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 claims 1, 10, and 18 filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claims 7-8 remain cancelled.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are currently pending and are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them in regards to Claims 15-17.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 3-7, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to Claims 1, 10, and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 12/09/2025 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 18-20 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art drawn to Baltor (US 2471997) in view of NAKAMURA (US 2016/0270942 A1), and McCrae (US 2013/0281902 A1) in view of Baltor fails to show or make obvious the claimed combinations of elements, particularly set forth in independent claims 1, 10, and 18, which recite features not taught or suggested by the prior art drawn to Baltor in view of NAKAMURA, and McCrae in view of Baltor.
Regarding independent claim 1, Baltor in view of NAKAMURA fails to disclose or fairly suggest wherein the bottom region of each of the first and second elastomeric annular members is thinner front-to-rear than a thickness of the top region, such that a transition from the bottom region to the top region has a curved profile when viewed from a side view that is looking orthogonal to an axis of the first and second apertures, respectively, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
Regarding independent claim 10, McCrae in view of Baltor fails to disclose or fairly suggest wherein the bottom region of each of the first and second elastomeric arcuate members is thinner front-to-rear than a thickness of the top region such that a transition from the bottom region to the top region has a curved profile when viewed from a side view that is looking orthogonal to an insertion direction of a digit in operation of the multi-digit brace, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
Regarding independent claim 18, McCrae in view of Baltor fails to disclose or fairly suggest positioning the first elastomeric brace such that a rear face of the first elastomeric brace, which rear face has a narrowed portion, front-to-back, compared to a front face thereof, towards an adjacent joint of each of the first and second digits, wherein a transition from the rear face to the front face has a curved profile when viewed from a side view that is looking orthogonal to a direction of insertion of the first and second digits, respectively, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
Further, no other reference has been found in the prior art in the updated search to date that would be able to properly modify Baltor in view of NAKAMURA, and McCrae in view of Baltor to teach the elements in claims 1, 10, and 18.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 18, “rear face” in line 13 should be recited as “the rear face”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baltor (US 2471997) in view of Nausid (US 2007/0239238 A1) in view of Liebowitz (US 2007/0021700 A1) further in view of Chandrasekar et al. (referred to as “Chandrasekar”) (US 2010/0262057 A1), evidenced by Hislop (US 2019/0008671 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Baltor discloses a multi-digit brace (10) kit (see Figs. 1-3; brace 10 is a multi-digit brace as brace 10 is worn on multiple toes or digits), comprising:
a multi-digit brace (10), each brace (10) including:
a first arcuate member (11) (see Figs. 1-2; ring 11 is a first arcuate member as ring 11 is curved);
a second arcuate member (12) (see Figs. 1-2; ring 12 is a second arcuate member as ring 12 is curved) coplanar to, spaced from, and coupled to the first arcuate member (see Figs. 1-2; ring 12 is coplanar to and spaced apart from ring 11 as seen in Figs. 1-2) by:
a top bridge member coupling a top region of the first arcuate member (11) to a top region of the second arcuate member (12) (see Figs. 1-2 and Annotated Fig. 2 of Baltor; a top bridge member, which is the top region of web portion 16, which is labeled in Annotated Fig. 2 of Baltor as top bridge, couples or connects a top region of ring 11 to a top region of ring 12); and
a bottom bridge member coupling a bottom region of the first arcuate member (11) to a bottom region of the second arcuate member (12) (see Annotated Fig. 2 of Baltor and Figs. 1-2; a bottom bridge member which is the bottom region of web portion 16, which is labeled in Annotated Fig. 2 as bottom bridge, couples or connects a bottom region of ring 11 to a bottom region of ring 12); and
wherein the bottom region of each of the first and second arcuate members (11, 12) is thinner front-to-rear than a thickness of the top region (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2 lines 2-5; bottom region of rings 11 and 12 are thinner front-to-rear than the thickness of the top region, as best seen in Fig. 3).
Baltor is silent on a plurality of multi-digit braces; the first arcuate member comprised of silicone; the second arcuate member comprised of silicone; and a plurality of elastic bands, each sized to elastically couple about one of the plurality of braces.
However, Nausid teaches an analogous digit brace (10) (see Figs. 1-3 and 6) with an arcuate member comprised of silicone (see Abstract and [0006] and Figs. 1-3 and 6; the compress 10 is an arcuate member as it is a curved shaped, and may be formed from a silicone material, as silicone is both a rigid material but also elastic as evidenced by Hislop US 2019/0008671 A1, see [0008] of Hislop which discloses how silicone is rigid but also elastic), providing a flexible material (see Abstract and [0006]) such that the brace is able to better fit a user.
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 material of the first arcuate member (11) and the second arcuate member (12) of Baltor to be comprised of silicone as taught by Nausid to have provided an improved multi-digit brace kit that provides a flexible material (see Abstract and [0006]) such that the brace is able to better fit a user, as Baltor also discloses the brace may have some flexibility to it (see Col. 2 lines 6-8).
Baltor in view of Nausid discloses the invention as discussed above.
Baltor in view of Nausid is silent on a plurality of multi-digit braces; and a plurality of elastic bands, each sized to elastically couple about one of the plurality of braces.
However, Liebowitz teaches an analogous multi-digit brace (see Fig. 7), and an elastic band (540), sized to elastically couple about one of the plurality of braces (510, 520, 530) (see Fig. 7 and [0065]; band 540 may be an elastic member, and thus is an elastic band, and band 540 is sized to elastically couple about sheaths 510, 520, 530), providing protection to multiple fingers from further injuries (see [0065]).
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 multi-digit brace kit of Baltor in view of Nausid with an elastic band sized to elastically couple about one of the plurality of braces as taught by Liebowitz to have provided an improved multi-digit brace kit that provides protection to multiple fingers from further injuries (see [0065]).
Baltor in view of Nausid further in view of Liebowitz discloses the invention as discussed above.
Baltor in view of Nausid further in view of Liebowitz is silent on a plurality of multi-digit braces; and a plurality of elastic bands.
However, Chandrasekar teaches an analogous digit brace (see Figs. 19-21 and 37-38), comprising a plurality of digit braces (see Fig. 44 and [0086]; a kit shown in Fig. 44 comprises a plurality of rings of multiple sizes and dorsal bars of multiple sizes to form a plurality of digit braces), providing different sized braces to fit various user, as well as, to provide a user with multiple to wear on each hand if necessary.
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 multi-digit brace kit of Baltor in view of Nausid further in view of Liebowitz to be duplicated such that there is a plurality of multi-digit braces as taught by Chandrasekar to have provided an improved multi-digit brace kit that provides different sized braces to fit various users, as well as to provide a user with multiple to wear on each hand if necessary. Therefore, the combination of Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz further in view of Chandrasekar results in a plurality of multi-digit braces (10 of Baltor) (as previously modified above, brace 10 of Baltor comes in a plurality), and a plurality of elastic bands (540 of Liebowitz) (as previously modified above, band 540 of Liebowitz comes in a plurality as the multi-digit brace kit of Baltor in view of Liebowitz is duplicated).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz in view of Chandrasekar in view of RUPPLI (US 2015/0313327 A1) further in view of Greenberg et al. (referred to as “Greenberg”) (US 2007/0276304 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz further in view of Chandrasekar discloses the invention as discussed in claim 15.
Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz further in view of Chandrasekar is silent on a band track extending around the brace and at least partially bounded by a pair of raised barriers, wherein the band track is not less wide than a band of the plurality of elastic bands.
However, RUPPLI teaches an analogous arcuate member (2) comprising a band track extending around the brace and at least partially bounded by a pair of raised barriers (see Annotated Fig. 6 of RUPPLI; annular substrate 2 has groove 10, which is a band track that extends around the arcuate member, and is at least partially bounded by a pair of raised barriers which are labeled in Annotated Fig. 6), providing a more secure track to receive a material.
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 multi-digit brace (10 of Baltor) in the device of Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz further in view of Chandrasekar to have a band track (10) extending around the brace and at least partially bounded by a pair of raised barriers as taught by RUPPLI to have provided an improved multi-digit brace that provides a more secure track to receive a material. Therefore, the combination of Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz in view of Chandrasekar further in view of RUPPLI results in a band track (10 of RUPPLI) extending around the brace (10 of Baltor) and at least partially bounded by a pair of raised barriers (as previously modified above, the band track extends around the brace 10 of Baltor and is at least partially bounded by a pair of raised barriers as taught by RUPPLI, see Annotated Fig. 6 of RUPPLI).
Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz in view of Chandrasekar further in view of RUPPLI discloses the invention as discussed above.
Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz in view of Chandrasekar further in view of RUPPLI is silent on wherein the band track is not less wide than a band of the plurality of elastic bands.
However, Greenberg teaches an analogous band track, wherein the band track is not less wide than a band of the plurality of elastic bands (50, 52, 54) (definition of track: a course or route followed, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/track, thus see Figs. 1-2D and [0020], [0045]; the band track is the path of dorsal face 32 of pads 12, 14, 16 that is bounded by two raised barriers on left and right sides of pads 12, 14, 16, best seen in Figs. 2A-2B, and this is a band track as retaining members 50, 52, 54 are elastically secured thereto, and thus the band track is not less wide than the retaining members 50, 52, 54, as the retaining members 50, 52, 54 are narrower than the pads 12, 14, 16), providing the width of the band track to properly fit the plurality of elastic bands, so that the elastic bands do not get in the way during use.
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 width of the band track in the device of Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz in view of Chandrasekar further in view of RUPPLI to be not less wide than a band of the plurality of elastic bands as taught by Greenberg to have provided an improved multi-digit brace kit that provides the width of the band track to properly fit the plurality of elastic bands, so that the elastic bands do not get in the way during use.
PNG
media_image1.png
358
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of RUPPLI.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz in view of Chandrasekar further in view of Bordone (US 2014/0116454 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz further in view of Chandrasekar discloses the invention as discussed in claim 15.
Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz further in view of Chandrasekar is silent on a brace of the plurality of braces includes an hourglass-shaped void between the first arcuate member and the second arcuate member.
However, Bordone teaches an analogous first arcuate member (190) and an analogous second arcuate member (200) (see Fig. 8; first loop 190 and second loop 200 are both arcuate members as they are in a curved shape), wherein a brace (see Fig. 8) includes an hourglass-shaped void (70) between the first arcuate member (190) and the second arcuate member (200) (see Fig. 8; cavity 70 is an hourglass-shaped void that is in between first loop 190 and second loop 200), providing to allow the device to be flexible (see [0041] of Bordone).
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 center of web portions (16, 17, 18 and 19 of Baltor) of the arcuate members (11, 13 of Baltor) in the device of Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz further in view of Chandrasekar to have an hourglass-shaped void (70) as taught by Bordone to have provided an improved multi-digit brace that allows the device to be flexible (see [0041]) to some degree, as Baltor states that the brace has some flexibility to it (see Col. 2 lines 6-8 of Baltor), such that the device provides more comfort for a user when worn. Therefore, the combination of Baltor in view of Nausid in view of Liebowitz in view of Chandrasekar further in view of Bordone results in a brace (10 of Baltor) of the plurality of braces includes an hourlass-shaped void (70 of Bordone) between the first arcuate member (11 of Baltor) and the second arcuate member (13 of Baltor) (as previously modified above, cavity 70 of Bordone is an hourglass-shaped void that is between ring 11 of Baltor and ring 13 of Baltor).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBIN HAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9-5 PM EST.
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 on (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.
/ROBIN HAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights