DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Rejection for Application 18/621,322 filed March 29, 2024. The present application claims priority under 35 USC 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial Number 63/494,746, filed April 6, 2023. Claims 1-33 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3, 5, 21 and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 16, 2026. Claims 3, 5 and 21 were labelled as withdrawn by the Applicant in the claims filed February 16, 2026 and claim 33 is being withdrawn as the elected species is drawn to a knee garment.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprising tensioner on the garment” should recite a tensioner for proper grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the elastically extensible matrix” should recite the elastically extensible matrix fabric to remain consistent with the terminology used throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the garment of claim 1” should recite the brace garment of claim 1 to remain consistent with the terminology used throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The limitation in claim 11 recites “wherein the at least one tension member is anchored to the triceps surae of the user by a loop at least in part about the triceps surae.” This limitation positively recited the triceps surae of a user as a structural part of the invention. This rejection may be overcome with language such as “wherein the at least one tension member is configured to be anchored to the triceps surae of the user by a loop at least in part about the triceps surae.”
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) 1-2, 4, 7, 9-10, 12-20, 22-27 and 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0146866 (Eberwein et al.) in view of US 2018/0042754 (Ingimundarson et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Eberwein discloses a knitted brace garment configured for enveloping at least a first joint of a human user when the garment is worn by the user ([Abstract] – “The present invention involves a garment for enveloping at least in part a joint, for example a knee of a leg.” [0032] discloses the garment comprises knitted materials. Figs. 9A-10C.), the garment comprising:
an elastically extensible matrix fabric ([0051] – “the extensible material or fabric of the garment is labeled 1812”);
at least one low elasticity web portion having a first zonal fabric different from the matrix fabric (inextensible web 1724a; Since the matrix fabric is extensible and the first zonal fabric is inextensible, they are different.); and
at least one segment of at least one tension member disposed to induce tension in the at least one low elasticity web portion (cable 1730b).
Eberwein does not disclose wherein at least one boundary between the at least one low elasticity web portion and the matrix fabric is a continuously knitted boundary.
However, Ingimundarson discloses knee garment made of knitted fabric having zones of differing properties (Figs. 1A-6A). The boundary between the at least one low elasticity web portion and the matrix fabric is a continuously knitted boundary ([0069] – “The first and second regions 102, 104, 105 are continuously knit to one another to have a continuous structure without interruptions. The first and second regions 102, 104, 105 are integrally knit to one another with the threads or yarns interwoven to one another rather than forming sections stitched to one another by additional threads or yarns. While integrally knit to one another, the first and second regions 102, 104, 105 may be considered discrete relative to one another because they are demarcated relative to one another by their properties, such as elasticity and/or color.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the matrix fabric 1812 and the inextensible web 1724a to transition at a continuously knitted boundary as taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that continuous knitting prevents interruptions in the structure of the device (Ingimundarson [0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Regarding claim 2, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 1, wherein the at least one tension member is disposed along a path that spatially relates the at least one tension member to at least one natural ligament of the knee of the user (Fig. 9A), wherein at least one low elasticity web portion is disposed to apply pressure to one of a lateral side and a medial side of the knee of a wearer for bracing the knee ([0050] – “inextensible web 1724b is disposed to apply a force on the lateral side of the right knee, the force being directed generally toward the medial side of the right knee.”).
Regarding claim 4, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, discloses the brace garment of claim 1, comprising conduits for guiding the at least one tension member (hollow guide 1728b).
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, does not disclose continuously knitting the conduits wherein the conduits are knitted into at least one of the matrix fabric and the at least one low elasticity web portion.
