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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the specification are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-5 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-5 have rendered the previous claim objections moot. Therefore, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-5 have rendered the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) moot. Therefore, the claim rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s addition of new claims 6 and 7 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Currently claims 6 and 7 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the primary reference of Modglin (US 2014/0221893 A1), or teaching references Vangeloff (US 10,413,438 B1), or Safko et al. (US 2016/0045355 A1) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 first and second sets of waist belts (i.e. two pluralities of waist belts), the first and second sets of shoulder straps (i.e. two pluralities of shoulder straps), the first set of shoulder straps passing through the two top perforations of the cross bib, and the second set of shoulder straps passing through the two bottom perforations of the cross bib must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not provide antecedent support for the limitations of the first set of shoulder straps passing through the two top perforations of the cross bib, and the second set of shoulder straps passing through the two bottom perforations of the cross bib. The specification currently recites in [0018] “the shoulder straps 4 are configured to be cross threaded within the perforations of the cross bib 5”. Thereby implying that there are two shoulder straps which are cross threaded within the cross bib (i.e. passing from an upper perforation on a first side to a lower perforation on a second side), not multiple sets of straps passing through the top and bottom perforations respectively as currently recited in claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the first set of shoulder straps passing through the two top perforations of the cross bib, and the second set of shoulder straps passing through the two bottom perforations of the cross bib”. As discussed above, the specification does not provide support for this specific configuration. Therefore, the limitation is considered to be new matter.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being dependent on a rejected claim, and therefore contains the same offending limitaitons.
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 6 and 7 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “a first set of waist belts; a second set of waist belts”. This limitation is held to be unclear in view of Applicant’s disclosure, as it can be seen in the figures that there are only first and second waist belts (3), and not a first set of waist belts and a second set of waist belts which implies the presence of two pluralities of waist belts. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret these limitations as “a first waist belt”, and “a second waist belt”.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “a first set of shoulder straps; a second set of shoulder straps”. This limitation is held to be unclear in view of Applicant’s disclosure, as it can be seen in the figures that there are only first and second shoulder straps (4), and not a first set of shoulder straps; a second set of shoulder straps which implies the presence of two pluralities of shoulder straps. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret these limitations as “a first shoulder strap”, and “a second shoulder strap”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the four corners of the cross bib" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a respective corner of the cross bib”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the second set of shoulder straps includes second hook-and-loop fasteners at both ends”. This limitation is held to be unclear in view of the “a first set of shoulder straps; a second set of shoulder straps” as discussed above. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “wherein the first and second shoulder straps each includes second hook-and-loop fasteners at a distal end”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the first set of shoulder
PNG
media_image1.png
9
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
straps is configured to pass through the two upper perforations of the cross bib; wherein the second set of shoulder straps is configured to pass through the two lower perforations of the cross bib”. This limitation is held to be unclear in view of Applicant’s specification which does not disclose such a configuration of a first set of shoulder straps extending through the upper perforations of the cross bib, and a second set of shoulder straps extending through the lower perforations of the cross bib”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the two upper perforations" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a first and a second upper perforation of the four perforations disposed at the respective corners of the cross bib”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the two lower perforations" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a first and a second lower perforation of the four perforations disposed at the respective corners of the cross bib”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the second set of shoulder straps is configured to be secured to the first and second sets of waist belts through the connection of the first hook-and-loop fasteners and the second hook- and-loop fasteners”. This limitation is unclear for the reasons regarding the multiple sets of waist belts, and shoulder straps as discussed above. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “wherein the distal ends of the first and second shoulder straps are configured to be secured to the first and second waist belts through the connection of the first hook-and-loop fasteners and the second hook- and-loop fasteners”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 6, and therefore containing the same offending limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamasa et al. (US 5,560,046) (hereinafter Iwamasa) in view of Modglin (US 2014/0221893 A1) and Yip et al. (US 2022/0117769 A1) (hereinafter Yip).
In regards to claim 6 (see 112b interpretations above), Iwamasa discloses an adjustable back orthopedic belt (10; see [col 2 ln 64-67]; see figure 1), comprising: an orthopedic belt body (12; see [col 2 ln 64-67]; see figure 1) , the orthopedic belt body (12) comprising:
a spinal fixation part (16; see [col 3 ln 1-5; see figure 1);
a first set of waist belts (left 18; see [col 3 ln 1-5; see figure 1);
a second set of waist belts (right 18; see [col 3 ln 1-5; see figure 1);
a first set of shoulder straps (first 58; see [col 5 ln 30-35]; see figure 1); and
a second set of shoulder straps (second 58; see [col 5 ln 30-35]; see figure 1);
wherein the first set of waist belts and the second set of waist belts (left and right 18) include first hook-and-loop fasteners (34; see [col 5 ln 45-50]; see figure 1);
wherein the first set of waist belts (left 18) is configured to be attached to a left side of the spinal fixation part (16; see figure 1);
wherein the second set of waist belts (right 18) is configured to be attached to a right side of the spinal fixation part (16; see figure 1);
wherein the second set of shoulder straps (see 112b interpretation above; first and second 58) includes second hook-and-loop fasteners (64 of first and second 58; see [col 5 ln 40-45]; see figure 1) at both ends (66 of first and second 58; see [col 5 ln 40-45]; see figure 1);
wherein the second set of shoulder straps (66 of first and second 58; see [col 5 ln 40-45]; see figure 1) is configured to be secured to the first and second sets of waist belts (left and right 18) through the connection of the first hook-and-loop fasteners (34) and the second hook- and-loop fasteners (64; see [col 5 ln 40-45]);
and wherein a fixing band (40; see [col 4 ln 10-15]; see figure 1) is disposed at a vertical center of the spinal fixation part (12; see figure 1), a first side and a second side of the fixing band (left and right sides of 40) being respectively configured to connect to a first elastic band and a second elastic band (left and right 46; see [col 4 ln 20-25]; see figure 1).
Iwamasa does not disclose the adjustable back orthopedic belt is a knob-adjustable back orthopedic belt;
wherein a top portion of the spinal fixation part includes a cross bib, the cross bib includes four perforations disposed at the four corners of the cross bib;
wherein the first set of shoulder straps is configured to pass through the two upper perforations of the cross bib;
wherein the second set of shoulder straps is configured to pass through the two lower perforations of the cross bib;
wherein the first and second sets of waist belts include knobs adjacent the spinal fixation part, and the knobs are wrapped with a string; and
distal ends of the first and second elastic bands being configured to connect to the string
However, Modglin teaches an analogous adjustable back orthopedic belt (10; see [0023]; see figure 1) which comprises an analogous orthopedic belt body (12; see [0023]; see figure 1), first and second waist belts (26 and 28; see [0024]; see figure 5), spinal fixation part (32; see [0025]; see figure 5), and first and second elastic bands (elastic fabric of 26 and 28; see [0025]; see figure 6) attached to the spinal fixation part (32; see figure 3); wherein the adjustable back orthopedic belt (10) is a knob-adjustable back orthopedic belt (10 is adjustable via 20; see [0023]);
wherein the first and second sets of waist belts (26 and 28) include knobs (20) adjacent the spinal fixation part (32), and the knobs (20) are wrapped with a string (42); and
distal ends of the first and second elastic bands (distal ends of elastic fabric of 26 and 28) being configured to connect to the string (42; see figure 6) for the purpose of providing an adjustment mechanism to tighten or loosen the orthopedic belt body to promote a desired adjustment (see [0023])
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 orthopedic belt as disclosed by Iwamasa and to have substituted the hook and loop adjustment mechanism of the first and second elastic bands for the knob and cable tensioning system as taught by Modglin in order to have provided an improved orthopedic belt that would add the benefit of providing an adjustment mechanism to tighten or loosen the orthopedic belt body to promote a desired adjustment (see [0023]) which is easier to incrementally adjust than the unfastening and refastening adjustment method of hook and loop material.
Furthermore, such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that “(w)here a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). In the instant case the modification of a hook and loop adjustment mechanism of Iwamasa for that of a cable tensioning adjustment mechanism as taught by Modglin results in the predictable results of adjusting the elastic bands and does not change the respective functions of the elastic bands of Iwamasa.
Iwamasa as now modified by Modglin still does not disclose wherein a top portion of the spinal fixation part includes a cross bib, the cross bib includes four perforations disposed at the four corners of the cross bib;
wherein the first set of shoulder straps is configured to pass through the two upper perforations of the cross bib;
wherein the second set of shoulder straps is configured to pass through the two lower perforations of the cross bib;
However, Yip teaches an analogous spinal correction device (100; see [0070]; see figure 1a) comprising an analogous orthopedic belt body (120; see [0070]; see figure 1a) comprising a spinal fixation part (portion of 120 between 122; see [0072]; see figure 1c), a first set of shoulder straps (1512 and 1522; see [0075]; see figure 1f), and a second set of shoulder straps (151 and 152; see [0075]; see figure 1f)); wherein a top portion of the spinal fixation part (top portion of 120 between 122) includes a cross bib (140; see [0074]; see figure 1e), the cross bib (140) includes four perforations (left and right 141, 142, and 143) disposed at the four corners of the cross bib (140; see figure 1e);
wherein the first set of shoulder straps (1512 and 1522) is configured to pass through the two upper perforations (left and right 141) of the cross bib (140; see figure 1g);
wherein the second set of shoulder straps (151 and 152) is configured to pass through the two lower perforations (left and right 142 and 143) of the cross bib (140; see figure 1g) for the purpose of providing a rigid cross bib which applies a force to the user’s back to press the back into a correct alignment of the spine when the shoulder straps are fastened (see [0076]) and an easy adjustment mechanism of the shoulder straps to fix the orthopedic device in place while allowing for adjustment based on a user’s comfort and supportive needs (see [0078]).
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 shoulder straps and the top of the spinal fixation part as disclosed by Iwamasa as now modified by Modglin and to have included the cross-bib and first and second sets of shoulder straps as taught by Yip in order to have provided an improved orthopedic belt that would add the benefit of providing a rigid cross bib which applies a force to the user’s back to press the back into a correct alignment of the spine when the shoulder straps are fastened (see [0076]) and an easy adjustment mechanism of the shoulder straps to fix the orthopedic device in place while allowing for adjustment based on a user’s comfort and supportive needs (see [0078]).
In regards to claim 7, Iwamasa as now modified by Modglin and Yip discloses the invention as discussed above.
Iwamasa as now modified by Yip further discloses wherein the cross bib (140 of Yip) has a diamond-shaped structure (see Yip figure 1e that 140 has an inverted diamond-shaped structure; note figure 1e of Yip and image of a “diamond shape” found below).
PNG
media_image2.png
420
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
225
225
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights