This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 18775377.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “at less one elongated bar” appears to be a typographical error, “less” should be deleted and –least-- has been inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
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 ball and socket joints movably connecting at least one elongated bar 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 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 1-20 rejected (claims dependent on a rejected claim are rejected based on their dependence unless otherwise specified) 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "first unit" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. –base—should be inserted before “unit”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "at least one elongated bar" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner can not determine if the “at least one elongated bar” within line 2 is the same as “at less one elongated bar” cited in claim 1, line 3 therefore the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “a pillar and bar joint assembly” appears to be the same structural element as the “support base assembly” recited within claim 1 therefore the limitation is confusing and indefinite.
Claim 12 recites, “braces vary in sizes and shapes” which is indefinite since the limitation does not provide metes and bounds for the braces therefore being unclear and indefinite.
Claim 13 recites “a first swing pillar” appears to be the same structural element as the “first base unit” recited within claim 1 therefore the limitation is confusing and indefinite.
Claim 13 recites “a second swing pillar” appears to be the same structural element as the “second base unit” recited within claim 1 therefore the limitation is confusing and indefinite.
Claims 1 recites “a first base unit” and claim 17 recites “a first base. Claims 18, later refers to "the first base" when describing a first incline slope control arranged at said first base. The claims could reasonably be construed as referring to the first base unit or the first base when reciting "the first base." Thus, multiple plausible claim constructions exist, making the claims indefinite. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) ("if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim… indefinite").
Claim 1 recites “a second base unit” and claim 17 recites “a second base. Claim 18, later refers to "the second base" when describing a second incline slope control arranged at said second base. The claims could reasonably be construed asreferring to the second base unit or the second base when reciting "thesecond base." Thus, multiple plausible claim constructions exist, making theclaims indefinite. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) ("if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim… indefinite").
Claim 1 recites “a first base unit” and claim 17 recites “a first base. Claims 19, later refers to "the first base" when describing a first lift to incline and decline said first base. The claims could reasonably be construed as referring to the first base unit or the first base when reciting "the first base." Thus, multiple plausible claim constructions exist, making the claims indefinite. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) ("if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim… indefinite").
Claim 1 recites “a second base unit” and claim 17 recites “a second base. Claim 19, later refers to "the second base" when describing a second lift to incline and decline said second base. The claims could reasonably be construed as referring to the second base unit or the second base when reciting "the second base." Thus, multiple plausible claim constructions exist, making the claims indefinite. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) ("if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim… indefinite").
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 13-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12089733. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both US Patent 12089733 and the application disclose:
Claim 1 A hand support device for an input apparatus for system for gesture operation of one or more electronic devices, comprising a hand supporting bridge unit comprising at less one elongated bar; and a support base assembly comprising a first base unit and a second base unit adapted for arranging at a first side and a second side of the input apparatus such as typing apparatus like keyboard, wherein said hand supporting bridge unit bridges across said first unit and said second base unit adapted for supporting wrists/forearms of an user of the electronic device while using the input apparatus such that hands of the user are able to hang down from the wrists supported by said hand supporting bridge unit to reach the input apparatus while providing a transversal support for upper extremities of the user over the input apparatus in wrist support typing posture.
Claim 2. The hand support device, as recited in claim 1, wherein said hand supporting bridge unit comprising at least one elongated bar which is supported by said first base unit and said second base unit over the input apparatus in a horizontal manner for supporting wrists/forearms of the user of the electronic device while using the input apparatus such that hands of the user are able to hang down from the wrists supported by said at least one bar to reach the input apparatus for the wrist/forearms support typing posture.
Claim 3. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, further comprising a pillar and bar joint assembly which a first pillar and bar joint movably inserting a first end of said at least one bar into said first base unit, and a second pillar and bar joint movably inserting a second end of said at least one bar into said second base unit in a movable manner, wherein said first and second ends of said at least one bar are arranged at said first base unit and second base unit respectively so as to extend along a length of the input apparatus and perpendicular to the two sides, left and right, of the input apparatus.
Claim 9. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, wherein said first base unit and said second base unit are arranged to be adjustable in height.
Claim 13. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, further comprising a first swing pillar and a second swing pillar mounted rotatably at said first base unit and said second base unit respectively, wherein said at least one bar is supported between said first swing pillar and said second swing pillar.
Claim 14. The hand support device, as recited in claim 13, further comprising a pillar and bar joint assembly comprising a first pillar and bar joint movably inserting one end of said bar into said first swing pillar, and a second pillar and bar joint movably inserting said other end of said bar into said second swing pillar in a movable manner.
Claim 15. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, further comprising a mid-bar divider comprises a first mid-bar divider and a second mid-bar divider, wherein said first mid-bar divider and said second mid-bar divider are arranged to slide with each other, wherein said at least one bar has a first half bar and a second half bar, wherein said first half bar extends between said first base unit and said first mid-bar divider, while said second half bar extends between said second base unit and said second mid-bar divider.
Claim 16. The hand support device, as recited in claim 15, wherein said mid-bar divider and said second mid-bar divider have opposite frictionless surfaces parallel to each other, while both said right and left mid bar divisions provide adjustable opposing force on each other for support and connection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-11, 13 and 17-20 is/are rejected (as best understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Johnston 5,050,826.
Johnston discloses:
Claim 1. A hand support device for an input apparatus for system for gesture operation of one or more electronic devices, comprising a hand supporting bridge unit comprising at less one elongated bar (16’); and a support base assembly comprising a first base unit (left 32’) and a second base unit (right 32’) adapted for arranging at a first side and a second side of the input apparatus (12’) such as typing apparatus like keyboard, wherein said hand supporting bridge unit bridges across said first unit and said second base unit adapted for supporting wrists/forearms of an user of the electronic device while using the input apparatus such that hands of the user are able to hang down from the wrists supported by said hand supporting bridge unit to reach the input apparatus while providing a transversal support for upper extremities of the user over the input apparatus in wrist support typing posture.
Claim 2. The hand support device, as recited in claim 1, wherein said hand supporting bridge unit comprising at least one elongated bar (16’) which is supported by said first base unit (left 32’) and said second base unit (right 32’) over the input apparatus in a horizontal manner for supporting wrists/forearms of the user of the electronic device while using the input apparatus (12’) such that hands of the user are able to hang down from the wrists supported by said at least one bar (16’) to reach the input apparatus (12’) for the wrist/forearms support typing posture.
Claim 9. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, wherein said first base unit (left 32’) and said second base unit (right 32’) are arranged to be adjustable in height.
Claim 10. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, wherein said first base unit and said second base unit are arranged to be collapsible.
Claim 11. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, further comprising a plurality of sleeves (20’) and braces provided on said at least one bar (16’) in a movable manner, where said sleeve and said braces slide over a surface area of said transverse bridge and diameters of said sleeves and braces are larger than said at least one bar (16’), thereby said sleeves and said braces provide additional comfort, therapeutic, and health benefits to the user.
Claim 13. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, further comprising a first swing pillar (left 32) and a second swing pillar (right 32) mounted rotatably at said first base unit (left 22’) and said second base unit (right 22’) respectively, wherein said at least one bar (16’) is supported between said first swing pillar (left 32’) and said second swing pillar (right 32’).
Claim 17. The hand support device, as recited in claim 11, further comprising a first base (left 22’) and a second base (right 22’), wherein said first base unit (left 32) sits movably on said first base (left 22’) and said second base unit (right 32) sits movably on said second base (right 22’).
Claim 18. The hand support device, as recited in claim 17, further comprising a first incline slope control (left 36) arranged at said first base (left 22’), and a second incline slope control (right 38) arranged at said second base (right 22’), wherein said first base unit (left 22’) sits at said first incline slope (left 36) control and said second first base unit (right 22’) sits at said second incline slope (right 38) control for additional direction guide.
Claim 19. The hand support device, as recited in claim 17, wherein said first base comprises a first lift (36) to incline and decline said first base and said second base comprises a second lift (36) to incline and decline said first base and said second base.
Claim 20. The hand support device, as recited in claim 18, wherein said first lift and said second lift (36) provide at less a 0 to 40 degrees downgrading or upgrade slope.
PNG
media_image1.png
244
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
496
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Miller 5,386.957.
Miller discloses:
Claim 1. A hand support device for an input apparatus for system for gesture operation of one or more electronic devices, comprising a hand supporting bridge unit comprising at less one elongated bar (18); and a support base assembly comprising a first base unit (left 24) and a second base unit (right 24) adapted for arranging at a first side and a second side of the input apparatus (12) such as typing apparatus like keyboard, wherein said hand supporting bridge unit bridges across said first unit and said second base unit adapted for supporting wrists/forearms of an user of the electronic device while using the input apparatus such that hands of the user are able to hang down from the wrists supported by said hand supporting bridge unit to reach the input apparatus while providing a transversal support for upper extremities of the user over the input apparatus in wrist support typing posture.
Claim 2. The hand support device, as recited in claim 1, wherein said hand supporting bridge unit comprising at least one elongated bar (18) which is supported by said first base unit (left 24) and said second base unit (right 24) over the input apparatus (12) in a horizontal manner for supporting wrists/forearms of the user of the electronic device while using the input apparatus such that hands of the user are able to hang down from the wrists supported by said at least one bar to reach the input apparatus for the wrist/forearms support typing posture.
Claim 3. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, further comprising a pillar and bar joint assembly (28/26) which a first pillar and bar joint movably inserting a first end of said at least one bar into said first base unit, and a second pillar and bar joint movably inserting a second end of said at least one bar into said second base unit in a movable manner, wherein said first and second ends of said at least one bar are arranged at said first base unit and second base unit respectively so as to extend along a length of the input apparatus and perpendicular to the two sides, left and right, of the input apparatus.
PNG
media_image3.png
396
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Oliver 6,691,972.
Oliver discloses:
Claim 1. A hand support device for an input apparatus for system for gesture operation of one or more electronic devices, comprising a hand supporting bridge unit comprising at less one elongated bar (33); and a support base assembly comprising a first base unit (2) and a second base unit (2a) adapted for arranging at a first side and a second side of the input apparatus such as typing apparatus like keyboard, wherein said hand supporting bridge unit bridges across said first unit and said second base unit adapted for supporting wrists/forearms of an user of the electronic device while using the input apparatus such that hands of the user are able to hang down from the wrists supported by said hand supporting bridge unit to reach the input apparatus while providing a transversal support for upper extremities of the user over the input apparatus in wrist support typing posture.
Claim 2. The hand support device, as recited in claim 1, wherein said hand supporting bridge unit comprising at least one elongated bar (33) which is supported by said first base unit (2) and said second base unit (2a) over the input apparatus in a horizontal manner for supporting wrists/forearms of the user of the electronic device while using the input apparatus such that hands of the user are able to hang down from the wrists supported by said at least one bar to reach the input apparatus for the wrist/forearms support typing posture.
Claim 3. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, further comprising a pillar and bar joint assembly which a first pillar and bar joint (14) movably inserting a first end of said at least one bar (33) into said first base unit (2), and a second pillar and bar joint (20) movably inserting a second end of said at least one bar (33) into said second base unit in a movable manner, wherein said first and second ends of said at least one bar (33) are arranged at said first base unit (2) and second base unit (2a) respectively so as to extend along a length of the input apparatus and perpendicular to the two sides, left and right, of the input apparatus.
Claim 4. The hand support device, as recited in claim 3, wherein said first pillar and bar joint (14) is arranged to lock (via 17) releasably and independently the first end of said at least one bar (33) at a desire position, and said second pillar and bar joint (20) is arranged to lock (via 17) releasably and independently said second end of said at least one bar at a desire position.
PNG
media_image4.png
426
306
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 2, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Maynard, Jr. (Maynard) 5,635,955.
Maynard discloses:
Claim 1. A hand support device for an input apparatus for system for gesture operation of one or more electronic devices, comprising a hand supporting bridge unit comprising at less one elongated bar (22); and a support base assembly comprising a first base unit (28) and a second base unit (30) adapted for arranging at a first side and a second side of the input apparatus (16) such as typing apparatus like keyboard, wherein said hand supporting bridge unit bridges across said first unit and said second base unit adapted for supporting wrists/forearms of an user of the electronic device while using the input apparatus such that hands of the user are able to hang down from the wrists supported by said hand supporting bridge unit to reach the input apparatus while providing a transversal support for upper extremities of the user over the input apparatus in wrist support typing posture.
Claim 2. The hand support device, as recited in claim 1, wherein said hand supporting bridge unit comprising at least one elongated bar (22) which is supported by said first base unit (28) and said second base unit (30) over the input apparatus (16) in a horizontal manner for supporting wrists/forearms of the user of the electronic device while using the input apparatus such that hands of the user are able to hang down from the wrists supported by said at least one bar to reach the input apparatus for the wrist/forearms support typing posture.
Claim 15. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, further comprising a mid-bar divider comprises a first mid-bar divider (left side of 80) and a second mid-bar divider (right side of 80), wherein said first mid-bar divider and said second mid-bar divider are arranged to slide with each other, wherein said at least one bar (22) has a first half bar (left side of 22, left of 80) and a second half bar (right side of 22, right of 80), wherein said first half bar extends between said first base unit and said first mid-bar divider, while said second half bar extends between said second base unit and said second mid-bar divider.
Claim 16. The hand support device, as recited in claim 15, wherein said mid-bar divider and said second mid-bar divider have opposite frictionless surfaces parallel to each other, while both said right and left mid bar divisions provide adjustable opposing force on each other for support and connection.
PNG
media_image5.png
596
516
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s)1, 2, 9, 11, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Cunningham et al. (Cunningham) 5,478,034.
Cunningham discloses:
Claim 1. A hand support device for an input apparatus for system for gesture operation of one or more electronic devices, comprising a hand supporting bridge unit comprising at less one elongated bar (24, 66, 68); and a support base assembly comprising a first base unit (18, 62a, 82, 84, 86) and a second base unit (16, 62a, 82, 84, 86) adapted for arranging at a first side and a second side of the input apparatus such as typing apparatus like keyboard, wherein said hand supporting bridge unit bridges across said first unit and said second base unit adapted for supporting wrists/forearms of an user of the electronic device while using the input apparatus such that hands of the user are able to hang down from the wrists supported by said hand supporting bridge unit to reach the input apparatus while providing a transversal support for upper extremities of the user over the input apparatus in wrist support typing posture.
Claim 2. The hand support device, as recited in claim 1, wherein said hand supporting bridge unit comprising at least one elongated bar (24, 66, 68) which is supported by said first base unit (18, 2a, 82, 84, 86 ) and said second base unit (16, 2a, 82, 84, 86) over the input apparatus in a horizontal manner for supporting wrists/forearms of the user of the electronic device while using the input apparatus such that hands of the user are able to hang down from the wrists supported by said at least one bar to reach the input apparatus for the wrist/forearms support typing posture.
Claim 9. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, wherein said first base unit (left 82a/86/84/82) and said second base unit (right 82a/86/84/82) are arranged to be adjustable in height.
Claim 11. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, further comprising a plurality of sleeves and braces (34, 36, 34a,36a) provided on said at least one bar (24, 66, 68) in a movable manner, where said sleeve and said braces slide over a surface area of said transverse bridge and diameters of said sleeves and braces are larger than said at least one bar (24, 66a, 82, 84, 860 thereby said sleeves and said braces provide additional comfort, therapeutic, and health benefits to the user.
Claim 13. The hand support device, as recited in claim 2, further comprising a first swing pillar (left 62a) and a second swing pillar (right 62a) mounted rotatably at said first base unit (left 82, 84, 86) and said second base unit (right 82, 84, 86) respectively, wherein said at least one bar (66, 68) is supported between said first swing pillar and said second swing pillar.
Claim 17. The hand support device, as recited in claim 11, further comprising a first base (left 82) and a second base (right 82), wherein said first base unit (left 84, 86) sits movably on said first base (left 82) and said second base unit (right 84, 86) sits movably on said second base (right 82).
PNG
media_image6.png
254
582
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
202
448
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
206
450
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston 5,050,826.
Johnston discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for: wherein said sleeves are has a length ranging from 1 inch to 8 inches and said braces vary in sizes and shapes, wherein at least a section each of said sleeves and said brace is made material selected from the group consisting of fiber organic composites, hypoallergenic material, glass, gels, wood, plastic, ceramic composites, rubber, carbon, metallic alloys, medicinal chemicals, and combinations thereof. It would have been obvious matter of engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnston to have said sleeves have a length ranging from 1 inch to 8 inches and said braces vary in sizes and shapes, since a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component and a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art since the applicant has not shown how the chosen shape is critical, and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Where the range of article sizes disclosed in the prior art envelopes the recited range, and there is no showing of criticality of the recited range, such recited range would have been one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reven, 390 F.2d 997, 156 USPQ 679 (CCPA 1968).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham et al. (Cunningham) 5,478,034.
Cunningham discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for: wherein said sleeves are has a length ranging from 1 inch to 8 inches and said braces vary in sizes and shapes, wherein at least a section each of said sleeves and said brace is made material selected from the group consisting of fiber organic composites, hypoallergenic material, glass, gels, wood, plastic, ceramic composites, rubber, carbon, metallic alloys, medicinal chemicals, and combinations thereof. It would have been obvious matter of engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnston to have said sleeves have a length ranging from 1 inch to 8 inches and said braces vary in sizes and shapes, since a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component and a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art since the applicant has not shown how the chosen shape is critical, and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Where the range of article sizes disclosed in the prior art envelopes the recited range, and there is no showing of criticality of the recited range, such recited range would have been one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reven, 390 F.2d 997, 156 USPQ 679 (CCPA 1968).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art discloses conventional hand support device..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached on (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631