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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments, filed 8/12/2026, to claims 1, 7, 10 acknowledged by Examiner. Additionally, Applicant cancelled claim 6, 9, 11-12, 18.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, 13-17, 19-25 are now pending, claims 19-25 withdrawn.
112b issues resolved according to the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s arguments in respect to Geremtzes for language of claim 1 are moot as a new reference of Idowu for amended claim 1 is now provided.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fried does not read compressing a hump part of a scoliotic deformity and the related language therein in regards to claims 13-15 (Remarks Page 15). Examiner disagrees. Fried directly discusses the construction and function of the brace is related to scoliosis curve correction in usage (Col. 23 lines 1-25, the brace herein compresses scoliosis curves). As such, the members 90 of Fried are functioning as “hump pads” and as discusses would be related to the compression of humps of scoliosis. Examiner further notes that the present claims are related to apparatus claims, and even if in arguendo that Fried did not discuss using the invention with scoliosis in mind, the pads 90 are entirely related to applying compression to the body and thus capable of compressing a hump part of a body as well (Fig. 35).
Applicant argues that the combination of Sargent is of multi-claim construction and impermissible hindsight (Remarks Page 16). Examiner disagrees. 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). In response to applicant's argument 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 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, the hump pads 90 are cushioning members (Fig. 35-37, Col. 29 line 58 – Col. 30 line 7, the thickness of the pads 90/92 is the “cushion protrusion” forming from the surface adjacent to the attachment therein, pads performing cushioning shows they have cushioning power that may compress against a human body of a user). Sargent teaches an analogous support cushion (title), wherein the cushion comprises a wire 40 of a metal material is disposed within an edge of the base of the cushion (Fig. 1 and 3-4, the wire frame 40 is shown to be in the base of the cushion and within the edges of the cushion therein, Col. 3 lines 14-24), wherein that wire frame 40 enables the cushion to conform to its desired shape (Sargent Col. 3 lines 14-31). Thus, there would be motivation to provide the wire frame 40 of Sargent with the hump pad/cushion 90 of Fried in order to form a better cushion member, shape, and thus improve general comfort and usage through such cushion structure improvement.
Applicant argues that Choy/Walter does not provide for a discrete band attached to the clothing having a plurality of metal points are disposed spaced apart from each other up and down (Remarks Page 16). Examiner disagrees. Choy teaches that the plurality of points are “Arrayed on the inner surface of central panel 14 are a series of button-like elements 64, as seen in FIGS. 2, 4 and 5” (Col. 3 lines 33-46), the central panel 14 being a “band attached to an arbitrary location of the clothing” as claimed, where the “clothing” in the case of Choy is the brace itself. Choy Fig. 2, 4-5 shows that the points 64 are spaced apart in the up and down direction therein.
As such, Choy teaches the claim language of claim 17 except for those points being metal, which is relied on by Walters for teaching that such points may be formed at least partially as metal as a known material choice for such functionality of applying pressure to a user.
In response to applicant's argument 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 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).
Examiner’s Notes
All references relied up on and not cited in the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
See previously attached translation and foreign pdf files.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, 13-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 11-14 of U.S. Patent No. US 11944563 B2 (Roe) in view of Idowu (US 20150328035 A1) and Geremtzes (US 20220226140 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as seen in the following comparison table the claims of the reference patent are in identical scope as the present claims except for what has been provided in the further reference of Geremtzes.
Present application 18969183
U.S. Patent No. US 11944563 B2 (Roe)
Claim 1:
A wearing type correction apparatus for a human body comprising:
clothing that is worn on an upper body of a patient;
a curve compressor disposed in the clothing and configured to compress a curved part of a human body that is a target to be corrected;
an intensity adjuster disposed in the clothing,
connected to the curve compressor through a wire, and configured to adjust compression intensity of the curve compressor by adjusting an amount of winding and unwinding of the wire; and
a pressure sensor installed in the intensity adjuster and configured to detect the compression intensity (not in the Roe reference patent see reference modification below).
Claim 3:
The wearing type correction apparatus for a human body according to claim 1, further comprising
a guide rail disposed in the clothing and configured to provide guidance to up and down sliding movements of at least one of the curve compressor and the intensity adjuster.
Claim 4:
The wearing type correction apparatus for a human body according to claim 3,
wherein at least one of the curve compressor and the intensity adjuster comprises: a body configured to form an appearance shape;
a support plate disposed between the body and the guide rail and combined with the body; and
a rail moving block combined with the support plate and slidably combined with the guide rail.
Claim 1:
A wearable device for body correction, comprising [same scope as wearing type correction apparatus]:
an outerwear worn on an upper body of a patient [outerwear is clothing];
a curve presser disposed on the outerwear and configured to press a curve of the body to be corrected [curve presser and curve compressor are the same in scope, function is the same therein];
a strength adjuster disposed on the outerwear [intensity and strength are synonyms therein and substantially identical],
connected to the curve presser by a wire, and configured to adjust a strength of pressure applied by the curve presser by adjusting an amount of winding/unwinding of the wire [substantially identical scope of connection and use of wire]; and
a guide rail disposed on the outerwear and configured to guide vertical sliding of at least one of the curve presser and the strength adjuster [substantially the same scope],
wherein the at least one of the curve presser and the strength adjuster comprises: a body defining an external appearance thereof [same scope therein];
a support plate disposed between the body and the guide rail and coupled to the body [same scope]; and
a rail moving block coupled to the support plate and slidably coupled to the guide rail [same scope].
Claim 5:
The wearing type correction apparatus for a human body according to claim 4,
wherein the intensity adjuster further comprises a dial adjuster rotatably combined with the body and configured to adjust the amount of winding and unwinding of the wire.
Claim 2:
The wearable device according to claim 1,
wherein the strength adjuster further comprises a dial adjuster rotatably coupled to the body to adjust the amount of winding/unwinding of the wire [same scope].
Claim 7:
The wearing type correction apparatus for a human body according to claim 1,
wherein the rail moving block comprises:
a locking part having a width in the direction orthogonal to the sliding direction of the rail moving block, which is equal to or smaller than the width of the first coupling hole and greater than the width of the second coupling hole, and having one surface come into contact with an outer surface of the support plate;
a support part having a width in the direction orthogonal to the sliding direction of the rail moving block, which is greater than each of the width of the first coupling hole and the width of the second coupling hole, and having one surface that faces the one surface of the locking part come into contact with an inner surface of the support plate; and
a coupling part formed to protrude from other surface of the support part and having a guide groove slidably combined with the guide rail formed therein.
Claim 4:
The wearable device according to claim 3,
wherein the rail moving block comprises:
a latching portion [latching portion and locking part same scope] having a width in a direction orthogonal to the sliding direction of the rail moving block to be less than or equal to the width of the first coupling hole and to be larger than the width of the second coupling hole, the latching portion having one surface coming into contact with an outer surface of the support plate [completely the same scope therein];
a support portion having a width in a direction orthogonal to the sliding direction of the rail moving block to be larger than the width of the first coupling hole and the width of the second coupling hole, the support portion having one surface facing the one surface of the latching portion and coming into contact with an inner surface of the support plate [support portion and support part are identical in scope, rest of the claim is also substantially the same scope]; and
a coupling portion protruding from the other surface of the support portion, and having a guide groove slidably coupled to the guide rail [coupling portion and coupling part are the same scope, substantially identical scope therein].
Claim 8:
The wearing type correction apparatus for a human body according to claim 7,
wherein the guide rail comprises: an attachment plate combined with the clothing; and a guide protrusion formed on one side of the attachment plate in the direction orthogonal to the sliding direction of the rail moving block and inserted into the guide groove and rotatably disposed therein.
