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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the application as filed on 08-08-2023. As directed, claims 1-20 are currently pending examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, it is suggested that a comma be added following recitation of the preamble (i.e. The spinal decompression device of claim 1,).
At claim 11, line 2, it is suggested that “the range” be replaced with “a range” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 18, line 2, it is suggested that “the range” be replaced with “a range” as the limitation has not been introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2006/0287627) in view of Splane (US 2005/0222523).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a spinal decompression device (10) (paragraph 28, lines 1-3 and 15-18; Fig. 1), comprising:
a treatment bed (100) having a first end (106) and a second end (104) (paragraph 29, lines 1-5; Fig. 1);
a treatment tower (130) disposed at the first end (106) of the treatment bed (100) (paragraph 31, lines 9-12; Fig. 1);
and a control (190) operable to control one or more treatment parameters of the spinal decompression device (10) (paragraph 28, lines 4-8; paragraph 31, lines 1-8; Fig. 1).
Johnson fails to disclose wherein the control is a handheld remote control.
However, Splane teaches a continuous passive motion device (10) for a patient laying supine thereon (paragraph 92, lines 1-5; Figs. 1-2), which includes a handheld remote control (134) accessible by a user of the device to control a therapy routine (paragraph 154, lines 1-6; paragraph 173, lines 1-8; Figs. 25 and 39-49). Notably, Splane additionally teaches that the controller (134) could alternatively be provided as a computer within the base of the passive motion device (paragraph 154, lines 3-6).
Therefore, given that Splane teaches that a controller for a passive motion device can be provided as either a computer or a handheld remote controller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the computer-based control of Johnson with the handheld remote controller taught by Splane in order to provide the user, laying supine on the device, access to a control mechanism for altering the therapy parameters of the device while in use.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson in view of Splane disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Presently modified Johnson fails to explicitly disclose that the handheld remote control (134 of Splane) is connected to the spinal decompression device (10 of Johnson) by a wired connection.
However, Splane further teaches wherein the handheld remote control (134) is connected to the device (10) by way of a wired connection (see cable 134A in Fig. 25) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7) in order to connect the controller (134) to the device computer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handheld remote controller of modified Johnson in wired connection with the spinal decompression device, as further taught by Splane, in order to provide a connection between the handheld remote controller and the spinal decompression device computer.
Regarding claim 4, Johnson in view of Splane disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Johnson further discloses wherein the handheld remote control (134 of Splane modified to be incorporated into Johnson’s system 10) is operable to control a maximum spinal-elongation limit (Johnson: paragraph 32, lines 8-11; paragraph 33, lines 1-14, see high tension plateau).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson in view of Splane disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Johnson further discloses wherein the handheld remote control (Splane: 134) comprises a graphical user interface (Splane: 134C) (Splane: paragraph 153, lines 1-7; Fig. 25).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson discloses a spinal decompression device (10) (paragraph 28, lines 1-3 and 15-18; Fig. 1), comprising:
a treatment bed (100) having a first end (106) and a second end (104) (paragraph 29, lines 1-5; Fig. 1), a lower bed (660) disposed adjacent to the first end (106) and an upper bed (650) disposed adjacent to the second end (104), wherein the lower bed (660) is secured to the treatment bed (100) in such a manner as to allow for an adjustable degree of linear motion (paragraph 44, lines 1-20; paragraph 55, lines 1-16; paragraph 56, lines 1-20; Figs. 1 and 6-7);
a treatment tower (130) disposed at the first end (106) of the treatment bed (100) (paragraph 31, lines 9-12; Fig. 1);
and a control (190) operable to control one or more treatment parameters of the spinal decompression device (10) (paragraph 28, lines 4-8; paragraph 31, lines 1-8; Fig. 1).
Johnson fails to disclose wherein the control is a handheld remote control.
However, Splane teaches a continuous passive motion device (10) for a patient laying supine thereon (paragraph 92, lines 1-5; Figs. 1-2), which includes a handheld remote control (134) accessible by a user of the device to control a therapy routine (paragraph 154, lines 1-6; paragraph 173, lines 1-8; Figs. 25 and 39-49). Notably, Splane additionally teaches that the controller (134) could alternatively be provided as a computer within the base of the passive motion device (paragraph 154, lines 3-6).
Therefore, given that Splane teaches that a controller for a passive motion device can be provided as either a computer or a handheld remote controller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the computer-based control of Johnson with the handheld remote controller taught by Splane in order to provide the user, laying supine on the device, access to a control mechanism for altering the therapy parameters of the device while in use.
Regarding claim 9, Johnson in view of Splane disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Presently modified Johnson fails to explicitly disclose that the handheld remote control (134 of Splane) is connected to the spinal decompression device (10 of Johnson) by a wired connection.
However, Splane further teaches wherein the handheld remote control (134) is connected to the device (10) by way of a wired connection (see cable 134A in Fig. 25) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7) in order to connect the controller (134) to the device computer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handheld remote controller of modified Johnson in wired connection with the spinal decompression device, as further taught by Splane, in order to provide a connection between the handheld remote controller and the spinal decompression device computer.
Regarding claim 11, Johnson in view of Splane disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Modified Johnson further discloses wherein the handheld remote control (134 of Splane modified to be incorporated into Johnson’s system 10) is operable to control the range of linear motion of the lower bed (660) (Johnson: paragraph 33, lines 1-14, for use of controller 190 to actuate motor 170; see paragraph 45, lines 1-11 where the actuator 170 is used to enact the method of determining para spinal muscle contractions and elongation in paragraph 55-56, and note that control 190 is modified to be handheld by Splane).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson in view of Splane disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Modified Johnson further discloses wherein the handheld remote control (Splane: 134) comprises a graphical user interface (Splane: 134C) (Splane: paragraph 153, lines 1-7; Fig. 25).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2006/0287627) in view of Splane (US 2005/0222523), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, in further view of Vitko (US 2011/0137343).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson in view of Splane disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Presently modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is connected to the spinal decompression device by a wireless connection.
However, Vitko teaches a device for spinal disc decompression (10) (paragraph 31, lines 1-10; Fig. 1) which includes a controller (18), wherein the controller may alternatively be in hard-wired or wireless connection with the actuator (32) of the device (paragraph 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handheld remote controller of the modified Johnson device in wireless connection with the spinal decompression device’s motor, as taught by Vitko, as an alternative to a wired engagement, thereby allowing free movement of the handheld remote control as desired.
Regarding claim 10, Johnson in view of Splane disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Presently modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is connected to the spinal decompression device by a wireless connection.
However, Vitko teaches a device for spinal disc decompression (10) (paragraph 31, lines 1-10; Fig. 1) which includes a controller (18), wherein the controller may alternatively be in hard-wired or wireless connection with the actuator (32) of the device (paragraph 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handheld remote controller of the modified Johnson device in wireless connection with the spinal decompression device’s motor, as taught by Vitko, as an alternative to a wired engagement, thereby allowing free movement of the handheld remote control as desired.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2006/0287627) in view of Splane (US 2005/0222523), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, in further view of Ren (US 2014/0364910).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson in view of Splane disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Presently modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is operable to control an inflatable lordotic support bladder.
However, Ren teaches a spinal therapy system (10) (paragraph 44, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) which includes a controllable, inflatable lordotic support bladder (112), wherein the lordotic support bladder (112) is used to support various levels of lordosis for patients’ backs (paragraph 46, lines 1-8, see adjustable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Johnson to further include an inflatable lordotic support bladder, as taught by Ren, in order to support various levels of lordosis for patients’ backs while lying on the spinal decompression device.
Further, given that Ren describes the inflatable lordotic support bladder (112) as adjustable (paragraph 46, lines 1-8), and that modified Johnson includes the capability of controlling treatment parameters via a handheld remote control (Johnson: paragraph 28, lines 4-8; paragraph 31, lines 1-8; Splane: paragraph 154, lines 1-6), it would have been rendered further obvious to provide the handheld remote control with the capability of controlling the inflation level of the lordotic support bladder, in order to accommodate the varying levels of lordosis different patients using the spinal decompression device may experience.
Regarding claim 12, Johnson in view of Splane disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Presently modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is operable to control an inflatable lordotic support bladder.
However, Ren teaches a spinal therapy system (10) (paragraph 44, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) which includes a controllable, inflatable lordotic support bladder (112), wherein the lordotic support bladder (112) is used to support various levels of lordosis for patients’ backs (paragraph 46, lines 1-8, see adjustable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Johnson to further include an inflatable lordotic support bladder, as taught by Ren, in order to support various levels of lordosis for patients’ backs while lying on the spinal decompression device.
Further, given that Ren describes the inflatable lordotic support bladder (112) as adjustable (paragraph 46, lines 1-8), and that modified Johnson includes the capability of controlling treatment parameters via a handheld remote control (Johnson: paragraph 28, lines 4-8; paragraph 31, lines 1-8; Splane: paragraph 154, lines 1-6), it would have been rendered further obvious to provide the handheld remote control with the capability of controlling the inflation level of the lordotic support bladder, in order to accommodate the varying levels of lordosis different patients using the spinal decompression device may experience.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2006/0287627) in view of Splane (US 2005/0222523), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, in further view of Bouchet (US 2021/0282999).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson in view of Splane disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Presently modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control comprises a touch screen.
However, Bouchet teaches a vibrating massage table (abstract, lines 1-9; Fig. 1), that includes a controller (100) (paragraph 134, lines 1-7), wherein the controller is configured to include a touchscreen display (101) for manipulation by a user (paragraph 136, lines 1-5; Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote handheld control of modified Johnson to include a touch screen, as taught by Bouchet, as an alternate type of handheld remote control capable of achieving the same purpose of allowing a user and/or operator to vary the treatment parameters of the device.
Regarding claim 13, Johnson in view of Splane disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Presently modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control comprises a touch screen.
However, Bouchet teaches a vibrating massage table (abstract, lines 1-9; Fig. 1), that includes a controller (100) (paragraph 134, lines 1-7), wherein the controller is configured to include a touchscreen display (101) for manipulation by a user (paragraph 136, lines 1-5; Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote handheld control of modified Johnson to include a touch screen, as taught by Bouchet, as an alternate type of handheld remote control capable of achieving the same purpose of allowing a user and/or operator to vary the treatment parameters of the device.
Claims 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2006/0287627) in view of Splane (US 2005/0222523) and Ren (US 2014/0364910).
Regarding claim 15, Johnson discloses a spinal decompression device (10) (paragraph 28, lines 1-3 and 15-18; Fig. 1), comprising:
a treatment bed (100) having a base (610) a first end (106) and a second end (104) (paragraph 29, lines 1-5; paragraph 44, lines 1-6; Figs. 1 and 6-7), a lower bed (660) disposed adjacent to the first end (106) and an upper bed (650) disposed adjacent to the second end (104), wherein the lower bed (660) is secured to the base (610) of the treatment bed (100) in such a manner as to allow for an adjustable degree of linear motion (paragraph 44, lines 1-20; paragraph 55, lines 1-16; paragraph 56, lines 1-20; Figs. 1 and 6-7);
a treatment tower (130) disposed at the first end (106) of the treatment bed (100) (paragraph 31, lines 9-12; Fig. 1);
and a control (190) operable to control one or more treatment parameters of the spinal decompression device (10) (paragraph 28, lines 4-8; paragraph 31, lines 1-8; Fig. 1).
Johnson fails to disclose wherein the control is a handheld remote control, and wherein the upper bed includes a lordotic support bladder disposed therein.
However, Splane teaches a continuous passive motion device (10) for a patient laying supine thereon (paragraph 92, lines 1-5; Figs. 1-2), which includes a handheld remote control (134) accessible by a user of the device to control a therapy routine (paragraph 154, lines 1-6; paragraph 173, lines 1-8; Figs. 25 and 39-49). Notably, Splane additionally teaches that the controller (134) could alternatively be provided as a computer within the base of the passive motion device (paragraph 154, lines 3-6).
Therefore, given that Splane teaches that a controller for a passive motion device can be provided as either a computer or a handheld remote controller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the computer-based control of Johnson with the handheld remote controller taught by Splane in order to provide the user, laying supine on the device, access to a control mechanism for altering the therapy parameters of the device while in use.
Presently modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the upper bed includes a lordotic support bladder disposed therein.
However, Ren teaches a spinal therapy system (10) (paragraph 44, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) which includes a controllable, inflatable lordotic support bladder (112) disposed in an upper bed portion (104), wherein the lordotic support bladder (112) is used to support various levels of lordosis for patients’ backs (paragraph 46, lines 1-8, see adjustable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Johnson to further include an inflatable lordotic support bladder disposed in the upper bed, as taught by Ren, in order to support various levels of lordosis for patients’ backs while lying on the spinal decompression device.
Regarding claim 16, Johnson in view of Splane and Ren disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 15, as discussed above.
Presently modified Johnson fails to explicitly disclose that the handheld remote control (134 of Splane) is connected to the spinal decompression device (10 of Johnson) by a wired connection.
However, Splane further teaches wherein the handheld remote control (134) is connected to the device (10) by way of a wired connection (see cable 134A in Fig. 25) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7) in order to connect the controller (134) to the device computer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handheld remote controller of modified Johnson in wired connection with the spinal decompression device, as further taught by Splane, in order to provide a connection between the handheld remote controller and the spinal decompression device computer.
Regarding claim 18, Johnson in view of Splane and Ren disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 15, as discussed above.
Modified Johnson further discloses wherein the handheld remote control (134 of Splane modified to be incorporated into Johnson’s system 10) is operable to control the range of linear motion of the lower bed (660) (Johnson: paragraph 33, lines 1-14, for use of controller 190 to actuate motor 170; see paragraph 45, lines 1-11 where the actuator 170 is used to enact the method of determining para spinal muscle contractions and elongation in paragraph 55-56, and note that control 190 is modified to be handheld by Splane).
Regarding claim 19, Johnson in view of Splane and Ren disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 15, as discussed above.
Presently modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is operable to control the inflatable lordotic support bladder.
However, Ren teaches that the nflatable lordotic support bladder (112), wherein the lordotic support bladder (112) is adjustable (paragraph 46, lines 1-8) (paragraph 46, lines 1-8, see adjustable).
Thus, given that Ren describes the inflatable lordotic support bladder (112) as adjustable (paragraph 46, lines 1-8), and that modified Johnson includes the capability of controlling treatment parameters via a handheld remote control (Johnson: paragraph 28, lines 4-8; paragraph 31, lines 1-8; Splane: paragraph 154, lines 1-6), it would have been rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handheld remote control with the capability of controlling the inflation level of the lordotic support bladder, in order to accommodate the varying levels of lordosis different patients using the spinal decompression device may experience.
Regarding claim 20, Johnson in view of Splane and Ren disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 15, as discussed above.
Modified Johnson further discloses wherein the handheld remote control (Splane: 134) comprises a graphical user interface (Splane: 134C) (Splane: paragraph 153, lines 1-7; Fig. 25).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2006/0287627) in view of Splane (US 2005/0222523) and Ren (US 2014/0364910), as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Vitko (US 2011/0137343).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson in view of Splane and Ren disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 15, as discussed above.
Presently modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is connected to the spinal decompression device by a wireless connection.
However, Vitko teaches a device for spinal disc decompression (10) (paragraph 31, lines 1-10; Fig. 1) which includes a controller (18), wherein the controller may alternatively be in hard-wired or wireless connection with the actuator (32) of the device (paragraph 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handheld remote controller of the modified Johnson device in wireless connection with the spinal decompression device’s motor, as taught by Vitko, as an alternative to a wired engagement, thereby allowing free movement of the handheld remote control as desired.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 7 of co-pending Application No. 18/231,669 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following claim mapping.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, Johnson ‘669 discloses a spinal decompression device (claim 1, line 1), comprising:
a treatment bed having a first end and a second end (claim 1, lines 2-3);
a treatment tower disposed at the first end of the treatment bed (claim 1, line 6); and
a handheld remote control operable to control one or more treatment parameters of the spinal decompression device (claim 4, lines 1-2 and claim 7, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson ‘669 discloses a spinal decompression device (claim 1, line 1), comprising:
a treatment bed having a first end, a second end, a lower bed disposed adjacent to the first end and an upper bed disposed adjacent to the second end, wherein the lower bed is secured to the treatment bed in such a manner so as to allows for an adjustable degree of linear motion (claim 1, lines 2-5);
a treatment tower disposed at the first end of the treatment bed (claim 1, line 6); and
a handheld remote control operable to control one or more treatment parameters of the spinal decompression device (claim 4, lines 1-2 and claim 7, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson ‘669 in view of Ren disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Johnson ‘669 further discloses wherein the handheld remote control is operable to control the range of linear motion of the lower bed (claim 4, lines 1-2; claim 7, lines 1-2).
Claims 2, 7, 9, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 7 of co-pending Application No. 18/231,620, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, in view of Splane (US 2005/0222523).
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson ‘669 discloses the spinal decompression device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Johnson fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is connected to the spinal decompression device by a wired connection.
However, Splane teaches wherein a handheld remote control (134) is connected to the device (10) by way of a wired connection (see cable 134A in Fig. 25) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7; paragraph 154, lines 1-4; paragraph 173, lines 1-14) in order to connect the controller (134) to the device computer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handheld remote controller of Johnson ‘669 in wired connection with the spinal decompression device, as further taught by Splane, in order to provide a connection between the handheld remote controller and the spinal decompression device computer.
Regarding claim 7, Johnson ‘669 discloses the spinal decompression device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Johnson ‘669 fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control comprises a graphical user interface.
Splane teaches a handheld remote control (134) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7; paragraph 154, lines 1-4; paragraph 173, lines 1-14) further comprising a graphical user interface (134C) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7; Fig. 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handheld remote control of Johnson ‘669 to include a graphical user interface, as taught by Splane, in order to provide the user with a display to direct their user-initiated control of the device.
Regarding claim 9, Johnson ‘669 discloses the spinal decompression device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Johnson fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is connected to the spinal decompression device by a wired connection.
However, Splane teaches wherein a handheld remote control (134) is connected to the device (10) by way of a wired connection (see cable 134A in Fig. 25) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7; paragraph 154, lines 1-4; paragraph 173, lines 1-14) in order to connect the controller (134) to the device computer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handheld remote controller of Johnson ‘669 in wired connection with the spinal decompression device, as further taught by Splane, in order to provide a connection between the handheld remote controller and the spinal decompression device computer.
Regarding claim 14, Johnson ‘669 discloses the spinal decompression device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Johnson ‘669 fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control comprises a graphical user interface.
Splane teaches a handheld remote control (134) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7; paragraph 154, lines 1-4; paragraph 173, lines 1-14) further comprising a graphical user interface (134C) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7; Fig. 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handheld remote control of Johnson ‘669 to include a graphical user interface, as taught by Splane, in order to provide the user with a display to direct their user-initiated control of the device.
Claims 3 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 7 of co-pending Application No. 18/231,620, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, in view of Vitko (US 2011/0137343).
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 3, Johnson ‘669 discloses the spinal decompression device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Johnson ‘669 fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is connected to the spinal decompression device by a wireless connection.
However, Vitko teaches a device for spinal disc decompression (10) (paragraph 31, lines 1-10; Fig. 1) which includes a controller (18), wherein the controller may alternatively be in hard-wired or wireless connection with the actuator (32) of the device (paragraph 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handheld remote controller of the Johnson ‘669 device in wireless connection with the spinal decompression device’s motor, as taught by Vitko, as an alternative to a wired engagement, thereby allowing free movement of the handheld remote control as desired.
Regarding claim 10, Johnson ‘669 discloses the spinal decompression device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Johnson ‘669 fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is connected to the spinal decompression device by a wireless connection.
However, Vitko teaches a device for spinal disc decompression (10) (paragraph 31, lines 1-10; Fig. 1) which includes a controller (18), wherein the controller may alternatively be in hard-wired or wireless connection with the actuator (32) of the device (paragraph 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handheld remote controller of the Johnson ‘669 device in wireless connection with the spinal decompression device’s motor, as taught by Vitko, as an alternative to a wired engagement, thereby allowing free movement of the handheld remote control as desired.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 7 of co-pending Application No. 18/231,620, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, in view of Johnson (US 2006/0287627).
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 4, Johnson ‘669 discloses the spinal decompression device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Johnson ‘669 fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is operable to control a maximum spinal elongation limit.
However, Johnson teaches a spinal decompression device (10) (paragraph 28, lines 1-3 and 15-18; Fig. 1), wherein the control (190) is operable to control a maximum spinal-elongation limit to control the treatment applied to the patient (paragraph 32, lines 8-11; paragraph 33, lines 1-14, see high tension plateau).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Johnson ‘669 to provide the capability of the remote control being operable to control a maximum spinal elongation limit, as taught by Johnson, to control the treatment applied to the patient.
Claims 5 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 7 of co-pending Application No. 18/231,620, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, in view of Ren (US 2014/0364910).
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 5, Johnson ‘669 discloses the spinal decompression device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Johnson ‘669 fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is operable to control an inflatable lordotic support bladder.
However, Ren teaches a spinal therapy system (10) (paragraph 44, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) which includes a controllable, inflatable lordotic support bladder (112), wherein the lordotic support bladder (112) is used to support various levels of lordosis for patients’ backs (paragraph 46, lines 1-8, see adjustable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Johnson to further include an inflatable lordotic support bladder, as taught by Ren, in order to support various levels of lordosis for patients’ backs while lying on the spinal decompression device.
Further, given that Ren describes the inflatable lordotic support bladder (112) as adjustable (paragraph 46, lines 1-8), and that Johnson ‘669 includes the capability of controlling treatment parameters via a handheld remote control (Johnson: claim 7, lines 1-2), it would have been rendered further obvious to provide the handheld remote control with the capability of controlling the inflation level of the lordotic support bladder, in order to accommodate the varying levels of lordosis different patients using the spinal decompression device may experience.
Regarding claim 12, Johnson ‘669 discloses the spinal decompression device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Johnson ‘669 fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is operable to control an inflatable lordotic support bladder.
However, Ren teaches a spinal therapy system (10) (paragraph 44, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) which includes a controllable, inflatable lordotic support bladder (112), wherein the lordotic support bladder (112) is used to support various levels of lordosis for patients’ backs (paragraph 46, lines 1-8, see adjustable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Johnson to further include an inflatable lordotic support bladder, as taught by Ren, in order to support various levels of lordosis for patients’ backs while lying on the spinal decompression device.
Further, given that Ren describes the inflatable lordotic support bladder (112) as adjustable (paragraph 46, lines 1-8), and that Johnson ‘669 includes the capability of controlling treatment parameters via a handheld remote control (Johnson: claim 7, lines 1-2), it would have been rendered further obvious to provide the handheld remote control with the capability of controlling the inflation level of the lordotic support bladder, in order to accommodate the varying levels of lordosis different patients using the spinal decompression device may experience.
Claims 6 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 7 of co-pending Application No. 18/231,620, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, in view of Bouchet (US 2021/0282999).
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 6, Johnson ‘669 discloses the spinal decompression device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Presently modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control comprises a touch screen.
However, Bouchet teaches a vibrating massage table (abstract, lines 1-9; Fig. 1), that includes a controller (100) (paragraph 134, lines 1-7), wherein the controller is configured to include a touchscreen display (101) for manipulation by a user (paragraph 136, lines 1-5; Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote handheld control of Johnson ‘669 to include a touch screen, as taught by Bouchet, as an alternate type of handheld remote control capable of achieving the same purpose of allowing a user and/or operator to vary the treatment parameters of the device.
Regarding claim 13, Johnson ‘669 discloses the spinal decompression device of claim 8, as discussed above.
Presently modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control comprises a touch screen.
However, Bouchet teaches a vibrating massage table (abstract, lines 1-9; Fig. 1), that includes a controller (100) (paragraph 134, lines 1-7), wherein the controller is configured to include a touchscreen display (101) for manipulation by a user (paragraph 136, lines 1-5; Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote handheld control of Johnson ‘669 to include a touch screen, as taught by Bouchet, as an alternate type of handheld remote control capable of achieving the same purpose of allowing a user and/or operator to vary the treatment parameters of the device.
Claims 15 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 7 of co-pending Application No. 18/231,620 in view of Ren (US 2014/0364910).
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 15, Johnson ‘669 discloses a spinal decompression device (claim 1, line 1), comprising:
a treatment bed having base, a first end, a second end, a lower bed disposed adjacent to the first end, an upper bed disposed adjacent to the second end, wherein the lower bed is secured to the base of the treatment bed in such a manner so as to allows for an adjustable degree of linear motion (claim 1, lines 2-5, see frame for base);
a treatment tower disposed at the first end of the treatment bed (claim 1, line 6); and
a handheld remote control operable to control one or more treatment parameters of the spinal decompression device (claim 4, lines 1-2 and claim 7, lines 1-2).
Johnson ‘669 fails to disclose wherein the upper bed includes a lordotic support bladder disposed therein.
However, Ren teaches a spinal therapy system (10) (paragraph 44, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) which includes a controllable, inflatable lordotic support bladder (112) disposed in an upper bed portion (104), wherein the lordotic support bladder (112) is used to support various levels of lordosis for patients’ backs (paragraph 46, lines 1-8, see adjustable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Johnson ‘669 to further include an inflatable lordotic support bladder disposed in the upper bed, as taught by Ren, in order to support various levels of lordosis for patients’ backs while lying on the spinal decompression device.
Regarding claim 18, Johnson ‘669 in view of Ren disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 15, as discussed above.
Johnson ‘669 further discloses wherein the handheld remote control is operable to control the range of linear motion of the lower bed (claim 4, lines 1-2; claim 7, lines 1-2).
Claims 16 and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 7 of co-pending Application No. 18/231,620 in view of Ren (US 2014/0364910), as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Splane (US 2005/0222523).
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 16, Johnson ‘669 in view of Ren disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 15, as discussed above.
Modified Johnson ‘669 fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is connected to the spinal decompression device by a wired connection.
However, Splane teaches wherein a handheld remote control (134) is connected to the device (10) by way of a wired connection (see cable 134A in Fig. 25) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7; paragraph 154, lines 1-4; paragraph 173, lines 1-14) in order to connect the controller (134) to the device computer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handheld remote controller of Johnson ‘669 in wired connection with the spinal decompression device, as further taught by Splane, in order to provide a connection between the handheld remote controller and the spinal decompression device computer.
Regarding claim 19, Johnson ‘669 in view of Ren disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 15, as discussed above.
Johnson ‘669 fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control comprises a graphical user interface.
Splane teaches a handheld remote control (134) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7; paragraph 154, lines 1-4; paragraph 173, lines 1-14) further comprising a graphical user interface (134C) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7; Fig. 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handheld remote control of Johnson ‘669 to include a graphical user interface, as taught by Splane, in order to provide the user with a display to direct their user-initiated control of the device.
Regarding claim 20, Johnson ‘669 in view of Ren disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 15, as discussed above.
Modified Johnson ‘669 fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control comprises a graphical user interface.
Splane teaches a handheld remote control (134) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7; paragraph 154, lines 1-4; paragraph 173, lines 1-14) further comprising a graphical user interface (134C) (paragraph 153, lines 1-7; Fig. 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handheld remote control of Johnson ‘669 to include a graphical user interface, as taught by Splane, in order to provide the user with a display to direct their user-initiated control of the device.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 7 of co-pending Application No. 18/231,620 in view of Ren (US 2014/0364910), as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Vitko (US 2011/0137343).
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 17, Johnson ‘669 in view of Ren disclose the spinal decompression device of claim 15, as discussed above.
Modified Johnson ‘669 fails to disclose wherein the handheld remote control is connected to the spinal decompression device by a wireless connection.
However, Vitko teaches a device for spinal disc decompression (10) (paragraph 31, lines 1-10; Fig. 1) which includes a controller (18), wherein the controller may alternatively be in hard-wired or wireless connection with the actuator (32) of the device (paragraph 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handheld remote controller of the Johnson ‘669 device in wireless connection with the spinal decompression device’s motor, as taught by Vitko, as an alternative to a wired engagement, thereby allowing free movement of the handheld remote control as desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zafer (WO 2010/0120165) is cited for its spinal decompression device as shown in Figure 1.
Beccera (US 2007/0027422) is cited for its spinal decompression device as shown in Figure 1.
Beccera (US 2006/0287619) is cited for its spinal decompression device as shown in Figure 1.
Johnson (US 2006/0142683) is cited for its spinal decompression device as shown in Figure 1.
Beccera (US 2005/0192517) is cited for its spinal decompression device as shown in Figure 1.
Beccera (US 2005/0010152) is cited for its spinal decompression device as shown in Figure 1.
Shealy (US 6,152,950) is cited for its spinal decompression device as shown in Figure 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785