DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claims filed 6/7/2023. Claims 1-10 are presenting pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “a second end o portion (sic)”, which is grammatically incorrect; it is suggested to amend the claim to recite --a second end portion--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites, “a handle of each of its two opposing ends” in lines 1-2; it is suggested to amend the claim to recite -- a handle on each of its two opposing ends-- to make the claim more grammatically correct.
Claim 7 recites, “a handle of each of its two opposing ends” in lines 1-2; it is suggested to amend the claim to recite -- a handle on each of its two opposing ends-- to make the claim more grammatically correct.
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 of this title, 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.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells (4,361,322).
Regarding claim 1, Wells in the figure 3 embodiment discloses a device whose ordinary use discloses a method for applying a spinal decompression procedure to a patient, the method comprising: securing a first strapping (64) (ankle encircling band) to a first end portion of a patient (as shown in fig 3, ankle encircling bands (64) are attached to a patient) (col 3, ln 3-10); securing a second strapping (60) (neck encircling band) to a second end portion of a spine of the patient (as shown in fig 3, neck band (60) is attached to a neck of a patient) (col 3, ln 3-10); applying a tensile force by way of the first strapping (64) (operating the hoist (50) applies tension to the joints of the neck, back, hips and legs) (col 3, ln 12-15), wherein a direction of the tensile force is substantially longitudinal relative to the spine (hoist (50) is in line with a longitudinal direction of the spine and therefore a direction of the tensile force applied by the hoist (50) would be substantially longitudinal relative to the spine); and restraining the second strapping (64) against moving with the tensile force (as shown in fig 3, neck encircling band (64) is shown to be fixed to a wall surface (20) and therefore would be restrained against a tensile force).
Wells in the figure 3 embodiment does not disclose the first strapping is secured to a first end portion of a spine of the patient.
However, Wells in the figure 1-2 embodiment teaches a device for applying spinal decompression including a first strapping for applying tension to a lower body of a user, wherein the first strapping is a waist band (44) secured to be secured to a first end portion of a spine of the patient (col 2, ln 56-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of the figure 3 embodiment of Wells by substituting the ankle encircling bands first strapping with a first strapping comprising a waist band configured to be secured to a first end portion of a spine of a patient as taught by the fig 1-2 embodiment of Wells in order to allow a user to apply a pulling force on the vertebra (Wells, col 2, ln 60-63), and furthermore is considered to be an obvious substitution of one known mechanism to secure a lower body of a user to apply traction forces with another, as the use of a waist band to secure a lower body to apply a pulling force to a user is known in the art, and it appears that the device of modified Wells would perform equally well to apply pulling forces to a spine of a patient using a waist band.
Regarding claim 3, Wells discloses the first end portion is a pelvis of a patient (waist band (44) is used to apply a tensile force) (col 2, ln 56-63) and the second end is a skull of a patient (second strapping comprises a neck encircling band (64)) (col 3, ln 3-7).
Claims 2 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of A-Belt (A-Belt Spine Chiropractic Decompression Traction Tool with Chin Strap, https://www.amazon.com/Chiropractic-Decompression-Relaxation-Stretcher-Exerciser/dp/B0BWXNJ7G4, date first available 2/27/2023, accessed 1/21/2026).
Regarding claim 2, Wells discloses a first strapping configured to apply a tensile force to a pelvis of a patient.
Wells does not disclose the first end portion is a skull of a patient.
However, A-Belt teaches a device whose ordinary use discloses a method of applying a spinal decompression procedure to a patient, the method comprising: securing a first strapping to a head of a patient (Our neck traction tool works by gently pulling the head away from the neck, using traction stretches to stretch and decompress the spine and relax the back muscles from top to bottom) (A-Belt, “Product description”, What is cervical traction?, page 2), wherein the first strapping is a chinstrap (When someone stretches for you, use our fixed chin strap to keep your head from sliding during the stretch) (A-Belt, “Product description”, Detachable chin strap, page 3), and has a handle on each of its opposing ends (Two non-slip, sweat-resistant handles for better stretch and improved range of motion) (A-Belt, “Product description”, Non-slip, sweat-resistant handle, page 3), and wherein the first strapping is configured to apply a tensile force to a first end portion of a patient comprising a skull of a patient (Our neck traction tool works by gently pulling the head away from the neck, using traction stretches to stretch and decompress the spine and relax the back muscles from top to bottom) (A-Belt, “Product description”, What is cervical traction?, page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Wells by substituting the strapping comprising the neck encircling band secured to a wall with a strapping including a chin strap and a pair of handles as taught by A-Belt in order to provide a first strapping that can be used with one or two people (A-Belt, “Unique Design”, page 1) and to allow the first strapping to not only have a traction function, but also to allow using stretching rehabilitation exercises to relax neck muscles and strengthen neck/upper back muscles, improve blood circulation to alleviate chronic neck pain and headache, and to restore cervical curvature and correct forward head posture (A-Belt, “Multifunctional Rehabilitation Training”, page 1). The now-modified Well’s method is considered that the head strapping reads on the limitation “a first strapping” because it is secured to a head (skull) of a patient and is used to apply a tensile force, and the waist band reads on the limitation “a second strapping” because it can be used to be restrained against moving with the tensile force, as it is secured to a surface (54) and can be tied off to maintain a constant force (Wells, col 2, ln 56-66).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Wells’s reference disclose the first strapping is a chinstrap (When someone stretches for you, use our fixed chin strap to keep your head from sliding during the stretch) (A-Belt, “Product description”, Detachable chin strap, page 3).
Regarding claim 5, Wells in fig 2 discloses the second strapping is a pelvis strap (44) wrapped at least once around the pelvis of the patient (col 2, ln 42-51).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Wells’s reference discloses first strapping has a handle of each of its two opposing ends (Two non-slip, sweat-resistant handles for better stretch and improved range of motion) (A-Belt, “Product description”, Non-slip, sweat-resistant handle, page 3).
Regarding claim 7, Wells discloses the second strapping (44) has a handle (46) (elongated straps) of each of its two opposing ends (waist band (44) includes a pair of elongated straps (46), which are operable as a handle as the elongated straps are capable of being grasped by a person) (col 2, ln 42-51).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Wells’s reference discloses that a first practitioner applies the tensile force by way of the handles of the first strapping (therapist pulls the ends of the grip to put force in one direction) (A-Belt, “Double operation method”, page 4).
Regarding claim 9, Wells discloses a second practitioner applies the restraint by way of the handles of the second strapping (44) (user can operate as a second practitioner by grasping hoist rope (56), which would operate to apply a restraining force to the second strapping (44) by way of the elongated straps (46)) (col 2, ln 42-51)
Regarding claim 10, Wells discloses the second strapping (44) is anchored to a fixed structure (52) (wall) (can be secured to a wall (52)) (col 2, ln 56-60).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hill (2,640,480), Hotas (3,003,498), Lyle et al (4,114,611), Dyer et al (2011/0270310), and Byrd (2015/0202111) disclose traction devices, and van Zuilichem (4,930,524) discloses a method for apply traction in which a pelvic strapping is used by a practitioner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS YOUNG SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-5260. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tim Stanis can be reached on 571-272-5139. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/DOUGLAS Y SUL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785