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
The amendment filed 09/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 5-30 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(d) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 7 that Kopacki does not disclose that the compression sleeve covers from the coffin joint to the shoulder joint is not persuasive, since Johnson is used to teach the coverage of a horse’s front limb continuously between the recited anatomical landmarks.
Regarding the argument that Kopacki does not teach a cylindrical shape along the length of the front limb sleeve, since Kopacki shows a “wrap member” that opens and closes around the leg with segmented bladders as well as a tapered shape, this is not persuasive. The claim does not require a uniform cross-section along its length, only a cylindrical shape along its length, which is shown in figure 6 to be contoured around the horse’s leg, as well as figures 1 and 2 showing a generally rectangular flat wrap which is placed around a horse’s front limb, thus creating a cylindrical shape. Examiner notes that the applicant’s specification and figures also do not show a uniform cross section cylindrical shape of the front limb sleeve (page 10, last para.; figs. 1-3, 7B, 9).
Regarding the argument that Johnson does not remedy Kopacki’s “deficiencies” of not covering the front limb continuously from the coffin joint to the shoulder joint is not persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand from Johnson’s disclosure that covering a “foot” of a horse, as described in [0177] would include covering the coffin joint, since the “foot” of the horse is the coffin bone, with the coffin joint being proximally located to the foot/coffin bone. Further, the claim limitation does not exclude additional coverage beyond the shoulder joint.
The argument that Johnson does not disclose a hind limb sleeve as claimed is not persuasive, since figure 38 clearly shows a sleeve covering the hind limb which has a shape contoured to the hind limb of the horse. Applicant’s argument that Johnson does not disclose a hind limb sleeve “at all” is not persuasive, since a portion of the pressure suit includes a sleeve portion covering the hind limb is clearly shown in figure 38 and described as covering all four limbs in [0177]. It is apparent from the figures that the different geometries for the front versus the rear limbs are required to accommodate the variation in the shape of the limbs.
Regarding the argument that the office action does not provide a rationale for including the specifically claimed endpoints and geometries and integration, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/29/2025 provides the rationale taught by Johnson that forming a compression suit as disclosed (i.e., having the claimed features) is the reason that that suit effectively is able to reduce the weight borne by the horse (Johnson [0177-0180]). Please refer to the clarified rejection below.
The examiner notes that Kopacki and Johnson do not specifically teach or disclose separate or individual sleeves covering all four limbs, particularly the rear limbs, of an equine subject that may be selectively applied to one or more of the equine subject’s limbs (i.e., applying a front limb sleeve and a rear limb sleeve, or various combinations, such as shown in figs. 3 and 7A-B).
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 and 5-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “for a non-human animal” (lines 1 and , and the claim also recites “an equine subject”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 5, 18-19, 21-26, and 29 also recite “non-human animal”.
Claims 5-30 are rejected as depending upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-11, 13, 15, 17, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopacki et al. (US 8465444), hereafter Kopacki, in view of Johnson et al. (US 2009/0255531 A1), hereafter Johnson.
Regarding Claim 1, Kopacki discloses a compression device for a non-human animal (fig. 1, abstract), the compression device comprising: one or more sleeves (fig. 6, 20, col. 7 line 57), each of the one or more sleeves configured to fit a limb of a non-human animal (fig. 6, the sleeve 20 fits the leg of a horse, col. 7 lines 26-27), and each of the one or more sleeves comprising one or more inflatable chambers (fig. 2, bladders 40, 42, 44, 46, 48 col. 8 lines 40-41);
wherein at least one of the one or more sleeves is configured for a front limb of an equine subject (fig. 6, sleeve 20 is shown on the front limb of a horse, col. 7 line 26) and when worn by the equine subject, has a cylindrical shape along its length (fig. 6, 20 takes a generally cylindrical shape),
and a controllable air source (fig. 10, assembly of pump 116, expansion tank 118, valve control block 120, CPU 122and input device 124, col. 11 line 66-col. 12 line 12) operably connected with the one or more inflatable chambers of the at least one sleeve configured for the front limb (fig. 10 connection shown schematically, fig. 6, air supply tubes 28, col. 8 line 6) and/or the at least one sleeve configured for the hind limb (examiner notes that the “or” option is chosen for this limitation and is excluded from being required by the claim) and configured to controllably inflate and deflate the one or more inflatable chambers (col. 12 lines 6-8).
Kopacki does not explicitly disclose that the sleeve on the front limb has a length that covers a distance from a coffin joint to a shoulder joint of the equine subject (fig. 6, sleeve 20 is shown covering the front limb of the horse’s leg but it is not clear if it covers to the shoulder joint); and is silent on wherein at least one of the one or more sleeves is configured for a hind limb of an equine subject, and when worn by the equine subject, has a shape that adjusts to a shape of the hind limb in a non-cylindrical, anatomically contoured manner and a length to cover the hind limb from a pastern to a stifle of the hind limb.
Johnson teaches a compression device for a horse (fig. 38-39 [0177]) that covers the front limb having a distance that covers from a foot to the midsection of the horse, which has a length that covers a distance from a coffin joint to a shoulder joint, as well as provides two sleeves, one for each of the hind limb of an equine subject (fig. 38, all four limbs of the horse are covered by the pressure suit 400 [0177]), and when worn by the equine subject, has a shape that adjusts to the shape of the hind limb (fig. 38, the suit is shown as shaped to accommodate the rear limb of the horse; as the device is inflated, it adjusts to accommodate the shape of the horse’s hind limb by the inner layer expanding to press against the hide of the horse [0177]) in a non-cylindrical, anatomically contoured manner (fig. 38, the portion of the suit covering the hind limb is shown to be non-cylindrical and contours with the shape of the horse’s hind limb) and a length to cover the hind limb from a pastern to a stifle of the hind limb (fig. 38 and [0177] the pressure suit covers from the foot to the midsection, which provides a length covering from the pastern to the stifle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kopacki by applying a compression sleeve to all four limbs and extending the limb coverage as taught by Johnson, such that a coffin joint to a shoulder joint of the front limbs and the pastern to the stifle of the rear limbs are also covered by a compression sleeve, in order to extend the surface area of pressure treatment which is able to reduce the amount of weight borne by the horse’s skeletal structure (Johnson [0180]). It additionally would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compression sleeves so that the coverage extends from the specifically claimed anatomical landmarks, as finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art when the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over prior art (MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Johnson teaches that the four limb coverage may be adjusted to cover different ranges between the foot and the waist ([0177]).
Additionally, modifying the shape of the sleeves to accommodate the front limbs and the rear limbs further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that a change in shape is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). In this case, based on the teaching of Johnson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to shape the front limb cylindrically and the rear limb anatomically as shown in fig. 38 to contour to the shape of the horse’s body for applying appropriate compression.
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 1, comprising four sleeves, wherein two of the sleeves are configured to respectively fit two front limbs of the non-human animal and two of the sleeves are configured to respectively fit two hind limbs of the non-human animal (as modified by Johnson, which has 4 sleeves covering both front limbs and both hind limbs, fig. 38 [0177]).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more sleeves has four inflatable chambers (Kopacki col. 8 lines 44-45, four chambers).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 1, wherein the controllable air source is operably connected with the one or more inflatable chambers (Kopacki fig. 10, the controllable air source is connected via air supply tubes 28, labeled in fig. 6, col. 8 line 6) and the controllable air source is configured to inflate and deflate the one or more inflatable chambers (Kopacki col. 12 lines 6-8), wherein the controllable air source further comprises one or more hoses that connect the controllable air source to the one or more inflatable chambers (Kopacki fig. 6, 28 comprises multiple hoses, col. 8 line 6).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more inflatable chambers has an individual hose connecting to the controllable air source (Kopacki fig. 4 depicts an individual bladder, barbed end 78 attaches to an individual hose of the group 28, col. 9 lines 16 and 29-30).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 10, wherein at an edge of each sleeve, each of the one or more hoses connect into a bundle that is attached to a port that inserts into the controllable air source (Kopacki figs. 6 and 10, air supply hoses 28 are depicted as bundled at the top edge of the sleeve 20; fig. 10, the tubes are shown schematically connected to the air source, col. 11 lines 66-67).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 1, wherein the controllable air source is an air pump (Kopacki fig. 10, air pump 116, col. 11, line 67).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 1, wherein the controllable air source is preprogrammed to start inflating the one or more chambers at the most distal chamber (Kopacki col. 12 lines 34-35).
Regarding Claim 25, the modified Kopacki discloses a method of compressing a limb of a non-human animal (Kopacki abstract), the method comprising: providing a non-human animal having a limb to be compressed (Kopacki fig. 6, a horse, col. 10 lines 4-5); and employing a compression device of claim 1 (as described and modified in claim 1 above) to compress the limb of the non-human animal (Kopacki col. 10 lines 4-5 and col. 12 lines 34-67).
Regarding Claim 26, the modified Kopacki discloses a method of claim 25, wherein employing a compression device of claim 1 comprises: applying a sleeve of a compression device of claim 1 to the limb of a non-human animal (Kopacki fig. 6, sleeve 20 applied to a front leg of a horse, as described in claim 1); and inflating and deflating one or more of the inflatable chambers of the sleeve (col. 12 lines 6-8), whereby the limb of the non-human animal is compressed (the sleeve 20 compresses the leg, col. 12 lines 9-10).
Regarding Claim 27, the modified Kopacki discloses a method of claim 25, wherein at least one cycle of inflating and deflating of the one or more chambers starts by inflating the most distal chamber (Kopacki col. 12 lines 34-35).
Regarding Claim 28, the modified Kopacki discloses a method of claim 25, comprising compressing all of the non-human animal's limbs (as modified by Johnson in claim 1, sleeves are applied to all four limbs of the horse, fig. 38 [0177]).
Regarding Claim 29, the modified Kopacki discloses a method of claim 25, wherein the non-human animal having a limb to be compressed comprises a non-human animal suffering from a disease or disorder (Kopacki col. 5 lines 55-57) or a sporting or work non-human animal in need of warm-up prior to a sporting event or work event, or recovery after a sporting event or work event (Kopacki col. 5 lines 57-58).
Regarding Claim 30, the modified Kopacki discloses a method of claim 29, wherein the disease or disorder comprises lymphatic drainage (Kopacki col. 3 last line through col. 4 line 3), laminitis (col. 5 line 57).
Claims 6, 86 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopacki and Johnson, further in view of Ruetenik (US 2017/0280682), hereafter Ruetenik.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 1, but is silent on wherein each sleeve comprises one or more zippers (col. 7 lines 66-67, the fasteners are Velcro and D-rings, fig. 2).
Ruetenik teaches a compression boot for horses (fig. 10, abstract) which uses two zippers on the sleeve (fig. 7, 626, [0085]). The zippers allow for the boot to be opened on both sides to place the hoof and then secure the leg inside the boot to properly position the hoof on an orthopedic pad at the bottom of the boot ([0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Kopacki’s Velcro and D-rings for the zippers taught by Ruetenik, since the zippers equally allow the proper positioning of a compression sleeve on the horse’s leg, while allowing a quick fastening and releasing mechanism.
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 6, wherein the zippers are configured to zip from top to bottom (as modified by Ruetenik, fig. 7, the zippers are shown configured top to bottom).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 13, but is silent on wherein the controllable air source is configured such that two ports can be plugged in at once, since Kopacki does not explicitly state that more than one sleeve can be used at a time.
However, Ruetenik teaches a compression boot for horses (fig. 10, abstract) which may be worn on all four limbs ([0030] and [0074]). An air pump is attached to an air conduit, and the air pump may have eight outlets to accommodate up to four boots, one for each hoof ([0086]). The pulsing action can be coordinated between the hooves in order to simulate the rhythmic pattern of walking ([0074]). Simulating walking prevents or treats negative consequences of confinement ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kopacki’s air source to have two ports that can be plugged in at once, in order to use four sleeves as taught by Ruetnik in order to simulate walking as a therapeutic preventative or treatment for confinement.
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the controllable air source is battery operated.
Ruetenik teaches compression boots for horses (fig. 10, abstract) which uses an air pump as a controllable air source ([0086]). This pump can be battery operated ([0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kopacki’s compression sleeve to be battery operated, since batteries were a known power source to operate compression sleeves.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kopacki and Johnson, further in view of Ben-Nun (US 2011/0098616), hereafter Ben-Nun.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 1, but is silent on wherein each sleeve comprises two zippers on a front side of the sleeve and three zippers on a back side of the sleeve, wherein the zippers are configured to provide a circumference adjustment.
Ben-Nun teaches a compression garment (fig. 1A, abstract) that uses zippers to create adjustable zones in order to adjust the width of the compression bag ([0094]). Each of the adjustable zones (fig. 11A, 139, 140, 103, 105 [0095]) adjust the width by fully opening, partially closing, or fully closing the zippers in order to accommodate the correct width of the device ([0095]). The back side of the device (fig. 1C, 121, [0096]) may also have three adjustable zones, also having zippers ([0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kopacki’s compression sleeves to have an outer layer with two zippers on a front side and three zippers on a back side, as taught by Ben-Nun, in order to adjust the width of the compression device to meet the sizing required. Applicant does not appear to place criticality on the number of zippers placed on the front and back, based on original specification page 11, second full para.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kopacki and Johnson, further in view of Pontarella (US 3851447), hereafter Pontarella.
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 10, but is silent on further comprising one or more flaps covering each individual hose, such that each hose cannot be accessed by a non-human animal wearing the device (fig. 7, the hoses are exposed on the back of the device 20).
Pontarella teaches the use of a flap covering an air hose (fig. 1, 59, col. 3 lines 46-47) for a pneumatic legging for a horse (fig. 1, col. 1 lines 66-67) where the air tube (fig. 1, 57, col. 4 lines 2-3) is inserted to avoid the tube flapping around and accidentally touching the horse’s leg, thus avoiding making the animal nervous (col. 4 lines 9-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flap to cover each hose of Kopacki’s sleeve as taught by Pontarella in order to avoid the tubes flapping around and potentially spooking the horse while wearing the device. The flap taught by Pontarella would also be capable of covering the hoses such that each hose cannot be accessed by the non-human animal wearing the device.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kopacki and Johnson, further in view of Chiu (US 2013/0123886), hereafter Chiu, and Van Scoyk (US 4879865), hereafter Van Scoyk.
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 1, but is silent on the device further comprising a saddle pad configured for placement on a non-human animal's body, the saddle pad comprising one or more pockets to house the controllable air source.
Van Scoyk teaches a saddle pad (fig. 2, 10, col. 3 line 4) having two pockets (fig. 2, side compartments 45, col. 3 line 14).
Chiu teaches a pump for a cooling wrap for a leg of a horse (fig. 4, abstract), where the pump (fig. 4, 11, [0032]) is mounted on the side of the horse, which allows the horse to move freely while the device is operating ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the devices of Kopacki, Chiu, and Van Scoyk to have a saddle pad with one or more pockets, as taught by Van Scoyk, to house the controllable air source of Kopacki on the saddle area of the horse, as taught by Chiu, for the benefit of being able to access the air pump quickly and easily (Van Scoyk, col. 3 lines 52-66) and allow the horse to move freely while being treated.
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 18, wherein the one or more pockets is configured to fall on a side and a medial aspect of the non-human animal (both Chiu fig. 4 and Van Scoyk fig. 2 show the pump and pockets mounted on the side and medial aspect of the horse, respectively).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a girth strap having a first end and a second end and configured to loop under an abdomen of the non-human for attachment to the saddle pad.
Chiu teaches a cooling device for a horse that includes a sleeve (fig. 4, wrap 12 [0032])) where the cooling unit (fig. 4, 11 [0032]) is positioned on the side of the horse’s abdomen using a connection strap and adjustable girth strap (fig. 4, 15 and 22, respectively [0032] last line and [0033] line 3). Making the device wearable avoids the use of bulky and heavy water bags ([0006]) and allows the horse to carry the device and move freely ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Kopacki and Ruetenik to include a girth strap having a first and second end and configured to loop under an abdomen of the non-human for attachment to the saddle pad in order to firmly support the air pump, while allowing the horse to freely move, as taught by Chiu.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kopacki and Johnson, Van Scoyk, and Chiu, further in view of Rivera-Brutto (US 2012/0247399), hereafter Rivera-Brutto.
Regarding Claim 21, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 18, but is silent on further comprising one or more strap configured for detachably connecting from a caudal edge of the saddle pad and extending across a back of the non-human animal for detachably connecting to the one or more sleeves configured for placement on one or more hind limbs of the non-human animal.
Rivera-Brutto teaches a cover assembly for protecting a dog’s legs (title, fig. 1) which uses a plurality of straps (fig. 1, 148, 150 [0036]) to detachably connect one or more sleeves configured for placement on one or more hind limbs of the non-human animal ([0036] 160 is hook and loop fastener, which is detachable; [0037] attachment of one or both sleeves is optional).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the saddle pad to include a strap that is detachably connected to a caudal edge for detachably connecting one or more sleeves, as taught by Rivera-Brutto, for the benefit of maintaining the position of the sleeves without the animal dislodging them (Rivera-Brutto [0006]).
Regarding Claim 22, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 21, wherein the one or more strap comprises one strap across a back of the non-human animal and attaches to the one or more sleeves configured for placement on one or more hind legs of the non-human animal in a manner out of the non-human animal's reach (Rivera-Brutto, straps 148, 150 are positioned across the back of the dog such that they are out of reach), wherein each of the one or more sleeves configured for placement on one or more hind legs (Rivera-Brutto, straps 148, 150 support the hind leg sleeve 18 [0037]) of the non-human animal is also connected to the saddle pad (as modified in claim 21, it would have been obvious to connect the straps to the saddle pad to prevent the sleeves from slipping down) using an adjustable strap (Rivera-Brutto [0027] the hook and loop fastener allows adjustment of the straps).
Regarding Claim 23, the modified Kopacki discloses a compression device of claim 18, but is silent on further comprising one or more strap configured for detachably connecting from a cranial edge of the saddle pad toward a neck of the non-human animal for detachably connecting to one or more sleeve configured for placement on one or more front limbs of the non-human animal.
Rivera-Brutto teaches a cover assembly for protecting a dog’s legs (title, fig. 1) which uses a plurality of straps (fig. 1, 14, 28 [0023], [0025]) to detachably connect one or more sleeves (fig. 1, 16 [0023]) configured for placement on one or more front limbs of the non-human animal ([0025] the straps are fixed in place with hook and loop fastener, which is detachable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the saddle pad/surcingle to include a strap that is detachably connected to a cranial edge for detachably connecting one or more sleeves, as taught by Rivera-Brutto, for the benefit of maintaining the position of the sleeves without the animal dislodging them (Rivera-Brutto [0006]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kopacki, Johnson, Van Scoyk, Chiu, and Rivera-Brutto, further in view of Aksoyek (US 2018/002156), hereafter Aksoyek.
Regarding Claim 24, the modified Kopacki teaches a compression device of claim 23, but is silent on wherein the one or more strap comprises one strap having a y-configuration, such that the strap forks around a neck of the non-human animal to connect to the saddle pad and extends to the girth strap to define a breast plate, wherein one or more sleeve configured for placement on one or more front limbs of the non-human animal detachably connect to the breast plate in a manner out of the non-human animal's reach.
Aksoyek teaches a saddle girth for a horse having a y-configuration such that the strap forks around the neck (fig. 2, 11 [0038]) and extends to the girth strap to define a breast plate (fig. 2, section 5 connects to girth strap 3 [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the straps of the modified Kopacki device to be the y-configuration taught by Aksoyek, such that the strap forks around the neck of the non-human animal to connect the saddle pad (taught by Van Scoyk) wherein one or more sleeves configured for placement on one or more front limbs of the non-human animal detachably connect (as taught by Rivera-Brutto) to the breast plate in a manner out of the non-human animal’s reach, since Aksoyek’s strap configuration is a known method of attaching saddle components to a horse, and connecting components out of reach of a non-human animal to prevent the animal detaching the sleeves would be an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 SARA K. TOICH whose telephone number is (703)756-1450. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30 am - 4:30 pm, every other F 7:30-3:30 ET.
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, Brandy S. Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/SARA K TOICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785