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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/28/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 10-11, 18, and 20 filed on 10/28/2025 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’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In light of the amendments to claim 1, the office action has been updated to introduce a prior art reference NAKAMURA regarding the split rings of Baltor. See updated office action below.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: When viewed from a side orthogonal to the axis of the apertures the Baltor profile is straight and not curved as shown in Fig. 3 of Baltor.
Examiner’s response: The Examiner still believes that Baltor reads on this claim limitation, as the axis of the apertures is the axis that goes through the apertures as if the axis is going through the page in Fig. 2, and thus a side orthogonal to this axis would be the view shown in Fig. 2 and thus shows a curved profile. See Annotated Figs. 2 and 3 of Baltor below.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 15: The references cited in the rejection of claim 15 teach away from their combination and is therefore improper. For the device of Baltor to work for its intended purpose, the device still should be thin and rigid. But a first arcuate member and a second arcuate member comprised of silicone are not going to be thin and rigid. If the first and second arcuate member are primarily or essentially comprised of silicone, they will be floppy. They would be more floppy the more thin they are. In addition, the proposed modification is “comprising silicone” not “consisting of silicone.” As a result, the proposed modification could therefore be a rigid core of the arcuate members surrounded by a flexible layer of silicone. If this is the case, that the proposed modification is multi-layered, and includes more than just a single layer of silicone, the resulting device is no longer thin. Clearly, the intended purposes of the device of Baltor include being more durable and less expensive. However, the resulting device of the combination of Baltor with Nausid would be less durable and more expensive. Silicone will break and wear down when it comes in contact with rigid materials. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that silicone is not rigid.
Examiner’s response: It is well known in the art that silicone can be a rigid material. Therefore, reference Hislop is introduced in claim 15 as evidence as Hislop discloses in paragraph [0008] how silicone is a sufficiently rigid material but also exhibits elastic property, which is similar to the kind of material that Baltor describes. Therefore, the modification of Baltor in view of Nausid is not improper. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the proposed modification could be multi-layered and would no longer be thin, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6, 9, 10-14, and 18-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the apertures" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the apertures" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the apertures" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-6, 9, 11-14, and 19-20 are rejected for depending on a previously rejected claim.
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) 1, 5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baltor (US 2471997) in view of NAKAMURA (US 2016/0270942 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baltor discloses a multi-digit brace (10) (see Figs. 1-3; brace 10 is a multi-digit brace as brace 10 is worn on multiple toes or digits), comprising:
a first elastomeric annular member (11) (see Figs. 1-2; ring 11 is a first annular member as ring 11 is shaped like a ring, see definition of annular is “shaped like or forming a ring,” https://www.thefreedictionary.com/annular, and ring 11 is elastomeric as brace 10 is made of a material that has some spring, resiliency, or flexibility to it, and thus is able to return to its original shape after being stressed, as the material may be resilient, see Col. 2 lines 6-8 and see definition of elastomeric: “any material having the properties of being able to return to its original shape after being stressed…” https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/elastomeric);
a second elastomeric annular member (12) (see Figs. 1-2; ring 12 is a second annular member as ring 12 is shaped like a ring, and brace 10 is made of material that has some spring, resiliency, or flexibility to it, and thus is able to return to its original shape after being stressed, as the material may be resilient, see Col. 2 lines 6-8 and definition of elastomeric above) coplanar to and coupled to the first elastomeric annular member (11) (see Figs. 1-2; ring 12 is coplanar to ring 11 as seen in Figs. 1-2 as they are in the same plane) by:
a top bridge member coupling a top region of the first elastomeric annular member (11) to a top region of the second elastomeric annular member (13) (see Figs. 1-2 and Annotated Fig. 2 of Baltor; a top bridge member which is the top region of the web portion 16, which is labeled in Annotated Fig. 2 of Baltor, 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 elastomeric annular member (11) to a bottom region of the second elastomeric annular 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 elastomeric annular members (11, 12) is thinner front-to-rear than a thickness of the 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), such that a transition from the bottom region to the top region has a curved profile when viewed from a side orthogonal to an axis of the apertures (see Annotated Figs. 2 and 3 of Baltor; a transition from the bottom region to the top region has a curved profile when viewed from a side orthogonal to an axis of apertures of ring 11 and ring 12, as best shown in Annotated Fig. 2 of Baltor, as the bottom region and top region are labeled and a transition from the bottom region to the top region has a curved profile due to the shape of the ring 11, as definition of profile is: an outline of an object, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/profile, and thus the curved profile that is labeled in Annotated Fig. 2 of Baltor is a curved outline of the ring 11, as the axis of the apertures is the axis that goes through the apertures, as if the axis is going through the page in Fig. 2, and thus a side orthogonal to this axis would be the view shown in Fig. 2, also see Annotated Fig. 3 of Baltor which shows the dotted horizontal line to be the axis that goes through the apertures of ring 11 and the rectangle represents the plane that is orthogonal to this axis which would be the view of Fig. 2).
Baltor is silent on the first elastomeric annular member being a continuous ring without a split; and the second elastomeric annular member being a continuous ring without a split.
However, NAKAMURA teaches an analogous multi-digit brace (1) (see Figs. 1, 3, and 4), an analogous first elastomeric annular member (3) being a continuous ring without a split (see Figs. 1,3, and 4; larger ring part 3 is made of an elastomer that is resilient and thus are elastomeric and annular, see [0031], and larger ring part 3 is a continuous ring without a split), and an analogous second elastomeric annular member (4) being a continuous ring without a split (see Figs. 1, 3, and 4; smaller ring part 4 is made of an elastomer that is resilient and thus is elastomeric and annular, see [0031], and smaller ring part 4 is a continuous ring without a split), providing a multi-digit device that is more comfortable for a user, as the complete circles fully wrap and attach onto a user’s digits providing more stability to the device.
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 first elastomeric annular member (11) and the second elastomeric annular member (12) of Baltor to be continuous rings without a split as taught by NAKAMURA to have provided an improved multi-digit brace that is more comfortable for a user, as the complete circles fully wrap and attach to a user’s digits providing a smoother surface and more stability to the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
318
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Baltor.
PNG
media_image2.png
205
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Baltor.
Regarding claim 5, Baltor in view of NAKAMURA discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Baltor in view of NAKAMURA further discloses wherein the second elastomeric annular member (12 of Baltor) is spaced from the first elastomeric annular member (11 of Baltor) (see Figs. 1-2 of Baltor and Annotated Fig. 2 of Baltor; ring 12 of Balotr is spaced from ring 11 of Baltor via web portion 16 of Baltor).
Regarding claim 9, Baltor in view of NAKAMURA discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Baltor in view of NAKAMURA further discloses wherein at least one of the first elastomeric annular member and the second elastomeric annular member form a complete circle (as previously modified above, see claim 1, the first and second rings 11, 12 of Baltor have been modified via NAKAMURA to form complete circles).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baltor in view of NAKAMURA further in view of RUPPLI (US 2015/0313327 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Baltor in view of NAKAMURA discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Baltor in view of NAKAMURA is silent on a band track extending about the top region, the bottom region, a left side region, and a right side region of the first and second elastomeric annular members, the track bounded by a first raised barrier extending coplanar to a front face of the brace and bounded by a second raised barrier that extends from and coplanar to a rear face of the brace at the top regions of each of the first and second elastomeric annular members.
However, RUPPLI teaches an analogous annular member (2) comprising a band track (10) extending about the top region, the bottom region, a left side region, and a right side region of the annular member (2) (see Fig. 6; ring 1 has an annular substrate 2 with groove 10, which is a band track that extends about a top, bottom, left side, and right side region), the track (10) bounded by a first raised barrier extending from and coplanar to a front face and bounded by a second raised barrier that extends from and coplanar to a rear face at the top region of the annular member (2) (see Annotated Fig. 6 of RUPPI; the first and second raised barriers are labeled in Annotated Fig. 6, and the first raised barrier extends from and is coplanar to a front face, and a second raised barrier extends from and is coplanar to a rear face at the top region of the annular substrate 2), 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 NAKAMURA to have a band track (10) extending about the top region, the bottom region, a left side region, and a right side region, and the band track (10) bounded by first and second 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 NAKAMURA further in view of RUPPLI results in a band track extending about the top region, the bottom region, a left side region, and a right side region of the first and second elastomeric annular members (11,12 of Baltor) (as previously modified above, a band track extends about the top, bottom, left side, and right side regions of the rings 11,12 of Baltor as taught by RUPPLI), the track bounded by a first raised barrier extending coplanar to a front face of the brace and bounded by a second raised barrier that extends from and coplanar to a rear face of the brace at the top regions of each of the first and second elastomeric annular members (11,12 of Baltor) (as previously modified above, the track is bounded by a first raised barrier extending coplanar to a front face of the brace 10 of Baltor and bounded by a second raised barrier that extends from and coplanar to a rear face of the brace 10 of Baltor at the top regions of each of the rings 11,12 of Baltor as taught by RUPPLI, see Annotated Fig. 6 of RUPPLI).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baltor in view of NAKAMURA in view of RUPPLI further in view of Liebowitz (US 2007/0021700 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Baltor in view of NAKAMURA further in view of RUPPLI discloses the invention as discussed in claim 2.
Baltor in view of NAKAMURA further in view of RUPPLI is silent on an elastic band removably coupled about the band track and elastically secured thereto.
However, Liebowitz teaches an analogous band track, and an elastic band (540) removably coupled about the band track and elastically secured thereto (definition of track: a course or route followed, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/track, thus see Fig. 7 and [0065]; band 540 may be an elastic member, and the band track is the path that band 540 follows via ridges 515, 525, 535, and this is a band track as band 540 is removably and elastically secured thereto), providing protection to multiple digits 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 band track (10 of RUPPLI) of Baltor in view of NAKAMURA further in view of RUPPLI with a removable elastic band (540) as taught by Liebowitz to have provided an improved multi-digit brace that protects multiple digits from further injuries (see [0065]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baltor in view of NAKAMURA further in view of Liebowitz.
Regarding claim 4, Baltor in view of NAKAMURA discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Baltor in view of NAKAMURA is silent on an elastic band disposed about the brace elastically secured thereto.
However, Liebowitz teaches an analogous multi-digit brace (see Fig. 7) comprising an elastic band (540) disposed about the brace elastically secured thereto (see Fig. 7 and [0065]; band 540 is an elastic member that fits around finger sheaths 510, 520, 530), providing protection to the digits from jams or other injuries and to prevent the digits from moving relative to each other (see [0065] of Liebowitz).
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 top of brace (10 of Baltor) in the device of Baltor in view of NAKAMURA with an elastic band (540) as taught by Liebowitz to have provided an improved multi-digit brace that provides protection to the digits from jams or other injuries by preventing the digits from moving relative to each other as it further retains the digits in place (see [0065] of Liebowitz).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baltor in view of NAKAMURA further in view of Bordone (US 2014/0116454 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Baltor in view of NAKAMURA discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Baltor in view of NAKAMURA is silent on an hourglass-shaped void between the first elastomeric annular member and the second elastomeric annular member.
However, Bordone teaches an analogous first elastomeric annular member (190) and an analogous second elastomeric annular member (200) (see Fig. 8, and [0040]; the device 1 can be made from flexible materials such as rubber, which is known in the art to be elastomeric, and the device 1 forms a first loop 190 and a second loop 200 which are annular or shaped like a ring as seen in Fig. 8), and further comprising an hourglass-shaped void (70) between the first elastomeric annular member (190) and the second elastomeric annular member (200) (see Fig. 8 and [0050]; cavity 70 is an hourglass-shaped void between the 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 the elastomeric annular members of Baltor in view of NAKAMURA 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.
Claim(s) 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCrae (US 2013/0281902 A1) in view of Baltor.
Regarding claim 10, McCrae discloses a multi-digit brace (10) (see Figs. 1-3; brace 10 is a multi-digit brace as brace 10 is worn on multiple digits as seen in Fig. 3), comprising:
a first arcuate member (16) (see Figs. 1-2; first arcuate end 16 is curved, thus is a first arcuate member);
a second arcuate member (18) (see Figs. 1-2; second arcuate end 18 is curved, thus making it a second arcuate member) coplanar to, spaced from, and coupled to the first arcuate member (16) (see Figs. 1-2; the second arcuate end 18 is coplanar to the first arcuate end 16 as they are in the same plane, and the second arcuate end 18 is spaced from the first arcuate end 16) by:
a top bridge member (20) coupling a top region of the first arcuate member (16) to a top region of the second arcuate member (18) (see Figs. 1-2 and Annotated Fig. 1 of McCrae; the top bridge member is labeled in Annotated Fig. 1 of McCrae and is where upper contoured side 20 is located, and couples or connects a top region of first arcuate end 16 to a top region of the second arcuate end 18); and
a bottom bridge member (22) coupling a bottom region of the first arcuate member (16) to a bottom region of the second arcuate member (18) (see Figs. 1-2 and Annotated Fig. 1 of McCrae; a bottom bridge member is labeled in Annotated Fig. 1 and is where the lower contoured side 22 is located, and couples or connects a bottom region of first arcuate end 16 to a bottom region of the second arcuate end 18).
McCrae is silent on the first arcuate member and second arcuate member being elastomeric, and 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 orthogonal to an axis of the apertures.
However, Baltor teaches an analogous multi-digit brace (10), and analogous first (11) and second arcuate members (13), and the first and second arcuate members being elastomeric (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 2 lines 6-8; the brace 10 is made out of a material that has some spring, resiliency, or flexibility to it, and thus is able to return to its original shape after being stressed, as the material may be resilient, and thus the rings 11,13 are elastomeric, as the definition of elastomeric is “any material having the properties of being able to return to its original shape after being stressed…,” https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/elastomeric), and wherein the bottom region of each of the first (11) and second elastomeric arcuate members (13) is thinner front-to-rear than a thickness of the top region (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2 lines 2-5; the bottom region of rings 11, 13 are thinner front-to-rear than the 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 orthogonal to an axis of the apertures (see Annotated Figs. 2 and 3 of Baltor; a transition from the bottom region to the top region has a curved profile as best shown in Annotated Fig. 2 of Baltor, as the bottom region and top region are labeled and a transition from the bottom region to the top region has a curved profile due to the shape of the rings, as the definition of profile is “an outline of an object,” https://www.thefreedictionary.com/profile, and thus the curved profile labeled in Annotated Fig. 2 of Baltor is a curved outline of the ring, as the axis of the apertures is the axis that goes through the apertures, as if the axis is going through the page in Fig. 2, and thus a side orthogonal to this axis would be the view shown in Fig. 2, also see Annotated Fig. 3 of Baltor which shows the dotted horizontal line to be the axis that goes through the apertures of ring 11 and the rectangle represents the plane that is orthogonal to this axis which would be the view of Fig. 2), providing to permit more movement of the digits while retaining the digits in a correct relative position (see Col. 1 lines 16-31).
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 and second arcuate members of McCrae to be elastomeric as taught by Baltor and to have modified the thickness of the lower contoured side 22 of McCrae and upper contoured side 20 of McCrae to have a bottom region be thinner front-to-rear than the thickness of the top region such that a transition from the bottom region to the top region has a curved profile as taught by the rings of Baltor to have provided an improved multi-digit brace that permits more movement of the digits while still retaining the digits in a correct relative position (see Col. 1 lines 16-31).
Regarding claim 18, McCrae discloses a method of bracing a set of adjacent digits (see Figs. 1-3; brace 10 braces a set of adjacent fingers or digits), comprising the steps of:
inserting a first digit into a first arcuate member (16) of a first brace (10) (see Figs. 1-3; a first digit or finger is inserted into the first arcuate end 16 of brace 10);
inserting a second digit into a second arcuate member (18) of the first brace (10) (see Figs. 1-3; a second digit is inserted into the second arcuate end 18 of brace 10), wherein the second arcuate member (18) is coplanar to, spaced from, and coupled to the first arcuate member (16) by a top bridge member coupling a top region of the first arcuate member (16) to a top region of the second arcuate member (18) (see Annotated Fig. 1 of McCrae; the second arcuate end 18 is coplanar to, spaced from, and coupled to the first arcuate end 6 by a top bridge member labeled in Annotated Fig. 1, which couples a top region of the first arcuate end 16 to a top region of the second arcuate end 18); and a bottom bridge member coupling a bottom region of the first arcuate member (16) to a bottom region of the second arcuate member (18) (see Annotated Fig. 1 of McCrae; the bottom bridge member is labeled in Annotated Fig. 1 and couples a bottom region of the first arcuate end 16 to a bottom region of the second arcuate end 18);
positioning the first brace (10) such that a rear face of the first brace (10) towards an adjacent joint of each of the first and second digits (see Fig. 3; brace 10 is positioned such that a rear face is towards an adjacent joint of each of the first and second digits, as best seen in Fig. 3), wherein a transition from the rear face to the front face has a curved profile (see Figs. 1-3; the rear face is the side of the brace that is faced towards the body of a user when the brace is worn on the digits, and the front face is the side of the brace that is faced away from the body of a user when the brace is worn on the digits, and a transition from the rear face to the front face has a curved profile when viewed from a side orthogonal to an axis of the apertures, as the axis of the apertures is the axis that goes through the apertures, as if the axis is going through the page in Fig. 1, and thus a side orthogonal to this axis would be the view shown in Fig. 1 as this plane is 90 degrees from the axis going through the page, as the definition of profile is “an outline of an object,” https://www.thefreedictionary.com/profile, and thus the outline is curved due to the nature of the arcuate shape).
McCrae is silent on the first brace being elastomeric, and the rear face has a narrowed portion, front-to-back, compared to a front face thereof.
However, Baltor teaches an analogous first multi-digit brace (10), the first brace (10) being elastomeric (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2 lines 6-8; the brace 10 is made out of a material that has some spring, resiliency, or flexibility to it, and thus is able to return to its original shape after being stressed, as the material may be resilient, and thus the rings 11, 13 are elastomeric, as the definition of elastomeric is “any material having the properties of being able to return to its original shape after being stressed…,” https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/elastomeric), and wherein a rear face has a narrowed portion, front-to-back, compared to a front face thereof (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2 lines 2-5; the bottom region of rings 11, 13 have a narrowed portion front-to-back and thus a rear face of rings 11, 13 have a narrowed potion front-to-back compared to a front face), providing to permit movement of the digits while retaining the digits in correct relative position (see Col. 1 lines 16-31).
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 brace of McCrae to be elastomeric as taught by Baltor and to have modified the thickness of the lower contoured side 22 of McCrae and upper contoured side 20 of McCrae to have a bottom region be thinner front-to-rear than the thickness of the top region as taught by the rings of Baltor to have provided an improved multi-digit brace that permits more movement of the digits while still retaining the digits in a correct relative position (see Col. 1 lines 16-31).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCrae in view of Baltor further in view of RUPPLI.
Regarding claim 11, McCrae in view of Baltor discloses the invention as discussed in claim 10.
McCrae in view of Baltor is silent on a band track extending about the top region, the bottom region, a left side region, and a right side region of the first and second arcuate elastomeric members, the track bounded by a first raised barrier extending from and coplanar to a front face of the brace and bounded by a second raised barrier that extends from and coplanar to a rear face of the brace at the top region of each of the first and second arcuate members.
However, RUPPLI teaches an analogous arcuate member (2) comprising a band track (10) extending about the top region, the bottom region, a left side region, and a right side region of the arcuate member (2) (see Fig. 6; ring 1 has an annular substrate 2 with groove 10, which is a band track that extends about a top, bottom, left side, and right side region), the track (10) bounded by a first raised barrier extending from and coplanar to a front face and bounded by a second raised barrier that extends from and coplanar to a rear face at the top region of the arcuate member (2) (see Annotated Fig. 6 of RUPPI; the first and second raised barriers are labeled in Annotated Fig. 6, and the first raised barrier extends from and is coplanar to a front face, and a second raised barrier extends from and is coplanar to a rear face at the top region of the arcuate substrate 2), 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 McCrae) in the device of McCrae in view of Baltor to have a band track (10) extending about the top region, the bottom region, a left side region, and a right side region, and the band track (10) bounded by first and second 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 McCrae in view of Baltor further in view of RUPPLI results in a band track extending about the top region, the bottom region, a left side region, and a right side region of the first and second arcuate members (16, 18 of McCrae) (as previously modified above, a band track extends about the top, bottom, left side, and right side regions of the first and second arcuate ends 16, 18 of McCrae as taught by RUPPLI), the track bounded by a first raised barrier extending coplanar to a front face of the brace and bounded by a second raised barrier that extends from and coplanar to a rear face of the brace at the top region of each of the first and second arcuate members (as previously modified above, the track is bounded by a first raised barrier extending coplanar to a front face of the brace 10 of McCrae and bounded by a second raised barrier that extends from and coplanar to a rear face of the brace 10 of McCrae at the top region of each of the first and second arcuate ends 16, 18 of McCrae as taught by RUPPLI, see Annotated Fig. 6 of RUPPLI).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCrae in view of Baltor in view of RUPPLI further in view of Liebowitz.
Regarding claim 12, McCrae in view of Baltor further in view of RUPPLI discloses the invention as discussed in claim 11.
McCrae in view of Baltor further in view of RUPPLI is silent on an elastic band removably coupled about the band track and elastically secured thereto.
However, Liebowitz teaches an analogous band track, and an elastic band (540) removably coupled about the band track and elastically secured thereto (definition of track: a course or route followed, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/track, thus see Fig. 7 and [0065]; band 540 may be an elastic member, and the band track is the path that band 540 follows via ridges 515, 525, 535, and this is a band track as band 540 is removably and elastically secured thereto), 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 band track (10 of RUPPLI) of McCrae in view of Baltor further in view of RUPPLI with a removable elastic band (540) as taught by Liebowitz to have provided an improved multi-digit brace that protects multiple fingers from further injuries (see [0065]).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCrae in view of Baltor in view of RUPPLI in view of Greenberg further in view of Bordone.
Regarding claim 13, McCrae in view of Baltor in view of RUPPLI further in view of Greenberg discloses the invention as discussed in claim 12.
McCrae in view of Baltor in view of RUPPLI further in view of Greenberg is silent on an hourglass-shaped void between the first elastomeric arcuate member and the second elastomeric arcuate member.
However, Bordone teaches an analogous first arcuate member (190) and an analogous second arcuate member (200) (see Fig. 8), and further comprising an hourglass-shaped void (70) between the first elastomeric arcuate member (190) and the second elastomeric arcuate member (200) (see Fig. 8; cavity 70 is an hourglass-shaped void and is in between the first loop 190 and second loop 200, which are elastomeric as the device 1 can be made from any flexible material such as rubber, which is known in the art to have elastomeric properties as rubber is resilient), providing to allow the device to be more flexible (see [0041]).
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 web portions between the adjacent openings, which are the first arcuate member (16 of McCrae) and the second arcuate member (18 of McCrae), 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 more flexible (see [0041]) to some degree, such that the device provides more comfort to a user when worn.
Regarding claim 14, McCrae in view of Baltor in view of RUPPLI in view of Greenberg further in view of Bordone discloses the invention as discussed in claim 13. McCrae in view of Baltor in view of RUPPLI in view of Greenberg further in view of Bordone further discloses wherein neither of the first elastomeric arcuate member (16 of McCrae) and the second elastomeric arcuate member (18 of McCrae) form a complete circle, thereby leaving a first gap between edges of the first elastomeric arcuate member (16 of McCrae) and a second gap between edges of the second elastomeric arcuate member (18 of McCrae) (see Figs. 1-2 of McCrae and Annotated Fig. 1 of McCrae; the first arcuate end 16 of McCrae and the second arcuate end 18 of McCrae both do not form a complete circle, and thus leaving a first gap between edges of the first arcuate end 16 of McCrae which is labeled in Annotated Fig. 1, and a second gap between edges of the second arcuate end 18 of McCrae, which is labeled in Annotated Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCrae in view of Baltor further in view of Nausid.
Regarding claim 19, McCrae in view of Baltor discloses the method as discussed in claim 18.
McCrae in view of Baltor is silent on positioning a second brace on the first and second digits on an opposite side of the joint with a rear face having a narrowed, front-to-back, portion facing the rear face of the first brace, such that the joint is flanked by the first and second braces and the first and second braces are back-to-back.
However, Nausid teaches an analogous first digit brace (10) (definition of brace: an appliance for supporting a body part, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brace, thus see Fig. 3, compresses 10 are digit braces as they are fitted to go around the finger of a user to give support, see [0020]-[0021]), and positioning a second brace (10) on the first digit on an opposite side of the joint with a rear face, such that the joint is flanked by the first and second braces (10, 10) and the first and second braces (10, 10) are back-to-back (see Fig. 3 and [0023]; as labeled in Annotated Fig. 3, the second brace 10 is positioned on an opposite side of the joint or knuckle that is at the center of a finger with a rear face, such that the joint is flanked by first brace 10 and the upper portion of the second brace 10 as shown in the figure), providing to encapsulate the finger (see [0023]) in order to facilitate therapeutic treatment (see [0006]) by retaining the movement of the digits in more than one area.
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 brace (10 of McCrae) in the device of McCrae in view of Baltor with a second brace that is identical to brace 10 of McCrae in view of Baltor and is positioned on an opposite side of the joint with a rear face, such that the joint is flanked and the first and second braces are back-to-back as taught by Nausid to have provided an improved method of bracing a set of adjacent digits that encapsulates the finger (see [0023]) in order to facilitate therapeutic treatment by retaining the movement of the digits in more than on area. Therefore, the combination of McCrae in view of Baltor further in view of Nausid results in positioning a second brace on the first and second digits on an opposite of the joint with a rear face having a narrowed, front-to-back, portion facing the rear face of the first brace, such that the joint is flanked by the first and second braces and the first and second braces are back-to-back (as previously modified above, a second brace 10 of McCrae is positioned opposite of the knuckle or joint of the first brace 10 of McCrae, such that the joint is flanked by the first and second braces 10 of McCrae, and they are back-to-back, and as previously modified above, see claim 18, brace 10 of McCrae has a narrowed portion, front-to-back, as taught by Baltor).
PNG
media_image3.png
802
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Nausid.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCrae in view of Baltor further in view of Liebowitz.
Regarding claim 20, McCrae in view of Baltor discloses the method as discussed in claim 18.
McCrae in view of Baltor is silent on disposing an elastic band about the first elastomric brace, the elastic band sized such that it elastically couples to the first elastomeric brace.
However, Liebowitz teaches an analogous multi-digit brace (510,520,530) and disposing an elastic band (540) about the first elastomeric brace (510,520,530), the elastic band (540) sized such that it elastically couples to the brace (510,520,530) (see Fig. 7 and [0065]; band 540, which may be an elastic member, is disposed about finger sheaths 510,520,530, and band 540 is sized such that it elastically couples to the finger sheaths 510,520,530), providing protection to the fingers from jams or other injuries by preventing the digits from moving relative to each other as the elastic band further retains the digits in place (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 brace 10 of McCrae in view of Baltor with an elastic band (540) that is sized such that it elastically couples the first elastomeric brace as taught by Liebowitz to have provided an improved method of bracing a set of adjacent digits that protects the fingers from jams or other further injuries by preventing the digits from moving relative to each other as the elastic band further retains the digits in place (see [0065]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baltor 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 rece