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 Arguments
This office action is in response to the Request for Reconsideration filed on 07/16/2026.As directed by the amendments: claims 1 – 20 are pending, claims 1, 13 & 17 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 -20 have been withdrawn.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The claim limitation “lateral adjuster operatively connected to the longitudinal member at a location above the curved elbow member and below the handgrip that is between the handgrip and the curved elbow member” is not described in words in the specification. Must add the description of the specific location of the lateral adjuster to provide antecedent basis.
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, 9 – 10 & 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Bua et al. (US 2011/0294634 A1) in view of Binutti et al. (WO 2009111378 A2).
Regarding claim 1, A shoulder stretching device 100 comprising:
a longitudinal member 110, 115 & 120 (Paragraph 0020);
a handgrip 145 operatively connected to a top end of the longitudinal member 110, 115 & 120 (Figure 2);
a curved elbow member 125 connected to a bottom end of the longitudinal member 110, 115 & 120 (Figure 2);
Bua does not disclose a lateral adjuster operatively connected to the longitudinal member at a location above the curved elbow member and below the handgrip that is between the handgrip and the curved elbow member.
Bonutti discloses a lateral adjuster 480 operatively connected to the longitudinal member (see annotated Figure 4) at a location above the curved elbow member (see annotated Figure 4) and below the handgrip 504 that is between the handgrip 504 and the curved elbow member (see annotated Figure 4) (Figure 25 / Note: the examiner considers this design to be disclosed specifically in Figure 25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the curved elbow member of Bua to be a lateral adjuster operatively connected to the longitudinal member at a location above the curved elbow member and below the handgrip that is between the handgrip and the curved elbow member as it would allow the limb support member 500 is oriented and arranged in connection with arcuate support 480 so that a limb may be secured therein, and as arcuate support 480 is moved by rotation of gears 462,468,476, the joint is flexed or extended along a natural physiological path. (Page 18, last paragraph – Page 19, Paragraph 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
650
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4: Annotated Figure 4 of Bua
Modified Bua discloses a bottom transverse member indirectly connected to the longitudinal member via the curved elbow member,
wherein adjustment of the lateral adjuster moves the handgrip closer to or farther away from the bottom transverse member.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 1.
Bonutti further discloses wherein the lateral adjuster 480 comprises a plurality of locking mechanism receivers 478. (Page 18, lines 24 – 30)
Regarding claim 10, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 9.
Bonutti further discloses wherein the lateral adjuster 480 is fan-shaped (see annotated Figure 19) and wherein the plurality of locking mechanism receivers 478 form an arch along an upper portion (Note: the examiner considers the part of the lateral adjuster that is closer to the user’s arm to be the upper portion) of the lateral adjuster 478 (Figure 9 & 25).
PNG
media_image2.png
624
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 19: Annotated Figure 19 of App. WO 2009111378 A2
Regarding claim 16, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Bua discloses wherein the longitudinal member 110, 115 & 120, the handgrip 145, the curved elbow member 125, and the bottom transverse member 135 have a cross-sectional shape selected from a circle, triangle, square, rectangle, or combinations of shapes. (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 17, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Bua discloses wherein the bottom transverse member 135 comprises a first curved portion, a first straight portion, a second curved portion, and a second straight portion. (see annotated Figure 2)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Angle 2)][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Angle 1)][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image3.png
599
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated Figure 2
However, it does not disclose wherein the bottom transverse member comprises in a directional order from the curved elbow member a first curved portion, then a first straight portion, then a second curved portion, and then a second straight portion.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of directional order of the curved elbow, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05. The applicant has not provided any reasoning as to why this arrangement is critical to the device as it is understood it may be in this arrangement based on the specification.
Regarding claim 18, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 17.
Modified Bua discloses wherein the first curved portion (see annotated Figure 2) and the first straight portion (see annotated Figure 2) form an angle θ1 (see annotated Figure 2), wherein the first straight portion (see annotated Figure 2), the second curved portion (see annotated Figure 2), and the second straight portion (see annotated Figure 2) form an angle θ2 (see annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 18.
Modified Bua does not expressly disclose wherein angle θ1 and angle θ2 are in a range from 95° to 150°, and wherein angle θ1 and angle θ2 are the same or different.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the range of angles 1 and 2, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05. It is well within the skill of the art to adjust the angles to best suit a person’s body or structure to wrap the curved sections to utilize the device. (Paragraph 0037) Also, there is no criticality that gives specifics as to why the angles must be in that specific range making the limitation a matter of design instead of criticality.
Regarding claim 20, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 17.
Modified Bua discloses further comprising a handgrip 140 located at a terminal end of the second straight portion (Paragraph 0037 & see annotated Figure 2).
Claim(s) 2 – 4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Bua et al. (US 2011/0294634 A1) in view of Binutti et al. (WO 2009111378 A2) as claimed in claim 1, in further view of Siedrandt et al. (US 1639815 A).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Bua discloses the handgrip 145. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Bua does not disclose further comprising a vertical adjustment lock for the handgrip.
Siedrandt discloses further comprising a vertical adjustment lock 36, 38 & 40 for the handgrip 44. (Page 5, lines 23 – 38)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the handgrip of Bua to include a vertical adjustment lock as it would allow choosing the desired vertical position of adjustment. (Page 5, lines 23 – 38)
Regarding claim 3, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 2.
Siendrandt further discloses wherein the handgrip 44 is permanently attached to the vertical adjustment lock 35, 38 & 40. (Page 5, lines 23 – 38)
Modified Bua discloses the handgrip 145 is oriented perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the longitudinal member 110, 115 & 120 (Figure 2 & Paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 3.
Modified Bua discloses wherein the handgrip 145 is adjustable vertically along the longitudinal member 110, 115 & 120 (as claimed in claim 2).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 3.
Modified Bua discloses wherein the handgrip 145 is permanently attached to a back of the vertical adjustment lock 36, 38 & 40 (Siendrandt, Figure 5 / Note: the examiner considers the handgrip to be attached to the back side of the lock) , and wherein the handgrip 145 comprises a first straight portion (see annotated Figure 1) extending away from the back of the vertical adjustment lock 36, 38 & 40, and wherein the handgrip 145 does not comprise an angled portion (Figure 2)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Bua et al. (US 2011/0294634 A1) in view of Binutti et al. (WO 2009111378 A2) & Siedrandt et al. (US 1639815 A) as claimed in claim 3, in further view of Boatcallie et al. (US 4861022 A).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 3.
Modified Bua discloses wherein the handgrip 145 is permanently attached to a side of the vertical adjustment lock 36, 38 & 40 (Siendrandt, Figure 5) , and wherein the handgrip 145 comprises:
a first straight portion (see annotated Figure 1) extending away from the side of the vertical adjustment lock 115 (Figure 1);
a second straight portion (see annotated Figure 1) extending back from the first straight portion (see annotated Figure 1).
Modified Bua discloses embodiments of the gripping handle 145 in which other angles could be used as desired or required. (Paragraph 0022)
Modified Bua does not expressly disclose an angled portion.
However, Boatcallie discloses an angled portion. (Column 3, lines 48 – 60)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Bua to include an angled portion as it would allow the handgrip to conform to the natural position of the user’s hand. (Column 3, lines 48 – 53)
PNG
media_image4.png
451
520
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Figure 1
.
Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Bua et al. (US 2011/0294634 A1) in view of Binutti et al. (WO 2009111378 A2) & Siedrandt et al. (US 1639815 A) as claimed in claim 4, in further view of Oller et al. (US 20100234192 A1
Regarding claim 7, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 4.
Modified Bua discloses any fastener capable of allowing for axial and the optional rotational movement of a rod relative to the stationary arm may be used as either fastener. (Paragraph 0031)
Modified Bua does not disclose wherein the top end of the longitudinal member comprises a plurality of adjustment indicators spaced a distance apart from each other for placement of the handgrip vertically along the longitudinal member.
Oller discloses wherein the top end of the longitudinal member 110 comprises a plurality of adjustment indicators (Note: the examiner considers this the numbers next to reference number 120) spaced a distance apart from each other for placement of the handgrip 134 vertically along the longitudinal member 110 (Figure 7 & Page 6, last paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the fastener of Bua for the locking mechanism of Oller as it would allow the projection to engage one of the apertures provided along the shaft member to select the desired height of the device. (Page 8, Paragraph 2) By changing the fastener of Bua with the locking mechanism of Oller no functionality is changed in the device.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 7.
Modified Bua discloses wherein the longitudinal member 110, 115 & 120 comprises a plurality of locking mechanism receivers 120 located along an outside of the top end of the longitudinal member 110, 115 & 120 and adjacent to the adjustment indicators (as claimed in claim 7).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Bua et al. (US 2011/0294634 A1) in view of Binutti et al. (WO 2009111378 A2) as claimed in claim 1, in further view of Livshits et al. (US 20200360220 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Bua discloses further comprising a forearm member 115 located above the lateral adjuster (Bonutti) (Figure 3), wherein the forearm member 115 is adjustably connected to the longitudinal member 110, 115 & 120 via a forearm adjustment lock (Note: the examiner considers this the part of the forearm member that actually locks the forearm in place after adjusting), wherein the forearm adjustment lock (Note: the examiner considers this the part of the forearm member that actually locks the forearm in place after adjusting) is configured to allow the forearm member 115 to move along the longitudinal member 110, 115 & 120, rotationally around the longitudinal axis of the longitudinal member 110, 115 & 120, or both (Paragraph 0023).
Modified Bua does not disclose wherein the forearm member is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the longitudinal member.
Livshits discloses wherein the forearm member 204 is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the longitudinal member 206 & 208. (Figure 6A & 6B)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the forearm member of Bua to include wherein the forearm member is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the longitudinal member as it would be obvious to modify it with the adjustment member of Livshits have the same function of adjusting the length of the longitudinal member and would not affect the functionality of the device and is considered perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the longitudinal member. (Paragraph 0043)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Bua et al. (US 2011/0294634 A1) in view of Binutti et al. (WO 2009111378 A2) & Livshits et al. (US 20200360220 A1) as claimed in claim 13, in further view of Juntunen et al. (US 9498399 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 13.
Modified Bua discloses the forearm member 115. (as claimed in claim 13)
Juntunen discloses padding. (Column 2, lines 22 – 27)
Juntunen does not discloses wherein all of or a portion of the forearm member is covered with padding located around an outside of the forearm member.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the forearm member of Bua to include padding wherein all of or a portion of the forearm member is covered with padding located around an outside of the forearm member as it would prevent slippage and also provide comfort when the apparatus is used. (Column 2, lines 22 – 27)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Bua et al. (US 2011/0294634 A1) in view of Binutti et al. (WO 2009111378 A2) as claimed in claim 1, in further view of Juntunen et al. (US 9498399 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Bua discloses the shoulder stretching device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Bua discloses the curved elbow portion 125. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Bua does not disclose wherein all of or a portion of the curved elbow member is covered with padding located around an outside of the curved elbow member.
Juntunen discloses padding. (Column 2, lines 22 – 27)
Juntunen does not discloses wherein all of or a portion of the curved elbow member is covered with padding located around an outside of the curved elbow member.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the curved elbow member of Bua to include padding wherein all of or a portion of the curved elbow member is covered with padding located around an outside of the curved elbow member as it would prevent slippage and also provide comfort when the apparatus is used. (Column 2, lines 22 – 27)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 - 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights