Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to amendment
The amendments dated 9/23/25 amend claims 1, 2, 3, 18 are amended and claim 17 cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 18 recites a “compression device” attachable to the tensioning device. However, it is unclear how these relate to the compression apparatus of claim 1. Claim 18 appears to recite the function which is performed in claim 1 by the compression apparatus being instead performed by a treatment device/ compression device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pigg et al. [US Pat. 6152893, hereinafter “Pigg”].
Re. claim 1, Pigg discloses: A compression apparatus [Figs. 3-5] for applying compression to a body part, the compression apparatus comprising:
a wearable device [100] wearable on the body part, the wearable device comprising a compression portion [6] for applying main compression to the body part [7; Col. 2 lines 16-29]; and
a tensioning device [straps 2] attached to the wearable device and wearable on the body part [Fig. 3], the tensioning device overlaying the compression portion [Fig. 5 shows the straps at least partly overlaying the compression portion 6] and comprising one or more continuous straps [2], each strap comprising:
an inelastic portion [“inelastic section” 60] aligned to the compression portion [Fig. 3] and for arranging on the body part [intended use; but see Fig. 3], the inelastic portion having a first end and a second end opposite to the first end [Annotated Fig. 3]; and
PNG
media_image1.png
452
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an elastic portion [“elastic section” 55] attached to the first end of the inelastic portion [elastic portion 55 is attached to first end of 50 as shown in Annotated Fig. 3],
wherein when the wearable device and tensioning device are worn on the body part, the elastic portion is attachable to the second end of the inelastic portion [via Velcro™ 10, Fig. 3] enabling stretching of the elastic portion and tightening of and the tensioning device around the compression portion [see Figs. 4-5 which show tightening], thereby causing the compression portion to apply base compression to the body part [“the strap 2 is set to the required degree of compression by tightening the strap 2 to show the second green mark 70, and fastening strap 2 using fastening means 10,” Col. 5 lines 4-6];
wherein the main compression adds to the base compression to increase overall compression applied to the body part, and wherein the inelastic portion overlaid on the compression portion facilitates even distribution of the overall compression on the body part [this is the intended use or result of the above apparatus. However, Pigg’s apparatus does achieve this same result; see “The use of a transfer sheet allows transfer of applied tension from the fastening parts to the sheet which in turn transfers an even pressure load across the sheet to the limb,” Col. 2 lines 35-37. The base pressure is the pressure at which there is neither slack nor tension in the straps, and the increased compression is applied when tension is applied to the straps. See Col. 3 lines 45-53].
Re. claim 2, Pigg discloses the elastic portion and the second end of the inelastic portion comprise mutually engageable fastening elements [Velcro ™ hook and loop fasteners respectively, see 10 on the inelastic portion, with mating hook or loop portions on the elastic end of 2, Fig. 5].
Re. claim 3, Pigg discloses the second end of the inelastic portion is knitted, stitched, or bonded to the wearable device [Bonding is disclosed: “Straps 2 are fixed to the opposite edge 50 of the sheet, by any known means such as gluing, lamination, riveting,” Col. 4 lines 62-63].
Re. claim 9, Pigg discloses the tensioning device is integrated with the wearable device [Col. 4 lines 62-63].
Re. claim 10, Pigg discloses a visual device [indicia/colored markings including 70, 25, 30, and 35] cooperative with the tensioning device for informing a level of the base compression [Col. 2 lines 25-32].
Re. claim 18, as best understood, Pigg discloses the treatment device is a compression device attachable to the tensioning device, configured for applying the main compression via the compression portion to the body part in addition to the base compression applied by the tensioning device [Figs. 3-5 and claim 1 above; see 112(b) above].
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigg.
Re. claims 4 and 5, Pigg discloses the apparatus with respect to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose what material the elastic portion comprises. However, Pigg teaches that it is conventional in the art of compression apparatuses to use elastomeric fabric material such as rubber or polyurethane to form an elastic [Col. 1 lines 7-10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Pigg by forming the elastic portion to comprise an elastomeric fabric material (including rubber or polyurethane) as taught in Col. 1 of Pigg because this material is able to “maintain an effective level of compressive force under the bandage over a period of time,” Col. 1 lines 12-15].
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigg in view of McGovern [US 2015/0351469 A1].
Re. claim 6, Pigg discloses the apparatus with respect to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose the material of the inelastic portion. However, McGovern teaches, in a garment, an inelastic portion which comprises taffeta, a smooth fabric material [Par. 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Pigg by using a smooth fabric material, taffeta, for the inelastic portion, as taught by McGovern, because taffeta provides low friction in all directions in all orientations [Par. 0011].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigg in view of Scott et al. [US 2005/0113729 A1, hereinafter “Scott”]
Re. claim 8, Pigg discloses the apparatus with respect to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose the tensioning device being removable. However, Scott teaches, in a compression apparatus, the tensioning device is removably attached to the wearable device [“compression straps 100 can be selectively removed from sleeve 18,” Par. 0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Pigg by configuring the tensioning device to be removable as taught by Scott in order to allow the sleeve to be used independent of the compression strap s[Scott Par. 0032], or for the straps to be replaced e.g. once the elastic has worn out or if a larger strap is desired.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigg in view of Coleman [US 2003/0195449 A1].
Re. claims 11-12, Pigg discloses the apparatus with respect to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose the skin-contact layer. However, Coleman teaches a restrictive garment apparatus wherein the wearable device further includes a skin-contact layer which is a smooth fabric material for interfacing between the wearable device and the body part [“innermost layer,” which comprises a “smooth” nylon fabric, Par. 0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Pigg by configuring the inner layer to be a skin-contact layer which is a smooth fabric material as taught by Coleman in order to improve the comfort of the device [Coleman Par. 0063].
Re. claim 20: Coleman teaches the inner layer being nylon stockings, which are able to wick moisture; therefore, the skin-contact layer of Pigg-Coleman is configured for moisture wicking.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigg in view of Deshpande [US 2012/0078146 A1]
Re. claims 13 and 14, Pigg discloses the apparatus with respect to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose the control module or the inflatable bladder. However, Deshpande discloses, in a compression apparatus, the wearable device comprises a control module [24B] for controlling the main compression applied by the compression portion [Pars. 0020-0021], wherein the compression portion comprises an inflatable bladder [26A-C] for actively applying the main compression to the body part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Pigg by configuring the compression portion to comprise inflatable bladder(s) and the device to include a control module for controlling the main compression applied by the compression portion (by inflating/deflating the bladders), as taught by Deshpande, because this allows for both a pressurization sequence, which improves the flow of bodily fluids [Deshpande Par. 0021] and for the baseline pressure to be adjusted in response to a variety of characteristics [Deshpande Par. 0032].
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigg in view of Biddulph et al. [US 201850338868 A1, hereinafter “Biddulph”]
Re. claim 15, Pigg discloses the apparatus with respect to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose the inelastic portion length configured to be adjusted. However, Biddulph teaches, in a compression apparatus having a strap which is inelastic, an inelastic portion is configured for adjustment of an overall length of the inelastic portion [Par. 0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Pigg by configuring the inelastic portion to be adjustable in length as taught by Biddulph in order to allow a wide range of user sizes to be accommodated [Biddulph Par. 0014].
Re. claim 16, Biddulph further teaches the inelastic portion comprises a plurality of detachably joined sections for adjusting the overall length [Par. 0021. The sections are those parts of the main strap which are cut and the fastening tabs which are also removable].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Pigg by configuring the inelastic portion to comprise a plurality of detachably joined sections for adjusting the overall length as taught by Biddulph in order to allow a wide range of user sizes to be accommodated [Biddulph Par. 0014].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigg in view of Lucero et al. [US 20110009793 A1, hereinafter “Lucero”]
Re. claim 19, Pigg discloses the compression apparatus according to claim 1 but fails to disclose a separate garment comprising the compression apparatus. However, Lucero teaches a garment [shorts 10] comprising a compression apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Pigg by incorporating the compression apparatus into a garment as taught by Lucero because this allows for a multifunctional device which performs the compression function as well as the necessary function performed by the garment, reducing the overall number of parts needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Pigg’s elastic section 55 is not attached to the second end of the inelastic portion because, allegedly, the end of strap 2 is not reasonably mapped to the “elastic portion,” and later argues that Pigg teaches away from the end of strap 2 with indicia being elastic. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See Pigg Col. 3, lines 29-30: “The first end comprises an elastic section and is provided with the indicia.” Thus, the end with indicia being elastic does not render the device unsuitable and is even explicitly disclosed in Pigg. Furthermore, even if it were not, the examiner notes that the elastic portion being “attachable to the second end of the inelastic portion” does not require direct overlay and they may be attached by an intervening member.
Applicant further argues that, even if the end is elastic, the second end of the inelastic portion is incorrectly mapped. Applicant refers to Fig. 1. However, because Fig. 1 is a different embodiment, it cannot be assumed that features of Fig. 1 carry over into the embodiments of Figs. 3-5. Furthermore, there is no specific requirement as to the size of the end, so mapping the end to a larger area than applicant would prefer does not render the rejection invalid.
Applicant argues that the inelastic portion cannot be overlaid with the compression portion. The examiner respectfully disagrees, maintaining that Fig. 3 clearly shows the inelastic portion, containing the Velcro portion 10, overlaid on the compression portion 6.
ConclusionApplicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN MCGRATH whose telephone number is (571)270-0674. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, JACKIE HO can be reached at (571) 272-4696. 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.
/ERIN MCGRATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771