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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one ridge” in claims 13 and 20, and in Applicant’s specification must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 10, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “rigid body” in line 3 should be recited as “rigid support body”.
Regarding claim 4, “a second lower surface” in line 10 should be recited as “a third lower surface”.
Regarding claim 10, “The limb support device of claim 10” should be recited as “The limb support device of claim 9”.
Regarding claim 18, “a second lower surface” in lines 11-12 should be recited as “a third lower surface”.
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 1-21 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.
The term “generally” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given in the specification, “generally concave” is being read as “concave”.
The term “generally” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given in the specification, “generally concave” is being read as “concave”.
Claims 2-17 and 19-21 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) 1-3 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer et al. (referred to as “Singer”) (US 7,017,215 B1) in view of Kilbey (US 2020/0261296 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Singer discloses a limb support device (12,13) (see Figs. 1-3 and col. 3 lines 52-55; bottom cushion 12+top cushion 13 form a limb support device) comprising:
a support body defining a base portion having a lower surface (24) (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Singer and Col. 4 lines 16-17; top cushion 13 is a support body which defines a base portion which is labeled in Annotated Fig. 3, and has an under side 24 which is a lower surface);
a cradle (30) supported on said body (see Fig. 3 and Col. 4 lines 18-21; cradle 30 is supported on the top cushion 13), said cradle (30) being generally concave in shape and defining a surface configured to support a limb of a patient (see Figs. 1-3; cradle 30 is concave in shape as the cradle 30 curves inward and defines a surface configured to support a limb of a patient, as seen in Fig. 1), said cradle (30) being supportable at more than one height position relative to said lower surface (see Figs. 1-3; the cradle 30 is supportable at more than one height position relative to the under side 24, as cradle 30 is capable of being stacked with bottom cushion 12, as seen in Fig. 1, and is capable of not being stacked, thus being supported at more than one heigh position relative to the under side 24).
Singer is silent on the support body being rigid.
However, Kilbey teaches an analogous support body (10) (see Figs. 1-3; support device 10 is an analogous support body as it is configured to support a limb of a patient), and the support body (10) is rigid (see Abstract and [0010] which discusses how the support device 10 is constructed from a semi-rigid and moderately flexible foam material), providing a material that is sturdy enough to support a limb of a patient, while still being comfortable for the patient.
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 support body of Singer to a rigid support body as taught by Kilbey to have provided an improved limb support device that provides a material that is sturdy enough to support a limb of a patient, while still being comfortable for the patient.
PNG
media_image1.png
514
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Singer.
Regarding claim 2, Singer in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Singer in view of Kilbey further discloses wherein said rigid support body comprises:
a first block body (13 of Singer) having a lower surface (24 of Singer) (see Figs. 1-3 of Singer and Col. 4 lines 16-17 of Singer; top cushion 13 of Singer is a first block body and has a lower surface which is under side 24 of Singer);
a first connector support on said lower surface of said first block body (13 of Singer) (see Figs. 1-3 of Singer and Col. 4 lines 26-30 of Singer; there are two strips of hook and loop fasteners (not shown in figures), which is a first connector support, on the under side 24 of Singer of top cushion 13 of Singer, located like mirror images of hook and loop fasteners 23 of Singer of bottom cushion 12 of Singer as shown in Fig. 2 of Singer);
a second block body (12 of Singer) having an upper surface (15 of Singer) (see Figs. 1-3 of Singer and Col. 3 lines 64-65 of Singer; the bottom cushion 12 is a second block body which has an top side 15 of Singer which is an upper surface); and
a mating connector (23 of Singer), complementary to said first connector, supported on said upper surface (15 of Singer) of said second block body (12 of Singer) (see Figs. 1-3 of Singer and Col. 4 lines 13-14 of Singer and Col. 4 lines 26-30 of Singer; hook and loop fasteners 23 of Singer are mating connectors as they are complementary to the hook and loop fasteners of the top cushion 13 of Singer, and the hook and loop fasteners 23 of Singer are supported on the top side 15 of Singer of the bottom cushion 12 of Singer).
Regarding claim 3, Singer in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed in claim 2. Singer in view of Kilbey further discloses wherein said lower surface (24 of Singer) of said rigid support body is defined on said second block body (12 of Singer) (see Figs. 1-3 of Singer; the under side 24 of Singer of the rigid support body, which is the body of top cushion 13 of Singer, is defined on the bottom cushion 12 of Singer, as seen in Fig. 1 of Singer).
Regarding claim 11, Singer in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Singer in view of Kilbey further discloses wherein said rigid body comprises at least two block bodies (12, 13 of Singer), each of said at least two block bodies (12, 13 of Singer) being constructed as a unitary body (see Figs. 1-3 of Singer; the rigid body comprises bottom cushion 12 of Singer and top cushion 13 of Singer which are two block bodies, and the bottom cushion 12 of Singer and top cushion 13 of Singer are each constructed as a unitary body).
Regarding claim 12, Singer in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Singer in view of Kilbey further discloses wherein both said rigid support body and said cradle (30 of Singer) extend in a longitudinal direction of elongation (see Figs. 1 and 3 of Singer; the top cushion 13 of Singer and the cradle 30 of Singer extend in a longitudinal direction of elongation, as they both extend left to right).
Regarding claim 13, Singer in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Singer in view of Kilbey further discloses wherein said cradle (30 of Singer) is defined by a first concavity at least partially defined by at least one ridge (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Singer; the cradle 30 of Singer is defined by a first concavity as the cradle 30 of Singer caves inwards, which is at least partially defined by at least one ridge, which is labeled in Annotated Fig. 3), said first concavity being dimensioned to accommodate a range of human limb sizes (see Figs. 1 and 3 of Singer; the concavity of cradle 30 of Singer is capable of accommodating a range of human limb sizes based on the dimensions).
Regarding claim 14, Singer in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed in claim 13. Singer in view of Kilbey further discloses wherein said first concavity is defined to have an axis of elongation extending parallel to a plane of said lower surface (24 of Singer) (see Figs. 1 and 3 of Singer; the first concavity of cradle 30 of Singer is defined to have an axis of elongation extending parallel to a plane of said under side 24 of Singer, as the concavity of cradle 30 of Singer and the under side 24 of Singer both extend from left to right).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Kilbey further in view of Silfverskiod (US 2011/0100374 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Singer in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed in claim 2. Singer in view of Kilbey further discloses wherein each block body (12, 13 of Singer) defines at least one sidewall (16+17, 26+27 of Singer) (see Figs. 1-3 of Singer; the bottom cushion 12 of Singer defines sidewalls 16+17 of Singer and the top cushion 13 of Singer defines sidewalls 26+27 of Singer).
Singer in view of Kilbey is silent on wherein each block body defines at least one sidewall that tapers away from a respective lower surface of each respective block body.
However, Silfverskiold teaches an analogous at least one sidewall (123,128) (see Fig. 12a), and wherein the block body (120) defines at least one sidewall (123, 128) that tapers away from a respective lower surface (180) of the respective block body (120) (see Figs. 10 and 12a-12c, and [0063]; the device 120 is an analogous block body that defines sides 123, 128, and the sides 123, 128 slope inwardly as best seen in Fig. 12a and thus tapers away from a lower surface of the device 120 which is indicated via element 180 in Fig. 12a), providing to better encircle a patient’s limb making the device more secure, and to better stabilize the limb support as the base is slightly larger.
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 each block body (12, 13 of Singer) in the device of Singer in view of Kilbey to have at least one sidewall that tapers away from a respective lower surface of each respective block body as taught by Silfverskiold to have provided an improved limb support device that better encircles a patient’s limb making the device more secure, and to better stabilize the limb support as the base is slightly larger.
Regarding claim 10, Singer in view of Kilbey further in view of Silfverskiold discloses the invention as discussed in claim 9. Singer in view of Kilbey further in view of Silfverskiold further discloses wherein respective sidewalls of at least two block bodies (12, 13 of Singer) align in a plane when the block bodies (12, 13 of Singer) are mated by said connector and mating connector (23 of Singer) (see Figs. 1-3 of Singer and Col. 4 lines 26-32 of Singer; the sides 16+17 and 26+27 of Singer of the bottom cushion 12 of Singer and top cushion 13 of Singer, respectively, align in a plane when the bottom cushion 12 of Singer and top cushion 13 of Singer are mated by the hook and loop fasteners 23 of Singer, as seen in Fig. 1 of Singer).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Kilbey further in view of Goumas (US 8,273,041 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Singer in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed in claim 13. Singer in view of Kilbey further discloses wherein said first concavity is dimensioned to accommodate a range of sizes of human leg limbs (see Figs. 1-3 of Singer; the first concavity of cradle 30 of Singer is capable of accommodating a range of sizes of human leg limbs, as people have various sized legs).
Singer in view of Kilbey is silent on wherein said cradle is further defined by a second concavity dimensioned to accommodate a range of sizes of human arm limbs.
However, Goumas teaches an analogous cradle (62) (see Figs. 1, 9, 11-13; cradle body 62 is an analogous cradle as it is concave in order to receive/support a limb of a user), and said cradle (62) further defined by a second concavity (76) dimensioned to accommodate a range of sizes of human arm limbs (see Figs. 9-13; the cradle body 62 is further defined by a concave section 76 which may be a second concavity capable of accommodating a range of sizes of human arm limbs as people have various sized arms/hands, see Col. 8 lines 30-38), providing to accept at least a portion of a hand of the patient (see Col. 8 lines 30-33) for better comfort.
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 cradle (30 of Singer) in the device of Singer in view of Kilbey to include a second concavity (76) dimensioned to accommodate a range of sizes of human arm limbs as taught by Goumas to have provided an improved limb support device that accepts at least a portion of a hand of the patient (see Col. 8 lines 30-33) for better comfort.
Regarding claim 16, Singer in view of Kilbey further in view of Goumas discloses the invention as discussed in claim 15.
Goumas further teaches wherein said second concavity (76) is defined to have a second axis of elongation that is transverse to a plane of said lower surface (see Annotated Fig. 9 of Goumas; the concave section 76 has an axis of elongation that is transverse to a plane of the lower surface as indicated in Annotated Fig. 9 as the dotted line is the axis of elongation that is transverse to a plane of the lower surface, which is labeled in Annotated Fig. 9, as the lower surface is the very bottom surface of cradle body 62, and the dotted line intersects the plane of the lower surface and extends across the plane), providing to accept at least a portion of a hand of the patient (see Col. 8 lines 30-33) for better comfort.
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 second concavity (76 of Goumas) in the device of Singer in view of Kilbey further in view of Goumas to have a second axis of elongation that is transverse to a plane of said lower surface as taught by Goumas to have provided an improved limb support device that accepts at least a portion of a hand of the patient (see Col. 8 lines 30-33) for better comfort.
PNG
media_image2.png
386
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 of Goumas.
Regarding claim 17, Singer in view of Kilbey further in view of Goumas discloses the invention as discussed in claim 15.
Goumas further teaches wherein said first concavity (66) is positioned to have a first angular orientation (see Figs. 9-10; the concave section 66 is an analogous first concavity, as this portion caves inward to receive a limb of a patient, and concave section 66 is positioned to have a first angular orientation), and wherein said second concavity (76) is positioned to have a second angular orientation different from said first angular orientation (see Figs. 9-10; the concave section 76 is positioned to have a second angular orientation different from the first angular orientation, as best seen in Fig. 10, as the concave section 76 is angled downwards), providing to accept at least a portion of a hand of the patient (see Col. 8 lines 30-33) for better comfort.
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 (30 of Singer) and second concavity (76 of Goumas) in the device of Singer in view of Kilbey further in view of Goumas to have a second angular orientation different from said first angular orientation as taught by Goumas to have provided an improved limb support device that accepts at least a portion of a hand of the patient (see Col. 8 lines 30-33) for better comfort.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melcher et al. (referred to as “Melcher”) (US 2013/0198962 A1) in view of Kilbey.