Claim 5:
The wearable device according to claim 4,
wherein the guide rail comprises: an attachment plate coupled to the outerwear; and a guide protrusion formed on one side of the attachment plate in a direction orthogonal to the sliding direction of the rail moving block, and inserted and rotatably disposed in the guide groove [substantially the same scope therein].
Claim 10:
The wearing type correction apparatus for a human body according to claim 1, wherein:
an opening through which one side of the guide groove is opened is formed in the coupling part, and an opening width of the opening is formed to be smaller than a diameter of the guide groove.
Claim 7:
The wearable device according to claim 6, wherein:
the coupling portion has an opening formed to be open at one side of the guide groove; and the opening has an opening width smaller than the diameter of the guide groove [substantially the same scope therein].
Claim 13:
The wearing type correction apparatus for a human body according to claim 1,
further comprising:
a back reinforcement plate disposed on an inner surface of a back part of the clothing; and a hump pad attached to an arbitrary location related to a location of the back reinforcement plate at which the curve compressor compresses the curved part and configured to compress a hump part of the human body.
Claim 11:
A wearable device for body correction, comprising: an outerwear worn on an upper body of a patient; a curve presser disposed on the outerwear and configured to press a curve of the body to be corrected; a strength adjuster disposed on the outerwear, connected to the curve presser by a wire, and configured to adjust a strength of pressure applied by the curve presser by adjusting an amount of winding/unwinding of the wire; and a guide rail disposed on the outerwear and configured to guide vertical sliding of at least one of the curve presser and the strength adjuster [claim 1 in scope],
the wearable device further comprising:
a back reinforcement plate disposed on an inner surface of a back plate of the outerwear; and a hump pad attached to any position of the back reinforcement plate related to a position where the curve presser presses the curve, so as to press the body [same in scope with the back reinforcement plate and the hump pad therein].
Claim 14:
The wearing type correction apparatus for a human body according to claim 13, further comprising
a flank band disposed in the clothing and configured to hold a flank of the patient when the curve compressor compresses the curved part.
Claim 12:
The wearable device according to claim 11, further comprising
a flank band disposed on the outerwear and configured to hold a flank of the patient when the curve presser presses the curve [same scope].
Claim 15:
The wearing type correction apparatus for a human body according to claim 14, further comprising
a flank pad attached to an arbitrary location related to a location of the flank band at which the curve compressor compresses the curved part and configured to compress the human body.
Claim 13:
The wearable device according to claim 12, further comprising
a flank pad attached to any position of the flank band related to a position where the curve presser presses the curve, so as to press the body [same scope therein].
Claim 16:
The wearing type correction apparatus for a human body according to claim 15, wherein
the hump pad and the flank pad each comprise:
a sheet-shaped base attached to the back reinforcement plate or the flank band; and
a cushion protrusion formed to protrude on one surface of the base and having cushion power that compresses the human body, and
a wire of a metal material is disposed within an edge of the base.
Claim 14:
The wearable device according to claim 13, wherein
each of the hump pad and the flank pad comprises:
a plate-shaped base attached to an associated one of the back reinforcement plate and the flank band;
a cushion protrusion protruding from one surface of the base and having a cushion force to press the body; and
a metal wire disposed within a rim of the base [same scope therein].
Claim 17:
The wearing type correction apparatus for a human body according to claim 1, further comprising
a point band attached to an arbitrary location of the clothing and having a plurality of metal points spaced apart from each other up and down disposed therein.
Claim 9:
The wearable device according to claim 1, further comprising
a point band attached to any position of the outerwear and having a plurality of vertically spaced metal points arranged thereon [same scope therein].
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No. US 11944563 B2 (Roe) does not disclose a pressure sensor installed in the intensity adjuster and configured to detect the compression intensity.
However, Idowu teaches an analogous body/back brace for correcting body deformities (title, Abstract), comprising an analogous intensity adjuster with a dial ([0051] dial for controlling the pressure applied, being a “variable force applicator”) wherein the variable force applicator/dial may comprise further a pressure gauge in the form a pressure sensor ([0051]), thus Idowu provides for a pressure sensor installed in the intensity adjuster (dial) and configured to detect the compression intensity (see [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Roe to comprise a pressure sensor installed in the intensity adjuster and configured to detect the compression intensity as taught by Idowu in order to be able to measure the pressure being applied to the user in relation to the settings of the intensity adjuster/dial thereof (Idowu [0051]).
Regarding claim 2, U.S. Patent No. US 11944563 B2 (Roe) in view of Geremtzes discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
However, Geremtzes teaches an analogous wearing type correction apparatus 110 (Fig. 1A, scoliosis brace 110 [0066]), wherein the apparatus 110 is an analogous curve compressor ([0066] scoliosis brace applies pressure/compression onto the curves of a user), and an analogous intensity adjuster 120 ([0066] strap 120 can be adjusted for changing the pressure applied), wherein there is a pressure sensor installed in at least one of the curve compressor and the intensity adjuster ([0066] pressure sensor installed in the scoliosis brace 110 being the curve compressor) and configured to detect the compression intensity ([0066-0069] the pressure sensors detect how much pressure/compression is on the user which is compression intensity),
comprising a short-range wireless communication unit installed in at least one of the curve compressor and the intensity adjuster ([0069] the pressure sensors include wireless transceivers integrated therein, thus there being a short-range wireless communication unit installed in the curve compressor as that is where the pressure sensor is installed) and
configured to communicate with a user terminal in which a correction management service app for informing a user of data comprising the compression intensity detected by the pressure sensor is installed (see [0069] the wireless connection leads to a “wearable device”, wherein as discussed in [0091] the data is wirelessly sent to user’s smartphone being a user terminal that logs the data to an application being a correction management service app, wherein as discussed in [0102] the app collected the pressure data being compression intensity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a short-range wireless communication unit as taught by Geremtzes to the invention of Roe/Idowu in order to enable a doctor to more efficiently monitor, intervene, and manage a plurality of patients and their treatments in real time based on the pressure data obtained from the integrated brace pressure sensor (Geremtzes [0019]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe (KR 20210072454 A) (see attached translation for referenced paragraph numbers and see attached original document for the relevant figures) in view of Idowu (US 20150328035 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roe discloses a wearing type correction apparatus 100 (Fig. 1) for a human body (see [0001]) comprising:
clothing 10 that is worn on an upper body of a patient (Fig. 1 and [0033] upper body clothing 10);
a curve compressor 100a ([0039] “compression part 100a” applies compression/pressure to curves of a user for treatment of scoliosis [0005]) disposed in the clothing 10 (Fig. 1) and configured to compress a curved part of a human body that is a target to be corrected (see [0046] applies compression to a body part of the user being a correction area);
an intensity adjuster 100 (Fig. 1 and [0046] “pressure control unit 100”, [0044] further includes the dial control unit 120) disposed in the clothing 10 (Fig. 1), connected to the curve compressor 100a through a wire (see [0046]), and configured to adjust compression intensity of the curve compressor by adjusting an amount of winding and unwinding of the wire (see [0015]).
Roe does not disclose a pressure sensor installed in the intensity adjuster and configured to detect the compression intensity.
However, Roe does disclose the intensity adjuster 100 includes the dial control unit 120 for controlling the amount of winging and unwinding of wire relating to the pressure thus applied (see [0044]).
Furthermore, Idowu teaches an analogous body/back brace for correcting body deformities (title, Abstract), comprising an analogous intensity adjuster with a dial ([0051] dial for controlling the pressure applied, being a “variable force applicator”) wherein the variable force applicator/dial may comprise further a pressure gauge in the form a pressure sensor ([0051]), thus Idowu provides for a pressure sensor installed in the intensity adjuster (dial) and configured to detect the compression intensity (see [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Roe to comprise a pressure sensor installed in the intensity adjuster and configured to detect the compression intensity as taught by Idowu in order to be able to measure the pressure being applied to the user in relation to the settings of the intensity adjuster/dial thereof (Idowu [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Roes in view of Idowu discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Roes further discloses a guide rail 150 (see [0042]) disposed in the clothing 10 (Fig. 1) and configured to provide guidance to up and down sliding movements of at least one of the curve compressor 100a and the intensity adjuster 100 (see [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Roes in view of Idowu discloses the invention of claim 3 above.
Roes further discloses wherein at least one of the curve compressor 100a and the intensity adjuster 100 comprises:
a body 110 configured to form an appearance shape (Fig. 2 and [0042-0043]);
a support plate 140 (Fig. 2 and [0042]) disposed between the body 110 and the guide rail 150 and combined with the body 110 (Fig. 2); and
a rail moving block 145 combined with the support plate 140 (Fig. 2 and [0042]) and slidably combined with the guide rail 150 (Fig. 2 and [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Roes in view of Idowu discloses the invention of claim 4 above.
Roes further discloses wherein the intensity adjuster 100 further comprises a dial adjuster 120 ([0044] dial control unit 120) rotatably combined with the body 110 (see [0045]) and configured to adjust the amount of winding and unwinding of the wire (see [0044]).
Regarding claim 7, Roes in view of Idowu discloses the invention of claim 4 above.
Roes further discloses wherein the support plate 140 has a first coupling hole 147a ([0054] first coupling hole 147a) and a second coupling hole 147b ([0054] second coupling hole 147b) (Fig. 3),
the second coupling hole 147b extending from the first coupling hole 147a in a sliding direction of the rail moving block 145 (Fig. 3), and
a width of the second coupling hole 147b in a direction orthogonal to the sliding direction of the rail moving block 145 being smaller than a width of the first coupling hole 147a (Fig. 3) and
wherein the rail moving block 145 (Fig. 2 and [0042]) comprises:
a locking part 145a ([0055] hooking portion 145a) having a width in the direction orthogonal to the sliding direction of the rail moving block 145, which is equal to or smaller than the width of the first coupling hole 147a ([0054] first coupling hole 147a) and greater than the width of the second coupling hole 147b ([0054] second coupling hole 147b) (See Figures 3-4 and 5a-5b, wherein the width of the locking part 145a is equal to the width of 147a and greater than that of 147b), and having one surface come into contact with an outer surface of the support plate 140 (See Figures 3-4 and 5a-5b);
a support part 145b ([0055] support portion 145b, Fig. 4) having a width in the direction orthogonal to the sliding direction of the rail moving block 145 (Fig. 4), which is greater than each of the width of the first coupling hole 147a and the width of the second coupling hole 147b (see [0055]), and having one surface that faces the one surface of the locking part 145a come into contact with an inner surface of the support plate 140 (Fig 3-4 and 5a-5b, upper surface of 145b faces the surface of 145a and would come into contact with the underside/inner surface of support plate 140); and
a coupling part 145c ([0055] coupling portion 145c) formed to protrude from other surface of the support part 145b (Fig. 4, forms from underside of 145b) and having a guide groove slidably combined with the guide rail 150 formed therein (Fig. 4, the hole formed therein is a guide groove that is containing the portions 152 and 151 of the guide rail 150).
Regarding claim 8, Roes in view of Idowu discloses the invention of claim 7 above.
Roes further discloses wherein the guide rail 150 (Fig. 3) comprises:
an attachment plate 151 ([0055] attachment rail 151) combined with the clothing 10 (see [0056]); and
a guide protrusion 152 ([0056] insertion rail 152) formed on one side of the attachment plate 151 in the direction orthogonal to the sliding direction of the rail moving block 145 (Fig. 3-4) and inserted into the guide groove and rotatably disposed therein (Fig. 4, guide protrusion 152 inserted into the guide groove of coupling part 145c).
Regarding claim 10, Roes in view of Idowu discloses the invention of claim 7 above.
Roes further discloses an opening through which one side of the guide groove is opened is formed in the coupling part 145c (Fig. 4 an opening is formed from the guide groove to the outside therein), and an opening width of the opening is formed to be smaller than a diameter of the guide groove (Fig. 4, see [0059-0060]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe (KR 20210072454 A) (see attached translation for referenced paragraph numbers and see attached original document for the relevant figures) in view of Idowu (US 20150328035 A1) in view of Geremtzes (US 20220226140 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Roes in view of Idowu discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Roes/Idowu does not disclose comprising a short-range wireless communication unit installed in at least one of the curve compressor and the intensity adjuster and configured to communicate with a user terminal in which a correction management service app for informing a user of data comprising the compression intensity detected by the pressure sensor is installed.
However, Geremtzes teaches an analogous wearing type correction apparatus 110 (Fig. 1A, scoliosis brace 110 [0066]), wherein the apparatus 110 is an analogous curve compressor ([0066] scoliosis brace applies pressure/compression onto the curves of a user), and an analogous intensity adjuster 120 ([0066] strap 120 can be adjusted for changing the pressure applied), wherein there is a pressure sensor installed in at least one of the curve compressor and the intensity adjuster ([0066] pressure sensor installed in the scoliosis brace 110 being the curve compressor) and configured to detect the compression intensity ([0066-0069] the pressure sensors detect how much pressure/compression is on the user which is compression intensity),
comprising a short-range wireless communication unit installed in at least one of the curve compressor and the intensity adjuster ([0069] the pressure sensors include wireless transceivers integrated therein, thus there being a short-range wireless communication unit installed in the curve compressor as that is where the pressure sensor is installed) and
configured to communicate with a user terminal in which a correction management service app for informing a user of data comprising the compression intensity detected by the pressure sensor is installed (see [0069] the wireless connection leads to a “wearable device”, wherein as discussed in [0091] the data is wirelessly sent to user’s smartphone being a user terminal that logs the data to an application being a correction management service app, wherein as discussed in [0102] the app collected the pressure data being compression intensity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a short-range wireless communication unit as taught by Geremtzes to the invention of Roe/Idowu in order to enable a doctor to more efficiently monitor, intervene, and manage a plurality of patients and their treatments in real time based on the pressure data obtained from the integrated brace pressure sensor (Geremtzes [0019]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe (KR 20210072454 A) (see attached translation for referenced paragraph numbers and see attached original document for the relevant figures) in view of Idowu (US 20150328035 A1), in further view of Fried (US 12036142 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Roes in view of Idowu discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Roes in view of Idowu does not disclose a back reinforcement plate disposed on an inner surface of a back part of the clothing; and a hump pad attached to an arbitrary location related to a location of the back reinforcement plate at which the curve compressor compresses the curved part and configured to compress a hump part of the human body.
However, Fried teaches an analogous body brace (abstract, Fig. 35-37) comprising an analogous clothing 26 (Fig. 37, brace body 26 wearable on the body thus a clothing) comprising a back reinforcement plate 60 (Fig. 35-37, shell 60 is a rigid plate, see Col. 22 lines 7-10) disposed on an inner surface of a back part of the clothing 26 (Fig. 35-37, the back reinforcement plate 60 is on an inner surface of the back part of the clothing 26); and
a hump pad 90 (Fig. 35-37, Col. 30 lines 40-51, members 90) attached to an arbitrary location related to a location of the back reinforcement plate 60 (Fig. 35-37) at which an analogous curve compressor (Col. 23 lines 1-25, the brace herein compresses scoliosis curves) compresses the curved part and configured to compress a hump part of the human body (Col. 23 lines 1-25, the brace herein compresses scoliosis curves, wherein the hump pads 90 may compress against humps of the back of the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the back reinforcement plate 60 and the hump pads 90 as taught by Fried to the clothing 10 of Roes in order to provide back support members that could cushion/support the back of the user while enduring compression (Fried Col. 23 lines 1-25, Col. 30 lines 40-51).
Regarding claim 14, Roes in view of Idowu and Fried discloses the invention of claim 13 above.
Roes further discloses a flank band L3 disposed in the clothing 10 (Fig. 1) and configured to hold a flank of the patient when the curve compressor compresses the curved part (Fig. 1, holds a flank of a patient, and as disclosed above, Roes curve compressor compresses the curved part).
Regarding claim 15, Roes in view of Idowu and Fried discloses the invention of claim 14 above.
Roes in view of Idowu and Fried as combined does not disclose a flank pad attached to an arbitrary location related to a location of the flank band at which the curve compressor compresses the curved part and configured to compress the human body.
However, Fried further teaches analogous flank bands 94 (Fig. 37) comprising a flank pad 92 attached to an arbitrary location related to a location of the flank band 94 (Fig. 35-37) at which the curve compressor compresses the curved part and configured to compress the human body (Col. 23 lines 1-25, the brace herein compresses scoliosis curves).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided flank pads 92 to the flank band L3 of Roes as taught by Fried in order to provide support and cushion to the person (Col. 29 line 58 – Col. 30 line 7).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe (KR 20210072454 A) (see attached translation for referenced paragraph numbers and see attached original document for the relevant figures) in view of Idowu (US 20150328035 A1), in further view of Fried (US 12036142 B1), in further view of Sargent (US 4754511 A).
Regarding claim 16, Roes in view of Idowu and Fried discloses the invention of claim 15 above.
Fried further teaches wherein the hump pad 90 and the flank pad 92 (Fig. 35-37) each comprise:
a sheet-shaped base attached to the back reinforcement plate 60 or the flank band 94 (Fig. 37, the flat surface of the pads 90/92 are “sheet shaped” bases that are attached to the plate 60 or band 94); and
a cushion protrusion formed to protrude on one surface of the base and having cushion power that compresses the human body (Fig. 35-37, Col. 29 line 58 – Col. 30 line 7, the thickness of the pads 90/92 is the “cushion protrusion” forming from the surface adjacent to the attachment therein, pads performing cushioning shows they have cushioning power that may compress against a human body of a user).
Fried, Roes, and Idowu does not teach a wire of a metal material is disposed within an edge of the base.
However, Sargent teaches an analogous support cushion (title), wherein the cushion comprises a wire 40 of a metal material is disposed within an edge of the base of the cushion (Fig. 1 and 3-4, the wire frame 40 is shown to be in the base of the cushion and within the edges of the cushion therein, Col. 3 lines 14-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided modified the pads 92/94 of Roes in view of Geremtzes and Fried to have a wire of a metal material is disposed within an edge of the base as taught by Sargent in order to provide stiffness to the pad shape and allow the pads to more conform in shape as desired for increased comfort (Sargent Col. 3 lines 14-31).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe (KR 20210072454 A) (see attached translation for referenced paragraph numbers and see attached original document for the relevant figures) in view of Idowu (US 20150328035 A1), in further view of Choy (US 5290307) in view of Walters (US 5792085).
Regarding claim 17, Roes in view of Idowu discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Roes in view of Idowu is silent on further comprising a point band attached to an arbitrary location of the clothing and having a plurality of metal points spaced apart from each other up and down disposed therein.
However, Choy teaches an analogous upper body orthosis having an analogous clothing 62 further having a point band attached to an arbitrary position/location of the clothing and having a plurality of vertically spaced points arranged thereon, thus being spaced apart from each other up and down disposed therein (Fig 2, Col 2 lines 65-70, point line 64/66/68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the clothing 10 of Roes as combined with the protrusions as taught by Choy in order to help relieve pain (Choy Col 1 lines 15-25).
Roes in view of Idowu is silent on the points being metal.
However, Walters teaches an analogous protrusion with a metal portion so the point is at least partially metal (Col 3 lines 55-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add metal to the protrusions of Roes in view of Geremtzes combined with Choy as taught by Walters in order to ensure the proper pressure is applied to the user (Walters Col 4 lines 5-10).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN S ALBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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.
/KEVIN S ALBERS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights