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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 2 is suggested to recite “and an anchor point, optionally in conjunction with a chair, the cervical traction apparatus comprising:”
Claim 1 line 3 is suggested to recite “a cohesive framework comprising multiple extension springs arranged in parallel,”
Claim 1 line 6 is suggested to recite “an adjustment chain consisting of multiple carabiner clips and an interlocked chain”
Claim 1 line 10 is objected to for the “consists of” language, see 112b rejection below for suggested language.
Claim 1 line 11 is suggested to recite “as two attachment points on either side; and” to indicated the last limitation of the claim and the end of the list of limitations is next.
Claim 5 line 4 is suggested to recite “a cohesive framework comprising multiple extension springs arranged in parallel,”
Claim 5 line 7 is suggested to recite “an adjustment chain consisting of multiple carabiner clips and an interlocked chain”
Claim 5 line 11 is objected to for the “consists of” language, see 112b rejection below for suggested language.
Claim 5 line 12 is suggested to recite “as two attachment points on either side; and” to indicated the last limitation of the claim and the end of the list of limitations is next.
Claim 5 line 14 ends with a period, the period is suggested to be a comma or semi-colon as periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 5 sections 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 are suggested to begin with gerunds to show it is a method step rather than a direction.
Claim 5 line 17 refers to a “spread bar” instead of a “spreader bar” so it is suggested to recite “hanging the spreader bar from the bottom of the cohesive framework, and then”
Claim 5 line 18 is suggested to recite “on the spread bar; and” to indicated the last limitation of the claim and the end of the list of limitations is next.
Claim 6 line 3 contains a period, the period is suggested to be a comma or semi-colon as periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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 line 4-5 recites “each of which incorporates” rendering the claim indefinite because it is not clear to which element the limitation is referring. The limitation could be read to apply to either the springs or the panels so it is unclear the scope of the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitation to further limit the springs. The limitation is suggested to recite “each of the connection panels incorporates a centrally located swivel hook;”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the top centre" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests introducing the claimed element.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the opposite ends" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests introducing the claimed element.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests introducing the claimed element.
Claim 1 line 10 recites “consists” but does not accurately limit the claimed feature so the claim is indefinite. “Consisting” language creates a limited and closed group, so the head halter would only include cross straps and attachment points, but the halter of the Drawings also includes a front strap 162 and a back strap 161. See MPEP 2111.03. As the claim is not aligned with the Drawings and Specifications, it is unclear if the claim is written as intended and therefore the scope of the claim is unclear. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as “A head halter comprising two cross straps with hook and loop adjustments, as well”.
Claims 2-4 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim above.
Claim 4 introduces a swivel attachment point, but a swivel hook was introduced in claim 1. It is unclear if these are the same elements or if there is another swiveling attachment point. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitations to be directed to different elements.
Claim 5 line 3 is missing a transitional phrase rendering the claim unclear. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as “Providing a cervical traction apparatus with an anchor point, optionally in conjunction with a chair, the cervical traction apparatus comprising:”.
Claim 5 line 5-6 recites “each of which incorporates” rendering the claim indefinite because it is not clear to which element the limitation is referring. The limitation could be read to apply to either the springs or the panels so it is unclear the scope of the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitation to further limit the springs.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the top centre" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the opposite ends" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 line 11 recites “consists” but does not accurately limit the claimed feature so the claim is indefinite. “Consisting” language creates a limited and closed group, so the head halter would only include cross straps and attachment points, but the halter of the Drawings also includes a front strap 162 and a back strap 161. See MPEP 2111.03. As the claim is not aligned with the Drawings and Specifications, it is unclear if the claim is written as intended and therefore the scope of the claim is unclear. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as “A head halter comprising two cross straps with hook and loop adjustments, as well”.
Claim 5 line 18 references “two points” but it is unclear if the Applicant intends to reference the two pick points or two points of the lifting point/pick points. Examiner will interpret the claim, and suggests the claim to recite “attaching the head halter to the two pick points on the spread bar;”
Claims 6-18 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim above.
Claim 6 line 1 introduces an anchor point but an anchor point was introduced in parent claim 5 so the claim is unclear. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the anchor points as the same elements. Further, the language of the limitation “The method of claim 5, wherein employs an anchor point, which may manifest” renders the claim unclear as it is unclear what Applicant is intending to claim. “May” language implies that there is some other option unclaimed, so it is unclear the scope of the claim. Further still, the claim contains further method steps not properly claimed as such. Examiner will interpret the limitation as “The method of claim 5, wherein the anchor pointis a mounted ceiling hook, a wall bracket, or a free-standing frame equipped with a hanging hook[[.]]; and further comprising, positioning the and ensuring adequate headroom between the head halter and the patient's head when the apparatus is suspended from the anchor point while the patient assumes an upright standing position.”
Claim 7 recites “is adjusted” rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear if this is a method step or intended to be a reference to a previous method not disclosed. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “In the method of claim 5, further comprising adjusting length of the adjustable chain
Claim 11 recites “In the method of claim 5, wherein the positioning mat is placed on the floor” rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear if this is a method step or intended to be a reference to the previous method step of claim 5. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the claim as “In the method of claim 5, wherein the step of placing the positioning mat further comprises the central printed dot serving as a visual reference point[[,]] and aligning the central printed dot with the anchor point to form a vertical line perpendicular to the floor.”
Claim 17 recites “wherein optionally utilizes a chair” and “its” rendering the claim unclear as it is unclear if the claim intends to encompass methos steps and what is referred to with “its”. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claim is suggested to recite, “The method of claim 5, wherein when the patient optionally utilizes a chair, aligning [[its]] the central axis of the chair precisely with the anchor point to establish a vertical alignment perpendicular to the floor, and adjusting the chair's height
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,869,240 (“Boren”) in view of US 3,721,436 (“Barthel JR”), US 1,123,272 (“Goodman”), US 3,118,443 (“Dyking”), and in view of WO 2014/146188 (“Jam”).
With respect to claim 1, Boren discloses A cervical traction apparatus designed for employment alongside a patient and an anchor point, optionally in conjunction with a chair (Fig 3, traction system capable of optional use with a chair as it may be hooked to a variety of locations), comprises of:
…
A spreader bar featuring a single lifting point situated at the top centre and two pick points located at the opposite ends of the bottom (Fig 3, spreader bar 16, center point 48, pick points 50);
…
Boren discloses a spring and chain system (Fig 3, spring 12, chain 20) and a head harness (Fig 3, harness 18) but is silent on A cohesive framework comprises multiple extension springs arranged in parallel, each featuring two hooks for attachment to opposite connection panels, each of which incorporates a centrally located swivel hook; An adjustment chain consists of multiple carabiner clips and an interlocked chain segment; …A head halter consists of two cross straps with hook and loop adjustments, as well as two attachment points on either side; A positioning mat featuring a central printed dot, flanked by two printed foot outlines on either side.
Barthel, JR teaches an analogous spring system for a hanging support having A cohesive framework comprises multiple extension springs arranged in parallel (Fig 5, springs 101 in parallel), each featuring two hooks for attachment to opposite connection panels (Fig 5, each spring 101 with a hook for apertures); An adjustment chain consists of multiple carabiner clips and an interlocked chain segment (Fig 5, chain 17, 13 with multiple carabiners 17 and chain 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spring connections system of Boren to have the springs and chain as taught by Barthel, JR in order to allow for device modification dependent on the needs of the user (Barthel JR col 7 l 65-col 5 l 5).
Boren/Barthel JR is silent on each of which incorporates a centrally located swivel hook; …A head halter consists of two cross straps with hook and loop adjustments, as well as two attachment points on either side; A positioning mat featuring a central printed dot, flanked by two printed foot outlines on either side.
Goodman teaches an analogous set of springs, each of which incorporates a centrally located swivel hook (Fig 3, p 2 ll 25-35, spring is wound around the hook which would allow for a swivel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the springs of Boren/Barthel JR to have the spring hook as taught by Goodman in order to prevent unwanted detachment of the springs (Goodman p 1 ll 30-40).
Boren/Barthel JR/Goodman is silent on A head halter consists of two cross straps with hook and loop adjustments, as well as two attachment points on either side; A positioning mat featuring a central printed dot, flanked by two printed foot outlines on either side.
Dyking teaches an analogous head harness (Fig 1, harness 10, 28) which consists (see 112 above, interpreted as “comprising”) of two cross straps with hook and loop adjustments (Fig 1, col 2 ll 00-10, cross straps 18 with hook and loop sides), as well as two attachment points on either side (Fig 3, attachment points 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head harness of Boren/Barthel JR/Goodman to have the structure and adjustment means of Dyking in order to better fit a variety of heads (Dyking col 1 ll 20-25).
Boren/Barthel JR/Goodman/Dyking is silent on A positioning mat featuring a central printed dot, flanked by two printed foot outlines on either side.
Jam teaches an analogous physical therapy and treatment system having an analogous frame work (Fig 2, frame 50, 64) further having a positioning mat featuring a central printed dot, flanked by two printed foot outlines on either side (Fig 1, centra dot shown and detailed created by intersecting lines 11,13,17,15 flanked by footprints 30,30a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Boren/Barthel JR/Goodman/Dyking with the addition of the placement mat as taught by Jam in order to better position the user for proper device use (Jam p 2 ll 14-19).
With respect to claim 2, Boren/Barthel JR/Goodman/Dyking/Jam discloses In the apparatus of claim 1.
While Barthel Fig 5, col 7 ll 40-50, implies that load points 97 and 100 are symmetrical and even relative to each other as they are shown and detailed to correspond and that the extension springs shown parallel and would be such based on the corresponding aperture locations, Barthel does not directly state wherein load points are evenly and symmetrically integrated into each connection panel within the cohesive framework, ensuring a secure and parallel alignment of the extension springs.
Goodman further teaches where the load points are wherein load points are evenly and symmetrically integrated into each connection panel within the cohesive framework, ensuring a secure and parallel alignment of the extension springs (Fig 2, p 1 ll 75-85, handles 9 labeled and displayed as identical elements interpreted as even spacing and symmetrical relative to each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plates of Boren/Barthel JR/Goodman/Dyking/Jam to be identical as taught by Goodman in order to simplify the device construction (Goodman p 1 ll 40-50).
With respect to claim 3, Boren/Barthel JR/Goodman/Dyking/Jam discloses In the apparatus of claim 1, wherein each side of the extension springs is equipped with attachment points that ensure secure attachment with the connection panel throughout the traction session, while also allowing for manual addition or removal from the connection panel of the cohesive framework if necessary, providing flexibility as needed (Goodman Fig 2, each spring with attachment points, the hooks 2, that ensure connection and removal abilities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the springs of Boren/Barthel JR to have the spring hook as taught by Goodman in order to prevent unwanted detachment of the springs (Goodman p 1 ll 30-40).
With respect to claim 4, Boren/Barthel JR/Goodman/Dyking/Jam discloses In the apparatus of claim 1, a swivel attachment point is positioned centrally within each connection panel, which enables the cohesive framework to be angled differently without any twisting (Goodman Fig 2, each spring with swivel attachment points, the hooks 2, which can be placed in the middle connection 11 of the connection panel 9 and would allow for rotation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the springs of Boren/Barthel JR to have the spring hook as taught by Goodman in order to prevent unwanted detachment of the springs (Goodman p 1 ll 30-40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-18 as presented in the claims filed September 2, 2023, would be allowable over the prior art of record should Applicant overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections above. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 5 is allowable because the closest prior art of record fails to disclose A method for performing cervical spine traction, comprising:
5.1 Providing a cervical traction apparatus with an anchor point, optionally in conjunction with a chair:
A cohesive framework comprises multiple extension springs arranged in parallel, each featuring two hooks for attachment to opposite connection panels, each of which incorporates a centrally located swivel hook;
An adjustment chain consists of multiple carabiner clips and an interlocked chain segment;
A spreader bar featuring a single lifting point situated at the top centre and two pick points located at the opposite ends of the bottom;
A head halter consists of two cross straps with hook and loop adjustments, as well as two attachment points on either side;
A positioning mat featuring a central printed dot, flanked by two printed foot outlines on either side.
5.2 Secure the adjustable chain to the anchor point and hang the cohesive framework from the opposite end of the chain;
5.3 Hang the spread bar from the bottom of the cohesive framework, and then attach the head halter to the two points on the spread bar;
5.4 Place the positioning mat on the floor, ensuring that the printed middle dot aligns with the anchor point, creating a right-angle intersection with either the floor or anchor point, as needed.
The closest prior art of record is Boren which discloses A method for performing cervical spine traction (Fig 3, traction system), comprising:
5.1 Providing a cervical traction apparatus with an anchor point, optionally in conjunction with a chair (Fig 3, traction system):
A spreader bar featuring a single lifting point situated at the top centre and two pick points located at the opposite ends of the bottom (Fig 3, spreader bar 16, center point 48, pick points 50);
5.3 Hang the spread bar from the bottom of the cohesive framework, and then attach the head halter to the two points on the spread bar (Fig 3, head halter 18 attached at two points to spreader bar 16 which is attached to framework bottom 20);
Boren discloses a spring and chain system (Fig 3, spring 12, chain 20) and a head harness (Fig 3, harness 18) but is silent on
A cohesive framework comprises multiple extension springs arranged in parallel, each featuring two hooks for attachment to opposite connection panels, each of which incorporates a centrally located swivel hook;
An adjustment chain consists of multiple carabiner clips and an interlocked chain segment;
A head halter consists of two cross straps with hook and loop adjustments, as well as two attachment points on either side;
A positioning mat featuring a central printed dot, flanked by two printed foot outlines on either side.
5.2 Secure the adjustable chain to the anchor point and hang the cohesive framework from the opposite end of the chain;
5.4 Place the positioning mat on the floor, ensuring that the printed middle dot aligns with the anchor point, creating a right-angle intersection with either the floor or anchor point, as needed.
Claims 6-18 would be allowable due to their dependency on an allowable claim should Applicant overcome the 112(b) rejections and claim objections above.
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D BAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3333. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30.
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, Rachael E Bredefeld can be reached at (571)270-5237. 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.
/ADAM BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786