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 amendment filed 12/09/2025 has been entered. Currently, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Independent claim 1 was amended by Applicant without the addition of new matter. Additionally, claims 2-20 were amended to overcome previous drawing objections, claim objections, and 35 USC 112(B) rejections.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pages 10-15 filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore the grounds of rejection written below maintains the prior art of record: Spade (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150305908), Mueller et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140358055), Schuren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7854716), Watts (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20190000192), Gomes et al. (WO 2018186803 A1), Morrisseau (U.S. Patent No. 5968002), Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20100005568), Rousso et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20080255494), Nelson et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20030204156), Roscoe (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20020084296), McRae (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170079826), and Ramirez (WO 2022235964 A1).
3. Applicant makes the argument that “unlike prior art, Applicant’s primary and secondary straps only apply spiral force to a single limb segment, either proximal or distal to the joint not crossing the joint, so to not compress or restrict the joint, only the distal tibia/fibula/radius/ulna but not the proximal bones of the limbs ” (Remarks, Page 10, last paragraph and all of Page 11).
In response to Applicant’s argument (Remarks, Page 10, last paragraph and all of Page 11), this very narrowing negative limitation of not applying force to the proximal bones is not claimed. Examiner notes that such an amendment as supported by Applicant’s Figures 12-13 would overcome the prior art of record. However, Examiner notes that claim 1 currently recites “stretch around a joint” which is a contradictory embodiment to this argument.
4. Applicant makes the argument that “none of the prior art teach frictional engagement with a sleeve and two staged tensioning spiral straps ” (Remarks, all of page 12).
In response to Applicant’s argument (Remarks, all of page 12), Spade has the frictional sleeve 14 having the first strap 12. Then Mueller teaches adding a second control strap 62a stacked on top of the first strap. Then Schuren is applied to teaches a spiral pattern of the strap. Therefore, the combination as a whole reads on the recited claimed structural and functional limitations.
5. Applicant makes the argument that “there is large number of prior art leading to piecemeal hindsight reasoning. The references are from knee, elbow, ankle, calf, thigh, valgus, and general compression. There is no motivation to combine and the generalized statements of improving tightening, adjusting force, or stability do not relate to Applicant’s purpose” (Remarks, all of page 13 and 14).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and resultingly that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Examiner respects that Applicant’s invention has multiple individual features to make the whole, but each prior art of record applied has analogous structure tying them together to read on all the recited individual structural/functional features without teaching away from one another or destroying operability in the combination as a whole. Spade has the frictional sleeve 14 having the first strap 12. Then Mueller teaches adding a second control strap 62a stacked on top of the first strap. Then Schuren is applied to teaches a spiral pattern of the strap. Therefore, the combination as a whole reads on the recited claimed structural and functional limitations. In response to applicant's argument that prior art is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the prior art is within the same field of endeavor of worn devices for user’s joint as well as problems faced by the inventor such as stacking straps and materials; see MPEP 2141.01(a). Additionally, even Applicant’s claim 17 recites knee, elbow, wrist devices as substitutable. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, each motivation statement is supported by the reference and addresses advantages similar to Applicant’s or even other advantages when applied. Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejections from the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/09/2025 is maintained below to correspond to the amended claims.
6. Overall, Examiner notes that Applicant may overcome the prior art of record by reciting the negative limitation as discussed above. Additional positive limitations such as the anchor point attached with stitching at a free edge of both the primary and secondary strap would also overcome the prior art. Furthermore, a “consisting” transitional phrase in the preamble or body would potentially prevent combinations and references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spade (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150305908) in view of Mueller et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140358055) and in further view of Schuren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7854716).
