports 232 are disposed within pockets in the respective back panels 202, 204. See [0061]. The supports 232 sewn or glued so that they are permanently secured within the back panels 202, 204 forming their own pockets and proximate to the first ends of front panels 206, 208.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 to claim wherein the first and second posterior sacral panels are permanently secured within respective pockets disposed proximate to the first end of the corresponding first and second belt portions as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the pockets secure the supports 232 to the back panels ([0061]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 10, wherein the first and second posterior sacral panels are removably secured proximate to the first end of the corresponding first and second belt portions (Claim 14: “a pair of front panels, each having a lateral end and a ventral end, wherein the lateral end of each front panel is releasably coupled to the lateral end of each back panel”).
Regarding claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 10, wherein the first and second belt portions comprise fastening straps at respective second ends configured to adjust an amount of tension in the belt portion based at least in part on an amount of overlap between the second ends of the first and second belt portions and, thereby, contribute to the adjustable stabilizing support, compression and/or alignment to the sacroiliac joint (Claim 14: “wherein the ventral end of each front panel includes an attachment means configured to allow one of the front panels to releasably attach to the other of the front panels generally over the abdomen of the wearer”).
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 13, but does not claim wherein the fastening straps comprise one or more gripping features configured to be grasped by the user while adjusting the amount of tension in the first and second belt portions.
However, Jospeh discloses in [0066] that the central end 242 of one or both of the front panels 206, 208 comprise a mitten pocket 254 on the outer face 244. The mitten pocket 254 is interpreted as a gripping feature as it allows the user to grab the mitten pocket 254 and adjust the amount of tension of the front panels 206, 208.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 to claim wherein the fastening straps comprise one or more gripping features configured to be grasped by the user while adjusting the amount of tension in the first and second belt portions as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the mitten pockets allow the user to adjust the brace ([0066]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 10, but does not claim wherein the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions a plurality of times, thereby forming a plurality of passes of the plurality of laces.
However, Joseph discloses in Fig. 3A that a plurality of laces 262 extending between the adjacent and facing first ends of the front panels 206, 208 a plurality of times. See [0069].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 to claim wherein the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions a plurality of times, thereby forming a plurality of passes of the plurality of laces as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the plurality of laces allow for adjustment of the brace ([0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 15, but does not claim wherein: a first subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along a path that is substantially parallel to a longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions; and a second subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along paths that are askew from the longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions such that passes in pairs of the second subset of the plurality of passes cross one another in a substantially X-shaped pattern.
However, Joseph’s Fig. 3A shows a first subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces 262 that extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the front panels 206, 208 along a path that is substantially parallel to a longitudinal extent of the front panels 206, 208. Fig. 3A shows a second subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces 262 that extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the front panels 206, 208 along paths that are askew from the longitudinal extent of the front panels 206, 208 such that passes in pairs of the second subset of the plurality of passes cross one another in a substantially X-shaped pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 to claim wherein: a first subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along a path that is substantially parallel to a longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions; and a second subset of the plurality of passes of the plurality of laces extend between the adjacent and facing first ends of the first and second belt portions along paths that are askew from the longitudinal extent of the first and second belt portions such that passes in pairs of the second subset of the plurality of passes cross one another in a substantially X-shaped pattern as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the plurality of laces allow for adjustment of the brace ([0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 15, but does not claim wherein at least a portion of the plurality of laces extend along a portion of the second belt portion and attach to an adjustment mechanism.
However, Joseph’s [0069] discloses that the laces 262 extend along a portion of the front panel 208 to attach to reel 260. Reel 260 is interpreted as an adjustment mechanism. See Fig. 3A.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 to claim wherein at least a portion of the plurality of laces extend along a portion of the second belt portion and attach to an adjustment mechanism as taught by Joseph. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jospeh teaches that the plurality of laces allow for adjustment of the brace ([0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Regarding claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 in view of Joseph and Ingimundarson makes it obvious to claim the brace of Claim 17, but does not claim wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a pull tab configured to decrease the spacing "D" when the pull tab is pulled away from the user's body while the brace is at least partially secured around the user.
However, Ingimundarson discloses a pulley system 116 comprising cables 138 that are adjusted by the pulling of a handle 128. See [0060] and Fig. 16. The cables 138 are analogous to the plurality of laces 262 of Joseph and the handle 128 of Ingimundarson is interpreted as a pull tab.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for U.S. Patent No. 11,484,429 to claim wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a pull tab configured to decrease the spacing "D" when the pull tab is pulled away from the user's body while the brace is at least partially secured around the user as taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the handle 128 allows for a user to pull the handle to adjust the tension of the brace ([0060]) which provides a mechanism for ease of adjustment. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to anterior panels on orthoses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seth Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM – 11:00 AM or 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM ET.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571)270-5237. 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.
/SETH R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786