Regarding claim 1, Melcher discloses a limb support device (1400) (see Figs. 59-60 and [0173]; cushion system 1400 is a limb support device as a user can place an arm in receiving portion 1458) comprising:
a support body defining a base portion having a lower surface (see Figs. 59-60; cushion element 1475 is a support body that defines a base portion 1420 and a lower surface, which is the bottom/under surface of cushion element 1475);
a cradle (1458) supported on said body (1475), said cradle (1458) being generally concave in shape and defining a surface configured to support a limb of a patient (see Figs. 59-60 and [0173]; the receiving portion 1458 is a cradle as a user can place an arm into this portion to hold/cradle the arm, and the receiving portion 1458 is concave in shape as it caves inwardly, and defines a surface configured to support a limb, such as an arm, of a patient), said cradle (1458) being supportable at more than one height position relative to said lower surface (see Figs. 59-60 and [0173]; the receiving portion 1458 is supportable at more than one height position relative to the lower surface of the cushion element 1475, as other cushion elements 1476+1477 may be stacked underneath to adjust the height).
Melcher is silent on the support body being rigid.
However, Kilbey teaches an analogous support body (10) (see Figs. 1-3; support device 10 is an analogous support body as it is configured to support a limb of a patient), and the support body (10) is rigid (see Abstract and [0010] which discusses how the support device 10 is constructed from a semi-rigid and moderately flexible foam material), providing a material that is sturdy enough to support a limb of a patient, while still being comfortable for the patient.
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 support body of Melcher to a rigid support body as taught by Kilbey to have provided an improved limb support device that provides a material that is sturdy enough to support a limb of a patient, while still being comfortable for the patient.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melcher in view of Kilbey further in view of SRAMEK (US 2016/0296031 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Melcher in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Melcher in view of Kilbey further discloses wherein said rigid support body comprises:
a first block body (1475) having a first lower surface (see Annotated Fig. 60 of Melcher and Fig. 59; cushion element 1475 is a first block body which has a first lower surface labeled in Annotated Fig. 60);
a second block body (1476) having an upper surface and a second lower surface (see Annotated Fig. 60 of Melcher and Fig. 59; cushion element 1476 is a second block body that has an upper surface and a second lower surface which are labeled in Annotated Fig. 60);
a third block body (1477) having a second upper surface and a second lower surface (see Annotated Fig. 60 of Melcher and Fig. 59; cushion element 1477 is a third block body and has a second upper surface and a third lower surface labeled in Annotated Fig. 60).
Melcher in view of Kilbey is silent on a first connector supported on said first lower surface of said first block body; a first mating connector, complementary to said first connector, supported on said upper surface of said second block body; a second connector supported on said second lower surface of second first block body; a second mating connector, complementary to said second connector, supported on said second upper surface of said third block body.
However, SRAMEK teaches an analogous first block body (4), a second block body (2-L1), and a third block body (2-L2) (see Figs. 50-53), and a first connector (5-1) supported on said first lower surface of said first block body (4) (see Figs. 50-53 and [0185]; the core base 4 is an analogous first block body as it is configured to support a limb, and on a lower surface of the core 4 is a fastener strip 5-1 of Velcro); a first mating connector (5-2), complementary to said first connector (5-1) (see [0185] and Figs. 50-53; mating fastener 5-2 is complementary to fastener 5-1), supported on said upper surface of said second block body (see Figs. 50-53 and [0185]; the fastener 5-2 is supported on the upper surface of core spacer 2L-1); a second connector (5-3) supported on said second lower surface of second first block body (2L-1) (see [0185] and Figs. 50-53; fastener 5-3 is supported on the second lower surface of core spacer 2L-1); a second mating connector (5-4), complementary to said second connector (5-3), supported on said second upper surface of said third block body (2L-2) (see Figs. 50-53 and [0185]; mating fastener 5-4 is a complementary fastener to fastener 5-3 and is supported on the upper surface of core spacer 2L-2), providing to easily adjust the height of a limb support device via fasteners.
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 block body (1475 of Melcher), the second block body (1476 of Melcher), and the third block body (1477 of Melcher) in the device of Melcher in view of Kilbey to include a first connector (5-1) supported on said lower surface of said first block body, a first mating connector (5-2), complementary to said first connector (5-1) supported on said upper surface of said second block body, a second connector (5-3) supported on said second lower surface of second first block body, and a second mating connector (5-4) complementary to said second connector (5-3) supported on said second upper surface of said third block body as taught by SRAMEK to have provided an improved limb support device that provides to easily adjust the height via fasteners.
PNG
media_image3.png
280
559
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 60 of Melcher.
Regarding claim 5, Melcher in view of Kilbey further in view of SRAMEK discloses the invention as discussed in claim 4. Melcher in view of Kilbey further in view of SRAMEK further discloses wherein said lower surface of said rigid support body (1475 of Melcher) is defined on one of said second block body (1476 of Melcher) and said third block body (1477 of Melcher) (see Figs. 59-60 of Melcher and Annotated Fig. 60 of Melcher; the lower surface of the cushion element 1475 of Melcher is defined on the second cushion element 1476 of Melcher as seen in Fig. 59 of Melcher).
Regarding claim 6, Melcher in view of Kilbey further in view of SRAMEK discloses the invention as discussed in claim 4. Melcher in view of Kilbey further in view of SRAMEK further discloses wherein said first connector (5-1 of SRAMEK) and said second connector (5-3 of SRAMEK) are similar in configuration (see Figs. 50-53 of SRAMEK and [0185] of SRAMEK; as previously modified above, see claim 4, the first connector 5-1 of SRAMEK and second connector 5-3 of SRAMEK are similar in configuration as they are both strips of Velcro), and wherein said first mating connector (5-2 of SRAMEK) and said second mating connector (5-4 of SRAMEK) are similar in configuration (see Figs. 50-53 of SRAMEK and [0185] of SRAMEK; as previously modified above, see claim 4, the connectors 5-2 and 5-4 of SRAMEK are similar in configuration as they are both strips of Velcro).
Regarding claim 7, Melcher in view of Kilbey further in view of SRAMEK discloses the invention as discussed in claim 4. Melcher in view of Kilbey further in view of SRAMEK further discloses wherein said first connector (5-1 of SRAMEK) and said second connector (5-3 of SRAMEK) comprise one of hook fasteners and loop fasteners of a hook-and-loop fastener system, and wherein said first mating connector (5-2 of SRAMEK) and said second mating connector (5-4 of SRAMEK) comprise another of hook fasteners and loop fasteners of the hook-and-loop fastener system (see Figs. 50-53 of SRAMEK and [0185] of SRAMEK; the fasteners 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 of SRAMEK are all Velcro fasteners or hook and loop fasteners, and fastener 5-1 of SRAMEK mates with fastener 5-2 of SRAMEK, so it is implied that one of them is a hook fastener and one of them is a loop fasteners, and fastener 5-3 of SRAMEK mates with fastener 5-4 of SRAMEK, and it is implied that one of them is a hook fastener and one of them is a loop fastener as they are all Velcro fasteners).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melcher in view of Kilbey in view of SRAMEK further in view of Frydman (US 6,345,401 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Melcher in view of Kilbey further in view of SRAMEK discloses the invention as discussed in claim 4. Melcher in view of Kilbey further in view of SRAMEK further discloses wherein said second block body (1476 of Melcher) defines a first height between said upper surface and said second lower surface (see Annotated Fig. 60 of Melcher; cushion element 1476 of Melcher inherently defines a first height between the upper surface and second lower surface), and wherein said third block body (1477 of Melcher) defines a second height between said second upper surface and said third lower surface (see Annotated Fig. 60 of Melcher; cushion element 1477 of Melcher inherently defines a second height between the second upper surface and third lower surface).
Melcher in view of Kilbey further in view of SRAMEK is silent on the second height being different from said first height.
However, Frydman teaches an analogous second block body (30) and an analogous third block body (32) (see Figs. 1-2), wherein said third block body (32) defines a second height between said second upper surface and said third lower surface that is different from said first height [of said second block body (30)] (see Figs. 1-2; the support layer 32 defines a height between the second upper surface and third lower surface, and the heights may be different, see Col. 3 lines 18-20), providing to better tailor the height of the limb support to the patient’s needs.
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 second height of the third block body (1477 of Melcher) in the device of Melcher in view of Kilbey further in view of SRAMEK to be different from the first height as taught by Frydman to have provided an improved limb support device that better tailors the height of the limb support to the patient’s needs.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frydman (US 6,154,905) (referred to as “Frydman ‘905”) in view of Kilbey.
Regarding claim 18, Frydman ‘905 discloses a limb support device (80) (see Figs. 4-5 and 8; support device 80 is a limb support device as it supports the leg of a user, as seen in Figs. 4-5) comprising:
a support body comprising:
a first block body (88) having a lower surface (see Annotated Fig. 8 of Frydman ‘905; functional component 88 is a first block body as it is a solid piece of material and has a lower surface, as labeled in Annotated Fig. 8);
a first connector supported on said first lower surface of said first block body (88) (see Annotated Fig. 8 of Frydman ‘905 and Col. 7 lines 13-43; the first connector is labeled in Annotated Fig. 8, as these male projections mate with female conduits to connect/fasten with the other elements, and these male projections are supported on the first lower surface of functional component 88);
a second block body (86) having an upper surface and a second lower surface (see Annotated Fig. 8 of Frydman ‘905 which has the upper surface and second lower surface of the adjustable component 86 labeled);
a first mating connector, complementary to said first connector, supported on said upper surface of said second block body (86) (see Annotated Fig. 8 of Frydman ‘905 and Col. 7 lines 13-43; the female conduit is a first mating connector as it is complementary to the male projection connector, and the female conduit is supported on the upper surface of the adjustable component 86);
a second connector supported on said second lower surface of second first block body (86) (see Annotated Fig. 8 of Frydman ‘905 and Col. 7 lines 13-43; the adjustable component 86 has a second connector which are male projections supported on the second lower surface of the adjustable component 86);
a third block body (90) having a second upper surface and a third lower surface (see Annotated Fig. 8 of Frydman ‘905; the functional component 90 is a third block body and has a second upper surface and a third lower surface as labeled in Annotated Fig. 8);
a second mating connector, complementary to said second connector, supported on said second upper surface of said third block body (90) (see Annotated Fig. 8 of Frydman ‘905 and Col. 7 lines 13-43; the functional component 90 has a second mating connector, which are the female conduits complementary to the male projections, supported on the second upper surface of the functional component 90); and
a cradle (40) defined by said first block body (88), said cradle (40) being generally concave in shape and defining a surface configured to support a limb of a patient (see Figs. 4-5 and 8; the channel 40 is a cradle as it is concave in shape as it curves inwards and defines a surface configured to support a limb, particularly a leg, of a patient, as seen in Figs. 4-5), said cradle (40) being supportable at more than one height position relative to said lower surface (see Annotated Fig. 8 of Frydman ‘905 and Col. 7 lines 13-39; the channel 40 is supportable at more than one height position relative to said lower surface, as the functional component 88 is able to be adjusted in height via the adjustable component 86).
Frydman ‘905 is silent on the support body being rigid.
However, Kilbey teaches an analogous support body (10) (see Figs. 1-3; support device 10 is an analogous support body as it is configured to support a limb of a patient), and the support body (10) is rigid (see Abstract and [0010] which discusses how the support device 10 is constructed from a semi-rigid and moderately flexible foam material), providing a material that is sturdy enough to support a limb of a patient, while still being comfortable for the patient.
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 support body of Frydman ‘905 to be a rigid support body as taught by Kilbey to have provided an improved limb support device that provides a material that is sturdy enough to support a limb of a patient, while still being comfortable for the patient.
PNG
media_image4.png
390
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of Frydman ‘905.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frydman ‘905 in view of Kilbey further in view of Frydman.
Regarding claim 19, Frydman ‘905 in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. Frydman ‘905 in view of Kilbey further discloses wherein said second block body (86 of Frydman ‘905) defines a first height between said upper surface and said second lower surface (see Annotated Fig. 8 of Frydman’905; the adjustable component 86 of Frydman’905 defines a first height between the upper surface and second lower surface), and wherein said third block body (90 of Frydman’905) defines a second height between said second upper surface and said third lower surface (see Annotated Fig. 8 of Frydman ‘905; the functional component 90 of Frydman ‘905 defines a second height between the second upper surface and third lower surface).
Frydman ‘905 in view of Kilbey is silent on the second height being different from said first height.
However, Frydman teaches an analogous second block body (30) and an analogous third block body (32) (see Figs. 1-2), wherein said third block body (32) defines a second height between said second upper surface and said third lower surface that is different from said first height [of said second block body (30)] (see Figs. 1-2; the support layer 32 defines a height between the second upper surface and third lower surface, and the heights may be different, see Col. 3 lines 18-20), providing to better tailor the height of the limb support to the patient’s needs.
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 second height of the third block body (90 of Frydman ‘905) in the device of Frydman’905 in view of Kilbey to be different from the first height as taught by Frydman to have provided an improved limb support device that better tailors the height of the limb support to the patient’s needs.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frydman ‘905 in view of Kilbey further in view of Cardin (US 8,322,343 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Frydman ‘905 in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. Frydman ‘905 in view of Kilbey further discloses wherein said cradle (40 of Frydman’905) is defined by: a first concavity at least partially defined by at least one ridge (see Annotated Fig. 8 of Frydman’905; the channel 40 of Frydman ‘905 is at least partially defined by at least one ridge, which is labeled in Annotated Fig. 8), said first concavity (40 of Frydman ‘905) being dimensioned to accommodate a human limb (see Figs. 4-5 and Annotated Fig. 8 of Frydman’905; the channel 40 of Frydman ‘905 is dimensioned to accommodate a human limb, such as a leg).
Frydman ‘905 in view of Kilbey is silent on said cradle defined by: a second concavity dimensioned to accommodate the human limb.
However, Cardin teaches an analogous limb support device (100), and an analogous cradle (115+125), and said cradle (115+125) defined by: a second concavity (125) dimensioned to accommodate the human limb (see Figs. 1-2 and 8-10, and Col. 9 lines 25-32; furrow 115 continues with a curved furrow section 125 and thus is a second concavity as it caves inwards, and the curved furrow section 125 is dimensioned to accommodate the human limb such as a leg, as seen in Figs. 8-10), providing to better conform to a user’s anatomy for better securement and comfort of the limb support 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 cradle (40 of Frydman ‘905) in the device of Frydman ‘905 in view of Kilbey to include a second concavity (125) dimensioned to accommodate the human limb as taught by Cardin to have provided an improved limb support device that better conforms to a user’s anatomy for better securement and comfort of the limb support device.
Regarding claim 21, Frydman ‘905 in view of Kilbey further in view of Cardin discloses the invention as discussed in claim 20.
Cardin further teaches wherein said analogous first concavity (115) is positioned to have a first angular orientation (see Figs. 1-2; the furrow 115 has a first angular orientation), and wherein said second concavity (125) is positioned to have a second angular orientation different from said first angular orientation (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 9 lines 25-32, and Col. 9 lines 51-61; the curved furrow section 125 is positioned to have a second angular orientation that is different from the first angular orientation as the curved furrow section 125 slopes downwardly from the furrow 115), providing to better conform to a user’s anatomy for better securement and comfort of the limb support 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 second concavity (125 of Cardin) to have a second angular orientation that is different from the first angular orientation of the first concavity as taught by Cardin to have provided an improved limb support device that better conforms to a user’s anatomy for better securement and comfort of the limb support device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBIN HAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9-5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alireza Nia can be reached at (571)270-3076. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBIN HAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights