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 Amendments, filed 3/27/2026, to claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15-16 acknowledged by Examiner. Additionally, applicant cancelled claims 12 and 14.
Claims 1-11, 13, 15-20 are now pending.
Previous Drawing Objections withdrawn.
Previous 112b rejections withdrawn.
Previous 101 Rejections withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Streeter does not provide for the moved amended claim language of claim 1 in regards to “an exhaust line, an exhaust valve, and a reserve airbag; and wherein a first end of the exhaust line is connected to the filling pad, a second end of the exhaust line is connected to the reserve airbag, an initial pressure of the reserve airbag is the same as an initial pressure of the filling pad, and the exhaust valve is provided on the exhaust line to control the exhaust valve to open when the measured value of the pressure sensor is greater than the first threshold”, Examiner disagrees.
Firstly, Applicant asserts that Streeter at most supports that the exhaust line has ends at the actuator/bladder/filling pad and the exhaust outlet, thus not disclosing the language of claim 1 (Remarks Pages 14-16). Examiner disagrees. The language of claim 1 simply requires “a first end of the exhaust line is connected to the filling pad, a second end of the exhaust line is connected to the reserve airbag”, wherein without acquiescing to Applicant’s assertion, even Applicant’s interpretation of Streeter actually maps to the claim language because as seen in Streeter [0164] the exhaust outlet is thus connected to the air reservoir/reserve airbag. So, with Applicant’s assertion, the second of the exhaust line attached to the exhaust outlet would be connected to the reserve airbag, thus the second end of the exhaust line would be connected to the reserve airbag via the exhaust outlet. Thus, Applicant’s argument herein is not found persuasive for overcoming the teaching of Streeter.
Secondly, Applicant asserts that the exhaust outlet of Streeter cannot be interpreted as a valve (Remarks Page 16). Examiner disagrees. The exhaust outlet (Streeter [0164]) is a valve as it controls the flow of air from the bladders to an air reservoir, see Cambridge Dictionary [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/valve] wherein a “valve” is “a device that controls the flow of air or liquid from one place to another”, wherein as the exhaust and thus flow of air only occurs when the exhaust system channels excess gas “resulting from release of pressure in the actuators to one or more exhaust outlets” [0164] (or when air would be added back in from the reserve airbag to the bladders) thus the exhaust valve may be considered a valve as the flow is stopped and started and thus controlled therethrough.
Thirdly, Applicant asserts Streeter is silent about the pressure relationship between the actuator and the reservoir (Remarks Pages 16-17). Examiner disagrees, because considering that the present claims are apparatus claims, the fact that Streeter provides for their being a pressure connection between the air reservoir and the actuator/bladders enables the system to be configured at some arbitrary “initial” time for the pressures to be equal. Examiner notes that the patentable weight of this limitation is low especially considering this is not a method claim.
Fourthly, Applicant asserts that relying on paragraph [0198] for the language of “control the exhaust valve to open when the measured value of the pressure sensor is greater than the first threshold” is improper as the paragraph does not discuss the exhaust outlet (Remarks Pages 17-18), Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes that right after the bolded section as provided the paragraph [0198] further recites “to vent air from the channel in order to decrease the pressure in the actuator” and the exhaust system as discussed in [0164] recites “The exhaust system may channel excess gas resulting from the release of pressure in the actuators to one or more exhaust outlets. In the exemplary embodiment, with air as the fluid, the exhaust outlets may vent the air into the atmosphere” thus being related to the venting of air from the actuators. Thus, the systems of exhaust are actually discussed in [0198] with the discussion of venting air from the actuators.
Examiner’s Notes
All references relied up on and not cited in the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “an initial pressure of the reserve airbag is the same as an initial pressure of the filling pad” should be - an initial pressure of the reserve airbag is equal to an initial pressure of the filling pad- (“the same” has potential 112b issues, this is Examiner’s preferred way to fix however if Applicant has a more desired but similar way to fix the issue of “the same” they are welcome to use different language). Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/27/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fixing portion” and “fixing position” in claims 1-6, 16, 19-20 (claims 7-9 also contain “fixing portion”/”fixing position” but contain sufficient structure) (“fixing portion”/”fixing position” is either hook and loop with a buckle [Fig. 4 and para 0075] or a button and button holes [Fig 5 and para 0077] with equivalents thereof for attachment).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11, 13, 15-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the first threshold" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that “a first threshold” was introduced in claim 11 and the amended claim 1 language is from claim 12 which was dependent on claim 11. For interpretation purposes, “the first threshold” will be interpreted under the context of the previous structure of the claims.
Claims 2-11, 13, 15-20 rejected as being dependent on a rejection claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yip (US 20210059849 A1) in view of McCoy (US 20240139017 A1), in further view of Streeter (US 20120296247 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yip discloses a scoliosis correction garment 100 (title, Fig. 1A-10), comprising:
a garment body 102 (Fig. 1A-1B, 7A, [0067]), provided with a fixing portion 104 (Fig. 1B, [0070], 104 being a fixing portion for enabling a detachable attachment for straps 106/104, according to 112f claim interpretation above detachable attachments would be in equivalent interpretation for hook and loop and button attachments); and
a strap 106/108 (Fig. 1A-1B, straps 106/108 [0067,0069]), detachably fixed to the garment body 102 through the fixing portion 104 to apply a corrective pressure to a scoliosis position of a user (see [0069], wherein the straps 106/108 provide scoliosis adjustment pressure).
Yip does not disclose the straps 106/108 being filling pads wherein the corrective pressure is adjusted by controlling gas filling in the filling pad.
However, McCoy teaches an analogous scoliosis brace 10 (Fig. 1-2 and title), wherein there is a body shell 20 that applies scoliosis force analogous to the straps 106/108 of Yip (see McCoy [0022-0023], wherein the analogous body shell 20 contains inflatable bladders 24,26 placed within a pocket of the body shell 20 therein to provide distributed pressure to targeted locations on the spine of a patient (see [0023-0024), the bladers 24, 26 being a filling pad wherein the corrective pressure is adjusted by controlling gas filling in the filling pad (see [0020, 0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided within the straps 106/108 of Yip the inflatable bladders 24, 26 being filling pads 24/26 within a pocket therein (thus henceforth the straps 106/108 will be also referred to as pockets 106/108) as taught by McCoy in order to provide a dynamic pressure to the scoliosis treatment brace (McCoy [0020, 0034]).
Yip does not disclose wherein the corrective pressure is adjusted by controlling the gas filling in the filling pad through a pneumatic circuit, wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises a pressure sensor provided on the filling pad.
However, McCoy further teaches wherein the corrective pressure is adjusted by controlling the gas filling in the filling pad 24, 26 through a pneumatic circuit (Fig 4, and [0049-0068], the inflatable bladders are having their corrective pressure adjusted via controlling of the air/gas within),
wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises a pressure sensor 42 provided on the filling pad 24, 26 (Fig. 4/8, [0048, 0028] pressure sensor 42/142; pressure sensor 42 is in communication with the bladders 24, 26 thus is “provided on” them).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the structures of McCoy above to the bladders 24, 26 in the combination of Yip and McCoy above in order to enable the usage of specific dynamic pressure treatments for scoliosis (McCoy [0020]).
Yip in view of McCoy does not disclose wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises an exhaust line, an exhaust valve and a reserve airbag,
wherein a first end of the exhaust tine is connected to the filling pad, a second end of the exhaust line is connected to the reserve airbag, an initial pressure of the reserve airbag is the same as an initial pressure of the filling pad, and the exhaust valve is provided on the exhaust line to control the exhaust valve to open when the measured value of the pressure sensor is greater than the first threshold.
However, Streeter discloses an analogous back/body brace 10/8010 (Fig. 1, 26-28), with an analogous bladder 28 for therapeutic use on the body (see [0117]), wherein the bladder inflation may be controlled based on a set value being a threshold (Fig. 66),
wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises an exhaust line ([0117] tubes are provided for connecting the bladders to other control systems, see [0164] wherein one of the control systems is an exhaust system, thus there is an exhaust line extending from the bladders to the exhaust system),
an exhaust valve (the exhaust outlet (Streeter [0164]) is a valve as it controls the flow of air from the bladders to an air reservoir, see Cambridge Dictionary [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/valve] wherein a “valve” is “a device that controls the flow of air or liquid from one place to another”, wherein as the exhaust and thus flow of air only occurs when the exhaust system channels excess gas “resulting from release of pressure in the actuators to one or more exhaust outlets” [0164] (or when air would be added back in from the reserve airbag to the bladders) thus the exhaust valve may be considered a valve as the flow is stopped and started and thus controlled therethrough) and
a reserve airbag (air reservoir [0164]),
a first end of the exhaust line is connected to the analogous filling pad 28 ([0117] tubes are provided for connecting the bladders to other control systems, see [0164] wherein one of the control systems is an exhaust system, thus there is an exhaust line extending from the bladders to the exhaust system, thus there implicitly being a first end attached to the bladders),
a second end of the exhaust line is connected to the reserve airbag ([0117] tubes are provided for connecting the bladders to other control systems, see [0164] wherein one of the control systems is an exhaust system, thus there is an exhaust line extending from the bladders to the exhaust system, thus there implicitly being a second end attached to the reservoir air bag),
an initial pressure of the reserve airbag is the same as an initial pressure of the filling pad (this is a functional limitation, wherein based on [0164] wherein the reserve airbag may channel air back into the system they are capable of holding same pressures within, this may be at an initial point in time), and
the exhaust valve is provided on the exhaust line ([0164] exhaust outlet would implicitly be a part and on the exhaust line) to control the exhaust valve to open when the measured value of the pressure sensor is greater than the first threshold (see [0198] wherein the venting of pressure may be controlled by a valve to be open when a sensed pressure is greater than a threshold being a designated pressure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the controller/exhaust/venting system of Streeter to the bladders 24, 26 (and control system therein) of Yip and McCoy as combined to enable air conservation for easily increasing pressure in the bladder system that was previously reduced (Streeter [0164]).
Regarding claim 2, Yip in view of McCoy and Streeter discloses the invention of claim 1.
Yip in view of McCoy/Streeter discloses a pocket 106/108 (see combination in claim 1 wherein straps 106/108 of Yip were formed to be pockets by the combination with the teachings of McCoy), comprising a flexible material (Fig. 1A-10, straps 106/108 being the pockets are shown to be flexible) and configured to accommodate the filling pad 24/26 (see combination in claim 1), and the filling pad 24/26 is fixed to the fixing portion 104 through the pocket 106/108 (Yip straps 106/108, being pockets, containing the filling pad 24/26 of McCoy is fixed to the fixing portion 104 of Yip, Yip Fig. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 3, Yip in view of McCoy and Streeter discloses the invention of claim 2.
Yip/McCoy discloses wherein the fixing portion 104 is provided with a plurality of first fixing positions 120 (Fig. 2A-2B, [0070], holes 120 enable buckle-type hook and loop threading therethrough for self-bonding of the straps 106/108),
the pocket (Yip straps 106/108) is provided with at least one second fixing position (being formed end of the straps 106/108, Fig. 1B, 2C), and the at least one second fixing position is selectively fixed to a corresponding number of first fixing positions among the plurality of first fixing positions 120 to enable the pocket 106/108 to be fixed at a selectable position of the fixing portion 104 (Fig. 1A-1B, 2A-2C, [0070], ends of straps 106/108 fixed at selected fixing position 120 selectively in the fixing portion 104).
Regarding claim 4, Yip in view of McCoy and Streeter discloses the invention of claim 3.
Yip/McCoy discloses wherein the plurality of first fixing positions 120 are arranged along a longitudinal direction of the garment body 102 (Fig. 1B), and
the pocket (straps 106/108 of Yip) comprises at least two pockets (two straps 106/108 of Yip, Fig. 1A-1B) of different shapes (Yip [0070, 0078], straps 106 and 108 may be customized for different body shapes and curves, wherein as seen thus in the Fig. 1A-1B, the final shapes of straps 106,108 are different for mating with different body portions) to apply the corrective pressure to the user wearing the garment 102 in a case where pockets (straps 106/108 of Yip) of corresponding shapes are fixed to a corresponding number of first fixing positions 120 at corresponding positions through the at least one second fixing position (Fig. 1A-1B and [0069] straps/pockets 106,108 apply corrective pressure, wherein are fixed to two different first fixing positions and each have their own strap end being a second fixing position attached to the first fixing position).
Regarding claim 5, Yip in view of McCoy and Streeter discloses the invention of claim 4.
Yip discloses wherein the plurality of first fixing positions 120 are arranged in two columns along the longitudinal direction of the garment body 102 (Fig. 2A-2B, four columns therein, thus there also being two columns), and each column of first fixing positions 120 is configured to fix the second fixing position on a same side (Fig. 1A-2C, ends of straps 106,108 configured to fix to any of the positions 120 thus configured to fix on the same side therein).
Regarding claim 6, Yip in view of McCoy and Streeter discloses the invention of claim 3.
Yip discloses wherein the fixing portion 104 comprises a first fixing portion 104 provided at back of the garment body 102 (Fig. 1B), and the plurality of first fixing positions 120 are provided on the first fixing portion 104 (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 9, Yip in view of McCoy and Streeter discloses the invention of claim 6.
Yip/McCoy discloses wherein the fixing portion 104 further comprises a second fixing portion 102a provided at front of the garment body 102 (Fig. 1A, see [0069] second end 106b of the straps 106/108 attach at the front portion 102a),
the pocket (straps 106/108 as combined being pockets) is further provided with at least one third fixing position 106b (Fig. 1A, see [0069] second end 106b of the straps 106/108 attach at the front portion 102a), and
the at least one third fixing position 106b is fixed to the second fixing portion 102a (Fig. 1A, see [0069] second end 106b of the straps 106/108 attach at the front portion 102a);
and wherein the third fixing position 106b comprises a hook-surface fastener (see [0076], hook and loop provided for mounting the straps to the front 102a), and the second fixing portion 102a comprises a loop-surface fastener (see [0076] the mounting structure of the second fixing portion 102a may be hook and loop surface).
Regarding claim 11, Yip in view of McCoy and Streeter discloses the invention of claim 1.
Yip as so far combined with McCoy/Streeter does not disclose wherein, when a measured value of the pressure sensor is greater than a first threshold, gas in the filling pad is released through the pneumatic circuit, and when the measured value of the pressure sensor is less than a second threshold, the filling pad is filled with the gas through the pneumatic circuit; and wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises an inflation line, a supply airbag and an inflation valve, a first end of the inflation line is connected to the filling pad, a second end of the inflation line is connected to the supply airbag, an initial pressure of the supply airbag is higher than the first threshold, and the inflation valve is provided on the inflation line to control the inflation valve to open when the measured value of the pressure sensor is less than the second threshold.
However, McCoy teaches wherein the corrective pressure is adjusted by controlling the gas filling in the filling pad 24, 26 through a pneumatic circuit (Fig 4, and [0049-0068], the inflatable bladders are having their corrective pressure adjusted via controlling of the air/gas within),
wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises a pressure sensor 42 provided on the filling pad 24, 26 (Fig. 4/8, [0048, 0028] pressure sensor 42/142; pressure sensor 42 is in communication with the bladders 24, 26 thus is “provided on” them), and furthermore
wherein when a measured value of the pressure sensor 42 is greater than a first threshold, gas in the filling pad is released through the pneumatic circuit (see [0049-0068] wherein the pressure sensor 42 may be used to monitor pressure and keep the inflation at a specific pressure, wherein when above a designated pressure the gas may be released), and
when the measured value of the pressure sensor 42 is less than a second threshold, the filling pad is filled with the gas through the pneumatic circuit (see [0049-0068] wherein the pressure sensor 42 may be used to monitor pressure and keep the inflation at a specific pressure, wherein when below a designated pressure the gas may be released; wherein this is not a method claim and is instead an apparatus claim wherein a designated pressure therein may be a range of pressures thus capable of being a second different pressure threshold than the first threshold); and
wherein the pneumatic circuit comprises an inflation line 130/30 ([0026, 0028, 0048] supply tubes 30/130), a supply airbag 28/128 ([0026], air pump 28 being an air supply and being a bag as it is carrying air) and an inflation valve 34 ([0028] controller 34 being an “inflation valve” as it controls when inflation occurs and Dictionary.com [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/valve] terms a valve to be “any device for halting or controlling the flow of a liquid, gas, or other material through a passage, pipe, inlet, outlet, etc.”),
a first end of the inflation line 30 is connected to the filling pad 24, 26 (see [0026], Fig. 4),
a second end of the inflation line 30 is connected to the supply airbag 28 ([0028], Fig. 4),
an initial pressure of the supply airbag 28 is higher than the first threshold ([0049-0068] a give air pressure within an air pump 28 is capable of being higher than the indicated desired pressure being the first threshold in order to fill up the bladders 24, 26), and
the inflation valve 34 is provided on the inflation line 28 to control the inflation valve 34 to open when the measured value of the pressure sensor 42 is less than the second threshold (Fig. 4, the inflation valve 34 is in communication with the pressure sensor 42 on the inflation line 28, thus is on the inflation line 28, see [0049-0068] wherein the valve 34 being the controller selects when the air pump is on to inflate thus being “open”, wherein capable of turning on when below some selected second threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the structures of McCoy above to the bladders 24, 26 in the combination of Yip and McCoy above in order to enable the usage of specific dynamic pressure treatments for scoliosis (McCoy [0020]) (Examiner notes that many of the limitations herein are functional with only the presence of the structures being capable of performing such functions present required).
Regarding claim 13, Yip in view of McCoy and Streeter discloses the invention of claim 1.
Streeter further teaches wherein the reserve airbag is further configured to fill the filling pad and/or the supply airbag with gas therein (see [0164] the reservoir airbag air can be drawn back into the pressure system, thus including the bladders and pump therein); and
wherein the reserve airbag and the supply airbag are both provided with safety valves to control a pressure of the reserve airbag and a pressure of the supply airbag to be not higher than respective safety values (see [0234] wherein there are safety thresholds which may be “valves” as they decide on how air/pressure flows in the system, the valve system therein controls the pressure to bring the system back to a state not higher than a safety value therein).
Regarding claim 20, Yip in view of McCoy and Streeter discloses the invention of claim 1.
Yip further discloses support bones 112 provided on both sides of the fixing portion 104 (Fig. 1B and [0067]);
wherein the garment body 102 is made of at least one of: 100% cotton, cotton blend, or synthetic fiber blend ([0067] wearable top 100 is in the form of the soft tight-fitting knit bodice 102, [0014] defines the soft material therein being a cotton or a synthetic fiber blends); and
wherein the garment body 102 is a short-sleeved top or a short-sleeved bodysuit (Fig. 7A, being a short sleeve top).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yip (US 20210059849 A1) in view of McCoy (US 20240139017 A1) and Streeter (US 20120296247 A1), in further view of Coplans (US 4681113 A).
Regarding claim 7, Yip in view of McCoy/Streeter discloses the invention of claim 6.
Yip in view of McCoy/Streeter does not disclose the first fixing positions comprise connection buckles fixed to the first fixing portion, and the second fixing position comprises a hook and loop fastener, and the hook and loop fastener configured to pass through a respective connection buckle and self-bond.
Yip does disclose fixing positions 104 being slots which are similar in function to a buckle wherein the straps 106/108 forming the second fixing position do comprise hook and loop to self-bond to itself when going through the slot (see [0020, 0070]).
However, Coplans teaches an analogous body tightening device being a corset (Fig. 1-2) with analogous straps 17 for connection at a back of a garment (Fig. 1-2) to an analogous fixing portion 16 (Fig. 1-2), wherein the fixing portion 16 comprises analogous slots for threading through analogous straps 17, wherein instead the slots are formed therein of buckles 20 (Fig. 2) and the straps 17 pass through the slots of the buckles and self-bond to themselves (Fig. 1-2, Col. 2 lines 34-67, thus the hook and loop fastener configured to pass through a respective connection buckle and self-bond).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the construction of slots/fixing positions 120 of Yip to instead be the buckles 20 as taught by Coplans as they provide equivalent and predictable function, wherein a buckle further enables hinged movement of the straps for improved ease of use for slotting the straps through the opening formed therein (Coplans Col. 2 lines 34-67).
Thus, Yip in view of McCoy/Streeter combined with Coplans discloses the first fixing positions 120 of Yip comprise connection buckles 20 of Coplans fixed to the first fixing portion 104 of Yip, and the second fixing position comprises a hook and loop magic tape, and the hook and loop the hook and loop fastener configured to pass through a respective connection buckle 20 of Coplans and self-bond.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yip (US 20210059849 A1) in view of McCoy (US 20240139017 A1) and Streeter (US 20120296247 A1), in further view of Coplans (US 4681113 A), in further view of Dow (US 20190000665 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yip in view of McCoy/Streeter and Coplans discloses the invention of claim 7.
Coplans as combined further teaches wherein the first fixing positions 20 (buckles 20) comprise a plurality of bands 23 fixed to the first fixing portion 16 (of Coplans) (Fig. 2 and Col. 2 lines 47-57), the plurality of bands 23 are arranged along a longitudinal direction of the garment body (analogous garment body 10 of Coplans) (as combined on the garment body 102 of Yip) (Fig. 2, arranged along a vertical longitudinal direction) and are extended along a transverse direction of the garment body (Fig. 2, bands extend in transverse/sideways directions), the connection buckles 20 are sewn on the first fixing portion 16 (first fixing portion 104 of Yip) (Col. 2 lines 57-57, bands 23 are sewn to the first fixing portion therein, thus so are the buckles 20 sewn in), and the bands 23 pass through corresponding connection buckles 20 (Fig. 2).
Coplans as combined does not provide for the bands being woven elastic bands.
However, Dow teaches analogous buckles 23, 25 (Fig. 2) which are stitched/sewn to an analogous material via analogous bands 27, 29 which pass through the analogous buckles 23, 25 (Fig. 2 and [0031]), wherein the bands 29 are formed of woven elastic to allow for improved adjustment of the buckle position (see [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provided woven elastic for the bands 23 provided by Coplans as taught by Dow in order to provide for improved positioning therein of the straps of Coplans and Yip (Dow [0031]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yip (US 20210059849 A1) in view of McCoy (US 20240139017 A1) and Streeter (US 20120296247 A1), in further view of Mokrane (FR 3115194 A1) (see attached translation description) in further view of Skalos (US 20220104566 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yip in view of McCoy/Streeter and Coplans discloses the invention of claim 2.
Yip in view of McCoy/Streeter does not disclose wherein the pocket is formed by sewing a woven elastic band and an elastic and light-transmitting fabric; and wherein an edge of the pocket is covered by a v-fold elastic band.
However, Mokrane teaches an analogous pocket for an inflatable bladder (title) wherein the analogous pocket 1 may be formed of elastic fabric (page 8 pocket may be formed of an elastic fabric being polyurethane for example), wherein the pocket may be light-transmitting (page 9 pocket 1 is translucent for enabling a user to see a status of the bladder within), and wherein the pocket may be formed by the sealing together of two sheets of these material being elastic and translucent (page 9, wherein the claim language “formed by sewing” is a product-by-process that is functionally equivalent to the final result of two sheets of material being instead “sealed” together at their contours).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the pocket of Yip in view of McCoy to be formed by sewing a woven elastic band and an elastic and light-transmitting fabric as taught by Mokrane in order to provide a pocket that may expand with a bladder placed within the pocket and being translucent enables a user to see a status of the inside of the pocket (Mokrane Pages 8-9).
Yip in view of McCoy and Mokrane does not disclose wherein an edge of the pocket is covered by a v-fold elastic band.
However, Skalos teaches an analogous medical garment for making wearable a medical device (title) wherein the support garment 50 includes aesthetic binding 63 surrounding a periphery of the garment 50 which may be formed of nylon or spandex ([0251] being elastic), wherein the aesthetic binding 63 therein is formed in a v-fold configuration provided as a strip (band) and folded over the edges of the support garment therein and stitched ([0252]) in order to provide an improved comfort ([0251]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided all the edges of the garment of Yip in view of McCoy and Mokrane the v-fold elastic band 63 as taught by Skalos thus including the pocket edges therein in order to provide improved comfort at the edges and improved aesthetic appearance (Skalos [0252-0253]).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yip (US 20210059849 A1) in view of McCoy (US 20240139017 A1) and Streeter (US 20120296247 A1), in further view of Yiu-Wan (US 20220117769 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yip in view of McCoy/Streeter discloses the invention of claim 1.
Yip in view of McCoy further discloses wherein a shape of the filling pad 24, 26 is designed according to a body contour of the user (McCoy [0025] the shapes of the air bladders 24, 26 may be designed according to the body contour being a body location).
Yip in view of McCoy does not disclose the garment further comprises: a shoulder fixing belt, comprising a central portion and two belt-like portions extending from the central portion to both ends, the central portion is adjustably fixed to the fixing portion, and the two belt-like portions are respectively configured to be wrapped around a shoulder at a side and then ends of the two belt-like portions are fixed to the fixing portion.
However, Yiu-Wan teaches an analogous spinal correction garment 110 (title, Fig. 1A-1I), which further comprises:
a shoulder fixing belt 150 (Fig. 1A, 1F-1G, [0075]), comprising
a central portion 1514-153-1524 (Fig. 1F) and
two belt-like portions 1515/1525 extending from the central portion 1514-153-1524 to both ends 1511/1521 (Fig. 1F),
the central portion 1514-153-1524 is adjustably fixed to an analogous fixing portion 140 (Fig. 1A-1I, the central portion is adjustably fixed to analogous fixing portion 140 being at an analogous back side of the garment, see [0075-0076] wherein attachment is through use of hook and loop fabrics being adjustable),
and the two belt-like portions 1515/1525 are respectively configured to be wrapped around a shoulder at a side and then ends 1511/1521 of the two belt-like portions are fixed to the fixing portion 140/120 (Fig. 1A., wherein the fixing portion can further include hook and loop at the front of the garment 120, see [0075])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the shoulder fixing belt according to Yiu-Wan to the garment body of Yip to provide active posture assistance to the brace therein (Yiu-Wan [0043]).
Regarding claim 16, Yip in view of McCoy/Streeter and Yiu-Wan discloses the invention of claim 15.
Yiu-Wan further teaches wherein the fixing portion 140/120 comprises a first fixing portion 140 provided at back of the garment body 110 (Fig. 1A) and
a second fixing portion 120 provided at front of the garment body 110 (Fig. 1A),
the central portion 1514-153-1524 is adjustably fixed to the first fixing portion 140 the central portion is adjustably fixed to analogous fixing portion 140 being at an analogous back side of the garment, see [0075-0076] wherein attachment is through use of hook and loop fabrics being adjustable),
and the two belt-like 1515/1525 portions are respectively configured to be wrapped around the shoulder at the side (Fig. 1A) and then the ends 1511/1521 of the two belt-like portions are fixed to the second fixing portion 120 (Fig. 1A, see [0075]).
Regarding claim 17, Yip in view of McCoy/Streeter and Yiu-Wan discloses the invention of claim 15.
