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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, method claims in the reply filed on 02/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both group I and II claims contain “mammal” limitations. This is not found persuasive because to satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. Therefore, only the structure of the apparatus is considered; the apparatus as claimed is capable of being used in a way other than that recited by the method. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/15/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “100” has been used to designate both a strap device and a substantially flat laminated material. The drawings are objected to because Figure 6 is recited as showing the device “100” per page 6, para. 2, “Fig. 6 shows how the device (100) may be affixed around the trunk or torso of an animal”; however, as shown in Figure 6, the reference character “110” is indicated, not “100”.
The drawings are objected to because they are not provided as black and white line drawings. Photographs are accepted when they are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention (37 C.F.R. 1.84). The subject matter of the instant application does not require photographs, and replacement drawings are therefore required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the term Bluetooth, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 1, “said textured elastic” should read “said textured elastic material”
In claim 3, line 1, “said elastic material” should read “said textured elastic material”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Serola (US 2007/0232974), hereinafter “Serola 974”.
Regarding claim 1, Serola 974 teaches a method of calming a mammal, (paras. 0014 and 0048, where applying a comfortable compression near the sacroiliac joint, thereby provides a sense of security for the user) said method comprising:
applying a strap device around a trunk or chest of said mammal (para. 0005; Fig. 9, sacroiliac belt 10; para. 0048), said strap device comprising a laminated material (para. 0043; Fig. 2, inner belt 14 comprising an inside elastic bi-laminate 16 and an outside non-elastic strip 22);
a first side of said laminated material comprising a textured elastic material configured to resist slippage when applied to said mammal’s skin or fur (Fig. 3, elastic bi-laminate 16; para 0044);
a second side of said laminated material comprising either a hook material or a loop material of a hook and loop binding system (Fig. 3, strip 22 of loop material; para. 0045);
a front end of said strap device (see Modified Figure 5) further comprising a complementary section of either a hook material or a loop material of said hook and loop binding system (Fig. 5, hook tab 24; para. 0043), 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 (para. 0048).
PNG
media_image1.png
219
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 5
Regarding claim 7, Serola 974 teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein said second side of the said laminated material comprises a loop material of said hook and loop binding system (Serola 974, Fig. 3, strip 22 of loop material; para. 0045).
Regarding claim 8, Serola 974 teaches the method according to claim 7 wherein said front end of said strap device further comprises a complementary section of hook material of said hook and loop binding system (Serola 974, Fig. 5, hook tab 24; para. 0043).
Regarding claim 9, Serola 974 teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein said mammal comprises any of an animal mammal or a human (Serola 974, paras. 0005 and 0048; Fig. 9 depicts a human’s hips).
Regarding claim 10, Serola 974 teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein said strap device comprises a flat, linear, non-branching belt (Serola 974, as shown in Fig. 9, the sacroiliac belt 10 is linear and non-branching; paras. 0014-0018).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serola 974, in view of Marco International, ("Marco Neoprene"), hereinafter "Marco".
Regarding claim 2, Serola 974 teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Serola 974 fails to teach wherein said textured elastic 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 discloses an analogous textured elastic material further comprising 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 (see attached NPL titled, Marco International, “Neoprene rubber sheet thicknesses”).
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 Serola 974 with the textured elastic comprising a distinct texture height, density and two-dimensional array of Marco. 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 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 consists of a similar, if not identical, two-dimensional array and therefore possesses equivalent material dimensions with regard to the recited “textured elastic” 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 Serola 974 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 foam 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, Serola 974 teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Serola 974 fails to teach wherein said elastic material comprises a sharkskin textured neoprene material.
Marco discloses an analogous textured elastic material further comprising a sharkskin textured neoprene material (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 Serola 974 with the sharkskin textured neoprene material of Marco. Incorporating a sharkskin neoprene material may provide enhanced density characteristics, thereby offering improved resistance and strength properties compared to smooth neoprene 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).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serola 974, in view of Serola (US 2008/0188788), hereinafter “Serola 788”.
Regarding claim 4, Serola 974 teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Serola 974’s device is constructed in such a way and from such materials that is appears to be cuttable by scissors, but Serola 974 does not specifically disclose said laminated material is configured to be cuttable by scissors.
Serola 788 discloses an analogous compression wrap wherein said laminated material is configured to be cuttable by scissors (para. 0038; 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 Serola 974 with the cuttable characteristic of Serola 788. Doing so would create an adjustable strap device practical for various users, for instance, a person who is smaller may need the strap to be shortened, therefore, the ability to remove the unnecessary length would be beneficial (Serola 788, para. 0038).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serola 974, in view of Schiek, Sr. et al. (US 5,086,758).
Regarding claim 5, Serola 974 teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Serola 974 fails to 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.
Schiek, Sr. et al. teaches an analogous belt support device and method 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 Modified 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 Serola 974 with the strap device width and height between 1.5-3 inches and 20-40 inches, respectively. 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 Serola 974 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 of a user in order to stabilize and/or compress a target region.
PNG
media_image2.png
305
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2
Regarding claim 6, Serola 974 teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Serola 974 fails to teach wherein said front end of said strap device further comprises any of a pull tap or finger loop.
Schiek, Sr. et al. teaches an analogous belt support device and method wherein said front end of said strap device further comprises any of a pull tap or finger loop (Col. 3, lines 49-51; Fig. 1, tab 32).
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 Serola 974 with the pull tab of Schiek, Sr. et al. A pull tab attached to the front end of the strap device may facilitate the engagement and bonding of the hook and loop fasteners, conversely when the user decides to remove the strap, the pull tab may be engaged to detached the bonded fasteners (Schiek, Sr. et al., Col. 2, lines 23-32).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sloot (US 2007/0270731) discloses a band adapted to wrap around a limb of a person or animal wherein an elastic member of either cotton, terry-cloth, nylon or canvas is attached to a fastening system of hooks and loops. Cropper (WO 2010141958) discloses a thigh wrap with a stretchable loop fabric sewn onto an end portion of said wrap. Greenberg (US 4,991,234) discloses a wrist wrap wherein a plurality of loop and hook fasteners are arranged on the inner and outer surfaces of the wrap; furthermore, the wrap is made of woven or knitted fabric. Foo et al. (2018) investigates the relationship between applied compression and emotional effects, namely, how a state a calmness may be achieved through applied compression.
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