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 04/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 4-21 are presented.
Claims 1, 11, and 14 are presented in independent form and are amended.
Dependent claim 13 is amended.
Dependent claim 21 is newly presented.
Claims 4-7 and 16-18 remain withdrawn.
The present Office action treats claims 1, 8-15, and 19-21 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Specification Amendment
A specification amendment of 04/23/2026 is acknowledged. This specification amendment is acceptable and is entered.
Drawings – Replacement Sheet
A replacement sheet of 04/23/2026 is acknowledged. This replacement sheet is acceptable and is entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 04/23/2026 (see p. 12-15 of the reply) are fully considered.
Regarding Claim Objections (p. 13): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically: upon review of the amended claims and Applicant’s remarks directed to “Claim Objections” (p. 13) and upon further review of the disclosure as filed, the claim objection applied in the previous Office action is overcome.
Regarding Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (p. 13): Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (p. 13-14): Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding New Claim (p. 15): Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Withdrawn Claims (p. 15): Applicant’s arguments directed to “the references” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection directed to the argued claims from which the withdrawn claims depend does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.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 remarks regarding “Support for new claim 21” are fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 21 recites new matter. Applicant’s statement that “Support...can be found...in at least paragraphs....” is addressed in the 35 USC 112 rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 6: “a plurality unit cells” should be --a plurality of unit cells--
Claim 1 lines 7-8: “the auxetic device having width” should be --the auxetic device having a width--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites new matter in reciting “wherein a thickness of the auxetic device remains constant when the auxetic device is stretched in the direction extending between the first end and the second end”.
The specification states “The auxetic device 100 has a thickness in a range of 1.5 mm to 4 mm, e.g., 2 mm to 2.2 mm. In some embodiments the thickness of the auxetic device 100 may be less than 1.5 mm or greater than 4 mm. The thickness of the auxetic device 100 may be selected based on the application of the auxetic device 100. For example, the thickness T may be greater when the auxetic device 100 will be subject to high forces to prevent tearing or breaking of the cell structure of the auxetic device 100. In addition, when less force is required from the auxetic device, the thickness T may be reduced to aid in incorporation into a garment using conventional tools, e.g., sewing needles, or to avoid the auxetic device 100 be considered as bulky or uncomfortable to a wearer” (para 0051 as filed) but does not state the thickness remains constant when stretched as claimed.
Looking to the drawings, the drawings show views of an auxetic device; however, no drawing alone or in combination with another drawing shows a thickness of an auxetic device such that thickness remains constant when stretched as claimed.
Applicant’s remarks of 04/23/2026 state “Support for new claim 21 can be found in the specification as filed in at least paragraphs [0043], [0051], [0055] and FIGS. 5-11” (fist full paragraph of p. 15 of the reply). However, none of the referenced paragraphs or figures state or show a thickness of an auxetic device such that thickness remains constant when stretched as claimed. Para 43 states “when an auxetic device is stretched in one direction, e.g., the x-direction, the structure and/or material expands in a direction substantially perpendicular to the applied force, e.g., in the y- direction” but is silent as to whether or not a thickness as claimed remains constant when stretched as claimed. Para 51, as stated above, discusses thickness but does not state the thickness remains constant when stretched as claimed. Para 55 states “stretching and expansion” and is silent as to whether such stretching and expansion occurs in such a way that thickness remains constant when stretched as claimed. Figs. 5 shows “width W” (para 50) and “length L” (para 50). Thickness is not shown with any specific reference numeral, and length and width are presented to the viewer such that thickness appears to extend in a direction in-and-out of the page. Fig. 5 is a 2-d representation of a 3-d object and is not expressly to scale such that a precise value of thickness thereof cannot be determined from the drawing alone. Moreover, Fig. 5 does not show an auxetic device in plural states (e.g. a state of “when...stretched” as claimed and also in another state that is different from the “when...stretched” as claimed). In like manner, Figs. 6-11 appear to show a width and length extending in the same directions as in Fig. 5 with an apparent thickness appearing to extend in a direction in-and-out of the page. Each of Figs. 6-11 is a 2-d representation of a 3-d object and is not expressly to scale such that a precise value of thickness thereof cannot be determined from the drawing alone. Moreover, none of Figs. 6-11 show an auxetic device in plural states (e.g. a state of “when...stretched” as claimed and also in another state that is different from the “when...stretched” as claimed).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Amsel, US 2005/0132474, previously cited] in view of [Zulifqar, NPL 2018, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Amsel discloses (Figs. 3-5):
A garment 10 comprising:
a device 48 having a first end 54, a second end 52 opposite the first end, a top edge 50 extending between the first end and the second end, and a bottom edge 56 opposite the top edge, the first end and the second end being fixed to another portion of garment (para 36), at least one of the top edge or the bottom edge 56 being free between the first end and the second end (bottom edge 56 is a “free edge 56” which “hangs freely and is not attached”; para 36),
the device having a width (Figs. 3 and 5) defined between the top edge 50 and the bottom edge 56 and a length (Figs. 3 and 5) defined between the first end 54 and the second end 52.
Amsel does not expressly disclose the device 48 is an auxetic device including a plurality unit cells disposed between the first end and the second end and arranged to have a reentrant structure, the auxetic device having width defined between the top edge and the bottom edge and a length defined between the first end and the second end.
Amsel does not expressly disclose the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that the width remains constant or increases in a range of 0 percent to 50 percent when the auxetic device is stretched in a direction extending between the first end and the second end to a stretch threshold in a range of 20 to 50 percent of the length.
Amsel describes the device 48 as a “resilient panel[]...preferably made from a woven sheet material” and “may be constructed from a range of weave and knit patterns to vary the direction and amount of the elasticity of the resilient panels” and is capable of stretching in plural directions (para 37). Amsel further teaches “on a wearer of the pants garment 10, the resilient panels 46, 48 lengthen to so as to become taut between the front edge 52 and rear edge 54. To accomplish the tautness, the front region 26 of the left and right sections 14, 16 are brought towards each other into mating engagement and secured via the adjustable fastening device 30. In a preferred embodiment, the fastening device 30 may include a conventional front fly zipper fastening system 61. Of course, other constructions are possible to provide the tautness of the panels. Nevertheless, the rear edge 54 of the panels 46, 48 biases the dart portion 58 towards the front seam of the garment 10, which creates a stretching force on the fabric of the pants garment 10. In this way the panels tend to pull the user's stomach in and works to further push the buttocks upwardly” (para 38).
Amsel is silent as to whether said device 48 is auxetic and is silent as to its Poisson ratio when stretched in a direction between ends 52 and 54.
However, Zulifqar teaches and within the context of “shape wear, under wear, leggings and sportswear” (the paragraph spanning p. 2076-2077):
an auxetic device (the “fabric with re-entrant hexagon geometry” of Fig. 9d), the auxetic device including a plurality unit cells (“unit cells”; p. 2089 col. 1 line 4) and arranged to have a reentrant structure (“re-entrant...geometry”; p. 2087 col. 2 lines 13-15; the caption for Fig. 9; the first paragraph of p. 2088), the auxetic device having width and a length, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that the width remains constant or increases in a range of 0 percent to 50 percent when the auxetic device is stretched to a stretch threshold of 52 percent of the length (Fig. 9e; Table I row 6 col 3).
Although Zulifqar Fig. 9 teaches the stretch threshold is 52 percent of the length, Zulifqar as embodied elsewhere teaches a stretch threshold as being within the claimed range (see Zulifqar Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Table I rows 1-3. Zulifqar further teaches “precise placement...within the unit cell..., it is possible to realize the re-entrant...geometry...longer ribs of the unit cell...can be made to bend upon relaxation due to...differential shrinkage...and to translate into straight form upon stretching, which will increase the transversal dimension, and a large NPR effect can be achieved over a larger longitudinal strain range” (p. 2091 col. 1 lines 5-14).
Because Zulifqar is concerned with desired stretch threshold and teaches a range of values therefor including values within the claimed range (i.e. values of 21%, 20%, 38% as described in Table I and those values between 20% and 50% in Figs. 3-5) encompassing the claimed limitation and moreover teaches precise placement of unit cell geometry and rib length thereof influences stretch threshold (p. 2091 col. 1 lines 5-14), the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed stretch threshold range through routine experimentation in order to provide desired garment properties. The claimed stretch threshold is merely an optimum or workable threshold and the stretch threshold of the device is expected to affect how much lengthwise stretching is allowed to occur while the width remains constant or increases until the stretch threshold is reached.
Zulifqar further teaches “the Poisson’s ratio value is significantly important for the clothing materials and applications where lateral contraction, due to stretch, might be problematic. Such applications may include clothing for periods of growth, such as maternity clothing and child development, possibilities for promoting clothing permanency due to adaptability in sizing, under garments, shape wear, under wear, leggings and sportswear” (the paragraph spanning p. 2076-2077).
Zulifqar further teaches “Auxetic” devices “for clothing applications must have two key properties, elasticity and the auxetic effect. The elasticity...facilitates the deformation at different parts of the garment..., while the auxetic effect helps the garment to take the...body shape” (p. 2077 lines 20-26)
Zulifqar further teaches “Auxetic fabrics with NPR can also be used for sportswear and as a solution to the longevity problem of maternity wear, as the defamation of the fabric will be consistent with body movement, and therefore comfort and shape fitting of sportswear and maternity wear will be enhanced.” (first paragraph of p. 2090 col. 2 wherein it is noted “NPR” is described on p. 2076 of Zulifqar as: “Auxetic materials are those materials that possess zero or negative Poisson's ratio (NPR)”)
Attention is drawn to Amsel, which teaches a “shape recovery fabric for the pants garment 10 may have elastic...oriented more in a horizontal direction than in a vertical direction, that is, the material stretches more in one planar axis than in the other generally perpendicular planar axis. In this configuration, the shape recovery material may...provide human body-shaping advantages of the pant garment” (para 30) such that a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have recognized from the combined teachings of Zulifqar and Amsel that the “lateral contraction, due to stretch, might be problematic” described by Zulifqar could occur in the “horizontal direction” in which the “material stretches more” of Amsel such that application of the device of Zulfiquar Fig. 9 in the garment of Amsel would be expected to prevent/solve a problem of device contraction (in a vertical direction) upon horizontal stretching of the device of Amsel when the auxetic device is arranged with its width being defined between the top edge and the bottom edge and its length being defined between the first end and the second end so as to permit the “more” stretching in the “horizontal direction” (i.e. first-end-to-second-end direction and correspondent to length) whilst preventing/solving contraction in the vertical direction (i.e. top-edge-to-bottom-edge direction and correspondent to width).
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 device of Amsel such that it is an auxetic device and is including a plurality unit cells disposed between the first end and the second end and arranged to have a reentrant structure, the auxetic device having width defined between the top edge and the bottom edge and a length defined between the first end and the second end, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that the width remains constant or increases in a range of 0 percent to 50 percent when the auxetic device is stretched in a direction extending between the first end and the second end to a stretch threshold of 20 to 50 percent of the length in order to prevent the device from undesirably contracting in the width direction while the device is expanded in the length direction up to the stretch threshold of 20 to 50 percent of the length, as suggested by Zulfiqar (the paragraph spanning p. 2076-2077) and/or to enhance comfort and/or shape fitting of the device including enhancing comfort and/or shape fitting when the device is expanded in the length direction up to the stretch threshold of 20 to 50 percent of the length, as also suggested by Zulfiqar (first paragraph of p. 2090 col. 2).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Amsel, US 2005/0132474] and [Zulifqar, NPL 2018] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Bentham, US 2008/0032598, newly cited].
Regarding claim 21:
Amsel in view of Zulifqar teach The garment according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Amsel does not expressly disclose wherein a thickness of the auxetic device remains constant when the auxetic device is stretched in the direction extending between the first end and the second end.
Bentham teaches an auxetic device wherein a thickness of the auxetic device remains constant when the auxetic device is stretched in an end-to-end direction (“auxetic...layer 16 has a through-thickness negative Poisson's ratio of between about 0.0 to about -1.0 and any subranges therebetween” (para 27) such that a Poisson’s ratio of 0.0 that corresponds to thickness remaining constant is taught by Bentham).
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 Amsel such that a thickness of the auxetic device remains constant when the auxetic device is stretched in the direction extending between the first end and the second end in order to yield the predictable result of an auxetic device that does not unduly impinge upon a wearer upon a wearer as a result of its thickness remaining constant when stretched.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Thomson, US 6,035,448, previously cited] in view of [Zulifqar, NPL 2018, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Thomson discloses:
A garment 2 comprising:
a device (the “control panel”; col. 2 line 35; no specific numeral provided therefor; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) having a first end (the “rear edge” that “is attached to the pants with the line of stitching that constitutes the upper portion of the side seam”; col. 2 lines 42-44), a second end (the “front edge...sewn...along the...front body of the garment and along the same line of stitching 34 as is used to connect the zipper to the front edge of the pants”; col. 2 lines 36-38) opposite the first end, a top edge (the “top edge of the control panel” which is “connected to the pants with the line of stitching 12...used to connect the waistband to the legs of the pants”; col. 2 lines 39-41) extending between the first end and the second end, and a bottom edge (the “bottom edge of the control panel”; col. 2 line 45) opposite the top edge, the first end and the second end being fixed to another portion of garment (col. 2 lines 36-38 and 42-44), at least one of the top edge or the bottom edge (the “bottom edge”) being free between the first end and the second end (“There is no stitching to secure the bottom edge of the control panel and it hangs down freely”; col. 2 lines 45-46),
the device having a width (Figs. 1-3) defined between the top edge and the bottom edge and a length (Figs. 1-3) defined between the first end and the second end.
Thomson does not expressly disclose the device is an auxetic device including a plurality unit cells disposed between the first end and the second end and arranged to have a reentrant structure,
such that the width remains constant or increases in a range of 0 percent to 50 percent when the auxetic device is stretched in a direction extending between the first end and the second end to a stretch threshold in a range of 20 percent to 50 percent of the length..
Thomson does not expressly disclose the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that the width remains constant or increases in a range of 0 percent to 50 percent when the auxetic device is stretched in a direction extending between the first end and the second end to a stretch threshold in a range of 20 percent to 50 percent of the length.
Thomson describes the device as a “control panel...to support and hold the stomach and abdomen” (Abstract); “Any material that is typically used as a control panel in a girdle may be used as the control panel in this invention”; col. 2 lines 56-58. Thomson further teaches “When the pants are closed, the control panel fits closely against the stomach or abdomen and firmly holds the figure of the body”; col. 2 lines 59-62.
Thomson is silent as to whether said device is auxetic and is silent as to its Poisson ratio when stretched in a direction between its ends.
However, Zulifqar teaches and within the context of “shape wear, under wear, leggings and sportswear” (the paragraph spanning p. 2076-2077):
an auxetic device (the “fabric with re-entrant hexagon geometry” of Fig. 9d), the auxetic device including a plurality unit cells (“unit cells”; p. 2089 col. 1 line 4) and arranged to have a reentrant structure (“re-entrant...geometry”; p. 2087 col. 2 lines 13-15; the caption for Fig. 9; the first paragraph of p. 2088), the auxetic device having width and a length, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that the width remains constant or increases in a range of 0 percent to 50 percent when the auxetic device is stretched to a stretch threshold of 52 percent of the length (Fig. 9e; Table I row 6 col 3).
Although Zulifqar Fig. 9 teaches the stretch threshold is 52 percent of the length, Zulifqar as embodied elsewhere teaches a stretch threshold as being within the claimed range (see Zulifqar Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Table I rows 1-3. Zulifqar further teaches “precise placement...within the unit cell..., it is possible to realize the re-entrant...geometry...longer ribs of the unit cell...can be made to bend upon relaxation due to...differential shrinkage...and to translate into straight form upon stretching, which will increase the transversal dimension, and a large NPR effect can be achieved over a larger longitudinal strain range” (p. 2091 col. 1 lines 5-14).
Because Zulifqar is concerned with desired stretch threshold and teaches a range of values therefor including values within the claimed range (i.e. values of 21%, 20%, 38% as described in Table I and those values between 20% and 50% in Figs. 3-5) encompassing the claimed limitation and moreover teaches precise placement of unit cell geometry and rib length thereof influences stretch threshold (p. 2091 col. 1 lines 5-14), the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed stretch threshold range through routine experimentation in order to provide desired garment properties. The claimed stretch threshold is merely an optimum or workable threshold and the stretch threshold of the device is expected to affect how much lengthwise stretching is allowed to occur while the width remains constant or increases until the stretch threshold is reached.
Zulifqar further teaches “the Poisson’s ratio value is significantly important for the clothing materials and applications where lateral contraction, due to stretch, might be problematic. Such applications may include clothing for periods of growth, such as maternity clothing and child development, possibilities for promoting clothing permanency due to adaptability in sizing, under garments, shape wear, under wear, leggings and sportswear” (the paragraph spanning p. 2076-2077).
Zulifqar further teaches “Auxetic” devices “for clothing applications must have two key properties, elasticity and the auxetic effect. The elasticity...facilitates the deformation at different parts of the garment..., while the auxetic effect helps the garment to take the...body shape” (p. 2077 lines 20-26)
Zulifqar further teaches “Auxetic fabrics with NPR can also be used for sportswear and as a solution to the longevity problem of maternity wear, as the defamation of the fabric will be consistent with body movement, and therefore comfort and shape fitting of sportswear and maternity wear will be enhanced.” (first paragraph of p. 2090 col. 2 wherein it is noted “NPR” is described on p. 2076 of Zulifqar as: “Auxetic materials are those materials that possess zero or negative Poisson's ratio (NPR)”)
Attention is drawn to Thomson, which teaches a “The degree of stretch is greater in the horizontal plane than in the vertical plane” (col. 2 lines 55-56) such that a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have recognized from the combined teachings of Zulifqar and Thomson that the “lateral contraction, due to stretch, might be problematic” described by Zulifqar could occur in the “horizontal plane” in which the “degree of stretch is greater” of Thomson such that application of the device of Zulfiquar Fig. 9 in the garment of Thomson would be expected to prevent/solve a problem of device contraction (in a vertical direction) upon horizontal stretching of the device of Thomson when the auxetic device is arranged with its width being defined between the top edge and the bottom edge and its length being defined between the first end and the second end so as to permit the “greater” stretching in the “horizontal plane” (i.e. first-end-to-second-end direction and correspondent to length) whilst preventing/solving contraction in the vertical direction (i.e. top-edge-to-bottom-edge direction and correspondent to width).
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 device of Thomson such that it is an auxetic device and is including a plurality unit cells disposed between the first end and the second end and arranged to have a reentrant structure, the auxetic device having width defined between the top edge and the bottom edge and a length defined between the first end and the second end, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that the width remains constant or increases in a range of 0 percent to 50 percent when the auxetic device is stretched in a direction extending between the first end and the second end to a stretch threshold of 20 to 50 percent of the length in order to prevent the device from undesirably contracting in the width direction while the device is expanded in the length direction up to the stretch threshold of 20 to 50 percent of the length, as suggested by Zulfiqar (the paragraph spanning p. 2076-2077) and/or to enhance comfort and/or shape fitting of the device including enhancing comfort and/or shape fitting when the device is expanded in the length direction up to the stretch threshold of 20 to 50 percent of the length, as also suggested by Zulfiqar (first paragraph of p. 2090 col. 2).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Thomson, US 6,035,448] and [Zulifqar, NPL 2018] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Henry, US 2018/0199633, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 05/23/2025].
Regarding claim 9:
Thomson in view of Zulifqar teach The garment according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Thomson further discloses further comprising: a front panel 22 and a rear panel 24 joined together at side seams 26 (“side seams”; col. 3 line 36) to form outer edges of the garment, the front panel and the rear panel define a top opening (col. 2 lines 16-18; Figs. 1-3) configured to be positioned adjacent a waist of a wearer (col. 2 lines 16-18; Figs. 1-3; col. 4 lines 19-20).
Thomson does not expressly disclose
and a body contact fabric, the auxetic device sandwiched between the front panel and the body contact fabric, the body contact fabric having a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge, the auxetic device attached to the front panel or the rear panel along one of the first edge or the second edge, the body contact fabric configured to conceal the auxetic device.
However, Henry teaches (Fig. 2C) an auxetic device 270 (i.e. the “middle panel 270” (para 60) having “voided portions 286” (para 60) wherein said voided portions “comprise...auxetic...shape such as for example...auxetic hexagon” (para 28) such that the device 270 is an auxetic device), a front panel 268, and a body contact fabric 266 having a first edge 278 and a second edge (the edge opposite 278; Fig. 2C) opposite the first edge wherein the auxetic device 270 is sandwiched between the front panel 268 and the body contact fabric 266 (para 60; Fig. 2C), the body contact fabric 266 configured to conceal (266 is “an interior panel configured to face a wearer when...worn” such that body contact fabric 266 is configured to conceal auxetic device 270 when viewed from the inside of the garment) the auxetic device 270.
Henry Fig. 2C does not expressly disclose the auxetic device attached to the front panel or the rear panel along one of the first edge or the second edge. However and in further view of Henry: Henry teaches first edge 278 is an edge of the second portion 264 –wherein said second portion 264 comprises the combined front panel, auxetic device, and body contact fabric and is secured to an edge 272 of another portion of the garment “by forming seams through stitching...first edge 272...to...edge 278”; para 64). Although the “seams through stitching” are not expressly described as extending through two or more of the plural layers--front panel, auxetic device, and body contact fabric--, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that stitching edge 278 to edge 272 could have been performed successfully if the “seams through stitching” extend through one or more of the three panels—including a “seams through stitching” that would extend through all three panels –i.e. through the front panel, through an end of the auxetic device, and through the body contact fabric--in order to secure the second portion—having those three panels—to edge 272 of the other portion of the garment to thereby attach the auxetic device 270 and the body contact fabric 266 to the front panel 268 and also to edge 272 of the other portion of the garment.
Henry, in regards to the body contact fabric 266, further teaches “the first panel of pliable material 266 is an interior panel with the greatest proximity to the wearer's body, the first panel of pliable material 266 may comprise a moisture management fabric/textile configured to rapidly pull moisture (i.e. perspiration) away from the wearer's body to provide a dry feeling to the wearer when the lower body garment 260 is worn”; para 61.
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 Thomson such that it is provided with a body contact fabric, the auxetic device sandwiched between the front panel and the body contact fabric, the body contact fabric having a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge, the auxetic device attached to the front panel along the first edge, the body contact fabric configured to conceal the auxetic device; further wherein the first end and the first edge are stitched together to attach the auxetic device and the body contact fabric to the front panel in order to pull moisture and/or perspiration away from the wearer’s body to provide a dry feeling via the body contact fabric, as taught by Henry (para 61) further wherein the combined auxetic device, front panel, and body contact fabric are durably secured to each other and to the rest of the garment at the side seam thereof due to the auxetic device being attached to the front panel along the first edge and the first end and the first edge are stitched together to attach the auxetic device and the body contact fabric to the front panel.
Regarding claim 10:
Thomson in view of Zulqifar and Henry teach The garment according to claim 9, as set forth above.
The modified Thomson further meets the limitation wherein the first end and the first edge are stitched together to attach the auxetic device and the body contact fabric to the front panel (see above treatment of claim 9, where the limitation is addressed) or the rear panel.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Thomson, US 6,035,448] and [Zulifqar, NPL 2018] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Bentham, US 2008/0032598, newly cited].
Regarding claim 21:
Thomson in view of Zulifqar teach The garment according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Thomson does not expressly disclose wherein a thickness of the auxetic device remains constant when the auxetic device is stretched in the direction extending between the first end and the second end.
Bentham teaches an auxetic device wherein a thickness of the auxetic device remains constant when the auxetic device is stretched in an end-to-end direction (“auxetic...layer 16 has a through-thickness negative Poisson's ratio of between about 0.0 to about -1.0 and any subranges therebetween” (para 27) such that a Poisson’s ratio of 0.0 that corresponds to thickness remaining constant is taught by Bentham).
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 Thomson such that a thickness of the auxetic device remains constant when the auxetic device is stretched in the direction extending between the first end and the second end in order to yield the predictable result of an auxetic device that does not unduly impinge upon a wearer as a result of its thickness remaining constant when stretched.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Sekey, US 1,823,296, newly cited] in view of [Zulifqar, NPL 2018, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Sekey discloses (Figs. 1-2 and 4):
A garment (“bloomer type of garment”; p. 1 line 43; no specific numeral provided therefor; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) comprising:
a device 5, 6 (i.e. “5...band of elastic...having tabs 6 at each end”; p. 1 line 52) having a first end (one of “each end” at which one of “tabs 6” is disposed), a second end (the other of “each end” at which the other of “tabs 6” is disposed) opposite the first end, a top edge (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below) extending between the first end and the second end, and a bottom edge (see annotated Fig. 2 – a below) opposite the top edge, the first end and the second end being fixed to another portion of garment (via at least the combined 4 and 7; p. 1 lines 51-56; Figs. 1-2), at least one of the top edge or the bottom edge being free between the first end and the second end (device is capable of being “removed from the sheath” (p. 1 line 65) such that both top edge and bottom edge are free between first end and second end) , the device having width defined between the top edge and the bottom edge (Figs. 1-2 and 4) and a length defined between the first end and the second end (Figs. 1-2 and 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
675
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sekey does not expressly disclose an auxetic device, the auxetic device including a plurality unit cells disposed between the first end and the second end and arranged to have a reentrant structure, the auxetic device having width defined between the top edge and the bottom edge and a length defined between the first end and the second end, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that the width remains constant or increases in a range of 0 percent to 50 percent when the auxetic device is stretched in a direction extending between the first end and the second end to a stretch threshold in a range of 20 percent to 50 percent of the length.
However, Zulifqar teaches and within the context of “shape wear, under wear, leggings and sportswear” (the paragraph spanning p. 2076-2077):
an auxetic device (the “fabric with re-entrant hexagon geometry” of Fig. 9d), the auxetic device including a plurality unit cells (“unit cells”; p. 2089 col. 1 line 4) and arranged to have a reentrant structure (“re-entrant...geometry”; p. 2087 col. 2 lines 13-15; the caption for Fig. 9; the first paragraph of p. 2088), the auxetic device having width and a length, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that the width remains constant or increases in a range of 0 percent to 50 percent when the auxetic device is stretched to a stretch threshold of 52 percent of the length (Fig. 9e; Table I row 6 col 3).
Although Zulifqar Fig. 9 teaches the stretch threshold is 52 percent of the length, Zulifqar as embodied elsewhere teaches a stretch threshold as being within the claimed range (see Zulifqar Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Table I rows 1-3. Zulifqar further teaches “precise placement...within the unit cell..., it is possible to realize the re-entrant...geometry...longer ribs of the unit cell...can be made to bend upon relaxation due to...differential shrinkage...and to translate into straight form upon stretching, which will increase the transversal dimension, and a large NPR effect can be achieved over a larger longitudinal strain range” (p. 2091 col. 1 lines 5-14).
Because Zulifqar is concerned with desired stretch threshold and teaches a range of values therefor including values within the claimed range (i.e. values of 21%, 20%, 38% as described in Table I and those values between 20% and 50% in Figs. 3-5) encompassing the claimed limitation and moreover teaches precise placement of unit cell geometry and rib length thereof influences stretch threshold (p. 2091 col. 1 lines 5-14), the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed stretch threshold range through routine experimentation in order to provide desired garment properties. The claimed stretch threshold is merely an optimum or workable threshold and the stretch threshold of the device is expected to affect how much lengthwise stretching is allowed to occur while the width remains constant or increases until the stretch threshold is reached.
Zulifqar further teaches “the Poisson’s ratio value is significantly important for the clothing materials and applications where lateral contraction, due to stretch, might be problematic. Such applications may include clothing for periods of growth, such as maternity clothing and child development, possibilities for promoting clothing permanency due to adaptability in sizing, under garments, shape wear, under wear, leggings and sportswear” (the paragraph spanning p. 2076-2077).
Zulifqar further teaches “Auxetic” devices “for clothing applications must have two key properties, elasticity and the auxetic effect. The elasticity...facilitates the deformation at different parts of the garment..., while the auxetic effect helps the garment to take the...body shape” (p. 2077 lines 20-26)
Zulifqar further teaches “Auxetic fabrics with NPR can also be used for sportswear and as a solution to the longevity problem of maternity wear, as the defamation of the fabric will be consistent with body movement, and therefore comfort and shape fitting of sportswear and maternity wear will be enhanced.” (first paragraph of p. 2090 col. 2 wherein it is noted “NPR” is described on p. 2076 of Zulifqar as: “Auxetic materials are those materials that possess zero or negative Poisson's ratio (NPR)”)
Attention is drawn to Sekey, which teaches “the band being put under...tension” when “threaded through the sheath and the tabs engaged with the buttons...when the garment is worn to hold it in place on the wearer” (p. 1 lines 55-61) such that a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have recognized from the combined teachings of Zulifqar and Sekey that the “lateral contraction, due to stretch, might be problematic” described by Zulifqar could occur in the tab-to-tab direction of Sekey such that application of the device of Zulfiquar Fig. 9 in the garment of Sekey would be expected to prevent/solve a problem of device contraction (in a vertical direction) upon horizontal stretching of the device of Sekey when the auxetic device is arranged with its width being defined between the top edge and the bottom edge and its length being defined between the first end and the second end so as to permit the stretching that provides tension to hold the garment in place in a horizontal direction (i.e. first-end-to-second-end direction and correspondent to length) whilst preventing/solving contraction in the vertical direction (i.e. top-edge-to-bottom-edge direction and correspondent to width).
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 device of Sekey such that it is an auxetic device and is including a plurality unit cells disposed between the first end and the second end and arranged to have a reentrant structure, the auxetic device having width defined between the top edge and the bottom edge and a length defined between the first end and the second end, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that the width remains constant or increases in a range of 0 percent to 50 percent when the auxetic device is stretched in a direction extending between the first end and the second end to a stretch threshold of 20 to 50 percent of the length in order to prevent the device from undesirably contracting in the width direction while the device is expanded in the length direction up to the stretch threshold of 20 to 50 percent of the length, as suggested by Zulfiqar (the paragraph spanning p. 2076-2077) and/or to enhance comfort and/or shape fitting of the device including enhancing comfort and/or shape fitting when the device is expanded in the length direction up to the stretch threshold of 20 to 50 percent of the length, as also suggested by Zulfiqar (first paragraph of p. 2090 col. 2).
Regarding claim 8:
Sekey in view of Zulfiqar teach The garment according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Sekey further meets the limitation further comprising a sleeve (“sheath”; p. 1 line 46 of Sekey) that defines a tunnel (i.e. the tunnel through which the device traverses; Figs. 1-2 of Sekey), the first end and the second end of the auxetic device each including a solid area portion 6 (i.e. 6 of Sekey), the sleeve closed about each solid area portion of the first end and the second end (p. 1 lines 55-58; Fig. 1)) such that the auxetic device is enclosed within the sleeve (p. 1 lines 55-58; Fig. 1 of Sekey).
(It is noted that the device of the modified Sekey as applied to claim 1 an auxetic device; see above treatment of claim 1).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Sekey, US 1,823,296] and [Zulifqar, NPL 2018] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Bentham, US 2008/0032598, newly cited].
Regarding claim 21:
Sekey in view of Zulifqar teach The garment according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Sekey does not expressly disclose wherein a thickness of the auxetic device remains constant when the auxetic device is stretched in the direction extending between the first end and the second end.
Bentham teaches an auxetic device wherein a thickness of the auxetic device remains constant when the auxetic device is stretched in an end-to-end direction (“auxetic...layer 16 has a through-thickness negative Poisson's ratio of between about 0.0 to about -1.0 and any subranges therebetween” (para 27) such that a Poisson’s ratio of 0.0 that corresponds to thickness remaining constant is taught by Bentham).
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 Sekey such that a thickness of the auxetic device remains constant when the auxetic device is stretched in the direction extending between the first end and the second end in order to yield the predictable result of an auxetic device that does not unduly impinge upon a wearer as a result of its thickness remaining constant when stretched.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Hargreaves, US 1,873,583, newly cited] in view of [Harsh, USRE 16,641, newly cited], and [Bocquet, WO-2006045935-A1, previously cited].
Regarding claim 11:
Hargreaves discloses:
A band (the band of Figs. 1-3; no specific numeral provided therefor; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) for a garment 5, the band comprising:
a device 2 having a top edge (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below), and a bottom edge (see annotated Figs. 1-3 – a below) opposite the top edge,
a sleeve 1 of stretch (“stretchable”; p. 1 line 57) fabric (“textile”; p. 1 line 56), the sleeve of stretch fabric dimensioned to house the device therein (p. 1 lines 55-62; Figs. 1-3), the device fixed to the sleeve (p. 1 lines 68-76; Figs. 1-3), one of the top edge or the bottom edge (i.e. the top edge) of the device is free to move relative to the sleeve (“loosely enclosed” such that “movement is permitted between” the device 2 “and the major portion of the” sleeve; “This freedom of movement is particularly noticeable adjacent the upper edge of the” device; p. 1 lines 82-90; Figs. 1-3) and the other of the of the top edge or the bottom edge (i.e. the bottom edge) of the device is fixed to the sleeve (p. 1 lines 68-76; Figs. 1-3; “securely anchored”; p. 1 line 81).
PNG
media_image2.png
1072
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hargreaves does not expressly disclose:
the device having a first end, a second end opposite the first end, the top edge extending between the first end and the second end,
the sleeve of stretch fabric having a first sleeve end and a second sleeve end opposite the first sleeve end, the first end of the device fixed to the sleeve adjacent the first sleeve end and the second end of the device fixed to the sleeve adjacent the second sleeve end.
Hargreaves Figs. 1-3 show the band and garment in apparent partial view such that it cannot be determined from the drawings alone whether or not the device and sleeve have ends as claimed.
However and in further view of Hargreaves:
Hargreaves teaches “The present invention is an improvement upon the band...in the Harsh Reissue 16,641, reissued May 31, 1927” (p. 1 lines 4-5).
Harsh teaches “garment...there is an opening in the nature of a fly at 9 at the front and the waist band is formed with meeting ends 10. These ends, as shown, are fastened in any suitable manner” (p. 2 lines 38-41).
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 band of Hargreaves such that it is an the device is having a first end, a second end opposite the first end, the top edge extending between the first end and the second end, the sleeve of stretch fabric is having a first sleeve end and a second sleeve end opposite the first sleeve in order to provide a fly opening between the first and second ends of the band and the first and second ends of the sleeve, as suggested by Harsh, (p. 2 lines 38-41).
Regarding the limitation the first end of the device fixed to the sleeve adjacent the first sleeve end and the second end of the device fixed to the sleeve adjacent the second sleeve end.
As stated above, in Hargreaves the device fixed to the sleeve (p. 1 lines 68-76; Figs. 1-3).
Hargreaves Figs. 1-3 does not show first sleeve end and second sleeve end insofar as Hargreaves Figs. 1-3 show the band and garment in apparent partial view such that it cannot be determined from the drawings alone whether or not the device and sleeve have ends as claimed and the extent of the fixing to any such end(s).
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 Hargreaves such that the first end of the device fixed to the sleeve adjacent the first sleeve end and the second end of the device fixed to the sleeve adjacent the second sleeve end in order to yield the predictable result of a device that is anchored to the sleeve not only at the locations visible in Figs. 1-3 but also anchored adjacent the first sleeve end and also the second sleeve end so as to afford the capability of being both securely anchored and loosely enclosed as described in the final full paragraph of Hargreaves p. 1 adjacent the first sleeve end and adjacent the second sleeve end.
The modified Hargreaves does not meet the limitation:
An auxetic band for a garment, the auxetic band comprising:
an auxetic device having a first end, a second end opposite the first end, a top edge extending between the first end and the second end, and a bottom edge opposite the top edge, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero; and
a sleeve of stretch fabric having a first sleeve end and a second sleeve end opposite the first sleeve end, the sleeve of stretch fabric dimensioned to house the auxetic device therein, the first end of the auxetic device fixed to the sleeve adjacent the first sleeve end and the second end of the auxetic device fixed to the sleeve adjacent the second sleeve end, one of the top edge or the bottom edge of the auxetic device is free to move relative to the sleeve and the other of the of the top edge or the bottom edge of the auxetic device is fixed to the sleeve.
However, Bocquet (Figs. 1-5) teaches a garment 1 comprising an auxetic (para 20) device 12 housed within a sleeve 10 of stretch fabric (paras 9, 20-21) wherein the auxetic device is having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero (as evidenced by its being “auxetic” (para 20) such that “width and/or thickness automatically increases when...stress applied to ends...increases” (Abstract) and as evidenced in comparing the width and/or thickness thereof when stretched in such a direction in Figs. 4-5 to the width and/or thickness thereof when not so stretched in Figs. 2-3).
Bocquet further teaches “adapt[ation]” of “the width...of” a “straps” is “advisable...since in the contrary case, they may cause discomfort,...or even injuries...when too great a tension is applied to the strap...and when the width of the latter is too small” (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 Hargreaves such that its device is an auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero in order to prevent narrowing of the device when stretched so as to prevent discomfort and/or injury, as taught by Bocquet (para 2). In adopting the modification, the limitation “An auxetic band for a garment” would be met insofar as the modified band comprises the auxetic device and is therefore an auxetic band.
Regarding claim 12:
Hargreaves in view of Harsh and Bocquet teach The auxetic band of claim 11, as set forth above.
The modified Hargreaves further meets the limitation wherein the sleeve is dimensioned to accommodate an increase in surface area when the auxetic device is stretched in a direction extending between the first end and the second end (Hargreaves is configured such that device is capable being stretched between first end and second end within sleeve such that the sleeve is dimensioned to accommodate the device when stretched in a direction extending between the first end and the second end; the modified Hargreaves comprises the auxetic device and the auxetic device is configured to increase in surface area when stretched such that the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 13:
Hargreaves in view of Harsh and Bocquet teach The auxetic band of claim 11, as set forth above.
The modified Hargreaves further meets the limitation
A garment 5 (i.e. 5 of Hargreaves) comprising the auxetic band according to claim 11 (see above treatment of claim 11), wherein the top edge of the auxetic band is position at or below a waistband of the garment (Figs. 1-3 of Hargreaves) or the bottom edge of the auxetic band is positioned at a waistband of the garment (Figs. 1-3 of Hargreaves).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Hargreaves, US 1,873,583, newly cited] in view of [Harsh, USRE 16,641, newly cited], [Bocquet, WO-2006045935-A1, previously cited], and [Chow, NPL 2022, newly cited].
Regarding claim 14:
Hargreaves discloses:
A garment 5 comprising:
a support band (the support band of Figs. 1-3; no specific numeral provided therefor; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) configured to position a top portion of the garment about or adjacent a waist of a wearer (p. 1 lines 4-13; Figs. 1-3); and
a device 2, the device secured to the support band (p. 1 lines 68-76; Figs. 1-3) such that at least one edge of the device is free to move with respect to the support band (“loosely enclosed” such that “movement is permitted between” the device 2 “and the major portion of the” sleeve; “This freedom of movement is particularly noticeable adjacent the upper edge of the” device; p. 1 lines 82-90; Figs. 1-3).
Hargreaves does not expressly disclose the device having a first end and a second end opposite the first end.
Hargreaves Figs. 1-3 show the band and garment in apparent partial view such that it cannot be determined from the drawings alone whether or not the device has ends as claimed.
However and in further view of Hargreaves:
Hargreaves teaches “The present invention is an improvement upon the band...in the Harsh Reissue 16,641, reissued May 31, 1927” (p. 1 lines 4-5).
Harsh teaches “garment...there is an opening in the nature of a fly at 9 at the front and the waist band is formed with meeting ends 10. These ends, as shown, are fastened in any suitable manner” (p. 2 lines 38-41).
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 Hargreaves such that the device is having a first end and a second end opposite the first end to provide a fly opening between the first and second ends, as suggested by Harsh, (p. 2 lines 38-41).
The modified Hargreaves does not meet the limitation:
an auxetic device having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero, the auxetic device secured to the support band such that at least one edge of the auxetic device is free to move with respect to the support band.
However, Bocquet (Figs. 1-5) teaches a garment 1 comprising an auxetic (para 20) device 12 housed within a sleeve 10 of stretch fabric (paras 9, 20-21) wherein the auxetic device is having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero (as evidenced by its being “auxetic” (para 20) such that “width and/or thickness automatically increases when...stress applied to ends...increases” (Abstract) and as evidenced in comparing the width and/or thickness thereof when stretched in such a direction in Figs. 4-5 to the width and/or thickness thereof when not so stretched in Figs. 2-3).
Bocquet further teaches the auxetic device is having a relaxed state (Figs. 2-3) in which the auxetic device has a first length defined between a first end and a second end and a stretched state (Figs. 4-5) in which the auxetic device has a second length that is longer than the first length, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that in the relaxed state the auxetic device has a first width and in the stretched state the auxetic device has a second width that is wider (as evidenced in comparing Figs. 2-3 to Figs. 4-5) than the first width.
Bocquet further teaches “adapt[ation]” of “the width...of” a “straps” is “advisable...since in the contrary case, they may cause discomfort,...or even injuries...when too great a tension is applied to the strap...and when the width of the latter is too small” (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 Hargreaves such that its device is an auxetic device having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the auxetic device is having a relaxed state in which the auxetic device has a first length defined between a first end and a second end and a stretched state in which the auxetic device has a second length that is longer than the first length, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that in the relaxed state the auxetic device has a first width and in the stretched state the auxetic device has a second width that is wider than the first width, the auxetic device secured to the support band such that at least one edge of the auxetic device is free to move with respect to the support band in order to prevent narrowing of the device when stretched so as to prevent discomfort and/or injury, as taught by Bocquet (para 2).
The modified Hargreaves does not meet the limitation the auxetic device including a plurality unit cells disposed between the first end and the second end and arranged to have a reentrant structure, the auxetic device having a relaxed state in which the auxetic device has a first length defined between the first end and the second end and a stretched state in which the auxetic device has a second length that is 20 percent to 50 percent longer than the first length, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that in the relaxed state the auxetic device has a first width and in the stretched state the auxetic device has a second width that is 0 percent to 50 percent wider than the first width.
Rather, as stated above, the modified Hargreaves comprises an auxetic device of having a relaxed state in which the auxetic device has a first length defined between a first end and a second end and a stretched state in which the auxetic device has a second length that is longer than the first length, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that in the relaxed state the auxetic device has a first width and in the stretched state the auxetic device has a second width that is wider than the first width, as set forth above.
Accordingly, the modified Hargreaves is silent as to unit cells, geometry thereof, the magnitude by which the second length is longer than the first length, and the magnitude by which the second width is wider than the first width.
Chow teaches and within the context of “the fit of” “device or garment on the body” (p. 1 col. 2 lines 7-8) (Abstract) an auxetic device including a plurality unit cells (“RE unit cell”; p. 3 col. 2 line 5; also p. 4 col 1; also p. 7) arranged to have a reentrant structure (“re-entrant (RE) structure”; the paragraph spanning the two columns of p. 2).
Chow teaches specific auxetic devices (i.e. the devices of the top half of Fig. 8c corresponding to the “Re-entrant” unit cells) including a plurality unit cells (Fig. 8c) disposed between a first end and a second end (Fig. 8c) and arranged to have a reentrant structure (Fig. 8c), the auxetic device having a relaxed state (Fig. 8c) in which the auxetic device has a first length defined between the first end and the second end and a stretched state (Fig. 6b within the range of 0.2-0.5 strain and as generally shown in Fig. 6a) in which the auxetic device has a second length that is 20 percent to 50 percent longer than the first length (as evidenced by a strain of 0.2-0.5), the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero (Fig. 6b) such that in the relaxed state the auxetic device has a first width and in the stretched state the auxetic device has a second width that is 0 percent to 50 percent wider than the first width (as evidenced by the Poisson’s ratio of between -0.9 and 0 within the range of 0.2-0.5 axial strain; Fig. 6b, wherein it is noted the Poisson’s ratio as described in Chow is equal to the negative of the “Lateral Strain” divided by the “Axial strain” (Fig. 6a) an axial strain of 0.3 (i.e. 30%) that has a Poisson’s ratio of approximately -0.4—as in Fig. 6b correspondent to “Long_60RE” “Experiment”—means a lateral strain—and therefore width relative to first width—of approximately 12% insofar as the negative of -0.4 is 0.4 and 0.4*0.3=0.12 = 12%; in like manner, all experimental data points for Long_80RE and Long_60RE are within the claimed range insofar as all values for Long_80RE and Long_60RE from 0.2-0.5 axial strain are all between -0.6 and 0 Poisson’s ratio. It is noted a Poisson’s ratio of -0.6 at 0.2 axial strain equals lateral strain of 12% such that both data points for Long_80RE and Long_60RE at 0.2 axial strain represent second widths less than 12% and therefore within the range “0 percent to 50 percent wider than the second width”; a Poisson’s ratio of -0.6 at 0.5 axial strain equals lateral strain of 30% such that both data points for Long_80RE and Long_60RE at 0.5 axial strain represent second widths less than 30%.
Chow further teaches “structures with lower PR could...indicate the shape formability of structure due to...expansion ability when tensile load is applied” (the paragraph spanning the two cols. of p. 8).
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 Hargreaves such that the auxetic device is including a plurality unit cells disposed between the first end and the second end and arranged to have a reentrant structure, the auxetic device having a relaxed state in which the auxetic device has a first length defined between the first end and the second end and a stretched state in which the auxetic device has a second length that is 20 percent to 50 percent longer than the first length, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that in the relaxed state the auxetic device has a first width and in the stretched state the auxetic device has a second width that is 0 percent to 50 percent wider than the first width in order to provide a degree of shape formability to the band correspondent to the Poisson’s ratio defined thereby when in the stretched state, as suggested by Chow (the paragraph spanning the two cols. of p. 8).
and/or
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 Hargreaves such that the auxetic device is including a plurality unit cells disposed between the first end and the second end and arranged to have a reentrant structure, the auxetic device having a relaxed state in which the auxetic device has a first length defined between the first end and the second end and a stretched state in which the auxetic device has a second length that is 20 percent to 50 percent longer than the first length, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that in the relaxed state the auxetic device has a first width and in the stretched state the auxetic device has a second width that is 0 percent to 50 percent wider than the first width in order to provide the device with the auxetic effect that prevents narrowing of the device when stretched so as to prevent discomfort and/or injury. One or ordinary skill would have been confronted with one or more decision(s) as to how, specifically, to provide the device with auxetic properties and would have recognized that arranged the device such that the device is including a plurality unit cells disposed between the first end and the second end and arranged to have a reentrant structure, the auxetic device having a relaxed state in which the auxetic device has a first length defined between the first end and the second end and a stretched state in which the auxetic device has a second length that is 20 percent to 50 percent longer than the first length, the auxetic device having a Poisson ratio less than or equal to zero such that in the relaxed state the auxetic device has a first width and in the stretched state the auxetic device has a second width that is 0 percent to 50 percent wider than the first width is an acceptable arrangement therefor based on the teachings of Chow.
Regarding claim 15:
Hargreaves in view of Harsh, Bocquet, and Chow teach The garment according to claim 14, as set forth above.
The modified Hargreaves further meets the limitation wherein the auxetic device forms a portion of the support band (device of Hargreaves forms a portion of the band as evidenced in Hargreaves Figs. 1-3; the device is modified to be an auxetic device; see above treatment of claim 14).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Hargreaves, US 1,873,583] in view of [Harsh, USRE 16,641], [Bocquet, WO-2006045935-A1], and [Chow, NPL 2022] as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of [Henry, US 2018/0199633, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 05/23/2025].
Regarding claim 19:
Hargreaves in view of Harsh, Bocquet, and Chow teach The garment according to claim 14, as set forth above.
Hargreaves further discloses further comprising: a front panel 5.
Hargreaves does not expressly disclose
and a body contact fabric panel secured to the front panel, the auxetic device positioned between the body contact fabric panel and the front panel with the body contact fabric panel preventing the auxetic device from contacting the skin of a wearer.
However, Henry teaches (Fig. 2C) an auxetic device 270 (i.e. the “middle panel 270” (para 60) having “voided portions 286” (para 60) wherein said voided portions “comprise...auxetic...shape such as for example...auxetic hexagon” (para 28) such that the device 270 is an auxetic device), a front panel 268, and a body contact fabric panel 266 secured to the front panel 268 (para 62; Fig. 2C) wherein the auxetic device 270 is positioned between the body contact fabric panel 266 and the front panel 268 (para 60; Fig. 2C), the body contact fabric panel 266 preventing the auxetic device 270 from contacting the skin of a wearer (266 is “an interior panel configured to face a wearer when...worn” such that the wearer’s skin can body contact fabric panel 266 instead of the auxetic device 270 behind body contact fabric panel 266) the auxetic device 270.
Henry, in regards to the body contact fabric panel 266, further teaches “the first panel of pliable material 266 is an interior panel with the greatest proximity to the wearer's body, the first panel of pliable material 266 may comprise a moisture management fabric/textile configured to rapidly pull moisture (i.e. perspiration) away from the wearer's body to provide a dry feeling to the wearer when the lower body garment 260 is worn”; para 61.
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 Hargreaves such that it is provided with a body contact fabric panel secured to the front panel, the auxetic device positioned between the body contact fabric panel and the front panel with the body contact fabric panel preventing the auxetic device from contacting the skin of a wearer in order to pull moisture and/or perspiration away from the wearer’s body to provide a dry feeling via the body contact fabric, as taught by Henry (para 61).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Hargreaves, US 1,873,583] in view of [Harsh, USRE 16,641], [Bocquet, WO-2006045935-A1], [Chow, NPL 2022], and [Henry, US 2018/0199633] as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of [Dipietro, US 2007/0136930, newly cited].
Regarding claim 20:
Hargreaves in view of Harsh, Bocquet, Chow, and Cho teach The garment according to claim 19, as set forth above.
Hargreaves does not expressly disclose further comprising a pocket formed of pocket fabric, the pocket fabric disposed between the front panel and the auxetic device.
However, Dipietro teaches (Figs. 1 and 10) a pocket 44 formed of pocket fabric 50 (para 50), the pocket fabric 50 disposed between (Fig. 10; para 50) a front panel B and a device 28.
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 Hargreaves such that it is further comprising a pocket formed of pocket fabric, the pocket fabric disposed between the front panel and the auxetic device in order to yield the predictable result of permitting a wearer to store an object in the pocket.
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
Prosecution Insights