Yiu-Wan further teaches wherein the central portion 1514-153-1524 is wider than the belt-like portions 1515/1525 (Fig. 1F, total side-to-side width of central portion 1514-153-1524 is wider than the belt-like portions 1515/1525).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yip (US 20210059849 A1) in view of McCoy (US 20240139017 A1) and Streeter (US 20120296247 A1), in further view of Yiu-Wan (US 20220117769 A1), in further view of Skalos (US 20220104566 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Yip in view of McCoy/Streeter and Yiu-Wan discloses the invention of claim 15.
Yiu-Wan further teaches wherein the central portion 1514-153-1524 comprises an air cotton pad 1514/1524 ([0057, 0077] non-elastic portions 1514/1524 are made of a cotton woven fabric, which may be an “air cotton pad”),
the belt-like portions 1515/1525 are woven elastic bands ([0058, 0077], elastic portions 1515/1525 may be formed of an elastic spandex knitted fabric, thus being woven elastic bands),
the air cotton pad 1514/1524 is sewn to the woven elastic bands 1515/1525 on both sides (Fig. 1F, both sides have these elements sewn together, wherein attached fabrics as such as implicitly sewn together),
Yip in view of McCoy/Streeter and Yiu-Wan does not disclose an edge of the air cotton pad is covered by a v-fold elastic band.
However, Skalos teaches an analogous medical garment for making wearable a medical device (title) wherein the support garment 50 includes aesthetic binding 63 surrounding a periphery of the garment 50 which may be formed of nylon or spandex ([0251] being elastic), wherein the aesthetic binding 63 therein is formed in a v-fold configuration provided as a strip (band) and folded over the edges of the support garment therein and stitched ([0252]) in order to provide an improved comfort ([0251]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided all the edges of the garment of Yip in view of McCoy and Yiu-Wan the v-fold elastic band 63 as taught by Skalos thus including the edge of the air cotton pad therein in order to provide improved comfort at the edges and improved aesthetic appearance (Skalos [0252-0253]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yip (US 20210059849 A1) in view of McCoy (US 20240139017 A1) and Streeter (US 20120296247 A1), in further view of Skalos (US 20220104566 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Yip in view of McCoy/Streeter discloses the invention of claim 1.
Yip further discloses a pelvic fixing belt 114 (see [0082] Fig. 1A-1B. 4A),
a central portion 402 (Fig. 4A) of which is adjustably fixed to a lower middle portion 206 of the fixing portion 104 (Fig. 4A and [0082]), and
portions of the central portion of the pelvic fixing belt extending to both ends are wrapped around the garment body 102 (Fig. 1A-1B, 4C-4D, ends away from the central portion extend about the garment body 102, see [0082]), and then two ends of the portions are detachably connected (Fig. 1A-1B, 4C-4D, Fig.6, [0082] ends have hook and loop at front 401 for detachably connecting the pelvic belt portions); and
wherein the pelvic fixing belt 114 is formed by sewing a woven elastic band and an elastic fabric (see [0082] a neoprene layer being a woven elastic is laminated (sewing is a product-by-process attachment of layers) to a nylon jersey at a front being an elastic fabric and a UBL knit loop fabric being known in the art also elastic fabric).
Yip does not disclose an edge of the pelvic fixing belt is covered by a v-fold elastic band.
However, Skalos teaches an analogous medical garment for making wearable a medical device (title) wherein the support garment 50 includes aesthetic binding 63 surrounding a periphery of the garment 50 which may be formed of nylon or spandex ([0251] being elastic), wherein the aesthetic binding 63 therein is formed in a v-fold configuration provided as a strip (band) and folded over the edges of the support garment therein and stitched ([0252]) in order to provide an improved comfort ([0251]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided all the edges of the garment of Yip in view of McCoy and Yiu-Wan the v-fold elastic band 63 as taught by Skalos thus including the edge of the pelvic fixing belt therein in order to provide improved comfort at the edges and improved aesthetic appearance (Skalos [0252-0253]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN S ALBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN S ALBERS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights