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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 10/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are presented, of which claim 21 is newly presented.
Claim 7 is canceled in the reply.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 11-14, 16, and 19 are amended.
The present office action treats claims 1-6 and 8-21 on the merits.
The present office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 10/14/2025 (see p. 4-13 of the reply) are fully considered.
Regarding Specification Objections (p. 4-5 of the reply): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered.
Applicant argues (p. 4-5 of the reply):
The Examiner has required a substitute specification with paragraph numbers. Applicant notes that the Examiner makes reference to 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6), which states in part "the paragraphs ....should be individually and consecutively numbered ..." (emphasis added). Applicant notes that this passage uses the conditional phrase "should" and does not use the phrase "must" or "shall". Applicant notes that in the entirety of 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6), the word "must" is never used indicating that numbering paragraphs is not a requirement but rather a suggestion. In contrast, Applicant directs the Examiner's attention to 37 CFR(b)(5), which states in part: ... the pages of the specification including claims and abstract must be numbered consecutively, starting with 1, the numbers being centrally located above or preferably, below, the text. (emphasis added) Applicant notes that the language in this section when referring to placing page numbers on the page uses the word "must" meaning that it is a requirement. Applicant submits that if using paragraph numbers was a requirement, the language in the rule would have been "must" rather than the conditional language used (i.e., should). Applicant submits that when referencing the written description, the presence of line numbers in combination with the page numbers that appear at the bottom of the page as the instant application was filed allows for unambiguous and more rapid identification of passages in the written description. Applicant submits that this means of identification of passages is superior to using the paragraph numbers suggested by the rule as it is easier to refer to an exact line number in the text relative to having to count line numbers in a paragraph that may be very long or potentially extending over two pages.
For these reasons, Applicant does not believe that a substitute specification numbering the paragraphs is needed because there is nothing in the rules that requires the numbering of paragraphs in a written description. Removal of the objection is warranted and respectfully requested.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicants’ argument that “a substitute specification numbering the paragraphs” is not “needed because there is nothing in the rules that requires the numbering of paragraphs in a written description” is fully considered and is persuasive. The requirement for a substitute specification set forth in the non-final rejection of 07/14/2025 (see p. 2-3 thereof) is withdrawn.
Applicant argues (p. 5 of the reply):
The Examiner also objects to a footnote in the written description. Applicant herein submits a substitute specification and a specification with markings to show changes made wherein the footnote is incorporated into the text of the written description. With these submissions it is believed that the objection is obviated.
The Examiner also objects to tradenames in the written description, such as Kevlar.
Applicant has input the generic names where appropriate in the written description and herein presents a substitute specification and a specification with markings to show changes made. Withdrawal of the objection is warranted and respectfully requested.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicants’ argument is fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant’s specification amendment of 10/14/2025 overcomes the objections to the specification in reference to the footnote of p. 3 of the specification as filed and in reference to the term KEVLAR® set forth in p. 3-4 of office action of 07/14/2025.
Regarding Drawing Objections (p. 5 of the reply): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered.
Applicant argues (p. 5 of the reply):
The Examiner objects to the drawings for not showing all of the claimed features. Applicant herein submits a replacement drawing under 37 CFR 1.83(a), wherein the claimed features are shown in Fig. 6. It is believed that with this replacement drawing that the objection is obviated. Withdrawal of the objection is warranted and respectfully requested.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicants’ argument is fully considered and is not persuasive. The replacement drawing is not entered (see New Drawing below). Accordingly, the drawings remain objected to for not showing the feature(s) that were identified in the drawings objection set forth in the office action of 07/14/2025 (see p. 4-5 thereof).
Regarding claim Objections (p. 5 of the reply): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered.
Applicant argues (p. 5 of the reply):
The Examiner objects to claims 6, 8, and 12-13 for the following reasons:
1. Claims 6, 8, and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 line 2: "a led" should be --a LED—
Claim 8 line 1: "The hooded garment of' should be --The garment of—
Claim 12 line 1: "The hooded garment of' should be --The garment of—
Claim 13 line 1: "The hooded garment of' should be --The garment of-
Applicant has amended the claims as suggested by the Examiner. Withdrawal of the objections is warranted and respectfully requested.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicants’ argument is fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant’s claim amendments overcome the claim objections set forth in the office action of 07/14/2025 (see p. 5 thereof).
Regarding Rejections under 35 USC 112 (p. 5-7 of the reply): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered.
Applicant argues (p. 5-6 of the reply):
The Examiner asserts that the term "high-performance polymer fabrics" in claims 2, 5, and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The Examiner further asserts the term "high- performance" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Applicant respectfully submits that the term "high-performance polymer fabrics" is an art recognized term that refers to fabrics that are specially designed to have superior strength, heat resistance, and chemical resistance to relative to standard fabrics. These fabrics are generally characterized by possibly containing aramids, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, polyimides, polyphenylene sulfides, and polyether etherketones. These fabrics are often used in personal protective gear, used in sports, used in aerospace and automotive industries, used to generate strong ropes, and may sometimes be used for ballistic vests. Thus, in light of the above explanation, Applicant believes that this term can not be considered to be indefinite. Withdrawal of the rejection is warranted and respectfully requested.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicants’ argument is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because Applicant’s explanation of what it means for fabrics to be high-performance polymer fabrics is not supported by the disclosure as filed. The disclosure as filed does not state a high-performance polymeric fabric is “specially designed to have superior strength, heat resistance, and chemical resistance to relative to standard fabrics” as argued, nor does the disclosure as filed explain what it means for a given fabric to be a “standard fabric” as argued or to have higher performance characteristics than a given standard fabric. Claim 11 remains rejected to under 35 USC 112 for using the relative term “high-performance polymer fabrics”. It is noted that claims 2 and 5 are amended in the reply so as to no longer recite the term “high-performance polymer fabrics”.
Applicant argues (p. 6 of the reply):
The Examiner asserts that the use of the term "Kevlar" in claims 2, 5, 11, and 19 renders them indefinite because "Kevlar" is a tradename. Applicant has replaced the word "Kevlar" with the generic version of the material that is used to make Kevlar (i.e., aramid). Applicant believes that with these amendments that the rejection is obviated. Withdrawal of the rejection is warranted and respectfully requested.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicants’ argument is fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant’s claim amendments overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections based on the recitation of the tradename Kevlar.
Applicant argues (p. 6-7 of the reply):
The Examiner also rejects the term "silica-carbon nanotube" alleging that it is indefinite. Applicant respectfully points out that a "silica-carbon nanotube" is an art recognized generic
term that refers to a composite material that has both silica and carbon nanotubes. For example, it refers in some case to a silica coating being applied to the carbon nanotubes or alternatively in another case, to silica particles being combined with carbon nanotubes. The fact that there are at least two separate embodiments/varieties of a silica carbon nanotube does not render the term "silica-carbon nanotube" indefinite. One of skill in the art would be immediately apprised of the meaning. Applicant believes that with this explanation that the rejection is obviated. Withdrawal of the rejection is warranted and respectfully requested.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicants’ argument is fully considered and is persuasive. Specifically, upon further review of the present disclosure, the present claims, and Applicant’s remarks, the term “silica-carbon nanotube” within the phrase “a silica-carbon nanotube containing liquid” of the amended claim is not indefinite and includes a combination of both silica and also one or more carbon nanotubes, and the 35 USC 112 rejection to claim 9 for using the term “silica-carbon nanotube” is withdrawn.
Applicant argues (p. 7 of the reply):
The Examiner rejects claim 10 for reciting "wherein the shear thickening fluid is not in padding". Applicant submits that there is nothing indefinite about this phrase. The Examiner asserts that because the written description describes a padding can comprise a fabric (p. 4 lines 4-5 of the specification as filed) that this somehow renders the phrase "the shear thickening fluid is not in padding" indefinite. First, it should be understood that shear thickening fluid can either be present in the padding portion of a garment or in a portion of the garment where there is no padding. Claim 10 merely limits this possibility to where the shear thickening fluid is not in the padding portion but rather in a portion of the garment that has no padding. Second, the Examiner's attempt to assert indefiniteness because the written description states that a padding can comprise a fabric is inapposite. Applicant respectfully points out that "comprises" is an open set that can contain other ingredients. Thus, equating padding with fabric is a non sequitur. Applicant believes that with this explanation that the rejection is obviated. Withdrawal of the rejection is warranted and respectfully requested.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicants’ argument is fully considered and is not persuasive. It is not clear under what circumstances a smart fabric comprising a shear thickening fluid as claimed in claim 1 would meet the limitation “wherein the shear thickening fluid is not in padding” insofar as the present specification states that a padding can comprise a fabric (p. 4 lines 4-5 of the specification as filed), and it is not understood which fabric or fabrics would comprise a shear thickening fabric wherein the shear thickening fluid would be in padding and which fabric or fabric would comprise shear thickening fabric wherein the shear thickening fluid would not be in padding. Applicant’s further argument that “it should be understood that shear thickening fluid can either be present in the padding portion of a garment or in a portion of the garment where there is no padding. Claim 10 merely limits this possibility to where the shear thickening fluid is not in the padding portion but rather in a portion of the garment that has no padding” is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because the terms “padding portion” and “portion...where there is no padding” are not used in the present disclosure, nor are they used in the claims. Applicant’s specific argument that “Examiner's attempt to assert indefiniteness because the written description states that a padding can comprise a fabric is inapposite. Applicant respectfully points out that "comprises" is an open set that can contain other ingredients. Thus, equating padding with fabric is a non sequitur” is fully considered and is not persuasive. As provided for in MPEP 2111.01, pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with and in light of the specification. The meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. In the present disclosure, a padding is described as comprising “a first fabric layer, a second fabric layer, and a plurality of interconnecting filaments extending between said first fabric layer and said second fabric layer; wherein at least one of said first fabric layer, said second fabric layer and said plurality of interconnecting filaments comprise a shape memory material” (2nd paragraph of p. 4 as filed). Although the term “comprising” can contain other ingredients, the specification does not provide sufficient explanation as to what makes a padding comprising a fabric (as in p. 4 of the specification) a “padding” and whether and under which circumstances a given fabric would not be considered to be part of a padding. In other words, although the specification does not equate padding and fabric, the specification does state that a padding can comprise fabric in such a way that one of ordinary skill would understand what it means for a given smart fabric to comprise a shear thickening fluid as claimed in claim 1 and also wherein the shear thickening fluid is “not in padding” as claimed in claim 10.
Applicant argues (p. 7 of the reply):
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected as allegedly being indefinite for reciting a smart fabric and a shear thickening fluid wherein the Examiner asserts that it is unknown if the smart fabric has as part of it the shear thickening fluid. Applicant has amended claim 14 to make it clear that the smart fabric in claim 14 has shear thickening fluid as part of the smart fabric. Applicant believes that with the amendment that the rejection is obviated. Withdrawal of the rejection is warranted and respectfully requested.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicants’ argument is fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant’s claim amendments overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections applied to claim 14 and 16 set forth in the office action of 07/14/2025 (see p. 9-10 thereof).
Regarding Rejections under 35 USC 103 (p. 7-13 of the reply): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered.
Applicant argues (p. 7-9):
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3-4, 5, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over [Strum, US 2015/0272234] in view of [Cheong, US 2013/0061739].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over
[Strum, US 2015/0272234] and [Cheong, US 2013/0061739] as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of [Aquino, US 2017/0082403, provided on Applicant's IDS of 05/19/2025].
Claim(s) 7-8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being
unpatentable over [Strum, US 2015/0272234] and [Cheong, US 2013/0061739] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Brookman, US 2004/0060102].
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over [Cheong, US 2013/0061739] in view of [Boland, US 2018/0049501].
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over [Cheong, US 2013/0061739] in view of [Boland, US 2018/0049501].
Applicant traverses.
Applicant respectfully submits that at least some of the references cited by the Examiner are not analogous art the present invention. In order for a reference to be analogous art, it must satisfy at least one element of a two part test: It must: 1) be from the same field of endeavor, or 2) it must be reasonable pertinent to the particular problem that the inventor was trying to solve.
The present invention relates to a compression garment that reduces the incidence of concussions and/or traumatic brain injuries for athletes, adventurists (i.e., competitive athletes and recreational athletes), military members, law enforcement officers, and professionals working in dangerous environments. See paragraph [0002] in US 2025/194714 Al (the patent application publication of the present invention).
Neither Strum nor Cheong disclose, teach, or suggest mitigating concussions and/or the ability of their devices to mitigate and/or reduce a concussive event. Accordingly, Applicant believes that neither Strum nor Cheong are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, the first part of the test is not met by either of these references. Nowhere in the instant application is reference made to attempting to mitigate effects from ballistics or ammunition as are disclosed in Strum and Cheong so the present invention's disclosure is not sufficiently broad that one of ordinary skill in the art would believe that Strum and/or Cheong are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding the second part of the test, Applicant notes that neither Strum nor Cheong deal with an impact event that occurs from the inside of the garment that causes the shear thickening fluid to mitigate the effects of a concussive event. Rather, Applicant notes that Strum and Cheong are concerned with protective material and/or clothing that mitigates the effects from being contacted by an external event. Strum, at paragraphs [0001] and [0002] states:
[0001] The present invention pertains to body modification clothing, and more
particularly to armor-enhanced body modification under-clothing.
[0002] Military and law enforcement personnel have employed armor-enhanced under- clothing in order to protect their bodies from gunfire, shrapnel, explosive devices and other harmful ballistic objects...
Thus, from these passages, it should be apparent that the clothing that is disclosed in Strum is designed for ballistics or an external event that contacts the clothing in Strum. The clothing is designed to protect bodies from penetration by these external objects.
Cheong discloses an energy dissipation composite material. To the extent that Cheong discloses garments or clothing, Cheong states: "the composite material can be used as industrial safety clothing for protecting workers in environments where sharp objects or projectiles could be encountered." See paragraph [0036] in Cheong. Cheong, at paragraph [0037] states
[0037] ... The article can also be protective clothing such as jackets, gloves, motorcycle
protective clothing, pants, or boots, which could stiffen to provide bodily protection against blasts, such as those caused by exploding land mines, and sudden impacts such as those injured upon landing by parachute, or in accidents.
This passage indicates again that the events to which Cheong refers are to protect a body from external objects. The fact that Cheong and Strum do not mention concussive events further confirms that they are not concerned with mitigating and/or reducing the effects of a concussive event, the problem with which the present invention was concerned. Accordingly, Applicant submits that neither Cheong nor Strum are reasonably pertinent to the problem that the present invention was attempting to solve. As noted above, the fact that bullets, ammunition, and/or mitigating the effect of external objects is not discussed anywhere in the present invention further confirms this lack of pertinence.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicants’ argument is fully considered.
Applicant’s specific argument that “Strum” is not “from the same field of endeavor” is fully considered and is moot insofar as 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 specific argument that “Cheong” is not “from the same field of endeavor” is fully considered and is not persuasive. As stated in MPEP 2141.01(a), the field of endeavor is not “limited to...the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field”. And “When determining whether the “relevant field of endeavor” test is met, the examiner should consider “explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.”...When determining whether a prior art reference meets the “same field of endeavor” test for the analogous art, the primary focus is on what the reference discloses...The examiner must consider the disclosure of each reference “in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances.’” ...These circumstances are to be weighed “from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.””
The present disclosure is directed to “A...garment” which “may be hooded” (Abstract). And although said garment “may” be hooded, attention is drawn to p. 18 lines 5-8 of the disclosure as filed which states “the present invention relates to a hooded garment that comprises a compression fabric and a smart fabric which may incorporate a shear thickening fluid. In a variation, the garment (which may or may not be hooded)”; emphasis provided by Examiner. Although the garment has the particular focus of “reduces the incidence of concussions and/or traumatic brain injuries” (Abstract), the field of endeavor is not limited to the particular focus of “mitigating concussions and/or the ability of their devices to mitigate and/or reduce a concussive event” as argued by the Applicant. And prior art [Cheong, US 2013/0061739] is in the same field of endeavor in that it is also directed to the field of garments (i.e. “vest” (para 2; para 13; para 35)).
Moreover, it is noted that Applicant’s assertion that the field of endeavor is “mitigating concussions and/or the ability of their devices to mitigate and/or reduce a concussive event” as argued is not consisted with the specification as filed. The specification as filed lists (see p. 4 line 4 as filed) as a pertinent reference prior art [Fonte, US 2013/0298317] which discloses a garment (i.e. “Protective padding”; Abstract configured to be worn by a wearer (para 89) such that it is a garment) wherein said garment is configured to mitigate the effects from being contacted by an external event (e.g. “absorbing the energy imparted through the SMM spacer fabric during impact (e.g., when hit by a ball, a stick, etc.”; para 88). Applicant’s reference to prior art [Fonte, US 2013/0298317] provides evidence that Applicant’s field of invention is broader than “mitigating concussions and/or the ability of their devices to mitigate and/or reduce a concussive event” and is indeed broad enough to include garments that are configured to mitigate the effects from being contacted by an external event.
Applicant’s specific argument that “Strum” is not “reasonable pertinent to the particular problem that the inventor was trying to solve” is fully considered and is moot insofar as 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 specific argument that “Cheong” is not “reasonable pertinent to the particular problem that the inventor was trying to solve” is fully considered and is not persuasive. MPEP 2141.01(a) states in relevant part “As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, the examiner should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as reflected - either explicitly or implicitly - in the specification. In order for a reference to be "reasonably pertinent" to the problem, it must "logically [] have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem."...An inventor is not expected to have been aware of all prior art outside of the field of endeavor....A reference outside of the field of endeavor is reasonably pertinent if a person of ordinary skill would have consulted it and applied its teachings when faced with the problem that the inventor was trying to solve...In order to support a determination that a reference is reasonably pertinent, it may be appropriate to include a statement of the examiner's understanding of the problem. The question of whether a reference is reasonably pertinent often turns on how the problem to be solved is perceived. If the problem to be solved is viewed in a narrow or constrained way, and such a view is not consistent with the specification, the scope of available prior art may be inappropriately limited. It may be necessary for the examiner to explain why an inventor seeking to solve the identified problem would have looked to the reference in an attempt to find a solution to the problem, i.e., factual reasons why the prior art is pertinent to the identified problem.”
In the present case, the problem to be solved is to “reduce[s] the incidence of concussions and/or traumatic brain injuries for athletes, adventurists (i.e., competitive athletes and recreational athletes), military members, law enforcement officers, and professionals working in dangerous environments” (p. 1 lines 8-11 as filed). The present disclosure further states “Traumatic brain injury can occur from impact to the head, the linear acceleration of the head, and/or the rotation of the head” (p. 9 lines 19-20) such that a given structure that is configured to reduce impact would be reasonably pertinent to the problem of reducing the incidence of traumatic brain injury because the present disclosure states that traumatic brain injury can occur from impact. Insofar as prior art [Cheong, US 2013/0061739] is directed to the reduction of impact (“high impact energy dissipation”; para 13 of Cheong), it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
Applicant argues (p. 9-11):
Moreover, Applicant notes that instant claim 1 recites:
1. A garment that comprises a compression fabric, and a smart fabric that
comprises a shear thickening fluid, wherein the garment is a hooded garment, and
the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid in only apart of the
garment, and wherein the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid
present in one or more of a hood, a neck, and a shoulder.
Applicant notes that claim 1 has been amended by the insertion of the subject matter of claim 7. Accordingly, Applicant notes that the Examiner has not issued rejections over claim 7 using Strum combined with Cheong, optionally in view of Aquino. Applicant notes that the present invention is directed to a hooded garment and a hood is not disclosed anywhere in Cheong or Strum. Thus, the combination of these two references fails to render present claim 1 prima facie obvious for failing to disclose the elements of the presently claimed invention. Moreover, the hooded garment of the present invention is important in mitigating and/or reducing concussive events so the fact that neither Cheong nor Strum disclose a hood further confirms that they had little concern in addressing a head related event (i.e., a concussion), which provides further proof that their materials were not pertinent to the problem that the present invention was trying to solve. The second part of the analogous art test is not satisfied by Cheong and/or Strum. Because Cheong and Strum are not analogous art, they cannot be properly used by the Examiner to render prima facie obvious the present invention. None of the other references make up for the fact that Cheong and Strum cannot be properly used.
The Examiner uses Brookman for the disclosure of a hood. However, as is the case with Cheong and Strum, Brookman fails to disclose, suggest, or teach or have any discussion about mitigating concussive events. Brookman, like Cheong and Strum, fail to mention concussion anywhere. The purpose of Brookman is to provide garments that can be used for biological, chemical and fire protection purposes. Applicant submits that this is a completely different field of endeavor than the present invention because the garments are in no way designed to deal with any type of impact event. The problem that Brookman was attempting to solve is also not reasonably pertinent to the present invention. The disclosure of the present invention says nothing about biological, chemical or fire and so one of ordinary skill in the art would never turn to Brookman as analogous art.
Applicant further submits that Brookman differs from the purposes of Cheong and/or Strum so that it should be apparent that the combination of these three references constitutes impermissible hindsight reasoning relying on the claimed invention to piece together Brookman with Cheong and Strum. Applicant recognizes that hindsight reasoning is difficult to avoid, but in this instance, the hindsight reasoning is impermissible.
In this regard, as a reason for combining Brookman with Cheong and Strum, the Examiner states:
... a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the [SIC, would have] modified Strum such that its garment is a hooded garment, as in Brookman, in order to protect an area of the wearer 's body that could be left exposed when used in combination with an outer garment, as taught by Brookman (para 21). In adopting the modification, one would arrive at wherein the garment is a hooded garment, and the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid in only a part (i.e. front torso part) of the garment as claimed.
Applicant submits that the fact that neither Cheong nor Strum fail to disclose a hood at all can not be overlooked. The purpose of Cheong and Strum are to mitigate the effects of ballistics and/or external projectiles. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the head is a possible target of ballistics. Yet, they both fail to mention any type of head protection. In paragraph [0010], Strum mentions a head opening in the body suit but there is no suggestion that the body suit may be modified by including a hood. Cheong fails to mention a head at all, so it is apparent that Cheong had no concern about ballistics contacting the head.
In contrast to the ballistic purposes of Cheong and Strum, Brookman's purpose is for protection from chemical, biological and/or fire purposes. One of ordinary skill in the art would not combine these vastly divergent references because their purposes are not aligned. The purpose of Brookman is not to avoid danger from impact but rather to provide an adsorptive layer to prevent harmful biological or chemical agents from reaching the individual (see paragraph [0007] in Brookman). Thus, in light of the above remarks it should be apparent that no combination of Cheong, Strum, and Brookman or any of the other cited references can render prima facie obvious the presently claimed invention. The rejections using these references is inapposite.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicants’ arguments are fully 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 argues (p. 11-13):
Regarding claims 14 and 16, as well as claims 15 and 17-20, which depend from claims 14 and 16, respectively, Applicant notes that Boland is used in the rejection of all of these claims. Claims 14 and 16, respectively, recite:
14. A method of reducing mechanical shear stress in a person that undergoes an
impact event, the method comprising the person wearing a hooded garment, the hooded
garment comprising a smart fabric that comprises a shear thickening fluid.
16. A method of reducing or mitigating the severity of a concussion or traumatic
brain injury in a human, the method comprising the human wearing a hooded garment,
the hooded garment comprising a smart fabric that comprises a shear thickening fluid.
Boland, at paragraphs [0002] and [0004] states:
[0002] This invention, Shear-Thickening Fluid Cowl for Cervical Spine Protection
(hereinafter "Cowl "), consists of a cowl or hood filled with shear-thickening fluid. The
cowl remains flexible under normal circumstances but becomes rigid when a high-impact
shock is transmitted to it through the wearer's helmet. The rigid Cowl transmits the
energy from the high-velocity rifle round's impact around and past the user's head and
into an attached rear plate in the user's body armor For soldiers wearing helmets
capable of withstanding a high-powered rifle round, Cowl provides survivability that
previous designs do not provide.
[0004] The only prior art with any comparability to Cowl is US20130296755Al, which uses shear-thickening fluid to prevent spinal injury in sports. Its main deficiency is that it is intended to stop the head from moving further after it is already in motion. This earlier approach does not conduct the energy directly from the helmet to the wearer's armored vest, and therefore will not prevent concussions, muscle damage, or cervical spine injury from high-velocity shock.
Applicant notes that when one reads these two passages together, it should be apparent that Boland uses and requires an attached rear plate and a helmet. The cowl (i.e., a loose fitting hood) may have shear thickening fluid in it that is designed to harden to prevent the head from moving when the helmet is struck by a bullet (e.g., high-velocity shock). Boland relies on the attached rear plate in the body armor to absorb the energy from the high-velocity shock. Boland plainly states that the prior art patent application publication US20130296755 A1, which uses shear-thickening fluid to prevent spinal injury in sports does not prevent concussions, muscle damage, or cervical spine injury from high-velocity shock. Thus, in reading this passage, it should be apparent that having a fabric with shear-thickening fluid by itself, according to Boland is not sufficient to prevent concussions but rather, it is the combination of the cowl, the helmet and rear plate that are required (as described in Boland) to prevent concussions. Applicant notes that the preamble of claim 16 is directed to reducing or mitigating the severity of a concussion or traumatic brain injury. Thus, it should be apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art in reading Boland, would not believe that a concussion could be addressed simply by using a smart fabric with a shear thickening fluid. Boland, in essence, teaches away from the use of only a fabric and a shear thickening fluid to mitigate concussive events. In reading Boland, one would be dissuaded from using only a fabric comprising a shear thickening fluid to mitigate a concussive event because Boland has indicated that it is ineffective.
Regarding an impact event, paragraph [0005] of US 2025/194714 Al (the patent application publication of the present invention), it states:
[0005] Upon an impact event, the movement of the head (as caused by, but not limited to,
direct impact to the head or differential movement of the head and body as caused by
inertia from indirect impact) imposes a force on the hooded garment.
Applicant notes that this the force of the head imposes a force on the hooded garment (i.e., the force comes from an internal event). This should be contrasted with Boland's high-velocity shock, which comes from a bullet (i.e., the high velocity shock comes from the exterior of the helmet). Boland is designed to prevent the head from moving. Note that Boland sates when referencing US20130296755: "Its main deficiency is that it is intended to stop the head from moving further after it is already in motion. This earlier approach does not conduct the energy directly from the helmet to the wearer's armored vest, and therefore will not prevent concussions." Thus, not only does Boland disparage the use of a fabric with a shear-thickening fluid, but Boland also states that the mechanisms of action differ. In Boland, the device prevents the head from moving whereas the mechanism of action of a fabric used alone with a shear thickening fluid allows for head movement. Boland states that this is ineffective for its purposes because of this head movement. Applicant notes that present claim 14 is directed to an impact event wherein it is clear that the impact event occurs because of movement of the head. The full movement of the head is mitigated by the presence of the smart fabric that comprises the shear thickening fluid. Nevertheless, Boland makes it clear that head movement is undesirable, whereas the present invention claims an impact event that comprises head movement. The clear implication is that Boland not only teaches away from the product that is recited in the presently claimed invention but also teaches away from the mechanism of action that the present invention employs.
Furthermore, similarly to Cheong and Sturm, Boland is concerned with ballistics, an event that is external whereas the present invention is concerned with an internal event (i.e., movement of the head). Accordingly, Boland also is concerned with vastly different mechanisms and circumstances relative to the present invention.
For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 can not be rendered prima facie obvious by any
combination of Cheong, Strum, Brookman, Boland, and/or Aquino. Withdrawal of the rejections is warranted and respectfully requested.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicants’ arguments directed to claims 1-13 are fully 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.
Applicants’ arguments directed to claims 14-15 are fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s specific arguments in relation to claims 14-15 and prior art [Boland, US 2018/0049501] are not persuasive. Although Applicant argues that “present claim 14 is directed to an impact event wherein it is clear that the impact event occurs because of movement of the head”, this argument is not persuasive if only because claim 14 does not claim that any impact event occurs because of movement of the head (emphasis provided by Examiner). Moreover, the specification states that head movement “may occur when it is subjected to an impact event” (p. 14 lines 26-27), which suggests that an impact event can cause head movement rather than an impact event occurs because of movement of the head as argued. Applicant’s further argument directed to claim 14 that “The full movement of the head is mitigated by the presence of the smart fabric that comprises the shear thickening fluid. Nevertheless, Boland makes it clear that head movement is undesirable, whereas the present invention claims an impact event that comprises head movement. The clear implication is that Boland not only teaches away from the product that is recited in the presently claimed invention but also teaches away from the mechanism of action that the present invention employs” is fully considered and is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., full movement of a head being mitigated by a smart fabric comprising shear thickening fluid; an impact event comprising head movement) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants’ arguments directed to claims 16-20 are fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s specific arguments in relation to claims 16-20 and prior art [Boland, US 2018/0049501] are fully considered and are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s argument that “it should be apparent that having a fabric with shear-thickening fluid by itself, according to Boland is not sufficient to prevent concussions but rather, it is the combination of the cowl, the helmet and rear plate that are required (as described in Boland) to prevent concussions. Applicant notes that the preamble of claim 16 is directed to reducing or mitigating the severity of a concussion or traumatic brain injury. Thus, it should be apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art in reading Boland, would not believe that a concussion could be addressed simply by using a smart fabric with a shear thickening fluid. Boland, in essence, teaches away from the use of only a fabric and a shear thickening fluid to mitigate concussive events. In reading Boland, one would be dissuaded from using only a fabric comprising a shear thickening fluid to mitigate a concussive event because Boland has indicated that it is ineffective” is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because it is not commensurate with claim language. Claim 16 does not require using only a fabric and a shear thickening fluid by itself (emphases provided by Examiner) to mitigate the severity of a concussion or a traumatic brain injury; nor does claim 16 exclude the use of a helmet and/or rear plate. Examiner respectfully points out that “comprises” is, as per MPEP 2111.03, “inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps”. Although Boland utilizes the argued additional, unrecited elements and/or method steps of “the helmet and rear plate that are required (as described in Boland) to prevent concussions”, one of ordinary skill and of ordinary creativity would have recognized that the method of Cheong could be modified to arrive at the method as claimed, comprising the step of the human wearing a hooded garment as claimed, even though Boland utilizes the argued additional, unrecited elements and/or method steps of said helmet and said rear plate. Attention is drawn to MPEP 2141 which states in relevant part “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”.
To the extent that Applicant’s specific argument that “...Boland is concerned with ballistics, an event that is external whereas the present invention is concerned with an internal event (i.e., movement of the head). Accordingly, Boland also is concerned with vastly different mechanisms and circumstances relative to the present invention” is an argument that Boland is not analogous art: this argument is fully considered and is not persuasive.
As stated in MPEP 2141.01(a), the field of endeavor is not “limited to...the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field”. And “When determining whether the “relevant field of endeavor” test is met, the examiner should consider “explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.”...When determining whether a prior art reference meets the “same field of endeavor” test for the analogous art, the primary focus is on what the reference discloses...The examiner must consider the disclosure of each reference “in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances.’” ...These circumstances are to be weighed “from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.””
The present disclosure is directed to “A...garment” which “may be hooded” (Abstract). And although said garment “may” be hooded, attention is drawn to p. 18 lines 5-8 of the disclosure as filed which states “the present invention relates to a hooded garment that comprises a compression fabric and a smart fabric which may incorporate a shear thickening fluid. In a variation, the garment (which may or may not be hooded)”; emphasis provided by Examiner. Although the garment has the particular focus of “reduces the incidence of concussions and/or traumatic brain injuries” (Abstract), the field of endeavor is not limited to the particular focus of “mitigating concussions and/or the ability of their devices to mitigate and/or reduce a concussive event” as argued by the Applicant. And prior art [Boland, US 2018/0049501] is in the same field of endeavor in that it is also directed to the field of garments (i.e. “cowl or hood” (para 99)).
Moreover, Applicant’s argument that “present invention is concerned with an internal event (i.e., movement of the head)” is fully considered; however, Boland remains analogous art; it is noted that the specification as filed lists (see p. 4 line 4 as filed) as a pertinent reference prior art [Fonte, US 2013/0298317] which discloses a garment (i.e. “Protective padding”; Abstract configured to be worn by a wearer (para 89) such that it is a garment) wherein said garment is configured to mitigate the effects from being contacted by an external event (e.g. “absorbing the energy imparted through the SMM spacer fabric during impact (e.g., when hit by a ball, a stick, etc.”; para 88). Applicant’s reference to prior art [Fonte, US 2013/0298317] provides evidence that Applicant’s field of invention is broader than “concerned with an internal event (i.e., movement of the head)” and is indeed broad enough to include garments that are configured to mitigate the effects from being contacted by an external event.
In addition, Boland is reasonably pertinent. MPEP 2141.01(a) states in relevant part “As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, the examiner should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as reflected - either explicitly or implicitly - in the specification. In order for a reference to be "reasonably pertinent" to the problem, it must "logically [] have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem."...An inventor is not expected to have been aware of all prior art outside of the field of endeavor....A reference outside of the field of endeavor is reasonably pertinent if a person of ordinary skill would have consulted it and applied its teachings when faced with the problem that the inventor was trying to solve...In order to support a determination that a reference is reasonably pertinent, it may be appropriate to include a statement of the examiner's understanding of the problem. The question of whether a reference is reasonably pertinent often turns on how the problem to be solved is perceived. If the problem to be solved is viewed in a narrow or constrained way, and such a view is not consistent with the specification, the scope of available prior art may be inappropriately limited. It may be necessary for the examiner to explain why an inventor seeking to solve the identified problem would have looked to the reference in an attempt to find a solution to the problem, i.e., factual reasons why the prior art is pertinent to the identified problem.”
In the present case, the problem to be solved is to “reduce[s] the incidence of concussions and/or traumatic brain injuries for athletes, adventurists (i.e., competitive athletes and recreational athletes), military members, law enforcement officers, and professionals working in dangerous environments” (p. 1 lines 8-11 as filed). The present disclosure further states “Traumatic brain injury can occur from impact to the head, the linear acceleration of the head, and/or the rotation of the head” (p. 9 lines 19-20) such that a given structure that is configured to reduce impact would be reasonably pertinent to the problem of reducing the incidence of traumatic brain injury because the present disclosure states that traumatic brain injury can occur from impact. Insofar as prior art Boland is directed to the reduction of impact (“upon...impact...conveys the energy of the impact”; Abstract of Boland; “impact causes the fluid to become viscous to the point of rigidity. The rigid Cowl does not transmit the energy delivered by the high-velocity impact to the wearer's neck or head”; para 9 of Boland), it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
New Drawing
A replacement Drawing Sheet was received on 10/14/2025. This replacement sheet is unacceptable and is not entered.
First: as stated in the office action of 07/14/2025 (see p. 5 lines 10-12), “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)”. Accordingly, the replacement sheet is not acceptable if only because it does not comply with this requirement.
In addition, the drawing sheet, even if it were labeled “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet”, would not be entered because it would introduce new matter into the disclosure. MPEP 714 states, in referencing 37 CFR 1.121, that no amendment may introduce new matter into the disclosure of an application. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the structural arrangement of the newly drawn elements 611, 612, 613, 614 relative to one another and relative to the rest of the garment.
Replacement Specification
A replacement specification filed 10/14/2025 is acknowledged and is entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 611, 612, 613, 614. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
one or more electrical components selected from the group consisting of a battery, a LED, an electronic chip and a sensor of claim 6
garment comprises the shear thickening fluid present only in the hood, the neck, and the shoulder of claim 12
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 line 2: “the torso” should be --a torso--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the shear thickening fluid is not in padding”. However, as evidenced in Applicant’s Background of the invention, a padding can comprise a fabric (p. 4 lines 4-5 of the specification as filed) such that it is not clear under what circumstances a smart fabric comprising a shear thickening fluid as claimed in claim 1 would meet the limitation “wherein the shear thickening fluid is not in padding”. In other words, it is not clear which fabric or fabrics would comprise a shear thickening fluid wherein the shear thickening would be in padding and which fabric or fabrics would comprise a shear thickening fluid wherein the shear thickening would be not in padding. For the purpose of applying art, the term “wherein the shear thickening fluid is not in padding” is interpreted as if it reads --wherein the garment further comprises padding, and the shear thickening fluid is not in the padding--
The term “high-performance polymer fabrics” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-performance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not set forth any clear explanation(s) of the recited phrase, and it is accordingly not understood what performance criteria a fabric would need to meet in order for it to be a “high-performance polymer fabrics” as claimed. For the purpose of applying art, the term “high-performance polymer fabrics” is interpreted as if it reads --polymer fabrics--
Claim 12 is rejected if only because it depends from a rejected claim.
Claim 21 is indefinite because it recites both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. Attention is drawn to MPEP 2173.05(p) which states in relevant part “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite”. In the present case, claim 21 recites both a garment apparatus and a method step (i.e. “fluid...reduces...movement”) of using the apparatus and is accordingly indefinite. For the purpose of applying art, the claim is interpreted as if it reads --wherein the shear thickening fluid in the garment is configured to reduce one or more of sagittal movement, frontal (coronal) movement, or transverse (axial) movement of a head relative to a garment that does not contain the shear thickening fluid--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Witek, US 2018/0279692, newly cited] in view of [Heath, US 8,690,634, newly cited] and [Ardalan, US D774,282 S, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Witek discloses (Fig. 2):
A garment 102 that comprises a fabric (“fabric...spandex (lycra)” or “combination of polyamide...and elastane”; para 48), and a smart fabric (i.e. that portion of the garment into which shear thickening fluid is impregnated) that comprises a shear thickening fluid (Absract), and the garment comprises the shear thickening fluid in only a part of the garment (“the shoulder straps 260 are treated with the STF and the non-planar region 230 may not be treated with the STF”; para 55), and wherein the garment comprises the shear thickening fluid present in one or more of a hood, a neck, and a shoulder (the garment comprises the shear thickening fluid present in a shoulder: “the shoulder straps 260 are treated with the STF”; para 55).
Witek does not expressly disclose the fabric is a compression fabric. Rather, as set forth above, the fabric is “spandex (lycra)” or “combination of polyamide...and elastane”; para 48. Given the Applicant’s recitation of “Spandex” as a component of a “compression-style material composition” (see the first full paragraph of p. 16 as filed), Witek appears to disclose a fabric that is similar in composition to the claimed compression fabric.
However, Heath teaches a garment comprises a compression fabric (“compression...fabric”; col. 4 line 19) comprising “elastane” or “spandex” (col. 4 line 22). Heath further teaches “Shell 103 is formed with a compression fabric to reduce motion by pressing a wearer's breasts against her chest”; col. 4 lines 17-18.
It 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 to have modified the garment of Witek such that its fabric is a compression fabric in order to reduce the motion of a wearer’s body due to the compression provided thereby, a suggested by Heath (col. 4 lines 17-18).
Witek does not expressly disclose wherein the garment is a hooded garment, and the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid in only a part of the garment, and wherein the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid present in one or more of a hood, a neck, and a shoulder.
However, Ardalan teaches a garment (“hooded top”; claim) wherein the garment is a hooded garment (“hooded”; claim; Figs. 1-7).
It 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 to have modified the modified Witek such that it is a hooded garment, as in Ardalan, in order to yield the predictable result of permitting a wearer to wear a hood thereof over her head for the purpose(s) of comfort, style, and/or protection.
Regarding claim 2:
Witek in view of Heath and Ardalan teach The garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Witek further meets the limitation wherein the smart fabric comprises nylon (“polyamide”; para 48), spandex (“spandex”; para 48), cotton, wool, hemp, bamboo, silk, aramid, polyester, polyester blends, other natural or synthetic fabrics, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 3:
Witek in view of Heath and Ardalan teach The garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Witek further discloses wherein the shear thickening fluid comprises a colloidal silica mixture (“colloidal particles...be dispersed in the fluid”; para 80; wherein “colloidal particles. The particles used in the STF may be generally selected from, but not limited to, silicon dioxide (silica)”; para 82).
Regarding claim 4:
Witek in view of Heath and Ardalan teach The garment of claim 3, as set forth above.
Witek further discloses wherein the colloidal silica mixture comprises silica nanoparticles (“particles are nanoparticles”; para 96; “the colloidal particles may have an average size of 5 nm, 10 nm, 20 nm, 30 nm, 40 nm, 50 nm, 80 nm, 100 nm, 150 nm, 200 nm, 250 nm, 400 nm, 500 nm, 600 nm, 800 nm, 1 μm, 2 μm, 5 μm, 10 μm, 20 μm, 50 μm, 100 μm or any range having any of these two values as endpoints. Other sizes may be used as well as combination of sizes and polydisperse particles. Preferred ranges include 5 nm to 1 μm, 100 nm to 500 nm, 100 nm to 1 μm”; para 83) suspended in a polyethylene glycol fluid (“fluid medium may be polyethylene glycol”; para 15).
Regarding claim 5:
Witek in view of Heath and Ardalan teach The garment of claim 2, as set forth above.
Witek further discloses wherein the smart fabric comprises nylon, aramid, spandex (“spandex”; para 48), or polyester blends.
Regarding claim 9:
Witek in view of Heath and Ardalan teach The garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Witek further discloses wherein the shear thickening fluid comprises one or more of a starch dispersion (“cornstarch”; para 82), a silica slurry (“silicon dioxide (silica)”; para 82), a CeO2-silica suspension, silica microsphere and ionic liquids, a multi-walled carbon nanotubes-polypropylene glycol mix, a silica-carbon nanotube containing liquid, a silica- polypropylene glycol (silica of para 82 and propylene glycol of para 85), or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 10:
Witek in view of Heath and Ardalan teach The garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Witek further discloses wherein the shear thickening fluid is not in padding.
(Witek teaches 230 is a “pad” and therefore padding as claimed, and the shear thickening fluid is not in 230; i.e. “the shoulder straps 260 are treated with the STF and the non-planar region 230 may not be treated with the STF”; para 55).
Regarding claim 11:
Witek in view of Heath and Ardalan teach The garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Witek further discloses wherein the shear thickening fluid is a silica nanoparticles (“particles are nanoparticles”; para 96; “the colloidal particles may have an average size of 5 nm, 10 nm, 20 nm, 30 nm, 40 nm, 50 nm, 80 nm, 100 nm, 150 nm, 200 nm, 250 nm, 400 nm, 500 nm, 600 nm, 800 nm, 1 μm, 2 μm, 5 μm, 10 μm, 20 μm, 50 μm, 100 μm or any range having any of these two values as endpoints. Other sizes may be used as well as combination of sizes and polydisperse particles. Preferred ranges include 5 nm to 1 μm, 100 nm to 500 nm, 100 nm to 1 μm”; para 83) suspended in a polyethylene glycol fluid (“fluid medium may be polyethylene glycol”; para 15) and the smart fabric comprises nylon (“polyamide”; para 48), aramid, spandex (“spandex”; para 48), polyester blends, or high-performance polymer fabrics (“polyamide”; para 48).
Regarding claim 13:
Witek in view of Heath and Ardalan teach The garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Witek does not expressly disclose wherein the shear thickening fluid is not present in the torso of the hooded garment.
However and in further view of Witek:
Witek further teaches “In some embodiments, portions of the sports bra may be selectively treated with the STF based on the parameters comprising user's comfort level, activity level, desired protection and support”; para 67.
It 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 to have modified the modified Witek such that the shear thickening fluid is not present in the torso of the hooded garment in order to provide the garment with the capability of providing movement restriction in the shoulder strap area of the garment and not in the torso area of the garment for a user who desires the comfort level provided thereby, whose activity level is aligned with such a garment, and/or who desires the level of protection and/or support provided thereby.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Witek, US 2018/0279692], [Heath, US 8,690,634], and [Ardalan, US D774,282 S] as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of [Durbhaka, US 2016/0331320].
Regarding claim 6:
Witek in view of Heath and Ardalan teach The garment of claim 2, as set forth above.
Witek does not expressly disclose wherein the smart fabric further comprises one or more electrical components selected from the group consisting of a battery, a LED, an electronic chip, and a sensor.
In further view of Witek: Witek does teach a sensor (para 69) to obtain “kinematic data” to “measure accelerations of body segments”. Witek however does not expressly that that such are electrical components nor does Witek expressly teach inclusion thereof in a smart fabric.
However, Durbhaka teaches a smart fabric (Abstract, title) wherein said smart fabric comprises an electrical sensor: “Similar to accelerometer sensor 102, the load sensor(s) 104 are placed within the fabric in a manner that facilitates the load sensor(s) 104 to measure the stress parts of the user of the adaptive wearable smart fabric 100. The load sensor(s) 104 may be in communication, either wired or wirelessly. The standard load sensors 104 are of a nature that may convert the stress measurable by a magnitude of the electrical signals generated”; para 24.
Durbhaka further teaches “the accelerometer sensor 102 and the load sensor 104 may transmit the captured data to the processor 108 for further analysis. Based upon the data received from the accelerometer sensor 102 and the load sensor 104, the processor 108 may analyze the data so as to determine the posture of the user of the adaptive wearable smart fabric 100” (para 26).
It 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 to have modified the modified Witek such that its smart fabric is provided with an electrical sensor in order to determine the posture of the user while wearing the garment, as suggested by Durbhaka (para 26). One of ordinary skill would be motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Witek teaches the desire to obtain “kinematic data may be obtained by using accelerometers or other suitable sensors that measure accelerations of body segments directly” (para 69), and the modification would result in the ability to obtain such kinematic data whilst using the garment for the purpose of assessing the performance of the garment while a wearer is using the garment.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Hogg, US 2024/0260701, newly cited – and provisional 63/483,130 incorporated therein by reference] in view of [Wagner, US 2021/0291486, newly cited] and [Goodhand, US 2010/0043123, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Hogg discloses:
A garment (“item of protective wear...cowl”; p. 5 lines 1-2 of the attached Priority Document corresponding to US63/483,130; “cowl” p. 6 line 1) comprising a shear thickening fluid (“made of a...fluid that exhibits shear thickening under force”; p. 5 lines 8-9); wherein the garment is a hooded garment (as a result of its hood identified in below annotated Fig. “Embodiment 4” – a below), wherein the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid present in one or more of a hood (annotated Fig. “Embodiment 4” – a below), a neck (annotated Fig. “Embodiment 4” – a below; attention is drawn to the present disclosure’s assignment of numerals 604/606/607/608/71 identifying the neck of the present disclosure in present disclosure Figs. 6-8 and numeral 607 identifying the shoulder in present Figs. 6-8 such that the neck and shoulder identified hereinbelow are consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings), and a shoulder (annotated Fig. “Embodiment 4” – a below; attention is drawn to the present disclosure’s assignment of numerals 604/606/607/608/71 identifying the neck of the present disclosure in present disclosure Figs. 6-8 and numeral 607 identifying the shoulder in present Figs. 6-8 such that the neck and shoulder identified hereinbelow are consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings).
PNG
media_image1.png
561
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hogg does not expressly disclose A garment that comprises a smart fabric that comprises a shear thickening fluid, wherein the garment is a hooded garment, and wherein the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid present in one or more of a hood, a neck, and a shoulder.
Rather, in Hogg as relied upon above, Hogg teaches providing a “fluid...shear thickening” within “liquid-tight pouches having geometries similar to...fabric that encloses” shear-thickening “foam” (p. 5 lines 10-11) such that Hogg teaches a shear thickening fluid enclosed within a pouch. Hogg is silent as to said pouch is or comprises a smart fabric.
However, Wagner teaches “Composite materials incorporated with shear thickening fluids (STF) are disclosed. The STF-composites are light weight and include high tenacity textiles that dissipate/absorb energy from impact forces” (Abstract) wherein said composite materials are appropriate for “garments” (para 4), a “Protection Garment”, and “apparel worn” (para 58) wherein a smart fabric comprises a shear thickening fluid wherein the smart fabric comprising the shear thickening fluid is enclosed within a pouch: (“STF layer can take the form of an STF packet...The STF packet consists of STF integrated into spacer fabric having the desired thickness which is then sealed within a polymeric film covering using vacuum sealing or similar” (para 108)). Wagner further teaches a spacer fabric is “to control thickness” (para 134) of the composite and that a smart fabric comprising shear thickening fluid is “deemed to provide an easier means for working with the material and incorporating STF into a structure compared to working with the fluid alone” Smart fabrics comprising “STF...have the additional advantage of being easier to use than liquid STF interlayers in the manufacture of composites with curved or complex shapes” (para 133).
It 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 to have modified the modified Hogg such that its shear thickening fluid is provided within a smart fabric comprising the shear thickening fluid, as in Wagner, in order to control thickness of the composite which comprises the shear thickening fluid, to make the manufacturing of the garment easier, and/or to readily accommodate curved and/or complex shapes, as taught by Wagner (paras 133, 134).
Hogg does not expressly disclose A garment that comprises a compression fabric, and a smart fabric that comprises a shear thickening fluid, wherein the garment is a hooded garment, and the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid in only a part of the garment, and wherein the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid present in one or more of a hood, a neck, and a shoulder.
However and in further view of Hogg:
Hogg p. 34 teaches combining a cowl with a strap system and a pants to yield a garment comprising the combined cowl, strap system, and pants: “item disclosed herein is most effective when fitted snugly to its wearer. To anchor the item in place, a strap system may be employed...may anchor to the wear’s pants (example: football pants or hockey pants)...to draw the item snugly down around the wearer’s head, neck, shoulder region...in a manner similar to a suspender arrangement” (p. 34 lines 1-6).
Hogg does not expressly disclose that said strap system and pants are free of the shear thickening fluid; however, given their purpose of permitting a tight fit of the cowl and given the cowl’s purpose of concussion prevention and impact protection, one of ordinary skill would recognize that said strap system and pants would not necessarily comprise the shear thickening fluid and could instead be another material that is free of shear thickening fluid as long as said strap system and pants would fulfill the purpose of permitting cowl securement as described in p. 34 lines 1-6.
It 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 to have modified the modified Hogg such that it is combined with a strap system and a pants, wherein said strap system and pants do not comprise the shear thickening fluid, in order to permit the cowl to snugly fit over a wearer in order for it to be effective, as taught by Hogg (p. 34 lines 1-6).
In adopting the modification, one would arrive at A garment comprising a smart fabric that comprises a shear thickening fluid, wherein the garment is a hooded garment, and the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid in only a part of the garment (i.e. only in the cowl of the garment and not in the strap system and not in the pants), and wherein the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid present in one or more of a hood, a neck, and a shoulder (of the cowl).
Regarding the limitation A garment that comprises a compression fabric:
Hogg does not specify a material of construction of either the strap system or the pants.
However, Goodhand teaches an article of apparel (“pant for a hockey player”; Abstract) configured to be used in the sport of hockey in order to mitigate or prevent injury (“protective...for protecting”; Abstract) wherein a pants comprises a compression fabric: “pant is...made of compression material i.e. a material that is stretched so that when worn by the player, it fits snug and exerts compression on the player's thighs and/or the crotch region and/or the hip regions. For the most part, the inner pant is made of compression material adapted to tightly engage and exert a compressive force on the player's body. Compression fabric or high tenacity stretch fabric provides muscles with a firm compression fit that lessons vibrations, reduces fatigue, and keeps muscles energized when in a close fitting with the human body” (para 25).
It 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 to have modified the pants of the modified Hogg such that its pants comprises a compression fabric in order to provide muscles with a firm compression fit that lessens vibrations, reduces fatigues, and/or keeps muscles energized, as taught by Goodhand (para 25).
In adopting the modification, one would arrive at A garment (the combined cowl, strap system, and pants) that comprises a compression fabric (of the pants of the garment), a smart fabric (of the cowl) that comprises a shear thickening fluid, wherein the garment is a hooded garment (the cowl of the garment comprises a hood such that it is a hooded garment), and the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid in only a part of the garment (i.e. only in the cowl of the garment and not in the strap system and not in the pants), and wherein the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid present in one or more of a hood, a neck, and a shoulder (i.e. in the smart fabric of the cowl).
Regarding claim 2:
Hogg in view of Wagner and Goodhand teach The garment of claim 1.
As applied to claim 1 above, the modified Hogg does not meet the limitation wherein the smart fabric comprises nylon, spandex, cotton, wool, hemp, bamboo, silk, aramid, polyester, polyester blends, other natural or synthetic fabrics, or combinations thereof.
However and in further view of Wagner:
Wagner teaches a smart fabric comprises aramid (para 102), polyester (para 97, wherein the “polyethylene terephthalate” of para 97 is a polyester), or other synthetic fabrics (“UHMWPE”, “ePTFE”; para 102). Wagner further teaches such materials are “high tenacity” (para 96) and have “high tensile strength” (para 96).
It 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 to have modified the modified Hogg such that its smart fabric comprises aramid, polyester, or other synthetic fabrics in order to make the smart fabric strong, as suggested by Wagner (para 96).
Regarding claim 3:
Hogg in view of Wagner and Goodhand teach The garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 1 above, the modified Hogg does not meet the limitation wherein the shear thickening fluid comprises a colloidal silica mixture.
However and in further view of Wagner:
Wagner teaches a shear thickening fluid comprises a colloidal silica mixture (para 12; para 87).
Wagner further teaches “STF-composites containing the silica particles exhibited better impact and leak resistance as compared to the STF-composites containing the softer calcium carbonate particles”; para 127.
It 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 to have modified the modified Hogg such that is shear thickening fluid comprises a colloidal silica mixture in order to provide good impact and/or leak resistance, as suggested by Wagner (para 127).
Regarding claim 4:
Hogg in view of Wagner and Goodhand teach The garment of claim 3, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 3 above, the modified Hogg does not meet the limitation wherein the colloidal silica mixture comprises silica nanoparticles suspended in a polyethylene glycol fluid.
However and in further view of Wagner:
Wagner teaches the “silica particles having an average particle size of about 500 nm are suspended in the carrier fluid” (para 88) and a “Suitable” carrier fluid is a polyethylene glycol (para 90).
It 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 to have modified the modified Hogg such that the colloidal silica mixture comprises silica nanoparticles suspended in a polyethylene glycol fluid in order to confer the shear-thickening properties of the shear thickening fluid. One of ordinary skill would have been confronted with a decision as to which material(s) to use in providing the colloidal silica mixture and would have recognized that silica nanoparticles suspended in a polyethylene glycol fluid would be an acceptable mixture based on the teachings of Wagner.
Regarding claim 5:
Hogg in view of Wagner and Goodhand teach The garment of claim 2, as set forth above.
The modified Hogg further meets the limitation wherein the smart fabric comprises nylon, aramid, spandex, or polyester blends.
(refer to above treatment of claim 2 wherein Hogg is modified such that the smart fabric comprises aramid.)
Regarding claim 6:
Hogg in view of Wagner and Goodhand teach The garment of claim 2, as set forth above.
Hogg further discloses further comprising one or more electrical components (“sensors...accelerometers...coupled to...power source”; p. 38 lines 15-18) selected from the group consisting of a batter, a LED, an electronic chip, and a sensor (“sensors”).
Hogg does not expressly disclose the smart fabric comprises the one or more electrical components.
However and in further view of Hogg:
Hogg teaches providing the one or more electrical components “at locations of the item that would be about the wearer’s heat or neck” for “assisting medical personnel in analyzing or assessing collisions” (final paragraph of p. 38),
It 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 to have modified the modified Hogg such that its smart fabric comprises the one or more electrical components in order to yield the predictable result of assessing impact forces at the location of the smart fabric.
Regarding claim 8:
Hogg in view of Wagner and Goodhand teach The garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Hogg does not expressly disclose wherein the garment further comprises a shoulder (a shoulder of the cowl) and a neck (a neck of the cowl).
Hogg does not expressly disclose wherein the garment further comprises an inner arm.
However and in further view of Hogg:
Hogg teaches combining a cowl with a “strap system that includes adjustable straps that run under each arm of the wearer...to pull the item snugly into place on the body of the wearer”; p. 38 lines 6-9).
It 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 to have modified the modified Hogg such that it is provided with a strap system comprising an inner arm in order to permit the wearer to tighten the cowl via the inner arm of the strap system, as suggested by Hogg (p. 38 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 9:
Hogg in view of Wagner and Goodhand teach The garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 1 above, the modified Hogg does not meet the limitation wherein the shear thickening fluid comprises one or more of a starch dispersion, a silica slurry, a silica-ethylene glycol mix, a CeO2-silica suspension, silica microsphere and ionic liquids, a multi-walled carbon nanotubes-polypropylene glycol mix, a silica-carbon nanotube containing liquid, a silica-polypropylene glycol, or combinations thereof.
However and in further view of Wagner:
Wagner teaches a shear thickening fluid comprises a silica slurry (para 12; para 87).
Wagner further teaches “STF-composites containing the silica particles exhibited better impact and leak resistance as compared to the STF-composites containing the softer calcium carbonate particles”; para 127.
It 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 to have modified the modified Hogg such that is shear thickening fluid comprises a silica slurry in order to provide good impact and/or leak resistance, as suggested by Wagner (para 127).
Regarding claim 10:
Hogg in view of Wagner and Goodhand teach The garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Hogg does not expressly disclose wherein the shear thickening fluid is not in padding.
However and in further view of Hogg:
Hogg teaches combining a cowl with padding: “the item may anchor to a pad system”; p. 38 line 9.
It 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 to have modified the modified Hogg such that it further comprises padding anchored to its cowl wherein the claimed shear thickening is not present in the padding in order to yield the predictable result of a garment whose padding provides additional impact protection to the wearer.
Regarding claim 11:
Hogg in view of Wagner and Goodhand teach The garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 1 above, the modified Hogg does not meet the limitation wherein the shear thickening fluid is a silica nanoparticles suspended in a polyethylene glycol fluid and the smart fabric comprises nylon, aramid, spandex, polyester blends, or high-performance polymer fabrics.
However and in further view of Wagner:
Wagner teaches the “silica particles having an average particle size of about 500 nm are suspended in the carrier fluid” (para 88) and a “Suitable” carrier fluid is a polyethylene glycol (para 90).
It 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 to have modified the modified Hogg such that its shear thickening fluid is a silica nanoparticles suspended in a polyethylene glycol fluid in order to confer the shear-thickening properties of the shear thickening fluid. One of ordinary skill would have been confronted with a decision as to which material(s) to use in providing the shear thickening fluid and would have recognized that silica nanoparticles suspended in a polyethylene glycol fluid would be an acceptable shear thickening fluid based on the teachings of Wagner.
And in further view of Wagner:
Wagner teaches a smart fabric comprises aramid (para 102) or high-performance polymer fabrics (para 97, wherein the “polyethylene terephthalate” of para 97 is a polymer; “UHMWPE”, “ePTFE”; para 102). Wagner further teaches such materials are “high tenacity” (para 96) and have “high tensile strength” (para 96).
It 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 to have modified the modified Hogg such that its smart fabric comprises aramid or high-performance polymer fabrics in order to make the smart fabric strong, as suggested by Wagner (para 96).
Regarding claim 12:
Hogg in view of Wagner and Goodhand teach The garment of claim 11, as set forth above.
Hogg further discloses wherein the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid present only in the hood, the neck, and the shoulder (as in annotated Fig. Embodiment 4 – a annotated presented in above treatment of claim 1, wherein only the cowl and its hood, neck, and shoulder of the modified garment comprise the shear thickening fluid and the remainer of the garment (i.e. strap system and pants) do not comprise the shear thickening fluid; refer to above treatment of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13:
Hogg in view of Wagner and Goodhand teach The garment of claim 1, as set forth above.
Hogg further discloses wherein the shear thickening fluid is not present in the torso (i.e. in a torso of the pants of the modified garment; refer to above treatment of claim 1 wherein the pants of the modified garment do not comprise the shear thickening fluid) of the hooded garment.
Regarding claim 21:
Hogg in view of Wagner and Goodhand teach The garment of claim 1.
The modified Hogg further meets the limitation wherein the shear thickening fluid in the garment reduces one or more of sagittal movement, frontal (coronal) movement, or transverse (axial) movement of a head relative to a garment that does not contain the shear thickening fluid.
(Hogg is configured to provide “protection against impacts” (para 4), and the shear thickening fluid is configured to thicken “under force” such that force applied to the shear thickening fluid of the garment is configured to be absorbed by the shear thickening fluid so as to reduce sagittal, frontal, and transverse movement based on the direction of the incident force applied thereto relative to another, unclaimed, garment that does not have any shear thickening fluid in it; it is noted the “garment that does not contain the shear thickening fluid” is functionally claimed and could be a garment little-to-no upper body and/or head protection—e.g. a foot sock configured to cover only one’s foot—such that modified Hogg is configured to reduce movement relative to the functionally claimed “garment that does not contain the shear thickening fluid”.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Cheong, US 2013/0061739, previously cited] in view of [Boland, US 2018/0049501, previously cited].
Regarding claim 14:
Cheong discloses:
A method of reducing mechanical shear stress (para 5, para 28) in a person (“person”; para 2) that undergoes an impact event (“when a composite material of the present invention is subjected to an impact...blunt trauma...reduced”; para 34), the method comprising the person wearing (“worn over parts of the body”; para 35) a garment (“ballistic wear”; para 35), the garment comprising a smart fabric that comprises a shear thickening fluid: “composite material...comprising a layer of ballistic material bonded to a layer of porous matrix material which is impregnated with shear thickening fluid” (Abstract). The layer of ballistic material is fabric (“ballistic material...in the form of a...fabric”; para 25) and the layer of porous matrix material is fabric (“woven material, non-woven material or a sheet/web containing fibres”; para 15; “fabric”; para 17) and the composite material is a smart fabric comprising a shear thickening fluid as claimed; attention is drawn to the present specification which states that a smart fabric is a fabric impregnated with shear thickening fluid; i.e.: “"smart fabric" is made from a regular fabric impregnated with shear thickening fluid”; p. 18 lines 8-9 of the specification as filed.
Cheong does not expressly disclose the garment is a hooded garment, the hooded garment comprising a smart fabric and a shear thickening fluid.
However, Boland teaches a hooded garment (“hood”; Abstract) which comprises “shear-thickening fluid” (para 2) and “becomes rigid upon a sufficiently high-velocity impact to the helmet and conveys the energy of the impact to the wearer's back armor plate. This prevents injury to the wearer's neck muscles, cervical spine, and brain” (Abstract). In addition, the hooded garment “does not transmit the energy delivered by the high-velocity impact to the wearer's neck or head” (para 9) wherein said energy, if transmitted to the neck or head “will snap the wearer's head back at high velocity, causing severe or fatal injury (typically, damage to or severing of the cervical spine, brain concussion, and/or muscle trauma)” (para 2).
It 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 to have modified the method of Cheong such that its garment is a hooded garment, the hooded garment comprising a smart fabric and a shear thickening fluid in order to yield a method whose garment that is capable of preventing injury to the person’s neck muscles, cervical spine, and/or brain, and/or prevents concussion and/or muscle trauma, as taught by Boland (Abstract, para 2).
Regarding claim 15:
Cheong in view of Boland teach The method of claim 14, as set forth above.
The modified Cheong further meets the limitation wherein the mechanical shear stress is a shear stress on the head. (The modified Cheong is a method comprising wearing the hooded garment (see above treatment of claim 14) resulting in injury prevention upon mechanical shear stress applied to the hooded garment such that it is a method of reducing mechanical shear stress on the head in a person as claimed.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Cheong, US 2013/0061739, previously cited] in view of [Boland, US 2018/0049501, previously cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Cheong discloses:
A method of reducing or mitigating the severity of blunt trauma (“when a composite material of the present invention is subjected to an impact...blunt trauma...reduced”; para 34) in a human (“person”; para 2), the method comprising the human wearing (“worn over parts of the body”; para 35) a garment (“ballistic wear”; para 35), the garment comprising a smart fabric that comprises a shear thickening fluid: “composite material...comprising a layer of ballistic material bonded to a layer of porous matrix material which is impregnated with shear thickening fluid” (Abstract). The layer of ballistic material is fabric (“ballistic material...in the form of a...fabric”; para 25) and the layer of porous matrix material is fabric (“woven material, non-woven material or a sheet/web containing fibres”; para 15; “fabric”; para 17) and the composite material is a smart fabric comprising a shear thickening fluid as claimed; attention is drawn to the present specification which states that a smart fabric is a fabric impregnated with shear thickening fluid; i.e.: “"smart fabric" is made from a regular fabric impregnated with shear thickening fluid”; p. 18 lines 8-9 of the specification as filed.
Cheong does not expressly disclose the method is a method of reducing or mitigating the severity of a concussion or traumatic brain injury in a human; the garment is a hooded garment, the hooded garment comprising a smart fabric and a shear thickening fluid.
However, Boland teaches a hooded garment (“hood”; Abstract) which comprises “shear-thickening fluid” (para 2) and “becomes rigid upon a sufficiently high-velocity impact to the helmet and conveys the energy of the impact to the wearer's back armor plate. This prevents injury to the wearer's neck muscles, cervical spine, and brain” (Abstract). In addition, the hooded garment “does not transmit the energy delivered by the high-velocity impact to the wearer's neck or head” (para 9) wherein said energy, if transmitted to the neck or head “will snap the wearer's head back at high velocity, causing severe or fatal injury (typically, damage to or severing of the cervical spine, brain concussion, and/or muscle trauma)” (para 2).
It 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 to have modified the method of Cheong such that it is a method of mitigating the severity of a concussion or traumatic brain injury and that its garment is a hooded garment, the hooded garment comprising a smart fabric and a shear thickening fluid in order to yield a method whose garment that is capable of preventing injury to the person’s neck muscles, cervical spine, and/or brain and/or prevents concussion and/or muscle trauma, as taught by Boland (Abstract).
Regarding claim 17:
Cheong in view of Boland teach The method of claim 16, as set forth above.
The modified Cheong does not expressly disclose wherein the reducing or mitigating the severity of the concussion or traumatic brain injury is a result of reducing one or more of sagittal movement, frontal (coronal) movement, or transverse (axial) movement.
However and in further view of Boland: in Boland, the hooded garment is configured to not “snap the wearer's head back at high velocity” (para 1) in order to reduce or mitigate the severity. Boland does not specify a direction of snapping; however, one or ordinary skill would recognize that such snapping could happen upon sagittal movement, frontal (coronal) movement, or transverse (axial) movement insofar as a human head can rotate in any one of the three directions when subjected to a given impact force depending on where the given impact force originates from and in what direction it is provided relative to the hooded garment.
It 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 to have modified the modified Cheong such that the reducing or mitigating the severity of the concussion or traumatic brain injury is a result of reducing one or more of sagittal movement, frontal (coronal) movement, or transverse (axial) movement in order to prevent concussions and/or traumatic brain injury when the impact event provides forces that tend to apply sagittal, frontal, and/or or transverse forces to the human’s head.
Regarding claim 18:
Cheong in view of Boland teach The method of claim 16, as set forth above.
Cheong further discloses wherein the shear thickening fluid comprise silica nanoparticles suspended in a polyethylene glycol fluid (“dispersion of 450 nm silica particles in polyethylene glycol (PEG)”; para 53).
Regarding claim 19:
Cheong in view of Boland teach The method of claim 16, as set forth above.
Cheong further discloses wherein the smart fabric comprises nylon (para 22), aramid (para 22), spandex, or polyester blends (para 19).
Regarding claim 20:
Cheong in view of Boland teach The method of claim 16, as set forth above.
The modified Cheong does not expressly disclose wherein the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid in only a part of the garment.
However and in further view of Boland:
Boland teaches attachment of the “hood” to a “rear plate in the user’s body armor” such that the hood “transmits the energy from the high-velocity rifle round's impact around and past the user's head and into an attached rear plate in the user's body armor” (para 2).
It 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 to have modified the modified Cheong such that its hooded garment further comprises a body armor comprising a rear plate and the hood of the hooded garment attached to the rear plate of the body armor in order to yield a hooded garment wherein the hood of the garment transmits energy to the body armor of the garment so as to protect the wearer, as taught by Boland (para 2). In adopting the modification, the limitation the hooded garment comprises the shear thickening fluid in only a part of the garment would be met insofar as the shear thickening fluid would be present in only the hood part of the garment and not the body armor part of the garment.
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 GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732