DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Response to Election/Restriction filed 1/12/2026. Currently, claims 12-23 are pending in the application. Claims 1-11 are cancelled by Applicant. New claim 23 is added by Applicant.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 6, Figures 6A and 6C (corresponding to claims 12-15) in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “a subject” in line 4 of the claim should be amended to recite ---the subject---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to maintain consistency and clarity throughout the claim(s), “the cuff” in line 2 of the claim should be amended to recite ---the open-ended cuff---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first attachment element” in claims 12 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s specification teaches the following structure(s) as corresponding to the claimed function: a screw or other connection element (nail, glue, staple, etc.) or a hook attachable to a loop.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “second attachment element” in claims 12 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s specification teaches the following structure(s) as corresponding to the claimed function: an open-ended cuff adapted to be securable about the wrist or forearm of the subject via a hook and loop closure system.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patmore et al. (US 2017/0165097 A1).
In regards to claim 12, Patmore et al. teaches in Figure 1
a massage table (patient support apparatus 30; a person is capable of being massaged thereon; [0028] teaches “the patient support apparatus 30 may comprise a stretcher, cot, table, wheelchair, or similar apparatus utilized in the care of a patient”) comprising a top surface (top surface of patient support apparatus 30), a bottom surface (bottom surface of patient support apparatus 30) opposite the (as shown in Figure 1) top surface (top surface of patient support apparatus 30), a first end (“head end,” taught in [0030]) configured to support a head of a subject when the subject is positioned on the top surface ([0030] teaches “patient support surfaces 42, 43 each have a head end and a foot end corresponding to designated placement of the patient's head and feet on the patient support apparatus 30”), and a second end (“foot end,” taught in [0030]) opposite (as shown in Figure 1) the first end (“head end,” taught in [0030]); and
two devices (two restraint apparatuses 70; shown in Figure 1) each adapted for applying traction to an arm of the subject ([0036] teaches “the restraint apparatus 70 comprises a cuff 74 and a tether comprising a strap 76” and “the cuff 74 is configured to be placed on a limb or body of the person being restrained by the user, such as around a forearm, wrist, or leg (e.g., ankle) of the person;” a person is capable of pulling on strap 76 when the cuff 74 is secured to the user’s arm, resulting in traction being applied thereto), each device (two restraint apparatuses 70) comprising ([0036] teaches “the restraint apparatus 70 comprises a cuff 74 and a tether comprising a strap 76”): a strap (strap 76) formed of a non-stretchable material ([0059] teaches that the strap 76 is a “rope;” rope is a non-stretchable material), wherein a length of the strap (strap 76) is adjustable ([0058] teaches “the effective length of the strap 76 may be adjusted”), a first attachment element (restraining point 72) at (as shown in Figure 1) a distal end (lower end) of the strap (strap 76), and a second attachment element (cuff 74) connectable to (as shown in Figure 1) a proximal end (upper end) of the strap (strap 76), wherein the first attachment element (restraining point 72) is configured for connection to (as shown in Figure 1; [0064] teaches “the restraining point 72 may be coupled, fixed, or otherwise attached to the patient support apparatus 30”) the massage table (patient support apparatus 30; a person is capable of being massaged thereon; [0028] teaches “the patient support apparatus 30 may comprise a stretcher, cot, table, wheelchair, or similar apparatus utilized in the care of a patient”), and the second attachment element (cuff 74) is configured for connection to a wrist or forearm of the subject ([0036] teaches “the cuff 74 is configured to be placed on a limb or body of the person being restrained by the user, such as around a forearm, wrist, or leg (e.g., ankle) of the person”); the first attachment element (restraining point 72) being a screw or other connection element (nail, glue, staple, etc.) or a hook attachable to a loop ([0064] teaches “the restraining point 72 may comprise one or more of a hook, a carabineer, a climbing stopper, a cam cleat having a catch, a D-ring, a magnetic catch mechanism, or other mechanism configured to engage with the coupler 108 in order to attach the strap 76 to the patient support apparatus 30”); the second attachment element (cuff 74) being an open-ended cuff (as shown in Figure 1) adapted to be securable about the wrist or forearm of the subject ([0036] teaches “the cuff 74 is configured to be placed on a limb or body of the person being restrained by the user, such as around a forearm, wrist, or leg (e.g., ankle) of the person”) via a hook and loop closure system (as taught in [0044-0046]; [0046] teaches “the fasteners 104, 106 may be any type of complimentary fasteners including but not limited to hook and loop fasteners (e.g., Velcro), snaps, or adhesive”).
In regards to claim 13, Patmore et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Patmore et al. teaches that the first attachment element (restraining point 72) is configured for non-releasable ([0067] teaches “the restraining point 72 may be permanently fixed to the patient support apparatus 30”) or releasable ([0064] teaches “the restraining point 72 may comprise one or more of a hook, a carabineer, a climbing stopper, a cam cleat having a catch, a D-ring, a magnetic catch mechanism”) attachment to the bottom surface of ([0067] teaches “the restraining point 72 may be permanently fixed to the patient support apparatus 30 on the intermediate frame 36, on or below the side rail 44, 46, 48”) the massage table (patient support apparatus 30; a person is capable of being massaged thereon; [0028] teaches “the patient support apparatus 30 may comprise a stretcher, cot, table, wheelchair, or similar apparatus utilized in the care of a patient”).
In regards to claim 14, Patmore et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Patmore et al. teaches in Figure 1 that the second attachment element (cuff 74) comprises an open-ended cuff (as shown in Figure 1) adapted to be securable about the wrist or forearm of the subject ([0036] teaches “the cuff 74 is configured to be placed on a limb or body of the person being restrained by the user, such as around a forearm, wrist, or leg (e.g., ankle) of the person”) via a hook and loop closure system (as taught in [0044-0046]; [0046] teaches “the fasteners 104, 106 may be any type of complimentary fasteners including but not limited to hook and loop fasteners (e.g., Velcro), snaps, or adhesive”).
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patmore et al. (US 2017/0165097 A1) in view of Fowler et al. (US 5,038,799 A).
In regards to claim 15, Patmore et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 12 and 14. Patmore et al. does not teach that the proximal end of the strap is releasably attachable or non-releasably attached to the cuff via a swivel attachment.
However, Fowler et al. teaches in Figure 1 an analogous device that is releasably attachable or non-releasably attached to the cuff (loop restraining member 40) via a swivel attachment (claim 6 teaches “soft, cushioned, strong, adjustable limb-restraining loop members each having coacting mating binder layers secured thereto and snap swivels connecting said mounting rings and said limb-restraining loop members”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the proximal end of the strap of Patmore et al. to be releasably attachable or non-releasably attached to the cuff via a swivel attachment as taught by Fowler et al. because this element is known “to permit free clockwise and counter-clockwise movement of said limb-restraining loop members,” as Fowler et al. teaches in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA H FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6:00AM-4:00PM 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, Rachael 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.
/VICTORIA HICKS FISHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 1/29/2026