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 .
Specification (Abstract of the Disclosure)
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract includes the legal phraseology “comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-7 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.
As to claim 1, the limitation, “wherein a user controls the amount of traction force applied to a joint restrained by the one or more Joint restraints by pulling the handle” is method step of using the claimed apparatus which renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p);
II. PRODUCT AND PROCESS IN THE SAME CLAIM. MPEP 2173.05(P)
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
Claims 2-7 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 since they depend directly or indirectly on rejected base claim 1 and therefore contain the same deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
As to claim 1, the limitation, “wherein a user controls the amount of traction force applied to a joint restrained by the one or more Joint restraints by pulling the handle”; positively recites part of the human body.
To obviate a rejection under 35 USC 101, the Office suggests that any claim that would include a human being, or part thereof, within its scope should use “configured to” or configured for” to define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter which is a permissible form of expression.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism since they depend directly or indirectly on rejected base claim 1 and therefore contain the same deficiencies.
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 (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 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) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinbach et al. U.S. Patent No. (6,228,004 B1).
With respect to claim 8, Steinbach et al. discloses a method of applying joint traction therapy, the method comprising:
positioning a support frame (66, fig.9) relative to a bed configured to support a user's body, the bed having a bed structure and a bed frame, the support frame having a head support member at a head end of the bed (as shown in fig.9) and a foot support member at a foot end of the bed (as shown in fig.9), wherein the support frame is held in place by the bed structure with no need for direct attachment to the bed frame (as shown in fig.9); note: element 12 is a mounting block that supports the support frame when connected to the bed and the entire device is a bed;
connecting a handle (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.9 below) to one or more joint restraints;
securing a joint of the user by the one or more joint restraints (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.9 below); and
applying a force to the joint of the user by the user pulling on the handle (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.9 below, when the leg of the user is elevated).
PNG
media_image1.png
376
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Steinbach et al. discloses the handle is connected to the one or more joint restraints via cordage (94, fig.9) and a plurality of pulleys or pulley blocks (74) and ([Col.3], lines 61-67) supported by the support frame (as shown in fig.9).
With respect to claim 10, Steinbach et al. discloses the joint traction therapy is applied to the user's lumbar spine by securing the one or more joint restraints around the user's ankles and instructing the user (by a health care practitioner) to push the handle towards the foot of the bed (as shown in fig.9).
With respect to claim 11, Steinbach et al. discloses the joint traction therapy is applied to the user's cervical spine by securing the one or more joint restraints around the user's head, positioning the one or more joint restrains at a head end of the bed and attached to a cordage, routing the cordage through one or more pulleys supported by a head support member of the support frame and attaching the cordage to the handle positioned at the head end of the bed, and instructing the user (by a heath care practitioner) to pull the handle towards the foot of the bed (as shown in fig.9).
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbach et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kernohan (GB2222134A).
With respect to claim 12, Steinbach et al. substantially discloses the invention as claimed except adjusting a height of vertical support legs of the first and second support frame to accommodate a height of the bed height and user preference. Steinbach however, teaches in an alternative embodiment to fig.10, a first and second support frame comprising first and second vertical legs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the support frame of (fig.9) by incorporating the first and second support frame taught in (fig.10) having vertical legs for providing a versatile physical therapy apparatus preferably to be used with the aid of a physical therapist.
Kernohan, in addition, teaches a traction frame comprising an adjustable base (12) formed of sections (14) and (16) and (abstract) and comprises upstanding or vertical legs (26 and 28, fig.1). In use, the frame portions 34 is adjusted with the uprights 26 and 28 by means of pins 36 and 38 again according to the size of the patient [Page 2], 13th paragraph].
In view of the teachings of Kernohan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of applying traction of Steinbach et al. by adjusting the height of the vertical support legs of the first and second support frames to accommodate the bed height and user preference based on the size of the patient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-9, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Steinbach et al. The Office maintain the teaching reference to cure the deficiencies of Steinbach et al.
The amendment to the abstract was not amended in view of the objection to the Abstract, as such, the Office maintains the objection to the Abstract.
The amendment to claim 12 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OPHELIA ALTHEA HAWTHORNE whose telephone number is (571)270-3860. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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 5712703076. 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.
/OPHELIA A HAWTHORNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786