DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 7, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
. Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “The present disclosure” and “the present disclosure” which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para. [0016], line 1 “Figure 3” should read --Figure 4--. Appropriate correction is required.
Preliminary Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment filed October 7, 2024, has been received and made of record. The specification has been amended. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 7, 2026. These drawings are approved by the examiner.
The drawings are objected to because Figure. 1 does not appear to be a photograph; however, it is designated as a photograph in para. [0023]; and para. [0023] recites “the device 100 comprises a waistband 102 and right and left legs”; however, since right and left legs are not shown in Figure 1, the recitation should read -- the device 100 comprises a waistband 102 and right and left legs (not shown). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/191500 A1 (“Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a wearable orthopedic device for lower body posture correction and improved ergonomics that substantially discloses Applicant’s claimed invention. More specifically, Liu discloses a band for a wearable medical device (constituted by therapeutic and chest expanding bra 101 having a chest band 106, sew Fig. 1 and para [0074]), comprising: first and second outer layers comprising a first material (chest band 106 is constructed from a poly fabric, see para. [0074] which discloses the chest band is a triple-layered fabric with mesh sandwiched in-between, see also Fig. 5A) configured to compress a wearer’s muscle, see paras. [0080] and [0081]; the materials of the device, including the band, apply tension and pressure and is therefore configured to compress a wearer’s muscles); and an inner layer (mesh layer, see para. [0074]) interposed between said first and second outer layers, (see para. [0074], which discloses the mesh layer is sandwiched in-between said inner layer comprising a second material (mesh) configured to elongate a wearer's muscles (see para. [0012], which discloses spinal extension, para. [0068] which discloses, “…a chest band to improve spinal biomechanics and scapular kinematics for better back support, better posture, increased chest expansion, and improved thoracic mobility” and para. [0070], which discloses “[o]ne posture correcting feature of the garment is the utilization of blending fabrics to achieve pre-tensioning effects, and to induce tension to due various levels of elasticity, of improved scapular kinematics by moving the shoulder blades closer to the spine”; thus, the wearer’s muscles are elongated).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses the band of claim 1, wherein said inner layer comprises a mesh material (mesh sandwiched in-between poly fabric, see para. [0074]).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses the band of claim 1 wherein said band is configured as a ribcage band for bras (see therapeutic and chest expanding bra 101 with a front panel connecting to a chest band 106, see para. [0074] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses a wearable orthopedic device for lower body posture correction and improved ergonomics that substantially discloses Applicant’s claimed invention. More specifically, Liu discloses a garment (constituted by therapeutic and chest expanding bra 101, see para. [0074] and Fig. 1) and a band chest band 106) incorporated into said garment (front panel connecting to a chest band 106, see para. [0074] andFig.1), said band comprising: first and second outer layers comprising a first material (chest band 106 is constructed from a poly fabric, see para. [0074] which discloses the chest band is a triple-layered fabric with mesh sandwiched in-between, see also Fig. 5A) configured to compress a wearer’s muscle, see paras. [0080] and [0081]; the materials of the device, including the band, apply tension and pressure and is therefore configured to compress a wearer’s muscles); and an inner layer (mesh layer, see para. [0074]) interposed between said first and second outer layers, (see para. [0074], which discloses the mesh layer is sandwiched in-between said inner layer comprising a second material (mesh) configured to elongate a wearer's muscles (see para. [0012], which discloses spinal extension, para. [0068] which discloses, “…a chest band to improve spinal biomechanics and scapular kinematics for better back support, better posture, increased chest expansion, and improved thoracic mobility” and para. [0070], which discloses “[o]ne posture correcting feature of the garment is the utilization of blending fabrics to achieve pre-tensioning effects, and to induce tension to due various levels of elasticity, of improved scapular kinematics by moving the shoulder blades closer to the spine”; thus, the wearer’s muscles are elongated).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses the wearable medical device of claim 10, wherein said inner layer comprises a mesh material (see para. [0074] which discloses mesh sandwiched in-between poly fabric, see also Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses the wearable medical device of claim 10, wherein said garment is a bra (see therapeutic and chest expanding bra 101, para. [0074] and Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/191500 A1 (“Liu”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,735,807 (“Cropper”).
Regarding claim 5, Liu does not explicitly disclose said first and second outer layers are affixed to said inner layer. However, Cropper in the disclosure of an analogous band (constituted by material 10, see Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 39-41) for a wearable medical device (support 16, see col. 3, lines 62-67), wherein the band comprises first and second outer layers (12, see Fig. 1 and col. 3, line 45) comprising a first material (nylon, see col. 3, line 45-46) and an inner layer comprising a second material (center layer 14 constructed from polyurethane material, see Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 46-47) interposed between said first and second outer layers (see Fig. 1), wherein said first and second outer layers are affixed to said inner layer (see col. 3, lines 41-43 which discloses the material 10 is preferably of three layers that are laminated and/or bonded together in a conventional manner).
Therefore, it in view of Cropper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the Invention, to modify Liu to include first and second outer layers are affixed to said inner layer, as described in order to provide an easily produced, strong and modular multi-layer band.
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses the band of claim 1, except wherein said band is configured as a joint sleeve. However, Cropper in the disclosure of an analogous band (constituted by material 10, see Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 39-41) for a wearable medical device (support 16, see col. 3, lines 62-67), wherein the band comprises first and second outer layers (12, see Fig. 1 and col. 3, line 45) comprising a first material (nylon, see col. 3, line 45-46) and an inner layer comprising a second material (center layer 14 constructed from polyurethane material, see Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 46-47) interposed between said first and second outer layers (see Fig. 1), wherein said band is configured as a joint sleeve (soft tissue support 16 of the present invention fitted to an knee area of an individual, col 4, in 12-13, figure 3).
In view of Cropper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Liu such that the band is configured as a joint sleeve, in order too expand the applicability of the device by providing muscle support in different locations of the body.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,275,716 (“Scott”).
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the band of claim 1 except wherein said first and second outer layers are stitched to said inner layer. However, Scott in the disclosure of an analogous three layer material (layers 26, 28 and 30) that are stitched together (see col.3, lines 23-37).
In view of Scott, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu by stitching the layers together to produce, a strong and modular multi-layer band.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of EP 2904999 (“Corona”).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the band of claim 1, except wherein said first and second outer layers comprise spandex and high-resistance fabric. Corona, however, discloses analogous support comprising first and second outer layers comprising spandex and high-resistance fabric (the textile 100 has pressure regions 1 and regularly alternating depression regions 2; the pressure regions 1, able to compress biological tissues, have a high resistance to stretching; the fibers constituting the textile 100 are fibers based on polyamide, elastane and polyester, see para. [0059], Fig. 3).
In view of Corona, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Liu, wherein said first and second outer layers comprise spandex and high-resistance fabric, to provide enhanced muscle support through better material selection that simultaneously provides compression and high resistance to stretch.
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses the band of claim 1. Liu further discloses wherein said inner layer comprises spandex (elastic band comprises three fabric layers, with middle layer of tensioning fabric, e.g., elastic, see para. [0021]).
Liu fails to disclose said inner layer comprises nylon. Corona discloses wherein said inner layer comprises nylon (the fibers constituting the textile 100 are fibers based on polyamide, elastane and polyester, see para. [0059] and Fig. 3).
In view of Corona, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Liu by constructing said inner layer from nylon, to provide added comfort and strength to the material.
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses the wearable medical device of claim 10. except that said first and second outer layers comprise spandex and high-resistance fabric. However, Corona, however, discloses analogous support comprising first and second outer layers comprising spandex and high-resistance fabric (the textile 100 has pressure regions 1 and regularly alternating depression regions 2; the pressure regions 1, able to compress biological tissues, have a high resistance to stretching; the fibers constituting the textile 100 are fibers based on polyamide, elastane and polyester, see para. [0059], Fig. 3).
In view of Corona, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Liu, wherein said first and second outer layers comprise spandex and high-resistance fabric, to provide enhanced muscle support through better material selection that simultaneously provides compression and high resistance to stretch.
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses the wearable medical device of claim 10, wherein said inner layer comprises spandex (elastic band comprises three fabric layers, with middle layer of tensioning fabric (e.g., elastic, see para.[0021]). Liu fails to disclose said inner layer comprises nylon. Corona discloses wherein said inner layer comprises nylon (the fibers constituting the textile 100 are fibers based on polyamide, elastane and polyester, see para. [0059] and Fig. 3).
In view of Corona, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Liu to include an inner layer comprising nylon (layer 11) to provide added comfort and strength to the material.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of JP 2018089007 A (“Yoshitake”).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses the band of claim 1 except wherein said band is configured as a waistband for pants. However, Yoshitake in the disclosure of an analogous support device teaches it is known to configure a band as a waistband for pants (the belt 1 can be fixed to the garment, including trousers, skirts, spats and other bottoms, see page 11, paras. [2, 3] and Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Liu, to include a band configured as a waistband for pants, as described in Yoshitake to expand the applicability of the device by providing muscle support in different locations of the body.
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses the wearable medical device of claim 10, except wherein said garment is a pair of pants or shorts. Yoshitake in the disclosure of an analogous support device teaches it is known to provide a garment, such as a pair of pants or shorts (the belt 1 can be fixed to the garment, including trousers, skirts, spats and other bottoms, page 11, paras. [2, 3] and Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Liu to include a garment, such as a pair of pants or shorts, as described by Yoshitake in order to expand the applicability of the device by providing muscle support in different locations of the body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM M LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 5:30 am -11:30 am.
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 at (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 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.
/KIM M LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights