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 .
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- 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 2006/0287627 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a spinal decompression device comprising (spinal therapy system 10 used to perform decompression therapy on a patient, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0028): a treatment bed having a frame (treatment bed 100 comprising both a base frame 610 and mattress base 640, Paragraph 0044 and Figure 6), a first end (base end 106, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0029), a second end (head end 104, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0029), a lower bed disposed adjacent to the first end (lower mattress pad 660 disposed on base end 106 of bed 100, Paragraph 0044 and Figure 6) and an upper bed disposed adjacent to the second end (upper mattress pad 650 disposed on head end 104 of bed 100, Figure 6 and Paragraph 0044), wherein the lower bed is secured to the frame of the treatment bed in such a manner as to allow for an adjustable range of linear motion (lower mattress pad secured to base frame 610 such that the lower mattress is allowed to slide a certain distance with respect to the upper mattress pad 650 on the shafts 720 via bearings, Paragraphs 0055-0056 and Figures 6-7); and a treatment tower disposed at the first end of the treatment bed (the computing device 190 and user interface system is disposed within a tower 130 disposed at the base end 106 of the system 10, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson further discloses wherein the range of linear motion of the lower bed may be adjusted prior to the initiation of treatment (the lower mattress pad 660 is allowed to slide a certain distance, with the tension system 10 recording the distance as related to the work involved in moving the strap 120 such that resistance due to spinal column can be approximated and extrapolated to increase spinal elongation distances, Paragraph 0056; the tension-producing actuator 170 provides the controller 192 with feedback that dictates the linear distance in the linear actuator, Paragraph 0058; therefore Johnson’s system is fully capable of making adjustments prior to the initiation of treatment, see also Paragraph 0062 and Figure 9).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson further discloses wherein the range of linear motion of the lower bed may be adjusted during treatment (the method includes providing a tension-producing actuator, providing a control system that implements the treatment profile to control the actuator, applying a tensile force to the spine of a patient in accordance with the treatment profile, calculating the elongation of the spine of the patient resulting from the application of the tensile force, and monitoring and adjusting the application of the tensile force applied to the spine of the patient with the control system based on the calculations of spinal elongation during therapy, Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson further discloses a motor operable to adjust the range of linear motion of the lower bed (the tension producing actuator 170 may be a linear actuator 300 that retracts or extends a motor shaft 330 linearly along a single axis, Paragraph 0036 and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson further discloses wherein the motor is a linear motor (the tension producing actuator 170 may be a linear actuator 300 that retracts or extends a motor shaft 330 linearly along a single axis, Paragraph 0036 and Figure 3).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2006/0287627 A1) in view of Ren (US 2014/0364910 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson teaches the spinal decompression device of claim 4, and although further teaches a motor (Paragraph 0036), Johnson does not explicitly state wherein the motor is disposed within the upper bed.
However, Ren teaches a spinal decompression device (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising upper and lower bed portions (bed 100 includes a head end 104 and based end 106, respectively, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0045) and a motor (actuator 116, Paragraph 0050 and Figure 1), wherein the motor is disposed within the upper bed portion (the head end 104 of the bed may include the horizontal actuator 116, Paragraph 0050 and Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s spinal decompression device such that the motor is disposed as a component within the upper bed structure, as taught by Ren, as providing the motor in the upper bed structure consolidates system parts, offering a more compact and smaller overall system.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2006/0287627 A1) in view of Tu (US 2021/0052456 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson teaches the spinal decompression device of claim 4, however is silent wherein the motor is controlled by a handheld remote.
However, Tu teaches a spinal decompression machine (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a motor (PAM motor, Paragraph 0011) wherein the motor is controlled by a handheld remote (decompression force is applied via a PC 801 which may be in the form of a remote controller, Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s spinal decompression device such that the motor is controlled via a remote, as taught by Tu, as providing a remote to control the motor allows either the user or a nearby physician to control the system as needed.
Claim 8-10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2006/0287627 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2006/0142683 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson discloses a spinal decompression device (spinal therapy system 10 used to perform decompression therapy on a patient, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0028) comprising: a treatment tower (the computing device 190 and user interface system is disposed within a tower 130 disposed at the base end 106 of the system 10, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0031); a treatment bed, secured to the base (treatment bed 100 comprising both a base frame 610 and mattress base 640, Paragraph 0044 and Figure 6), comprising: a bed frame (mattress base 640, Figure 6), a proximal end disposed adjacent to the treatment tower (tower 130 disposed at the base end 106 of the system 10, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0031), a distal end disposed away from the treatment tower (head end 104, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0029), a lower bed disposed adjacent to the proximal end of the treatment bed (lower mattress pad 660 disposed on base end 106 of bed 100, Paragraph 0044 and Figure 6), secured to the frame of the treatment bed in such a manner as to allow for an adjustable range of linear motion (lower mattress pad secured to base frame 610 such that the lower mattress is allowed to slide a certain distance with respect to the upper mattress pad 650 on the shafts 720 via bearings, Paragraphs 0055-0056 and Figures 6-7); an upper bed disposed adjacent to the distal end of the treatment bed (upper mattress pad 650 disposed on head end 104 of bed 100, Figure 6 and Paragraph 0044); and a motor operable to limit the range of linear motion of the lower bed (the tension producing actuator 170 may be a linear actuator 300 that retracts or extends a motor shaft 330 linearly along a single axis, Paragraph 0036 and Figure 3).
Although Johnson teaches a treatment tower (tower 130, Figure 1), Johnson doesn’t explicitly state the tower is also secured to the base.
However, Johnson et al. teaches a spinal decompression device (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a treatment tower (control system tower 114, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0037) and a treatment bed (bed 102, Figure 1), wherein the tower is secured to the base (see base/platform of which the control system 114 and bed are both secured to, Figure 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s spinal decompression device such that the treatment tower is secured to the same base as the treatment bed, as taught by Johnson et al., as securing the tower to the base provides better overall structural integrity to the system.
Regarding claim 9, Johnson further discloses wherein the range of linear motion of the lower bed may be adjusted prior to the initiation of treatment (the lower mattress pad 660 is allowed to slide a certain distance, with the tension system 10 recording the distance as related to the work involved in moving the strap 120 such that resistance due to spinal column can be approximated and extrapolated to increase spinal elongation distances, Paragraph 0056; the tension-producing actuator 170 provides the controller 192 with feedback that dictates the linear distance in the linear actuator, Paragraph 0058; therefore Johnson’s system is fully capable of making adjustments prior to the initiation of treatment, see also Paragraph 0062 and Figure 9).
Regarding claim 10, Johnson further discloses wherein the range of linear motion of the lower bed may be adjusted during treatment (the method includes providing a tension-producing actuator, providing a control system that implements the treatment profile to control the actuator, applying a tensile force to the spine of a patient in accordance with the treatment profile, calculating the elongation of the spine of the patient resulting from the application of the tensile force, and monitoring and adjusting the application of the tensile force applied to the spine of the patient with the control system based on the calculations of spinal elongation during therapy, Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson further discloses wherein the motor is a linear motor (the tension producing actuator 170 may be a linear actuator 300 that retracts or extends a motor shaft 330 linearly along a single axis, Paragraph 0036 and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson further discloses wherein the motor is controlled, at least in part, by a computer incorporated to the spinal decompression device (computing device 190 having firmware and/or software that operates to utilize and control the linear actuator 170, Paragraph 0028 and Figure 1).
Claims 11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2006/0287627 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2006/0142683 A1) and in further in view of Ren (US 2014/0364910 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson in view of Johnson et al. teaches the spinal decompression device of claim 8, however doesn’t explicitly state wherein the motor is disposed within the upper bed.
However, Ren teaches a spinal decompression device (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising upper and lower bed portions (bed 100 includes a head end 104 and based end 106, respectively, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0045) and a motor (actuator 116, Figure 1), wherein the motor is disposed within the upper bed portion (the head end 104 of the bed may include the horizontal actuator 116, Paragraph 0050 and Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s spinal decompression device such that the motor is disposed as a component within the upper bed structure, as taught by Ren, as providing the motor in the upper bed structure consolidates system parts, offering a more compact and smaller overall system.
Regarding claim 15, Johnson discloses a spinal decompression device (spinal therapy system 10 used to perform decompression therapy on a patient, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0028) comprising: a treatment tower (the computing device 190 and user interface system is disposed within a tower 130 disposed at the base end 106 of the system 10, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0031)secured to a base; a treatment bed, secured to the base (treatment bed 100 comprising both a base frame 610 and mattress base 640, Paragraph 0044 and Figure 6), comprising: a bed frame (mattress base 640, Figure 6), a proximal end disposed adjacent to the treatment tower (tower 130 disposed at the base end 106 of the system 10, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0031), a distal end disposed away from the treatment tower (head end 104, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0029), a lower bed disposed adjacent to the proximal end of the treatment bed (lower mattress pad 660 disposed on base end 106 of bed 100, Paragraph 0044 and Figure 6), secured to the frame of the treatment bed in such a manner as to allow for an adjustable range of linear motion (lower mattress pad secured to base frame 610 such that the lower mattress is allowed to slide a certain distance with respect to the upper mattress pad 650 on the shafts 720 via bearings, Paragraphs 0055-0056 and Figures 6-7), having a distal end panel having an aperture therein (see side panel of mattress pad 660 having an aperture through which a shaft 720 extends, Figure 7 and Paragraph 0055); an upper bed disposed adjacent to the distal end of the treatment bed (upper mattress pad 650 disposed on head end 104 of bed 100, Figure 6 and Paragraph 0044), having a proximal end panel facing the distal end panel and aperture of the lower bed, having a corresponding proximal aperture therein (see side panel of mattress pad 650 having an aperture through which shaft 720 also extends, facing the side panel and corresponding aperture of the lower mattress pad 660, Figure 7 and Paragraph 0055); and a motor (the tension producing actuator 170 may be a linear actuator 300 that retracts or extends a motor shaft 330 linearly along a single axis, Paragraph 0036 and Figure 3) having a motor linkage extending through the proximal aperture of the upper bed and the distal aperture of the lower bed (shafts 720 extending through apertures of upper and lower mattress pads 660 and 650 are driven by the motor 170, Figure 7 and Paragraph 0036).
However, although Johnson teaches a treatment tower (tower 130, Figure 1), Johnson doesn’t explicitly state the tower is also secured to the base, and is silent wherein the motor is disposed in the upper bed.
However, Johnson et al. teaches a spinal decompression device (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a treatment tower (control system tower 114, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0037) and a treatment bed (bed 102, Figure 1), wherein the tower is secured to the base (see base/platform of which the control system 114 and bed are both secured to, Figure 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s spinal decompression device such that the treatment tower is secured to the same base as the treatment bed, as taught by Johnson et al., as securing the tower to the base provides better overall structural integrity to the system.
With regards to the motor being disposed in the upper bed, Ren teaches a spinal decompression device (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising upper and lower bed portions (bed 100 includes a head end 104 and based end 106, respectively, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0045) and a motor (actuator 116, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0050), wherein the motor is disposed within the upper bed portion (the head end 104 of the bed may include the horizontal actuator 116, Paragraph 0050 and Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s spinal decompression device such that the motor is disposed as a component within the upper bed structure, as taught by Ren, as providing the motor in the upper bed structure consolidates system parts, offering a more compact and smaller overall system.
Regarding claim 16, Johnson further discloses wherein the range of linear motion of the lower bed may be adjusted prior to the initiation of treatment (the lower mattress pad 660 is allowed to slide a certain distance, with the tension system 10 recording the distance as related to the work involved in moving the strap 120 such that resistance due to spinal column can be approximated and extrapolated to increase spinal elongation distances, Paragraph 0056; the tension-producing actuator 170 provides the controller 192 with feedback that dictates the linear distance in the linear actuator, Paragraph 0058; therefore Johnson’s system is fully capable of making adjustments prior to the initiation of treatment, see also Paragraph 0062 and Figure 9).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson further discloses wherein the range of linear motion of the lower bed may be adjusted during treatment (the method includes providing a tension-producing actuator, providing a control system that implements the treatment profile to control the actuator, applying a tensile force to the spine of a patient in accordance with the treatment profile, calculating the elongation of the spine of the patient resulting from the application of the tensile force, and monitoring and adjusting the application of the tensile force applied to the spine of the patient with the control system based on the calculations of spinal elongation during therapy, Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 18, Johnson further discloses wherein the motor is a linear motor (the tension producing actuator 170 may be a linear actuator 300 that retracts or extends a motor shaft 330 linearly along a single axis, Paragraph 0036 and Figure 3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2006/0287627 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2006/0142683 A1) and in further in view of Tu (US 2021/0052456 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson teaches the spinal decompression device of claim 8, however doesn’t explicitly state wherein the motor may be controlled, at least in part, by a handheld remote.
However, Tu teaches a spinal decompression machine (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a motor (PAM motor, Paragraph 0011) wherein the motor is controlled by a handheld remote (decompression force is applied via a PC 801 which may be in the form of a remote controller, Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s spinal decompression device such that the motor is controlled via a remote, as taught by Tu, as providing a remote to control the motor allows either the user or a nearby physician to control the system as needed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Brown (US 2015/0257916 A1) and Kondrukevich et al. (US 11,259,986 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B LEDERER whose telephone number is 571-272-7274. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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 Lee can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH B LEDERER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785