DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 19, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on March 19, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1, 3-10, 16, and 32-33 are amended, claims 13-14, 20, and 24-25 are cancelled, and claims 34-37 are new, resulting in claims 1-12, 15-19, 21-23, and 26-37 pending for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 15-19, 21-22, and 26-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng (CN 111134409)1,2,3 in view of Miller (US 2018/0325196)3.
With respect to claims 1-3 and 21-22, Weng teaches an adaptive clothing, where at least one component of the adaptive clothing has adaptability based on dilatancy (strain-rate sensitive material), and wherein the adaptability of the dilatancy (strain-rate sensitive material) provides at least one of the viscoelasticity, deformation rate, resilience, hardness, mechanical strength, and energy absorption of the component changes with speed (paragraph [0006]). The adaptive garment is a close-fitting or tight-fitting garment (body-close) (paragraph [0009]). The adaptive garment, for example, provides adaptability based on dilatancy to limit large-scale movement of the chest (configured to provide control of motion of one or more soft-tissue body parts of the user) (paragraph [0407]).
Weng is silent as to the dilatancy material being present in the form of a plurality of anisotropic planar motion cells comprising a first and second subset of motion controlling planar cells as claimed.
Miller teaches an athletic performance garment configured to enhance and improve the wearer’s athletic performance and experience (paragraph [0037]). The garment is configured as a compression garment (paragraph [0047]). The garment includes a first material applied to an outwardly facing side of a fabric panel and a second material applied to an inwardly facing side of the fabric panel (paragraph [0038]). The first and the second materials are applied to the fabric panel in a targeted manner to selectively adjust the compression of the garment to improve the wearer’s athletic performance and experience (paragraph [0051]). The compression of the garment can be selectively adjusted by controlling the pattern of application of the first and second materials (paragraph [0051]). In this way the modulus of elasticity can be increased in particular locations of the garment where additional support and structure are advantageous (paragraph [0052]) by applying more force to the user’s body in these areas, thereby aligning and supporting the wearer’s musculature and connective material as well as acting as a muscle dampener to reduce muscle vibrations, thus improving muscle efficiency and reducing muscle fatigue (paragraph [0068]). Patterns include basket-weave pattern, herringbone pattern, an auxetic pattern, a pattern of repeating circles, polygons, or other shapes, a tessellating pattern, or any of various other patterns (paragraph [0063]).
Miller further teaches the first pattern may be different from the second pattern (paragraph [0064]). As described above, Miller teaches that the compression of the garment can be selectively controlled by changing the pattern (paragraph [0051]), therefore the first pattern would have different control properties from the second pattern. Miller further teaches the first and second materials may be located in first and second regions which are different from each other (paragraphs [0060]-[0061]). For example, as seen in FIGs. 1A and 1B the first pattern 124 is applied to first regions 132 of the fabric panel 104, and the second material 120 is applied in a second pattern 128 to second regions 136 of the fabric panel 104 (paragraph [0060]), therefore the first and second patterns are located in different zones of the wearable item. The first and second materials may be directly applied to the textile of the fabric panel 104 in a liquid or gelatinous state such that the polymer of the at least one of the first and second materials 116, 120 infiltrates the textile, flowing between the strands such that the polymer is embedded in the material (paragraph [0056]). Therefore, the first and second patterns are part of one layer defined by the fabric 104.
Since both Weng and Miller teach athletic garments comprising textiles coated with a material to change the mechanical properties of the textile, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dilatancy material of Weng to be applied in patterns, as described by Miller, in order to selectively adjust the compression of the garment to align and support the wearer’s musculature and connective material as well as acting as a muscle dampener to reduce muscle vibrations, thus improving muscle efficiency and reducing muscle fatigue and improving athletic performance and experience.
With respect to claim 4, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Weng further teaches the energy absorption may be adjusted through the dilatancy component (paragraph [0081]) and Miller teaches the pattern acts as a muscle dampener to reduce muscle vibrations, thus improving muscle efficiency and reducing muscle fatigue (paragraph [0068]).
With respect to claim 5, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Weng further teaches the rigidity (stiffness) can be adjusted through the dilatancy component (paragraph [0081]).
With respect to claims 6-9, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. Weng further teaches the adaptability refers to the automatic adjustment of the performance of the clothing to adapt to changes in environmental conditions such as tension and pressure from the human body and the outside world (paragraph [0110]). At high-speed movement the material shows appropriate rigidity, higher elastic modulus, and support, and at low-speed movement has good elasticity and large ductility when slowly stretched (paragraph [0112]). This allows the garment to meet the needs of the wearer in different scenes such as intense exercise, soothing exercise, and stillness (paragraph [0112]).
Weng teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the low frequencies comprising frequencies below 5 Hz, specifically 1-5 Hz and the high frequencies comprising frequencies above 5 Hz, specifically 10-30 Hx. It is reasonable to presume that the performance at the claimed frequency values are inherent to Weng. Support for said presumption is found in that both Weng and the instant invention use a dilatant to control response in the garment due to changes in applied force, and therefore is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 10-12, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Weng further teaches the adaptability refers to the automatic adjustment of the performance of the clothing to adapt to changes in environmental conditions such as tension and pressure from the human body and the outside world (paragraph [0110]). At high-speed movement the material shows appropriate rigidity, higher elastic modulus, and support, and at low-speed movement has good elasticity and large ductility when slowly stretched (paragraph [0112]). This allows the garment to meet the needs of the wearer in different scenes such as intense exercise, soothing exercise, and stillness (paragraph [0112]).
The limitations "wherein the at least one layer of strain-rate sensitive material is configured to control motion of the one or more body parts of the user in a given direction”, “wherein the given direction comprises one or more of a radial direction from a bone of the user, and a circumferential direction around a bone of a user”, and “wherein the given direction comprises one or more of “a radial direction from a given body part of the user, an axial direction along a given body part of the user, and a circumferential direction around a given body part of the user” are use limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. The use of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed use because as described above, Weng in view of Miller teaches the claimed dilatant structure as well as that the dilatant material responding to changes in movement. For example, the muscle dampening disclosed by Weng in view of Miller would provide control in the radial and circumferential directions. Since Weng teaches the same materials and structure as disclosed by the Applicant, then it would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
With respect to claims 15-17, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Weng further teaches an elastic fabric coated with the dilatancy polymer (paragraph [0449]).
With respect to claims 16 and 18-19, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 above. Weng further teaches the adaptive elastic member based on dilatancy can be formed by blending elastic fibers and dilatancy fibers that are then woven into fabrics (paragraph [0450]).
With respect to claim 26, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above. Weng further teaches pants where the thigh and/or calf have adaptability based on dilatancy (paragraph [0446]). Therefore the bone comprises a femur.
With respect to claim 27, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above. Weng further teaches a bra that has adaptability based on dilatancy (paragraphs [0422]-[0425]). Therefore the body part comprises a torso.
With respect to claim 28, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Weng further teaches the garment comprises a sock (paragraph [0443]).
With respect to claim 29, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Weng further teaches the garment may be a sleeve, such as an elbow sleeve or a knee sleeve (paragraphs [0436]-[0438]).
With respect to claim 30, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Weng further teaches the fabrics may be stacks of multiple layers (paragraph [0455]).
With respect to claims 31-32, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Weng further teaches multiple ways the dilatancy material can be incorporated into a garment, including an elastic member based on dilatancy being composed of an internal dilatancy elastomer and an outer elastic fabric (paragraph [0452]) and can be present in stacks of multiple layers of two-dimensional fabrics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the different stacking methods contemplated by Weng, including a textile layer sandwiched between two dilatancy layers and a dilatancy layer sandwiched between two textile layers, in order to determine which provides the necessary mechanical control and responses. See MPEP 2143. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
With respect to claims 33-35, Weng in view of Miller teaches an adaptive clothing, where at least one component of the adaptive clothing has adaptability based on dilatancy (strain-rate sensitive material), and wherein the adaptability of the dilatancy (strain-rate sensitive material) provides at least one of the viscoelasticity, deformation rate, resilience, hardness, mechanical strength, and energy absorption of the component changes with speed (paragraph [0006]). The adaptive garment is a close-fitting or tight-fitting garment (body-close) (paragraph [0009]). The adaptive garment, for example, provides adaptability based on dilatancy to limit large-scale movement of the chest (configured to control motion of one or more soft-tissue body parts of the user) (paragraph [0407]). Weng further teaches an elastic fabric coated with the dilatancy polymer (paragraph [0449]).
Weng is silent as to the dilatancy material being present in the form of a plurality of anisotropic planar motion cells.
Miller teaches an athletic performance garment configured to enhance and improve the wearer’s athletic performance and experience (paragraph [0037]). The garment is configured as a compression garment (paragraph [0047]). The garment includes a first material applied to an outwardly facing side of a fabric panel and a second material applied to an inwardly facing side of the fabric panel (paragraph [0038]). The first and the second materials are applied to the fabric panel in a targeted manner to selectively adjust the compression of the garment to improve the wearer’s athletic performance and experience (paragraph [0051]). The compression of the garment can be selectively adjusted by controlling the pattern of application of the first and second materials (paragraph [0051]). In this way the modulus of elasticity can be increased in particular locations of the garment where additional support and structure are advantageous (paragraph [0052]) by applying more force to the user’s body in these areas, thereby aligning and supporting the wearer’s musculature and connective material as well as acting as a muscle dampener to reduce muscle vibrations, thus improving muscle efficiency and reducing muscle fatigue (paragraph [0068]). Patterns include basket-weave pattern, herringbone pattern, an auxetic pattern, a pattern of repeating circles, polygons, or other shapes, a tessellating pattern, or any of various other patterns (paragraph [0063]).
Miller further teaches the first pattern may be different from the second pattern (paragraph [0064]). As described above, Miller teaches that the compression of the garment can be selectively controlled by changing the pattern (paragraph [0051]), therefore the first pattern would have different control properties from the second pattern. Miller further teaches the first and second materials may be located in first and second regions which are different from each other (paragraphs [0060]-[0061]). For example, as seen in FIGs. 1A and 1B the first pattern 124 is applied to first regions 132 of the fabric panel 104, and the second material 120 is applied in a second pattern 128 to second regions 136 of the fabric panel 104 (paragraph [0060]), therefore the first and second patterns are located in different zones of the wearable item. The first and second materials may be directly applied to the textile of the fabric panel 104 in a liquid or gelatinous state such that the polymer of the at least one of the first and second materials 116, 120 infiltrates the textile, flowing between the strands such that the polymer is embedded in the material (paragraph [0056]). Therefore, the first and second patterns are part of one layer defined by the fabric 104.
Since both Weng and Miller teach athletic garments comprising textiles coated with a material to change the mechanical properties of the textile, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dilatancy material of Weng to be applied in patterns, as described by Miller, in order to selectively adjust the compression of the garment to align and support the wearer’s musculature and connective material as well as acting as a muscle dampener to reduce muscle vibrations, thus improving muscle efficiency and reducing muscle fatigue and improving athletic performance and experience.
With respect to claim 36, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 33 above. Weng further teaches the energy absorption may be adjusted through the dilatancy component (paragraph [0081]) and Miller teaches the pattern acts as a muscle dampener to reduce muscle vibrations, thus improving muscle efficiency and reducing muscle fatigue (paragraph [0068]).
With respect to claim 37, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 33 above. Weng further teaches the rigidity (stiffness) can be adjusted through the dilatancy component (paragraph [0081]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng (CN 111134409)4,5,6 in view of Miller (US 2018/0325196)3 as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Kwok (US 2020/0138141)3.
With respect to claim 23, Weng in view of Miller teaches all the limitations of claim 22 above.
Weng in view of Miller is silent as to the tessellation pattern being a Voronoi tessellation pattern.
Kwok teaches headgear to provide protection for the wearer’s head by dissipating and attenuating energy received during impact or other force to the head (paragraph [0034]). Part of the helmet comprises cells based on a Voronoi partition of space to control density and orientation of the cells followed by optimization of material and bulk material characteristics such as density and viscoelasticity (paragraph [0169]). The cells may be filled with a dilatant od shear thickening or energy absorbing foam or fluid (paragraph [0169]).
Since both Weng in view of Miller and Kwok teach energy absorbing structures comprising dilatant materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dilatancy material pattern to be based on an optimized Voronoi tessellation pattern as described in Kwok in order to control orientation and density of the pattern to arrive at the desired energy absorption structure.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments submitted on March 19, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the response Applicant submits that in amended claim 1 the first geometry is associated with a first subset of motion controlling planar cells and the second geometry is associated with a second subset of motion controlling planar cells, both of which are included as part of one layer of strain-rate sensitive material. However, Applicant asserts that the first pattern and the second pattern in Miller are two different materials, in contrast to amended claim 1. Applicant further submits that the patterns are not on one layer as is claimed.
These arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the first and second subsets of motion controlling planar cells comprising the same material) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 only states that the at least one layer is of a strain-rate sensitive material, but does not require the same strain-rate sensitive material be used all throughout the layer. Therefore the use of different strain-rate sensitive materials, as disclosed in Miller, is within the scope of the claim. Furthermore, Miller teaches the first material and the second material can be the same material (paragraph [0055]). Additionally, Miller is relied on to modify the dilatancy material of Weng to be in first and second patterns. Weng teaches the use of one dilatancy material, therefore it is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to use the dilatancy material of Weng and the two patterns of Miller as suggested by the combination.
With respect to the first and second patterns not being one layer, Miller teaches the first and second materials may be directly applied to the textile of the fabric panel 104 in a liquid or gelatinous state such that the polymer of the at least one of the first and second materials 116, 120 infiltrates the textile, flowing between the strands such that the polymer is embedded in the material (paragraph [0056]). Therefore, the first and second patterns are part of one layer defined by the fabric 104.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Machine translation used as reference
2 Cited in IDS
3 Previously presented
4 Machine translation used as reference
5 Cited in IDS
6 Previously presented
Prosecution Insights