However, Ingimundarson further discloses continuously knitted conduits wherein the conduits are knitted into at least one of the matrix fabric and the at least one low elasticity web portion ([0047] – “Various pockets, channels, and tunnels can be formed by the knitting to introduce: restrictive stays, pads, hot/cold packs, hyper elastic materials, inflatable pouches (liquid or air), webbing, hardware, and/or other customizable elements of bracing and support.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the hollow guide 1728b of Eberwein to be continuously knitted with the inextensible web 1724b of Eberwein as further taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that continuous knitting prevents interruptions in the structure of the device (Ingimundarson [0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Regarding claim 7, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 1, comprising conduits disposed on top of the matrix fabric and the low elasticity web portions to guide the at least one tension member ([0055] – “FIG. 7A, FIG. 7B, FIG. 8A, FIG. 8B, FIG. 9A and FIG. 9B all show guides 1628a, 1628b, 1728a, and 1728b as being disposed along the perimeters of webs 1624a, 1624b, 1724a, and 1724b.”).
Regarding claim 9, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 1, wherein the at least one tension member is anchored to the triceps surae of the user by a loop at least in part about the triceps surae ([0011] – “the proximal end of the second tension member anchored to the belt and the distal end of the second tension member disposed to be anchored by a triceps surae of the first leg of the user.” The tension members described in the summary are the cables described in the detailed description, see [0009].).
Regarding claim 10, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 1, comprising tensioner on the garment arranged for adjusting a tension in the at least one tension member (tensioner 1740b).
Regarding claim 12, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 1, wherein the garment comprises a belt and the at least one tension member has a proximal end and a distal end ([0051] – “The belt is labeled 1810”), the proximal end of the at least one tension member being anchored to the belt and the distal end of the at least one tension member being disposed to be anchored by a triceps surae (Claim 3 – “wherein the first tension member has a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end of the first tension member anchored to the belt and the distal end of the first tension member disposed to be anchored by a triceps surae of the first leg of the user.”).
Regarding claim 13, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 1, wherein at least two segments of the at least one tension member are disposed to longitudinally extend along curved paths that traverse the at least one low elasticity web portion (Fig. 9A; cable 1730b).
PNG
media_image1.png
726
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 13, wherein the curved paths curve in opposing directions to induce tension in the at least one low elasticity web portion (Fig. 9A; cable 1730b).
Regarding claim 15, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 1, wherein at least two segments of the at least one tension member are disposed to longitudinally extend along a curved paths through the matrix fabric proximate two opposing boundaries between the at least one low elasticity web portion and the elastically extensible matrix (Fig. 9A; cable 1730b).
Regarding claim 16, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 15, wherein the curved paths curve in opposing directions to induce tension in the at least one low elasticity web portion (Fig. 9A; cable 1730b).
Regarding claim 17, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 1, wherein two segments of the at least one tension member extend along two corresponding curved paths traversing the at least one low elasticity web portion to induce tension between the two segments of the at least one tension member (Fig. 9A; cable 1730b).
Regarding claim 18, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one low elasticity web portion comprises at least one portion of the first zonal fabric knitted into the matrix fabric (As a result of the modification in the rejection of claim 1, a portion of the first zonal fabric is knitted into the matrix fabric as they are continuously knitted together. Additionally, Ingimundarson discloses [0069] – “the first and second regions 102, 104, 105 may gradually transition into one another due to sharing of certain properties of their knit”.).
Regarding claim 19, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as applied above, discloses the brace garment of claim 18.
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as applied above, does not disclose wherein the at least one low elasticity web portion comprises at least one section of a second zonal fabric having a continuously knitted boundary with the at least one section of the first zonal fabric.
However, Ingimundarson further discloses a second zonal fabric having a continuously knitted boundary with the at least one section of the first zonal fabric ([0051] – “The knitted base of the device can comprise natural and/or synthetic yarns: silk, wool, polyester, nylon, olefin, and interlaced with specialty yarns: moisture management, elasticized, fusible, metallic, Kevlar, silicone, and other types of performance yarns knit into fully fashioned, textured, intarsia, or three-dimensional regions and appendages such as connected tubes, circles, open cuboids, straps, spheres, and other integrated knit shapes.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the inextensible web 1724a of Eberwein to comprise a second zonal fabric having a continuously knitted boundary with the first zonal fabric as further taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the interlaced specialty fibers allow for different properties to be imparted (Ingimundarson [0051]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Regarding claim 20, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 1, comprising at least one low elasticity web portion disposed to partially envelop at least one limb of the user ([Abstract] – “The present invention involves a garment for enveloping at least in part a joint, for example a knee of a leg.”).
Regarding claim 22, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the at least one low elasticity web portion includes an anchor band disposed to anchor the brace garment to a body of the human user (lower inextensible web 1626b; [0048] – “Tensioned cables are the mechanism for generating the required force on the knee joint while the webs of inextensible material either serve as anchors to the torso, thigh or lower leg, or they translate to the knee joint the forces generated by the tension in the cables.”).
Regarding claim 23, Eberwein discloses a method for creating a brace garment for enveloping at least a first joint of a human user when the garment is worn by the user ([Abstract] – “The present invention involves a garment for enveloping at least in part a joint, for example a knee of a leg.” [0032] discloses the garment comprises knitted materials. Figs. 9A-10C.), the method comprising:
an elastically extensible matrix fabric ([0051] – “the extensible material or fabric of the garment is labeled 1812”) at least one low elasticity web portion having a zonal fabric different from the matrix fabric (inextensible web 1724a; Since the matrix fabric is extensible and the first zonal fabric is inextensible, they are different.); and
conduits disposed for receiving inextensible tension members (hollow guides 1728a, 1728b; cables 1730a,1730b),
wherein the tension members when received in the conduits are disposed to induce tension in the at least one low elasticity web portion ([0045] – “tensioned cables are the means for generating the required force on the knee joint while the webs of inextensible material either serve as anchors to the torso, thigh or lower leg, or they translate to the knee joint the forces generated by the tension in the cables.”).
Eberwein does not disclose continuously knitting into the elastically extensible matrix fabric the at least one low elasticity web portion; continuously knitting into the elastically extensible matrix fabric conduits; and wherein at least one boundary between the at least one low elasticity web portion and the matrix fabric is a continuously knitted boundary.
However, Ingimundarson discloses knee garment made of knitted fabric having zones of differing properties (Figs. 1A-6A). The boundary between the at least one low elasticity web portion and the matrix fabric is a continuously knitted boundary ([0069] – “The first and second regions 102, 104, 105 are continuously knit to one another to have a continuous structure without interruptions. The first and second regions 102, 104, 105 are integrally knit to one another with the threads or yarns interwoven to one another rather than forming sections stitched to one another by additional threads or yarns. While integrally knit to one another, the first and second regions 102, 104, 105 may be considered discrete relative to one another because they are demarcated relative to one another by their properties, such as elasticity and/or color.”).
Ingimundarson further discloses continuously knitted conduits wherein the conduits are knitted into at least one of the matrix fabric and the at least one low elasticity web portion ([0047] – “Various pockets, channels, and tunnels can be formed by the knitting to introduce: restrictive stays, pads, hot/cold packs, hyper elastic materials, inflatable pouches (liquid or air), webbing, hardware, and/or other customizable elements of bracing and support.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the matrix fabric 1812 and the inextensible web 1724a to transition at a continuously knitted boundary as taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that continuous knitting prevents interruptions in the structure of the device (Ingimundarson [0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the hollow guide 1728b of Eberwein to be continuously knitted with the inextensible web 1724b of Eberwein as further taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that continuous knitting prevents interruptions in the structure of the device (Ingimundarson [0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Regarding claim 24, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, discloses the method of claim 23.
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, does not disclose wherein the zonal fabric is continuously knitted from the same yarn as the matrix fabric.
However, Ingimundarson further discloses wherein the zonal fabric is continuously knitted from the same yarn as the matrix fabric ([0069] – “the first and second regions 102, 104, 105 may gradually transition into one another due to sharing of certain properties of their knit, such as including shared elastic yarns.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the garment fabric and the inextensible web of Eberwein to be knitted from the same yarn as taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the shared yarn allow for the gradual transition of properties (Ingimundarson [0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Regarding claim 25, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, discloses the method of claim 23.
