DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendments filed December 4th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome Several Drawing/Specification Objections and several 112b rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 4th, 2025 and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction. However, applicant’s amendments respectfully have not addressed several remaining matters of Drawing/Abstract Objections alongside 112b Rejections and are clarified further hereafter.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“configured to apply a treatment based on treatment parameters, and to adjust the treatment parameters based on biofeedback.” (claims 4, 11, and 18);
“wherein the inflatable lordotic support is configured to align to a location corresponding to an apex of lordosis of a patient” (claims 6, 13, and 20);
“adjust a pressure within the inflatable lordotic support during treatment” (claims 7, 14)
(underlining added for emphasis) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Notably, the manner the claims are written almost appear to propose a method or sequence of steps (e.g. ‘perform x step during treatment’), such method is not shown or illustrated. It is construed due to latter 112b matters hereafter that such limitations are construed as ‘configured to’ claims or similar and are either narrative in scope or generic. However, elements such as a system diagram are missing regarding aspects such as ‘memory’ and storage that is claimed by applicant, and the location of the apex of lordosis (an aspect of a human being) is also respectfully not shown by applicant. Additionally, regarding ‘based on biofeedback’, applicant appears to be illustrating what appears to be a stationary box/hull of a screen/television, and it's not clear how this illustrates ‘adjusting based on biofeedback’. The claim appears to state input to biofeedback (presumably by data input?), not output (or display) of biofeedback and would not be considered to be satisfactory for the current form and connotations of the claim. Examiner respectfully considers that the limitations “apply a treatment” is not illustrated because applicant has not respectfully demonstrated the invention in use by an occupant and ‘applying the treatment’. Similar concerns arise due to the lack of showing the ‘apex of lordosis of a patient’, and ‘during treatment’
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of speculative uses (e.g. “operable to provide dynamic adjustment of the application of pressure and support to the apex of lordosis of a patient during treatment” “oriented to apply an adjustable and variable degree of support and pressure to the apex of lordosis of the patient’s spine during spinal decompression according to a predefined treatment protocol or real time dynamic adjustment under the control of a medical provider or patient”) and implying phrases (e.g. “according to a predefined treatment procedure” “in certain embodiments” “based on prior treatment” “in other embodiments”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Examiner respectfully maintains the above noted (and bolded for emphasis and convenience) citations above necessitate Specification Objections thereto as they present implying phrases (e.g. “In certain embodiments”/”In other embodiments”/etc.), and speculative uses and purported merits (e.g. “oriented to apply an adjustable and variable degree of support and pressure to the apex of lordosis of the patient’s spine during spinal decompression” “according to a predefined treatment protocol” “or real time dynamic adjustment” “is under the control of a medical provider or patient”).
Examiner must impress upon the fact the amendments offered to address “allowing for” and operable to provide” does not address the more immediate speculative use/purported merit of “during treatment” or “to the ape of lordosis of a patient” when the invention is particularly to an apparatus/device, and the manner the invention is used or who uses the invention is respectfully not germane to its patentable subject matter, at least in the manner the claims have been written at present. The invention is not directed in any claimed scope to a method of use and therefore should respectfully generally avoid possible confusion of the focuses of the claimed subject matter of the invention. For instance, the limitation “under the control of a medical provider or patient” is considered to be highly speculative application of the invention; for instance: would a relative or guardian (neither a patient or medical provider) be restricted from using the invention? Or anticipate the invention is they did use the invention? Such matters again are respectfully likely best omitted or cancelled and focus on the apparatus of the invention.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 3, 6, 13, and 20 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.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, the limitation “align the inflatable lordotic support to a location corresponding to an apex of lordosis of a patient” (claims 6, 13, and 20; underlining added for emphasis) is recited. Notably, the cited limitations appear to claim features of a human that appear to fall under relative terminology, where “an apex of a lordosis of a patient” is particularly to a part of a human body that is not universal and the disclosure does not express or clarify a standard by which a person of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably be apprised of the claimed subject matter. Similarly it has previously been held In Brummer, the Board held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited "said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for" was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Brummer, 12 USPQ2d at 1655. (MPEP 2173.05(b) is relevant), similarly ‘a location corresponding to an apex of lordosis’ is claiming placement of a bladder on a bed based on a patient of unspecified build. It is therefore respectfully construed for the purposes of examination that claims 6, 13, and 20 do not reference unspecified builds and variables of a human, at a minimum, the claims will necessitate some degree of a location corresponding to a back of a bed occupant/patient.
Regarding claims 3 the limitation “the device” is still recited in the claim. There’s a degree of antecedent basis confusion as “a device” has not been previously recited, while ‘a/the spinal decompression device’ has been recited, it’s unclear what the intention of what effectively reads as “the device wherein the device” would be conveying or the scope thereof. For the purposes of examination, “the device” is construed as the remainder of claims that previously posed the term have been amended to (e.g. “the spinal decompression device”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ren (U.S. Pub. No. 20140364910).
Regarding claim 1, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) a spinal decompression device comprising: a treatment bed (100) having a first end (106), a second end (104) and a mattress ([0050]: “mattress”); a treatment tower (130; [0055]: “By way of example, all tension-producing and delivery apparatus are contained within a tower 130 located in a position relative to the patient 110”) disposed at the first end of the treatment bed (as illustrated in FIG. 1); an inflatable lordotic support bladder (112; FIG. 1; [0046]: “The adjustable lordotic support 112 is pneumatically inflated and deflated to accommodate various degrees of lumbar lordosis between patients 110. The lordotic support 112 may be adjustable or fixed in shape, and may be adjustable by several methods”) disposed within the mattress of the treatment bed (pump 114 disposed within 100; As illustrated in FIG. 1); and an air pump (114; FIG. 1; [0050]: “actuator 114 and clevis 116, which may be a linear actuator or any of electro-mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, or chemical type.”), disposed within the treatment bed (as illustrated in FIG. 1), operable to inflate the inflatable lordotic support bladder. It has been previously held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. Similarly a feature ‘operable’ is a feature “capable of being put into use, operation, or practice” (Dictionary.com: “operable”).
Regarding claim 2, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 1 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to adjust a pressure within the inflatable lordotic support bladder during treatment ([0046]: “The adjustable lordotic support 112 is pneumatically inflated and deflated to accommodate various degrees of lumbar lordosis between patients 110. The lordotic support 112 may be adjustable or fixed in shape, and may be adjustable by several methods, including pneumatic, electro-mechanical, hydraulic, chemical, etc.”). It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Similar consideration is taken that whether or not the adjustment is during a treatment does not differentiate from the prior art apparatus.
Regarding claim 3, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 1 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to store and recall treatment settings ([0004]: “the system operates as a controlled-feedback loop whereby a planned tension profile can be applied to the patient and the actual applied forces can be verified by the computer”).
Regarding claim 4, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 1 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to apply a treatment based on treatment parameters ([0004]: “the system operates as a controlled-feedback loop whereby a planned tension profile can be applied to the patient and the actual applied forces can be verified by the computer”), and to adjust the treatment parameters based on biofeedback ([0012]: “Dynamically adjusting treatment angle under tension also allows the healthcare provider to query the patient for comfort and or increases or decreases in perceived pain, incorporating a measure of biofeedback into the therapy.”). It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Similar consideration is taken that whether or not merely applying the treatment does not differentiate from the prior art apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 1 wherein the spinal decompression is configured to apply spinal decompression tension to the spinal column of a patient, and to vary the tension over time (as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 1 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to align the inflatable lordotic support to a location corresponding to a back of a patient (as illustrated in FIG. 1; [0046]: “Specifically, the healthcare provider positions the apex of lordosis, the third lumbar vertebra (L3), over the center-top of the lordotic support 112. Positioning the apex of lordosis over the center-top of the lordotic support 112”).
Regarding claim 7, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 1 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to adjust a pressure within the inflatable lordotic support may be adjusted according to input from the user ([Abstract]: “The control system with feedback on the resultant tension vector applied to patient spine operationally configured to allow for adjustment of either tension producing actuator position, patient position, or both”/[0012]: “Dynamically adjusting treatment angle under tension also allows the healthcare provider to query the patient for comfort and or increases or decreases in perceived pain, incorporating a measure of biofeedback into the therapy”/[0046]: “The adjustable lordotic support 112 is pneumatically inflated and deflated to accommodate various degrees of lumbar lordosis between patients 110. The lordotic support 112 may be adjustable or fixed in shape, and may be adjustable by several methods, including pneumatic, electro-mechanical, hydraulic, chemical, etc.”). It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Similar consideration is taken that whether or not the adjustment is specifically during a treatment does not differentiate from the prior art apparatus.
Regarding claim 8, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) a spinal decompression device comprising: a treatment bed (100) having a first end (106), a second end (104) and a mattress ([0050]: “mattress”, as illustrated in FIGS. 1); a treatment tower (130; [0055]: “By way of example, all tension-producing and delivery apparatus are contained within a tower 130 located in a position relative to the patient 110”), disposed at the first end of the treatment bed (as illustrated in FIG. 1); an inflatable lordotic support bladder (112; FIG. 1; [0046]: “The adjustable lordotic support 112 is pneumatically inflated and deflated to accommodate various degrees of lumbar lordosis between patients 110. The lordotic support 112 may be adjustable or fixed in shape, and may be adjustable by several methods”) disposed within the mattress of the treatment bed (As illustrated in FIG. 1); and an air pump (114; FIG. 1; [0050]: “actuator 114 and clevis 116, which may be a linear actuator or any of electro-mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, or chemical type.”), disposed within the treatment bed (as illustrated in FIG. 1), operable to inflate the inflatable lordotic support bladder’; wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to adjust a pressure within the inflatable lordotic support bladder during treatment ([0046]: “The adjustable lordotic support 112 is pneumatically inflated and deflated to accommodate various degrees of lumbar lordosis between patients 110. The lordotic support 112 may be adjustable or fixed in shape, and may be adjustable by several methods, including pneumatic, electro-mechanical, hydraulic, chemical, etc.”). It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Similar consideration is taken that whether or not the adjustment is during a treatment does not differentiate from the prior art apparatus.. It has been previously held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. Similarly a feature ‘operable’ is a feature “capable of being put into use, operation, or practice” (Dictionary.com: “operable”).
Regarding claim 10, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 8 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to store and recall treatment settings ([0004]: “the system operates as a controlled-feedback loop whereby a planned tension profile can be applied to the patient and the actual applied forces can be verified by the computer”).
Regarding claim 11, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 8 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to apply a treatment based on treatment parameters ([0004]: “the system operates as a controlled-feedback loop whereby a planned tension profile can be applied to the patient and the actual applied forces can be verified by the computer”), and to adjust the treatment parameters based on biofeedback ([0012]: “Dynamically adjusting treatment angle under tension also allows the healthcare provider to query the patient for comfort and or increases or decreases in perceived pain, incorporating a measure of biofeedback into the therapy.”).
Regarding claim 12, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 8 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to apply spinal decompression tension to the spinal column of a patient, and to vary the tension over time (as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 13, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 8 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to align the inflatable lordotic support to a location corresponding to a back of a patient (as illustrated in FIG. 1; [0046]: “Specifically, the healthcare provider positions the apex of lordosis, the third lumbar vertebra (L3), over the center-top of the lordotic support 112. Positioning the apex of lordosis over the center-top of the lordotic support 112”).
Regarding claim 14, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 8 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to adjust a pressure within the inflatable lordotic support during treatment according to inputs from a user ([Abstract]: “The control system with feedback on the resultant tension vector applied to patient spine operationally configured to allow for adjustment of either tension producing actuator position, patient position, or both”/[0012]: “Dynamically adjusting treatment angle under tension also allows the healthcare provider to query the patient for comfort and or increases or decreases in perceived pain, incorporating a measure of biofeedback into the therapy”/[0046]: “The adjustable lordotic support 112 is pneumatically inflated and deflated to accommodate various degrees of lumbar lordosis between patients 110. The lordotic support 112 may be adjustable or fixed in shape, and may be adjustable by several methods, including pneumatic, electro-mechanical, hydraulic, chemical, etc.”). It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Similar consideration is taken that whether or not the adjustment is during a treatment does not differentiate from the prior art apparatus.
Regarding claim 15, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) a spinal decompression device comprising: a treatment bed (100) having a first end (106), a second end (104) and an upper mattress (as illustrated in FIGS. 1), and a lower mattress (as illustrated in FIGS. 1); a treatment tower (130; [0055]: “By way of example, all tension-producing and delivery apparatus are contained within a tower 130 located in a position relative to the patient 110”), having a tension strap (120; FIG. 1), disposed at the first end of the treatment bed (as illustrated in FIG. 1); and an inflatable lordotic support bladder (112; FIG. 1; [0046]: “The adjustable lordotic support 112 is pneumatically inflated and deflated to accommodate various degrees of lumbar lordosis between patients 110. The lordotic support 112 may be adjustable or fixed in shape, and may be adjustable by several methods”) disposed within the upper mattress of the treatment bed (As illustrated in FIG. 1); and an air pump (114; FIG. 1; [0050]: “actuator 114 and clevis 116, which may be a linear actuator or any of electro-mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, or chemical type.”), disposed within the treatment bed (as illustrated in FIG. 1), operable to inflate the inflatable lordotic support bladder during treatment according to settings specific to a patient ([Abstract]: “The control system with feedback on the resultant tension vector applied to patient spine operationally configured to allow for adjustment of either tension producing actuator position, patient position, or both”/[0012]: “Dynamically adjusting treatment angle under tension also allows the healthcare provider to query the patient for comfort and or increases or decreases in perceived pain, incorporating a measure of biofeedback into the therapy”/[0046]: “The adjustable lordotic support 112 is pneumatically inflated and deflated to accommodate various degrees of lumbar lordosis between patients 110. The lordotic support 112 may be adjustable or fixed in shape, and may be adjustable by several methods, including pneumatic, electro-mechanical, hydraulic, chemical, etc.”). It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Similar consideration is taken that whether or not the adjustment is during a treatment does not differentiate from the prior art apparatus.. It has been previously held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. Similarly a feature ‘operable’ is a feature “capable of being put into use, operation, or practice” (Dictionary.com: “operable”).
Regarding claim 17, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 15 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to store and recall treatment settings ([0004]: “the system operates as a controlled-feedback loop whereby a planned tension profile can be applied to the patient and the actual applied forces can be verified by the computer”).
Regarding claim 18, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 15 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to apply a treatment based on treatment parameters ([0004]: “the system operates as a controlled-feedback loop whereby a planned tension profile can be applied to the patient and the actual applied forces can be verified by the computer”), and to adjust the treatment parameters based on biofeedback ([0012]: “Dynamically adjusting treatment angle under tension also allows the healthcare provider to query the patient for comfort and or increases or decreases in perceived pain, incorporating a measure of biofeedback into the therapy.”).
Regarding claim 19, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 15 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to apply spinal decompression tension to the spinal column of a patient, and to vary the tension over time (as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 20, Ren discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the spinal decompression device of claim 15 wherein the spinal decompression device is configured to align the inflatable lordotic support to a location corresponding to a back of a patient (as illustrated in FIG. 1; [0046]: “Specifically, the healthcare provider positions the apex of lordosis, the third lumbar vertebra (L3), over the center-top of the lordotic support 112. Positioning the apex of lordosis over the center-top of the lordotic support 112”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 8-9, 12-13), filed December 4th, 2025, with respect to several Drawing and Specification Objections alongside several 112b Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. At least one Drawing Objection, each and every Specification Objection, and at least several 112b Rejections (concerning those that indicated interpretations of ‘configured to’) of June 4th, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Notably, the amendments to the claims provide a reasonable differentiation of a supposed method of the invention and an apparatus configured to store and recall (reliant on generic or arbitrary computation/computer structures), and therefore the Drawing objections directed thereto have been respectfully withdrawn.
The cancellation of claims 9 and 16 and the removal of terms lacking antecedent basis in the specification obviate the Specification objections previously set forth and are respectfully withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
The amendment to include configuration language obviates the 112b rejection specifically directed to the inclusion/interpretation of ‘configured to’ language overcomes the 112b concerning the issue of method and apparatus in the same claims and the claims are recognized as apparatus claims; therefore the 112(b) rejections correspondent thereof are respectfully withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed December 4th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly concerning applicant’s allegations (Remarks: pages 8-12), concerning addresses of Drawing Objections and Specification/Abstract Objections; firstly regarding Drawing Objections, applicant alleges that the subject matter cited is shown by citing to the specification with what respectfully appears to be a tangential depiction. However, the depictions crucially do not illustrate “application of a treatment”, as in there does not appear to be an illustration that demonstrates the invention applied as treatment, even more so ‘based on treatment parameters’ and does not appear to illustrate the parameters being adjusted based on biofeedback. Similarly for aspects C and D bulleted by applicant, there is no illustration that demonstrates the claimed subject matter “a location corresponding to an apex of a lordosis of a patient”, where furthermore an ‘apex of lordosis of a patient’ respectfully appears to be highly variable based on the person themselves, not some known standard. Examiner is uncertain how applicant’s FIG. 15A shows ‘the location corresponding to an apex of lordosis of a patient’, and unclear how in FIG. 15B/C with figures 18A-18B where the ‘location of an apex of lordosis of a patient is located’ absent a scale or some standard a person of ordinary skill in the art can be apprised of applicant’s invention. While bullet “D” posed by applicant is similar in scope to issues of bullet “B” concerning “during treatment” and such appearing to not be shown by applicant. Therefore the drawing Objections (particular to bullets B-D) are respectfully maintained and further explained upon in the pertinent section of the instant office action.
With regards to Objections of the Abstract (Remarks: page 11), applicant’s allegations state the amendments obviate the previous Objection directed thereto. However, Examiner respectfully considers that applicant has not addressed the issues cited regarding implying phrases (in certain embodiments/in other embodiments), nor purported merits and speculative applications (‘by a medical provider or patient’ and similar cited in the pertinent section of the instant office action). Examiner respectfully maintains the remaining Abstract Objections and are further explained upon in the pertinent section of the instant office action.
With regards to matters of 112b, Applicant alleges that the amendments offered obviate all 112b Rejections. However, it is respectfully considered that applicant’s claimed subject matter of “a location correspondent to a peak of lordosis of a patient” remains indefinite due to being directed toward subject matter and distance/location pertinent to a human body or otherwise variable entity. And in the absence of a disclosed standard as to where the apex of lordosis of a patient and in the absence of a figure that demonstrates where the apex of lordosis of a patient is located, examiner respectfully maintains the 112b for reasons of record.
Additionally regarding a matter of 112b concerning “the device” this may be a typo, but claim 3 still recites “the device”, but is construed for the purposes of examination as “the spinal compression device” as the previous iteration of claims have all been amended/corrected to.
With regard to applicant’s allegations concerning 102 Rejections (Remarks: pages 13-15), applicant alleges that Ren fails to provide for ‘an air pump disposed within the treatment bed, operable to inflate the inflatable lordotic support bladder’ newly amended into claim 1. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization as claim 8 previously already took consideration of “an air pump within a bed operable to inflate the inflatable lordotic support bladder”, and Ren particularly recites [0046]: “The adjustable lordotic support 112 is pneumatically inflated and deflated to accommodate various degrees of lumbar lordosis between patients 110. The lordotic support 112 may be adjustable or fixed in shape, and may be adjustable by several methods” (emphasis added) with pump 114 disposed within 100; As illustrated in FIG. 1. with the air pump (114; FIG. 1; [0050]: “actuator 114 and clevis 116, which may be a linear actuator or any of electro-mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, or chemical type.”), disposed within the treatment bed (as illustrated in FIG. 1), operable to inflate the inflatable lordotic support bladder (as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and clarified in [0046] and [0050]. Where it is considered that 114 specifically is noted to be ‘pneumatically’ and ‘hydraulically’ operable to particularly “inflate” and “deflate” more particularly “the lordotic support bladder”. It is considered Ren clearly provides for an inflatable/deflatable bladder where the actuator can be pneumatic/hydraulic actuator as [0050] clarifies, particularly where [0046] specifically recites ‘pneumatically inflated and deflated’ and is not simply ‘a linear actuator’. It is still considered if the ‘actuator’ was indeed linear with a single stroke, such would still fall within the consideration of what a ‘pump’ is with a cylinder and the control and direction of air therein (such as a bicycle air pump), where a “pump” can be defined as “a device that raises, transfers, delivers, or compresses fluids or that attenuates gases, especially by suction or pressure or both’” (Merriam Webster: “pump”), where Ren clearly provides at a minimum a pneumatic/hydraulic pump due to ‘inflating’ and ‘deflating’ the lordotic ‘bladder’. It is further considered applicants have not given an explicit definition to ‘air pump’, and therefore it is considered In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “compressor” or similar device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 remain rejected under 102 in view of Ren.
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.
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) were considered pertinent because they address the state of the art concerning lordotic and lumbar systems and traction/sling lifts thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673