Regarding claim 1, Spade discloses a joint facilitation and locking system (Paragraphs 21-22, 27-28, 30, and Figure 1, knee brace 10 comprising compression sleeve 14 and primary elastic strap 12 that is attached to tubular sleeve 14 at one end then spirals around the sleeve 14 and attaches at its other end 12b to the sleeve 14 by hook-loop fasteners locks 42) comprising a compression sleeve 14 and a primary locking mechanism 12 that comprises an elastic 12 configured to stretch around a joint to apply corrective force in a spiral pattern inherent in joints with an asymmetrical pattern, wherein the primary locking mechanism 12 comprises a two-stage locking mechanism (Paragraphs 27-28 and 30 and Figure 1, first end 12a of strap 12 initially secured to sleeve 14 by sewing or Velcro and second end of strap attached to sleeve 14 by Velcro 42) with an initial locking system and a joint facilitation tail 12B held in place with a hook and loop material 42 (Paragraph 30 and Figure 1, fastener strip 42 at end 12b).
However, Spade fails to explicitly (1) a secondary locking mechanism comprises an elastic configured to stretch around a joint to apply corrective force in wherein the secondary locking mechanism allows for further joint facilitation and fine-tuning of the applied corrective force; (2) the secondary locking mechanism elastic configured in a spiral pattern inherent in joints with an asymmetrical pattern.
Mueller teaches an analogous joint facilitation and locking system (Paragraphs 28-34, 38, 59, and 65, and Figures 1A-2A, elbow brace 20 with compression sleeve 37, primary elastic base strap 22 wrapped around elbow joint, and secondary elastic tension strap 62A stacked on the outside of the primary strap 122 stitched together at one anchor point 72 and attached at the free end with hook-loop 66) comprising an analogous compression sleeve 37 and an analogous primary locking mechanism 22 and a secondary locking mechanism 62A that comprises an elastic configured to stretch around a joint to apply corrective force in wherein the secondary locking mechanism 62A allows for further joint facilitation and fine-tuning of the applied corrective force by the analogous primary locking mechanism 22.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the compression sleeve and the elastic primary locking mechanism of Spade, a secondary locking mechanism that also comprises an elastic material configured to stretch around a joint to apply corrective force in wherein the secondary locking mechanism allows for further joint facilitation and fine-tuning of the applied corrective force, as taught by Mueller, in order to provide an improved joint facilitation and locking system with an enhanced compression sleeve and the elastic primary locking mechanism that has an additional elastic material secondary locking mechanism stacked onto the primary locking mechanism for desirable further tightening and fastening thereto for increasing tension adjustability (Mueller, Paragraphs 28-34).
However, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller fails to explicitly (2) the secondary locking mechanism elastic configured in a spiral pattern inherent in joints with an asymmetrical pattern.
Schuren teaches an analogous joint facilitation and locking system (Col. 10, lines 56-67, Col. 11, lines 1-18 and Figures 3A-3E, primary elastic strap 10 and secondary elastic strap 20 applied directly overlapping stacked arraignment with primary strap 10 in helical spiral around user’s leg) comprising an analogous primary locking mechanism 10 and an analogous secondary locking mechanism elastic 20 configured in an analogous spiral pattern inherent in joints with an asymmetrical pattern.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stacked primary and secondary locking mechanism of Spade in view of Mueller, so that the stacking is configured in a spiral pattern inherent in joints with an asymmetrical pattern, as taught by Schuren, in order to provide an improved joint facilitation and locking system with an enhanced primary and secondary locking mechanism where both the primary and secondary straps have a length to spirally stack onto one another around the user’s body part for a spiral force adjustable tension profile (Schuren, Col. 10, lines 56-67 and Col. 11, lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren discloses the invention as described in claim 1 and further discloses wherein the primary locking mechanism (Spade, Paragraphs 21-22, 27-28, 30, and Figure 1, primary elastic strap; Mueller, Paragraphs 28-34, 38, and 59, and Figures 1A-2A, primary elastic strap 22; Schuren, Col. 10, lines 56-67, Col. 11, lines 1-18 and Figures 3A-3E, primary elastic strap 10) and the secondary locking mechanism (Mueller, Paragraphs 28-34, 38, and 59, and Figures 1A-2A, secondary elastic strap 62A; Schuren, Col. 10, lines 56-67, Col. 11, lines 1-18 and Figures 3A-3E, secondary elastic strap 20) are made of elastic material.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren discloses the invention as described in claim 1. Spade further discloses wherein the joint facilitation tail 12B of the primary locking mechanism 12 is detachable and adjustable (Paragraph 30 and Figure 1, fastener strip 42 at end 12b for adjustable detachment).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spade (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150305908) in view of Mueller et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140358055) in view of Schuren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7854716), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Ramirez (WO 2022235964 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren discloses the invention as described in claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the compression sleeve has a silicone-like layer to prevent the primary and secondary locking mechanisms from sliding around on the skin.