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, does not disclose wherein the zonal fabric is continuously knitted from a plurality of strands of the same yarn as the matrix fabric.
However, Ingimundarson further discloses wherein the zonal fabric is continuously knitted from a plurality of strands of the same yarn as the matrix fabric. ([0069] – “the first and second regions 102, 104, 105 may gradually transition into one another due to sharing of certain properties of their knit, such as including shared elastic yarns.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the garment fabric and the inextensible web of Eberwein to be knitted from the a plurality of strands of the same yarn as taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the shared yarn allow for the gradual transition of properties (Ingimundarson [0069]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Regarding claim 26, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, discloses the method of claim 24.
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, does not disclose wherein the matrix fabric is knitted using a first stitch pattern and the zonal fabric is continuously knitted from the same yarn as the matrix fabric using a second stitch pattern different from the first stitch pattern.
However, Ingimundarson further discloses wherein the matrix fabric is knitted using a first stitch pattern and the zonal fabric is continuously knitted from the same yarn as the matrix fabric using a second stitch pattern different from the first stitch pattern ([0069] – “the first and second regions 102, 104, 105 may gradually transition into one another due to sharing of certain properties of their knit, such as including shared elastic yarns.” [0050] – “The first area of knitting may be formed of a first stitch configuration, and the second area may be formed of a second stitch configuration different from the first stitch configuration to impart varying textures or properties to a surface of the textile element.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the garment fabric and the inextensible web of Eberwein to be knitted from the same yarn and having different stitch patterns as taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the shared yarn allow for the gradual transition of properties (Ingimundarson [0069]) and the stitch patterns impart various textures and properties (Ingimundarson [0050]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Regarding claim 27, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, discloses the method of claim 23.
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, does not disclose wherein the zonal fabric is continuously knitted from one or more different yarns from the yarn of the matrix fabric.
However, Ingimundarson further discloses wherein the zonal fabric is continuously knitted from one or more different yarns from the yarn of the matrix fabric ([0051] – “The knitted base of the device can comprise natural and/or synthetic yarns: silk, wool, polyester, nylon, olefin, and interlaced with specialty yarns: moisture management, elasticized, fusible, metallic, Kevlar, silicone, and other types of performance yarns knit into fully fashioned, textured, intarsia, or three-dimensional regions and appendages such as connected tubes, circles, open cuboids, straps, spheres, and other integrated knit shapes.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the inextensible web 1724a of Eberwein to comprise a different yarn having a continuously knitted boundary with the garment fabric as further taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the interlaced specialty fibers allow for different properties to be imparted (Ingimundarson [0051]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Regarding claim 29, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, discloses the method of claim 23.
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, does not disclose wherein the zonal fabric is continuously knitted from the same yarn as the as the matrix fabric and from one or more yarns that differ from the yarn of the matrix fabric.
However, Ingimundarson further discloses wherein the zonal fabric is continuously knitted from one or more different yarns from the yarn of the matrix fabric ([0051] – “The knitted base of the device can comprise natural and/or synthetic yarns: silk, wool, polyester, nylon, olefin, and interlaced with specialty yarns: moisture management, elasticized, fusible, metallic, Kevlar, silicone, and other types of performance yarns knit into fully fashioned, textured, intarsia, or three-dimensional regions and appendages such as connected tubes, circles, open cuboids, straps, spheres, and other integrated knit shapes.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the inextensible web 1724a of Eberwein to comprise a different yarn having a continuously knitted boundary with the garment fabric as further taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the interlaced specialty fibers allow for different properties to be imparted (Ingimundarson [0051]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Regarding claim 30, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, discloses the method of claim 23.
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, does not disclose wherein the matrix fabric is knitted using a first stitch pattern and the zonal fabric is continuously knitted using a second stitch pattern different from the first stitch pattern.
However, Ingimundarson further discloses wherein the matrix fabric is knitted using a first stitch pattern and the zonal fabric is continuously knitted from the same yarn as the matrix fabric using a second stitch pattern different from the first stitch pattern ([0069] – “the first and second regions 102, 104, 105 may gradually transition into one another due to sharing of certain properties of their knit, such as including shared elastic yarns.” [0050] – “The first area of knitting may be formed of a first stitch configuration, and the second area may be formed of a second stitch configuration different from the first stitch configuration to impart varying textures or properties to a surface of the textile element.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the garment fabric and the inextensible web of Eberwein to be knitted from the same yarn and having different stitch patterns as taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the shared yarn allow for the gradual transition of properties (Ingimundarson [0069]) and the stitch patterns impart various textures and properties (Ingimundarson [0050]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Regarding claim 31, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, discloses the method of claim 23.
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, does not disclose wherein the conduits are continuously knitted using at least one of a different stitch pattern from a stitch pattern of the matrix fabric, a different yarn from the yarn used for knitting the matrix fabric, and a different number of strands of yarn than the number of strands of yarn used for knitting the matrix fabric.
However, Ingimundarson further discloses wherein the matrix fabric is knitted using a first stitch pattern and the conduits are continuously knitted using a second stitch pattern different from the first stitch pattern ([0050] – “The first area of knitting may be formed of a first stitch configuration, and the second area may be formed of a second stitch configuration different from the first stitch configuration to impart varying textures or properties to a surface of the textile element.”).
Ingimundarson further discloses wherein the conduits are continuously knitted from one or more different yarns from the yarn of the matrix fabric ([0051] – “The knitted base of the device can comprise natural and/or synthetic yarns: silk, wool, polyester, nylon, olefin, and interlaced with specialty yarns: moisture management, elasticized, fusible, metallic, Kevlar, silicone, and other types of performance yarns knit into fully fashioned, textured, intarsia, or three-dimensional regions and appendages such as connected tubes, circles, open cuboids, straps, spheres, and other integrated knit shapes.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the garment fabric and the guides of Eberwein to be knitted having different stitch patterns as taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the stitch patterns impart various textures and properties (Ingimundarson [0050]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the guides of Eberwein to comprise a different yarn having a continuously knitted boundary with the garment fabric as further taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the interlaced specialty fibers allow for different properties to be imparted (Ingimundarson [0051]). Since the guides are modified to include specialty fibers, it comprises a different number of strands of yarn from the garment fabric. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Regarding claim 32, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, discloses the method of claim 23.
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson, as previously applied, does not disclose wherein the zonal fabric is continuously knitted using at least one of a different stitch pattern from a stitch pattern of the matrix fabric, a different yarn from the yarn used for knitting the matrix fabric, and a different number of strands of yarn than the number of strands of yarn used for knitting the matrix fabric.
However, Ingimundarson further discloses wherein the matrix fabric is knitted using a first stitch pattern and the zonal fabric is continuously knitted using a second stitch pattern different from the first stitch pattern ([0050] – “The first area of knitting may be formed of a first stitch configuration, and the second area may be formed of a second stitch configuration different from the first stitch configuration to impart varying textures or properties to a surface of the textile element.”).
Ingimundarson further discloses wherein the zonal fabric is continuously knitted from one or more different yarns from the yarn of the matrix fabric ([0051] – “The knitted base of the device can comprise natural and/or synthetic yarns: silk, wool, polyester, nylon, olefin, and interlaced with specialty yarns: moisture management, elasticized, fusible, metallic, Kevlar, silicone, and other types of performance yarns knit into fully fashioned, textured, intarsia, or three-dimensional regions and appendages such as connected tubes, circles, open cuboids, straps, spheres, and other integrated knit shapes.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the garment fabric and the inextensible fabric of Eberwein to be knitted having different stitch patterns as taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the stitch patterns impart various textures and properties (Ingimundarson [0050]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the inextensible fabric of Eberwein to comprise a different yarn having a continuously knitted boundary with the garment fabric as further taught by Ingimundarson. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ingimundarson teaches that the interlaced specialty fibers allow for different properties to be imparted (Ingimundarson [0051]). Since the inextensible fabric modified to include specialty fibers, it comprises a different number of strands of yarn from the garment fabric. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knitted knee garments.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0146866 (Eberwein et al.) in view of US 2018/0042754 (Ingimundarson et al.), and further in view of US 4,111,194 (Cox et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 4.
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson does not disclose wherein at least one of the conduits extends along a curved path arranged to circumnavigate in part a peroneal nerve of a leg of the user when the garment is worn by the user.
However, Cox discloses an analogous knee brace that extends along a curved path arranged to circumnavigate in part a peroneal nerve of a leg of the user when worn by the user (Col. 4, Lns. 3-6 - “The relieved areas 22 of the shell 10 effectively prevent external contact with the area of the peroneal nerve relieving potential discomfort from this very common occurrence.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the hollow guides of Eberwein to partially circumnavigate the peroneal nerve of a leg of the user when worn by the user as taught by Cox. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Cox teaches that pressure by temporary splints on the area of the knee where the peroneal nerve passes close to the surface causes both pain and involuntary reflex or spasm reactions and contributes both to patient discomfort and extended convalescence of the joint (Cox Col. 1, Lns. 16-20). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to knee braces.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0146866 (Eberwein et al.) in view of US 2018/0042754 (Ingimundarson et al.), and further in view of US 2022/0022567 (Rutckyj et al.).
Regarding claim 8, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 1.
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson does not disclose wherein the at least one tension member is a closed loop.
However, Rutckyj discloses an analogous tensioning system wherein the at least one tension member is a closed loop ([0060] – “leg portion 1110A and leg portion 1110B of garment 1100 each has two substantially inextensible tension members in the form of closed loops threaded through eyelets 1120”; Fig. 5.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the cables of Eberwein to form closed loops as taught by Rutckyj. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Rutckyj teaches that the closed loops allow for adjustment of the garment tensioning one tension member (Rutckyj [0060]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to garments with tensioning members.
Regarding claim 11, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the brace garment of claim 1, wherein the at least one tension member comprises a plurality of strands ([0045] – “The cables may be made from a substantially inextensible material, for example without limitation, PTFE, stainless steel, Nylon®, Kevlar®, one or more ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene based fiber, and a fiber with a diamond weave. The fiber with a diamond weave may be, for example without limitation, cotton, polyester, polypropylene, and Technora®.”).
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson does not disclose wherein the garment comprises a tension evener arranged for evening tension among the plurality of strands.
However, Rutckyj discloses an analogous tensioning system disclose wherein the garment comprises a tension evener arranged for evening tension among the plurality of strands ([0012] – “The tension evener may comprise a whippletree. The whippletree may be a multi-tier whippletree. The whippletree may comprise threadable members disposed for engaging with the substantially inextensible strands of the tension member.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the garment of Eberwein to include a tension evener as taught by Rutckyj. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Rutckyj teaches that the tension evener is arranged for evening tension among the plurality of inextensible tension members (Rutckyj [0011]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to garments with tensioning members.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0146866 (Eberwein et al.) in view of US 2018/0042754 (Ingimundarson et al.), and further in view of US 2022/0256939 (Romo, Jr. et al.).
Regarding claim 28, Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson discloses the method of claim 23.
Eberwein in view of Ingimundarson does not disclose wherein at least one of the different yarns is a melting yarn.
However, Romo discloses an analogous knitted orthotic wherein at least one of the different yarns is a melting yarn (Abstract – “In some embodiments the shell portion includes thermoplastic threads or yarns, which is then hardened by heating the thermoplastic sufficiently to at least partially melt, and thereby fuse together some of the threads or yarns, and then cooling to ambient temperature for enhanced rigidity.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify one of the yarns used in Eberwein to be a melting yarn as taught by Romo. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Romo teaches that the melting yarn enhances the rigidity when cooled after melting. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn knitted orthotics.
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