DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 07/14/2026. Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are acknowledged as pending with claims 1-3, 6, 11-12, 18, and 20 being currently amended and claims 9 and 19 being cancelled. Claims 11-18 and 20 remain withdrawn from consideration.
The drawing, specification, and claim objections as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 are withdrawn as having been overcome by the amendment. New rejections necessitated by the amendment are presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Action on 04/09/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins (WO 2014/124513) in view of Blizzard (US 2020/0352133), further in view of Marco International ("Marco Neoprene"), hereinafter "Marco".
Regarding claim 1, Mullins teaches a method of calming a human mammal (paras. 0062 and 0067), said method comprising:
applying a strap device (Fig. 24, baby sleep support 10) around a chest of said mammal (paras. 0062 and 0067-0068; Fig. 24), said strap device comprising a laminated material (see Fig. 5A, wherein the baby sleep support 10 comprising two pieces of stretch fabric 26 and 28 and two fastener mechanisms 22 and 24, the combination of the materials and fasteners comprising the baby sleep support 10 is being construed as the “laminated material”; para. 0086);
a first side of said laminated material comprising an elastic material configured to resist slippage when applied to said mammal’s skin or fur (paras. 0068-0069, 0073, 0076-0077, wherein the baby sleep support comprises an elastic material that prevents the baby from rolling or falling off the chest of the supporting person; para. 0086; Fig. 5a, two pieces of stretch fabric 26 and 28);
a second side (Fig. 1A, second fastening end 20) of said laminated material comprising either a hook material or a loop material of a hook and loop binding system (paras. 0078, 0082-0083, and 0086; Fig. 5A, second adjustable fastener mechanism 24);
a front end (Fig. 2A, first fastening end 18) of said strap device further comprising a complementary section of either a hook material or a loop material of said hook and loop binding system (para. 0082; Fig. 5A, first adjustable fastener mechanism 22), such that when said strap device is wound around said mammal, said complementary section binds to said second side of said laminated material so as to form a reversible bond with said second side (paras. 0010-0011, 0078, 0082-0083, and 0086).
Mullins fails to specifically teach calming a non-human mammal and a textured elastic material.
Blizzard teaches an analogous method of calming a non-human mammal (Abstract; paras. 0007 and 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Mullins with the non-human mammal of Blizzard. Swaddling infants and wrapping a pressure wrap around a dog’s chest are analogous examples of using pressure to induce a calming effect (Blizzard, para. 0007).
While Mullins in view of Blizzard teach non-human mammals, the combination of Mullins and Blizzard fails to teach a textured elastic material.
Marco discloses an analogous textured elastic material (see attached NPL titled, Marco International “Neoprene rubber skin finishes”; see attached NPL titled, Marco International “Neoprene rubber skin finishes”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Mullins in view of Blizzard with the textured elastic material of Marco. Incorporating a textured elastic material may provide enhanced density characteristics, thereby offering improved resistance and strength properties compared to smooth elastic material finishes (see attached NPL titled, Marco International, “Neoprene Rubber Skin Finishes”). Such a modification involves the mere selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use, and therefore fails to distinguish the invention over the prior art (MPEP 2144.07).
The specification of the claimed invention discloses the manufacturer of the textured elastic material (page 2, para. 3, “The invention is also based, in part, on the insight that certain textured elastic materials, such as the “sharkskin” textured neoprene rubber skin finishes produced by Marco Neoprene, Marco International Co, Irvine California”); consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the neoprene manufactured by Marco International has similar, if not identical, characteristics to the “textured elastic material” recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above wherein said textured elastic material comprises a two- dimensional array of hills and valleys, with a texture height between 1 and 4 mm between a bottom of said valleys and a top of said hills, said hills and valleys configured at a density of between 25 to 400 hills per square inch (Marco, see attached NPL titled, Marco International, “Neoprene rubber sheet thicknesses”).
The specification of the claimed invention discloses the manufacturer of the textured elastic material (page 2, para. 3, “The invention is also based, in part, on the insight that certain textured elastic materials, such as the “sharkskin” textured neoprene rubber skin finishes produced by Marco Neoprene, Marco International Co, Irvine California”), and it is therefore reasonable to assume that the neoprene manufactured by Marco International has comparable, if not identical, two-dimensional arrays and thus possesses equivalent material dimensions to the “textured elastic material” recited in the claim. Accordingly, incorporating a textured neoprene finish may supply the strap device with wearable protection that is lightweight, breathable, and cushioning (see NPL attached titled, Marco International, “Vapor Release: A breakthrough in Breathable Neoprene Technology”).
Further, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). In the instance case, the method of Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco would not operate differently with the specified texture height between 1 and 4 mm and a density of between 25 to 400 hills per square inch, as this configuration would be suitable for various elastic materials disposed within back braces/straps/wraps/supports. Orthopedic manufacturers have widely accepted the utilization of elastic materials due to their advantageous mechanical and physical properties.
Regarding claim 3, Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above wherein said textured elastic material comprises a sharkskin textured neoprene material (Marco, see attached NPL titled, Marco International “Neoprene rubber skin finishes”).
Such a modification involves the mere selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use, and therefore fails to distinguish the invention over the prior art (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above wherein said second side of the said laminated material comprises a loop material of said hook and loop binding system (Mullins, paras. 0082-0083 and 0086; Fig. 5A, second adjustable fastener mechanism 24).
Regarding claim 8, Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco teaches the method according to claim 7 as stated above wherein said front end of said strap device further comprises a complementary section of hook material of said hook and loop binding system (Mullins, para. 0082; Fig. 5A, first adjustable fastener mechanism 22).
Regarding claim 10, Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above wherein said strap device comprises a flat, linear, non-branching belt (Mullins, Figs. 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A wherein the baby sleep support 10 a linear, single-piece design).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins in view of Blizzard and Marco, further in view of Serola (US 2008/0188788).
Regarding claim 4, Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco fails to specifically teach wherein said laminated material is configured to be cuttable by scissors.
In the same field of endeavor, Serola teaches wherein said laminated material is configured to be cuttable by scissors (paras. 0038-0039; Fig. 8, illustrates a portion of the compression wrap 10 cut off).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco with the cuttable characteristic of Serola. This would result in an adjustable strap device suitable for different users. For example, an individual with a smaller size may require the strap to be shortened; therefore, the ability to remove the excess length would be advantageous (Serola, para. 0038).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins in view of Blizzard and Marco, further in view of Schiek, Sr. et al. (US 5,086,758).
Regarding claim 5, Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Mullins further teaches wherein the length of the baby sleep support is adjustable (para. 0066). However, Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco fails to specifically teach wherein said strap device has a width between 1.5 inches and 3 inches, and wherein said strap device has a length between 20 inches and 40 inches.
In the same field of endeavor, Schiek, Sr. et al. teaches wherein said strap device has a width between 1.5 inches and 3 inches and wherein said strap device has a length between 20 inches and 40 inches (see Annotated Figure 2; Col. 4, lines 31-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco with the strap device width and height between 1.5-3 inches and 20-40 inches, respectively of Schiek, Sr. et al. These dimensions would permit the strap device to sufficiently wrap around the lumbar region of a user (Schiek, Sr. et al., Col. 4, lines 31-44).
Further, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). In the instance case, the method of Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco would not operate differently with the specified width and length between 1.5-3 inches and 20-40 inches, respectively, as these dimensions would be suitable for belts designed to wrap around the trunk and/or chest of a user in order to stabilize and/or compress a target region.
PNG
media_image1.png
305
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins in view of Blizzard and Marco, further in view of Cropper (US 2003/0204157).
Regarding claim 6, Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco fails to teach wherein said front end of said strap device further comprises any of a pull tap or finger loop affixed to the front of the device.
In the same field of endeavor, Cropper teaches wherein said front end of said strap device further comprises any of a pull tap or finger loop affixed to the front of the device (para. 0042; Fig. 5, finger loops 69 and strap 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Mullins in view of Blizzard, further in view of Marco with the finger loops of Cropper. When needed, the finger loops make it easy to tighten and adjust the strap (Cropper et al., para. 0042).
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 BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/B.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
