DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10-13 are pending; claims 11-13 are withdrawn.
This action is Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Such as Diller 2011; Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose information.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 are not clear whether the reference to claim 4 was amended or not. For examination purposes claims 5-6 are interpreted as depending on claim 2 since there is no claim 42. Likely the reference to claim 4 was strikethrough, but the form of claim 4 prevents such being discernable. No action is required by applicant, but in the future if only a 4 is being deleted then double bracket indications of removal should be used.
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 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the sacral portion…a sacral portion…the sacral portion…” renders the claim indefinite. The first instance lacks proper antecedent basis, and it is not clear if these are all the same or different. This makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear which renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the limitations of “a user’s” and “a user” render the claims indefinite. The claims depend directly from claim 1 which sets forth “a user” and “the user”. It is unclear if claims 2 and 10 are referring to the same user or to different user than that of claim 1. This makes the metes and bounds of the claims unclear which renders the claims indefinite.
Claim 6 is rejected as it is unclear which “user” “the user’s motion” is further defining. Which makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 is rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations wherein the shoulder portion has higher elasticity of the material of the first region than that of the second region renders the claim indefinite. This claim is a different embodiment than original claim 3, which was amended into claim 1. Claim 1 sets forth that the first region is exposed, meaning there is no material present as explained by the specification: “That is, the shoulder portion 1a may have a shape that does not cover the shoulder blade portion, or may be manufactured by using different materials for the portion of the shoulder blades and the portion between the shoulder blade portions.” Thus, it is not clear how no material (shoulder blade exposure) can have any elasticity related to any aspect of the shirt as there is no material present. It is not clear what is meant by this feature in view of the amendments to claim 1 and the clear support from the disclosure that these are alternative embodiments. Due to the uncertainties and speculation into claim meaning, it would be improper to make speculative prior art rejections for claim 5, In re Steele. MPEP 2173.06: “Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson et al. (Williamson, US 2018/0098732) in view of KR20200137255A (referred as “Document 3”, cited by Applicant in IDS filed 9/28/2023; see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Williamson teaches a smart shirt for assisting lumbar spine, comprising:
a clothing body configured to be worn by a user (see entire document, especially Figures 1-2, 14);
a tail portion extending from a rear surface of the clothing body and formed to cover the sacral portion (see entire document, especially Figure 2, element 44 forms a tail and is capable of covering at least a portion of the sacral portion of a user, see also Figure 14 element 90 also capable of covering a portion of the sacrum as explained in [0059]);
a sensor unit provided on a rear surface of the clothing body to measure a motion of the lumbar spine (see[0020]-[0025]);
a control unit that analyzes an operation state of the lumbar spine based on a measurement value of the sensor unit (see entire document, processor and intended use taught, especially in [0020]-[0025]),
wherein the control unit calculates a biomechanical parameter based on information collected from the first sensor and the second sensor, respectively, analyzes the biomechanical parameter, determines an operation state of the lumbar spine, and performs a lumbar spine motion analysis providing feedback to the user based on the determined information (see entire document, processor and intended use taught, especially in [0020]-[0025]),
wherein the clothing body includes a shoulder portion which is configured such that first regions corresponding to a pair of shoulder blades are exposed and a second region located at a position corresponding to the thoracic portion between the first regions covers the thoracic portion (see entire document, especially Figures 1-2, 14),
However, the limitations of the sensor unit includes a first sensor and a second sensor configured to be disposed on a thoracic portion and a sacral portion, respectively, wherein the first sensor is located between a T3 vertebral spinous process and a T12 vertebral spinous process, and is provided in the second region of the shoulder portion to maintain a predetermined position of the thoracic portion, and wherein the second sensor is located at a point at least 2 cm below a L4 vertebral spinous process, and between a S1 vertebral spinous process and a tip of coccyx, and is provided on the tail portion to maintain a predetermined position of the sacral portion are not directly taught.
Document 3 teaches a related system for monitoring motion (see entire document, especially abstract), and teaches the usage of various sensors positioned on a subject when worn, including the sensor unit includes a first sensor and a second sensor disposed in a thoracic portion and a sacral portion, respectively, where such combination with Williamson reasonably teaches the intended locations of the sensors in the limitations (see Figures below rejection) wherein the first sensor is located between a T3 vertebral spinous process and a T12 vertebral spinous process, and is provided in the second region of the shoulder portion to maintain a predetermined position of the thoracic portion, and wherein the second sensor is located at a point at least 2 cm below a L4 vertebral spinous process, and between a S1 vertebral spinous process and a tip of coccyx, and is provided on the tail portion to maintain a predetermined position of the sacral portion (see entire document, especially Figures 1-2, 4, and claim 1, and Machine translation “Specifically, the first parameter derived through the parameter derivation unit 120 may be a vertebral lordosis angle, an average vertebral lordosis angle, a vertebral lordosis angular velocity, and a square average vertebral lordosis angular velocity. 4(a) is an equation representing the spine lordosis angle, and the spine lordosis angle may be an angle difference between two points measured through the spine posture measurement sensor 110. (Here, the spinal posture measurement sensor 110 may be attached to two or more of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spines.)”; “Referring to FIG. 6, a method for analyzing spine motion according to an embodiment of the present invention includes a data collection step (S110), a first parameter derivation step (S120), and a determination step (S140). The data collection step (S110) is attached to any one or more of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral vertebrae, and can measure the posture and movement of the attached point in the roll, pitch, and yaw direction. In this step, data is collected through the spine posture measurement sensor 110.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including multiple motion sensors along the spine in order to monitor motion and posture of a user for analysis to improve back pain understanding and remedy.
PNG
media_image1.png
994
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
496
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
404
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Source Figure (left) for numerical numbering of the spine (see Next page), primary reference Figure 14 (Middle), secondary reference Figure 2 (right) approximately aligned to show approximately the claimed positions of sensors in the proposed combination.
PNG
media_image1.png
994
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“Human Vertebral Column”, retrieved 11/18/2025 from: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/F2C45N/vertebral-column-with-names-and-numbers-of-the-vertebras-lateral-view-F2C45N.jpg
Claims 2, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson et al. (Williamson, US 2018/0098732) in view of KR20200137255A (referred as “Document 3”, cited by Applicant in IDS filed 9/28/2023; see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR20180064247A (referred as “Document 2”, cited by Applicant in IDS filed 9/28/2023; see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations are met by Williamson in view of Document 3, but does not directly teach further comprising a band portion coupled to the clothing body and configured to surround a user’s waist.
Document 2 teaches a related system for measuring posture (see Machine Translation abstract), and teaches a band portion coupled to the clothing body and configured to surround a user’s waist (see Machine Translation, especially abstract, claim 5; “In the detailed configuration of the present invention, the control means separately stores changes of loads caused by a user's sleeping, sitting, standing, and exercising, and audibly informs whether a load is maintained in a normal range. As a modification of the present invention, the control means further comprises a polymer actuator for tightening or relaxing the wear band with an electrical signal. As described above, according to the present invention, customized information on the waist motion of the user is provided in daily life or hobby activities of the user, thereby recognizing the accuracy of the posture, thereby preventing disease and promoting health.”…“As a modification of the present invention, the control means (30) further comprises a polymer actuator (40) for tightening or relaxing the wear band (10) with an electrical signal. The polymer actuator 40 is an electroactive polymer composite material and is suitable for a thin and compact design. Fig. 3 illustrates a state in which a wire rod-shaped polymer actuator 40 is installed on the cut portion of the wear band 10. Fig. If excessive load is applied to the waist according to the change of the posture when the user measures the load change of the waist while sleeping, the controller 31 detects this state and relaxes the polymer actuator 40 for the set time.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including a posture aid band in order to allow for improvements to posture by monitoring daily movements and activities and responding to load changes.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are met by Williamson in view of Document 3, where Williamson teaches wherein the control unit outputs an analysis value according to the lumbar spine motion analysis (see entire document, processor and intended use taught, especially in [0020]-[0025]), but does not directly teach further includes an operation unit that adjusts a stiffness of a belt based on the analysis value of the control unit, the operation unit is configured of an electrical adhesive clutch including a pair of clutch plates provided on the belt and generating an attractive force attached to each other by an electric signal, and the pair of clutch plates configured to press a user’s abdomen while tightening the belt or keeping the belt loose according to whether the electrical signal is present or absent to adjust a user’s spine stability
Document 2 teaches a related system for measuring posture (see Machine Translation abstract), and teaches an operation unit that adjusts a stiffness of a belt based on the analysis value of the control unit, the operation unit is configured of an electrical adhesive clutch including a pair of clutch plates provided on the belt and generating an attractive force attached to each other by an electric signal, and the pair of clutch plates configured to press a user’s abdomen while tightening the belt or keeping the belt loose according to whether the electrical signal is present or absent to adjust a user’s spine stability (intended use taught by controller controlling polymer actuator, See Figures 1 and 3, where plate is interpreted as the section containing the clutch on left and right in Figure 3, and where the intended use is taught in the Machine Translation, especially abstract, claim 5; “In the detailed configuration of the present invention, the control means separately stores changes of loads caused by a user's sleeping, sitting, standing, and exercising, and audibly informs whether a load is maintained in a normal range. As a modification of the present invention, the control means further comprises a polymer actuator for tightening or relaxing the wear band with an electrical signal. As described above, according to the present invention, customized information on the waist motion of the user is provided in daily life or hobby activities of the user, thereby recognizing the accuracy of the posture, thereby preventing disease and promoting health.”…“As a modification of the present invention, the control means (30) further comprises a polymer actuator (40) for tightening or relaxing the wear band (10) with an electrical signal. The polymer actuator 40 is an electroactive polymer composite material and is suitable for a thin and compact design. Fig. 3 illustrates a state in which a wire rod-shaped polymer actuator 40 is installed on the cut portion of the wear band 10. Fig. If excessive load is applied to the waist according to the change of the posture when the user measures the load change of the waist while sleeping, the controller 31 detects this state and relaxes the polymer actuator 40 for the set time.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including a posture aid band in order to allow for improvements to posture by monitoring daily movements and activities and responding to load changes.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson et al. (Williamson, US 2018/0098732) in view of KR20200137255A (referred as “Document 3”, cited by Applicant in IDS filed 9/28/2023; see Machine Translation) in view of KR20180064247A (referred as “Document 2”, cited by Applicant in IDS filed 9/28/2023; see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Walker US 1,364,663 and Doherty (US 2019/0247221).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations are met by Williamson in view of Documents 3 and 2, except the limitations of wherein the band portion includes a bellows type action band; and a rubber band that is located at a lower end of the action band to prevent the tail portion from lifting up according to the user's motion are not directly taught.
Walker teaches a related system of a garment (see Figure 1), and includes the usage of a band portion includes a bellows type action band (the wales in the figures appear to match the bellows in the instant figures: see Figure 1, page 1 col 1 lines 19-35 “Ordinarily, the greatest strain on garments of the union type comes at the shoulders and at the waist band. This is generally recognized and to provide for such conditions it has heretofore been customary to insert elastics at the shoulders and to provide an elastic waist band for connecting the upper and lower members as. for example, the shirt to the drawers. The waist band not infrequently consists of a knitted fabric having the wales running longitudinally of the band or around the waist in order to provide for the maximum elasticity between the two main sections of the garment.(10) The greatest strength of the knitted band is in the direction of the wales while the greatest elasticity is transverse of the wales.” page 1 col. 2 lines 92-104 “When the wearer bends, the normal elasticity of the band will not be impaired on account of the overlapping portions 6 and 7 because there will be sufficient fullness to allow normal expansion before the overlapping ends are subjected to strain. If the band is stretched to nearly its elastic limit, that is, the limit of stretch, the fullness will be taken out of the ends 6 and 7 and the strain will then come longitudinally of the wales in the overlapping portions so that further stretching or tearing of the band will be resisted.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to allow for strength at a waist but allow for elasticity transverse to the waist.
Doherty teaches a related system for garments (see abstract), and teaches a technique for placing friction material on the inside of a belt to prevent slippage at the waist which reasonably teaches a rubber band that is located at a lower end of the action band to prevent the tail portion from lifting up according to the user's motion (see [0034] “Alternatively, a friction-increasing material (e.g., rubber) can be applied to at least a portion of adjustable belt and/or the inner face of base panel 102 to prevent slipping by garment 100 when worn.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to allow for friction-increasing section to prevent slippage at a waist.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson et al. (Williamson, US 2018/0098732) in view of KR20200137255A (referred as “Document 3”, cited by Applicant in IDS filed 9/28/2023; see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR20160025864A (referred as “Document 1”, cited by Applicant in IDS filed 9/28/2023; see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations are met by Williamson in view of Document 3, except the limitations of wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are attitude heading reference system (AHRS) sensors are not directly taught.
Document 1 teaches a related system of sensing motion in a garment type system (see Figures 1-2, 4), and teaches where motion sensors can be AHRS sensors (see entire document, especially Figures 1-2, 4, and see Machine Translation “The sensors 232, 234, 236, 242, 244, 246 shown in Fig. 2 may be attitude sensors or at least two position sensors for detecting the position of the attachment site. A posture sensor is a sensor that detects variations in three axial directions perpendicular to each other through the center of gravity of an object. Often, an object such as an airplane or a rocket is used to make a proper flight. The three axes are called the pitch axis, the yaw axis and the roll axis, respectively, and the posture of these axes is controlled by using the posture sensor. That is, the attitude sensor is a sensor for detecting a variation with respect to these three axes, and various gyros are used. Conventional gyroscopes use a top, requiring mechanically precise components and a high level of assembly technology. A rate gyro, a vibrating gyroscope, a fluid gyroscope, and a ring laser gyroscope, a fiber optic gyroscope, a nuclear magnetic resonance gyroscope This research will be developed.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of using AHRS as motion sensors in order to allow for the determination of three axis movement between different sensors to monitor vertebral movement on a user.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s submission of amendments to the claims, drawings, and specification filed 8/20/2025.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the drawings; the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the specification; the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; the objections previously are withdrawn. There is an issue with claims 5-6, but no amendment is required.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are partially persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; however, the amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejections.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims in view of prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the updated rejections to the claims necessitated by the amendments to the claims. It is noted applicant argued against the references not teaching the claimed steps that the control unit is claimed as actively performing. However, this is misplaced as no claims have been interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112(f), and the control unit steps are claimed as an intended use as opposed to structural configurations to perform functions and thus are only weighted as intended use of processor structures, which the art structures have and are thus capable of such functions. The rejections are updated as presented above.
Conclusion
No prior art rejections have been applied to claim 5 due to uncertainty and speculation required as explained above, In re Steele.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Almog (US 2022/0298681) teaches related systems using materials in garments of different strengths.
Applicant'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 MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791