Ramirez teaches an analogous joint facilitation and locking system (Paragraphs 31 and 73 and Figure 2C, joint device 100 with sleeve 102 and straps 300a,300b thereon) wherein the analogous compression sleeve 102 has a silicone layer 122 (Paragraph 31 and Figure 2C, silicone layer 122 on interior skin-facing side of sleeve 102, thereby also preventing the straps 300a,300b from slipping since the sleeve 102 doesn’t slip) to prevent the analogous primary and secondary locking mechanism 300a,300b from sliding around on the skin.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an interior layer of the compression sleeve of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren, so that the compression sleeve has a silicone layer to prevent the primary and secondary locking mechanisms from sliding around on the skin, as taught by Ramirez, in order to provide an improved joint facilitation and locking system with an enhanced compression sleeve that is gripped onto the skin for preventing sliding during gait movement as well as keeping the strap tightened around the correct body joint position during active use (Ramirez, Paragraphs 31 and 73).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spade (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150305908) in view of Mueller et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140358055) in view of Schuren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7854716), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20100005568).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren discloses the invention as described in claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the compression sleeve has a compression range of 10-20 mmhg.
Smith teaches an analogous compression sleeve 10 (Paragraph 22 and Figure 1, compression sock sleeve 10 with light compression of 10-15 mmHg; see MPEP 2144.05(I) prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges as the prior art range of 10-15mmHg falls within and is narrower than the claimed range of 10-20mmHg) has a compression range of 10-20 mmhg.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a compressive material range of the compression sleeve of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren, so that the compression sleeve has a compression range of 10-20 mmHg, as taught by Smith, in order to provide an improved joint facilitation and locking system with an enhanced compression sleeve that is ideal for tired and fatigued legs to promote desirable venous circulation (Smith, Paragraph 22).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spade (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150305908) in view of Mueller et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140358055) in view of Schuren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7854716) in view of Ramirez (WO 2022235964 A1), as applied to claim 2, and in further view of McRae (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170079826).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Ramirez discloses the invention as described in claim 2 but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the silicone layer on the compression sleeve is made of medical grade silicone.
McRae teaches an analogous compression sleeve (Paragraph 16 and Figure 1 and 7-8, ACL knee band sleeve 10 made of medical grade silicone) is made of analogous silicone that is medical grade.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silicone used in the silicone layer material on the interior surface of the compression sleeve of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Ramirez, so that the silicone is made of medical grade silicone, as taught by McRae, in order to provide an improved joint facilitation and locking system with an enhanced silicone of the compression sleeve that is medical grade for desirable hypo-allergenic to reduce the likelihood of skin reactions (McRae, Paragraph 16).
Claims 7-8, 10-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spade (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150305908) in view of Mueller et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140358055) and in further view of Schuren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7854716) and Watts (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20190000192) and Gomes et al. (WO 2018186803 A1) and Morrisseau (U.S. Patent No. 5968002) and Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20100005568).
Regarding claim 7, Spade discloses a joint alignment device(Paragraphs 21-22, 27-28, 30, and Figure 1, knee brace 10 comprising compression sleeve 14 and primary elastic strap 12 that is attached to tubular sleeve 14 at one end then spirals around the sleeve 14 and attaches at its other end 12b to the sleeve 14 by hook-loop fasteners locks 42) comprising: a locking strap 12 configured to wrap around a sleeve 14 worn over a user’s joint and comprises a primary strap 12 made of an elastic material; where the sleeve 14 provides compression; where the primary strap 12 includes an end stage lock 42 (Paragraphs 27-28 and 30 and Figure 1, second end of strap attached to sleeve 14 by Velcro 42) on a skin-facing side for securing the joint alignment device in place; and wherein the primary strap is designed to apply corrective force in a spiral pattern around the joint for improved joint mobility and function.
However, Spade fails to explicitly disclose (1) a secondary strap made of an elastic material; an anchor point located on the secondary strap for attaching to the primary strap; and a hook located on a non-silicone side of the primary and secondary straps for attaching the primary and secondary straps together, thereby enabling adjustment of a joint alignment device's tension and compression around the joint; (2) the secondary strap is designed to apply corrective force in a spiral pattern around the joint for improved joint mobility and function; (3) the primary strap having a silicone side intended to face towards a user’s skin to prevent slippage; where the primary strap includes an end stage lock on the silicone side for securing the joint alignment device in place; (4) the secondary strap having a silicone side intended to face towards a user’s skin to prevent slippage; (5) wherein the stage lock comprises a second stage lock and a first stage lock; (6) where the sleeve or sock provides mild to moderate compression.
Mueller teaches an analogous joint alignment device (Paragraphs 28-34, 38, 59, 65, and Figures 1A-2A, elbow brace 20 with compression sleeve 37, primary elastic base strap 22 wrapped around elbow joint, and secondary elastic tension strap 62A stacked on the outside of the primary strap 122 stitched together at one anchor point 72 and attached at the free end with hook-loop 46) comprising an analogous compression sleeve 37 and an analogous primary strap 22 and a secondary strap 62A made of an elastic material; an anchor point 72 located on the secondary strap 62A for attaching to the analogous primary strap 22; and a hook (Paragraphs 28-34 38, 59, 65 and Figures 1A-2A, straps 22 and 62a are made of same material. There is a hook-loop 28 exterior non-skin facing surface 32a of primary strap 22 for attaching with hook-loop 46 at end of skin-facing side of secondary strap 62A. Also, the hook or loop fabric material is interchangeably substitutable with one another) located on a non-silicone or non-skin-facing side 32A,62A of the analogous primary strap 22 and secondary strap 62A for attaching the analogous primary strap 22 and secondary strap 62A together, thereby enabling adjustment of a joint alignment device's tension and compression around the joint.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the compression sleeve and the elastic primary strap of Spade, so that there is also a secondary strap also made of an elastic material; an anchor point located on the secondary strap for attaching to the primary strap; and a hook located on a non-silicone side of the primary and secondary straps for attaching the primary and secondary straps together, thereby enabling adjustment of a joint alignment device's tension and compression around the joint, as taught by Mueller, in order to provide an improved joint alignment device with an enhanced compression sleeve and the elastic primary strap that has an additional secondary elastic strap anchored and stacked onto the primary strap for desirable further tightening and fastening thereto for increasing tension adjustability (Mueller, Paragraphs 28-34 and 65).
However, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller fails to explicitly disclose (2) the secondary strap is designed to apply corrective force in a spiral pattern around the joint for improved joint mobility and function; (3) the primary and secondary strap having a silicone side intended to face towards a user’s skin to prevent slippage; where the primary strap includes an end stage lock on the silicone side for securing the joint alignment device in place; (4) the secondary strap having a silicone side intended to face towards a user’s skin to prevent slippage; (5) wherein the stage lock comprises a second stage lock and a first stage lock; (6) where the sleeve or sock provides mild to moderate compression.
Schuren teaches an analogous joint alignment device (Col. 10, lines 56-67, Col. 11, lines 1-18 and Figures 3A-3E, primary elastic strap 10 and secondary elastic strap 20 applied directly overlapping stacked arraignment with primary strap 10 in helical spiral around user’s leg) comprising an analogous primary elastic strap 10 and an analogous secondary elastic strap20 is designed to apply corrective force in an analogous spiral pattern around the joint for improved joint mobility and function.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stacked primary and secondary locking mechanism of Spade in view of Mueller, so that the stacking is designed to apply corrective force in a spiral pattern around the joint for improved joint mobility and function, as taught by Schuren, in order to provide an improved joint alignment device with an enhanced primary and secondary strap where both the primary and secondary straps have a length to spirally stack onto one another around the user’s body part for a spiral force adjustable tension profile (Schuren, Col. 10, lines 56-67 and Col. 11, lines 1-18).
However, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren fails to explicitly disclose (3) the primary and secondary strap having a silicone side intended to face towards a user’s skin to prevent slippage; where the primary strap includes a stage lock on the silicone side for securing the joint alignment device in place; (4) the secondary strap having a silicone side intended to face towards a user’s skin to prevent slippage; (5) wherein the stage lock comprises a second stage lock and a first stage lock; (6) where the sleeve or sock provides mild to moderate compression.
Watts teaches an analogous primary strap 400 (Paragraphs 55 and 58-59 and Figure 8, medical strap 400 with inner skin facing surface having textured 424 silicone 422 for grip and at end of inner surface has hook fasteners 482 for securing to corresponding loop to tighten in place) having a silicone side 422 intended to face towards a user’s skin to prevent slippage; where the analogous primary strap 400 includes an the analogous end stage lock 482 on the silicone side 422 for securing in place.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary strap of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren, so that the primary strap has a silicone side intended to face towards a user’s skin to prevent slippage; where the primary strap includes an stage lock on the silicone side for securing the joint alignment device in place, as taught by Watts, in order to provide an improved joint alignment device with an enhanced primary strap material that has gripping silicone surface on a skin-facing side with an end hook for fastening as well as a non-skin facing opposite side that is formed by a loop fabric surface for desirable operability and support during use (Watts, Paragraphs 55 and 58-59).
However, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts fails to explicitly disclose (4) the secondary strap having a silicone side intended to face towards a user’s skin to prevent slippage; (5) wherein the stage lock comprises a second stage lock and a first stage lock; (6) where the sleeve or sock provides mild to moderate compression.
Gomes teaches an analogous joint alignment device (Page 3, lines 18-2, Page 7, lines 26-30 and Figure 1D and 4, compression tight sleeve 1 with outer and inner elastic straps 10B,10C that cross and overlap around knee and have silicone skin facing surface layer 40) comprising an analogous compression sleeve 1 and analogous primary strap 10C and analogous secondary strap 10B both having a silicone side 40 intended to face towards a user’s skin to prevent slippage.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stacked secondary strap of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts, so that the secondary strap also has a silicone side intended to face towards a user’s skin to prevent slippage, as taught by Gomes, in order to provide an improved joint alignment device with an enhanced secondary strap that also has a silicone skin-facing surface for increased grip such as when overlapping with the primary strap to increase frictional connection thereat (Gomes, Page 3, lines 18-2 and Page 7, lines 26-30).
However, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes fails to explicitly disclose (5) wherein the stage lock comprises a second stage lock and a first stage lock; (6) where the sleeve or sock provides mild to moderate compression.
Morrisseau teaches an analogous joint alignment device (Col. 4, lines 16-30 and Figure 5, sleeve 1 and strap 4 applied thereon wherein strap is attached at ends to sleeve by Velcro as well as attached at its central portion by Velcro) comprising an analogous compression sleeve 1 and analogous primary strap 4 wherein the analogous stage lock (Col. 4, lines 16-30 and Figure 5, Velcro at strap 4 ends and at strap center) comprises a second stage analogous end lock (Col. 4, lines 16-30 and Figure 5, velcro at end of strap 4) and a first central stage lock (Col. 4, lines 16-30 and Figure 5, velcro at center of strap 4).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end stage lock of the primary strap on the skin-facing silicone surface of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes, so that the primary strap also comprises a first stage lock in additional to the second end stage lock, as taught by Morrisseau, in order to provide an improved joint alignment device with an enhanced primary strap having an additional central stage lock at the middle of the strap on its skin-facing side for attaching to sleeve at multiple location increasing tension and secure fit (Morrisseau, Col. 4, lines 16-30).
However, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau fails to explicitly disclose (6) where the sleeve or sock provides mild to moderate compression.
Smith teaches an analogous sleeve 10 (Paragraph 22 and Figure 1, compression sock sleeve 10 with light mild compression of 10-15 mmHg) provides mild to moderate analogous compression.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a compressive material range of the compression sleeve of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau, so that the compression sleeve provides mild to moderate compression, as taught by Smith, in order to provide an improved joint facilitation and locking system with an enhanced compression sleeve that is ideal for tired and fatigued legs to promote desirable venous circulation (Smith, Paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith discloses claim 7 as described above and further discloses wherein the first stage lock (Morrisseau, Col. 4, lines 16-30 and Figure 5, strap 4 is attached to sleeve at central portion of strap 4 by Velcro) and the second stage lock (Spade, Paragraphs 21-22, 27-28, 30, and Figure 1, Velcro 42 at end 12b; Mueller, Paragraphs 28-34, 38, 59, 65, and Figures 1A-2A, velcro 66 at end of first strap 22; Watts, Paragraphs 55 and 58-59 and Figure 8, Velcro fastener 482 at end of inner surface of strap 400; Morrisseau, Col. 4, lines 16-30 and Figure 5, strap 4 is attached to sleeve at end by Velcro) are secured using hook and loop material, allowing for adjustable tension and compression by the user.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith discloses claim 7 as described above. Spade further discloses wherein the sleeve 14 (Paragraphs 21-22, 27-28, 30, and Figure 1, leg knee sleeve 14) is a leg sleeve14 configured to support a specific joint including a knee.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith discloses claim 7 as described above and further discloses wherein the silicone side (Watts, Paragraphs 55 and 58-59 and Figure 8, silicone inner side of primary strap 400; Gomes, Page 3, lines 18-2, Page 7, lines 26-30 and Figure 1D and 4, silicone 40 inner skin-facing side of straps 10B,10C) of the primary and secondary straps features a textured surface (Watts, Paragraphs 55 and 58-59 and Figure 8, silicone textured treads) to increase friction and prevent movement during physical activities.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith discloses claim 7 as described above and further discloses wherein the primary strap’s first stage lock (Morrisseau, Col. 4, lines 16-30 and Figure 5, strap 4 is attached to sleeve at central portion of strap 4 by Velcro) is located at a center between two ends of the primary strap, providing an initial secure fit around the joint.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith discloses claim 7 as described above. Spade further discloses wherein the second stage lock (Spade, Paragraphs 21-22, 27-28, 30, and Figure 1, Velcro 42 at end 12b; Mueller, Paragraphs 28-34, 38, 59, 65, and Figures 1A-2A, velcro 66 at end of first strap 22; Watts, Paragraphs 55 and 58-59 and Figure 8, Velcro fastener 482 at end of inner surface of strap 400; Morrisseau, Col. 4, lines 16-30 and Figure 5, strap 4 is attached to sleeve at end by Velcro) of the primary strap is located at one end of the strap, functioning as a joint facilitation tail to apply additional corrective force in a spiral pattern.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith discloses claim 7 as described above and further discloses wherein the secondary strap is attached on top (Mueller, Paragraphs 28-34, 38, and 59, and Figures 1A-2A, primary elastic strap 22 underneath secondary elastic strap 62A; Schuren, Col. 10, lines 56-67, Col. 11, lines 1-18 and Figures 3A-3E, primary elastic strap 10 underneath secondary elastic strap 20; Gomes, Page 3, lines 18-2, Page 7, lines 26-30 and Figure 1D and 4, strap 10C is underneath strap 10B when they cross over one another and both straps 10B,10C have silicone on skin-facing inward side) of the primary strap, with the silicone side facing inward (Watts, Paragraphs 55 and 58-59 and Figure 8, silicone inner side of primary strap 400; Gomes, Page 3, lines 18-2, Page 7, lines 26-30 and Figure 1D and 4, silicone 40 inner skin-facing side of straps 10B,10C), towards the non-silicone side (Mueller, Paragraphs 28-34, 38, and 59, Paragraphs 28-34 38, 59, 65 and Figures 1A-2A, there is a hook-loop 28 exterior non-skin facing surface 32a of primary strap 22 for attaching with hook-loop 46 at end of skin-facing side of secondary strap 62A) of the primary strap to enhance joint facilitation.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith discloses claim 7 as described above and further discloses wherein an attachment of the primary and secondary straps to the sleeve is performed by sewing (Spade, Paragraph 28, primary strap 12 attached to sleeve 14 by sewing; Mueller, Paragraphs 28-34, 38, and 59, Paragraphs 28-34 38, 59, 65 and Figures 1A-2A, straps 22 and 62A attached at an end by sewing 72), ensuring a durable and permanent attachment suitable for repeated use.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith discloses claim 7 as described above. Spade further discloses the joint alignment device (Paragraphs 22, 34, and Figure 7, brace can be applied to knee or to elbow to address tennis elbow and golf elbow) designed to address joint issues including but not limited to tennis elbow and golf elbow by providing targeted corrective force and support.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith discloses claim 7 as described above and further discloses wherein the secondary strap’s anchor point 72 (Mueller, Paragraphs 28-34, 38, and 59, Paragraphs 28-34 38, 59, 65 and Figures 1A-2A, straps 22 and 62A attached at an end by sewing 72) allows for fine-tuning of the corrective force applied by the primary strap to the joint, enabling precise adjustment for optimal joint support.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith discloses claim 7 as described above and further discloses wherein the hook (Mueller, Paragraphs 28-34 38, 59, 65 and Figures 1A-2A, straps 22 and 62a are made of same material. There is a hook-loop 28 exterior non-skin facing surface 32a of primary strap 22 for attaching with hook-loop 46 at end of skin-facing side of secondary strap 62A. Also, the hook or loop fabric material is interchangeably substitutable with one another) of the primary 12 (Spade, Paragraphs 21-22, 27-28, 30, and Figure 1) and secondary straps (Mueller, Paragraphs 28-34, 38, and 59, and Figures 1A-2A, primary elastic strap 22 underneath secondary elastic strap 62A; Schuren, Col. 10, lines 56-67, Col. 11, lines 1-18 and Figures 3A-3E, primary elastic strap 10 underneath secondary elastic strap 20; Gomes, Page 3, lines 18-2, Page 7, lines 26-30 and Figure 1D and 4, strap 10C is underneath strap 10B when they cross over one another and both straps 10B,10C have silicone on skin-facing inward side) provides a secure and adjustable fit, allowing for easy attachment and detachment from the sleeve 14 (Spade, Paragraphs 21-22, 27-28, 30, and Figure 1) as needed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spade (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150305908) in view of Mueller et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140358055) in view of Schuren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7854716) in view of Watts (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20190000192) in view of Gomes et al. (WO 2018186803 A1) in view of Morrisseau (U.S. Patent No. 5968002) in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20100005568), as applied to claim 7, and in further view of Roscoe (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20020084296).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith discloses claim 7 as described above but fails to explicitly disclose a cross-pattern stitching at the anchor point to enhance an attachment strength between the primary and secondary straps.
Roscoe teaches analogous primary and secondary straps (Col. 2, lines 65-67 and Figure 1, overlapping stacked straps 20,24 that are stitched to one another at a first end by cross-pattern stitching 26 ) with a cross-pattern stitching 26 at the analogous anchor point 26 to enhance an attachment strength between the analogous primary and secondary straps 20,24.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor point stitching of the primary and secondary straps of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith, so that there is specifically a cross-pattern stitching at the anchor point to enhance an attachment strength between the primary and secondary straps, as taught by Roscoe, in order to provide an improved joint alignment device with an enhanced anchor point made of cross stitching pattern for increased securement at the anchor point and force capable of maintaining support without breaking off (Roscoe, Col. 2, lines 65-67).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spade (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150305908) in view of Mueller et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140358055) in view of Schuren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7854716) in view of Watts (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20190000192) in view of Gomes et al. (WO 2018186803 A1) in view of Morrisseau (U.S. Patent No. 5968002) in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20100005568), as applied to claim 7, and in further view of Rousso et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20080255494).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith discloses claim 7 as described above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the locking strap includes an overlapping locking mechanism, which comprises overlapping sections of the primary and secondary straps with additional Velcro fastening points to provide enhanced stability and customizable corrective force distribution.
Rousso teaches an analogous joint alignment device 500 (Paragraphs 23, 28, 119 and Figure 16a, knee support 500 attached to knee sleeve having inner strap 510 and outer strap 545 wherein the outer 545 and inner 510 strap are stitched 550 at one end, then at the free end of the outer strap there is a stage lock hook and loop 560 as well as an additional strip 560 between both ends for additional customizable corrective force distribution of the straps 510,545 ) wherein the analogous locking strap 510,545 includes an overlapping locking mechanism 560 (Figure 16a, strip 560 between both ends of strap 545), which comprises overlapping sections of the analogous primary 510 and analogous secondary 545 straps with additional hook and loop fastening points 560 to provide enhanced stability and customizable corrective force distribution.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stacked overlapping spiraling primary and secondary straps of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith, so that there is an overlapping locking mechanism, which comprises overlapping sections of the primary and secondary straps with additional Velcro fastening points to provide enhanced stability and customizable corrective force distribution, as taught by Rousso, in order to provide an improved joint alignment device with an enhanced locking strap that allows for connection between the skin-facing surface of the secondary outer strap and the non-skin facing surface of the primary inner strap at multiple locations between their end points for desirable tightening thereat throughout multiple joint locations (Rousso, Paragraph 119).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spade (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150305908) in view of Mueller et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140358055) in view of Schuren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7854716) in view of Watts (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20190000192) in view of Gomes et al. (WO 2018186803 A1) in view of Morrisseau (U.S. Patent No. 5968002) in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20100005568) in view of Rousso et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20080255494), as applied to claim 12, and in further view of Nelson et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20030204156).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith in view of Rousso discloses claim 12 as described above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the joint alignment device is configured to be easily removed and washed along with the sleeve for hygiene and maintenance purposes, without compromising an integrity of the stage locks or a functionality of the locking mechanism.
Nelson teaches an analogous joint alignment device (Paragraphs 41-42 and Figures 1-3, knee brace 10 formed of sleeve base 12 and straps 30,40 wherein the brace 10 is removable from the user’s leg and is washable with the fastener hook and loop 31 remaining functional) is configured to be easily removed and washed along with the analogous sleeve for hygiene and maintenance purposes without compromising an integrity of analogous hook and loop 31.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a material of the joint alignment device with the hook and loop stage locks and locking mechanism of Spade in view of Mueller in view of Schuren in view of Watts in view of Gomes in view of Morrisseau in view of Smith in view of Rousso, so that the joint alignment device is configured to be easily removed and washed along with the sleeve for hygiene and maintenance purposes, without compromising an integrity or functionality of the hook and loop, as taught by Nelson, in order to provide an improved joint alignment device that is removable from the user’s body part and washable to remove sweat while maintaining operability of the hook and loop fastener even through multiple wash cycles (Nelson, Paragraph 41).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Milo whose telephone number is (571)272-6476. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00-5:00.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached on +1(571) 270-3076. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL MILO/
Art Unit 3786
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786