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 .
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, 2, 4-10, and 17 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 17, claim 1 recites a substrate element in form of a flexible sleeve made of knitted fabric with a meshed weave, and a curable element in form of a flexible sleeve made of knitted fabric with a meshed weave. It is unclear if the claimed flexible sleeves are required or if the recitation of “in form of” only requires the elements to be similar in structure to the claimed flexible sleeves. Note that the same reasoning applies to claim 8 and the claimed lateral branch.
Additionally knitted fabrics are distinguished from a meshed weave. Applicants’ specification does not define a knitted fabric to be meshed weave, or recite a manner in which a knitted fabric is necessarily also a meshed weave.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the compound (a) undergoing polymerization or crosslinking upon exposure to light at the same time is the compound (c) undergoing polymerization or crosslinking upon exposure to water. The verbiage of the claim is unclear. For example, the claim recites the compound (a) undergoing polymerization or crosslinking upon exposure to light at the same time. Since the compound (a) undergoes polymerization or crosslinking upon exposure to light, the claim is inconsistent with the options recited.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites that the curable element along its longitudinal axis has a cutting line defined by the thinner weave of the knitted fabric. The claim is dependent from claim 1, which does not require the curable element to have a longitudinal axis. Additionally, claim 1 does not require a thinner weave. Therefore, the limitations lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Additionally, claim 1 requires each of the substrate element and curable element to be in form of a flexible sleeve made of knitted fabric. It is unclear which knitted fabric is referenced in claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites that it has a colour marking defining its size, preferably in form of a colour thread finish. It is unclear what the “it” and “its size” referred to in the claim are referencing.
Additionally, it is unclear if the limitation following “preferably” is only reciting a preferred embodiment which is not required, or is reciting an embodiment which is necessarily required.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites that the colour marking additionally indicates the location of the opening for the thumb. The claim is dependent from claims 1 and 9, which do not recite an opening for a thumb. Therefore, the limitations lack proper antecedent basis in the 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 6,585,671 to Rhee in view of USPN 5,913840 to Allenberg and USPN 6,844,376 to Jacobine.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 17, Rhee teaches a hybrid-mesh cast sleeve comprising a tubular mesh woven of an elastic yarn and a coarse, impregnable yarn, preferably used with a stockinette (Rhee, Abstract, column 1 line 66 to column 2 line 36), preferably made of polypropylene (Id., column 2 lines 37-65). Rhee teaches that to use the hybrid-mesh cast sleeve, a stockinette of suitable diameter, length, and thickness is pulled on around the area of a body to be reinforced by a cast, so that the stockinette is woven by the patient or animal being treated in a band-like or annular manner around the desired area (Id.). Rhee teaches that although a single stockinette can be used, better results can be obtained by using two stockinettes, a very thin stockinette applied next to the skin, and a thicker stockinette applied over the very thin stockinette, to improve breathability (Id.). Rhee teaches that before application of the hybrid-mesh cast sleeve, the sleeve is soaked in a hardening agent, usually a synthetic resin or a hardening latex (Id., column 2 lines 37-65). Rhee teaches that before the hardening agent begins to solidify, the hybrid-mesh cast sleeve is positioned so that the impregnated sleeve covers the midsection of the stockinette (Id.). Note that since Rhee teaches a hybrid-mesh cast sleeve comprising a tubular mesh woven and a stockinette, wherein the hybrid-mesh cast sleeve is soaked with the hardening agent, and since the stockinette are preferably made of polypropylene which is known in the art as a hydrophobic material, Rhee appears to teach the claimed structure.
Rhee does not appear to teach the sleeve comprising hydrophobic materials and the claimed hybrid mixture. However, Allenberg teaches a similar reinforceable orthopedic casting article comprising a backing and a curable resin having an activator capable of assisting in the initiation of the cure of an addition polymerizable reinforcement compound (Allenberg, Abstract). Allenberg teaches that the backing is at least partially impregnated with the resin, wherein suitable flexible sheet materials include woven or knit fabrics comprised of synthetic fibers (Id., column 8 lines 39-55). Note that the synthetic fibers of Allenberg are ordinarily known in the art as being hydrophobic. Allenberg teaches that water-curable isocyanate functional prepolymers are employed as the curable resin (Id., column 5 line 1 to column 6 line 48) and light-curing materials (Id., column 7 line 66 to column 8 line 15). Allenberg teaches that the reactivity of the resin once it is exposed to the water curing agent can be controlled by the use of a suitable amount of a proper catalyst, wherein good results have been achieved using 2,2’dimorpholinodiethyl ether (Id., column 6 lines 49-67). Allenberg teaches that the reinforcement compound comprises a free-radically or cationically curable or cross-linkable monomer, oligomer, or polymer, and comprises one or more polymerizable substances (Id., column 13 lines 21-35). Allenberg teaches that polymerization catalysts can be included in the reinforcement compound and/or in the casting tape, such as autocure or light cure catalysts (Id., column 14 line 51 to column 15 line 4).
Although Allenberg suggests that the resin composition may be water curable and light curable, Jacobine teaches polyurethane compositions containing both radiation and moisture curable groups (Jacobine, Abstract) applied to substrates such as textiles to form coatings, structural adhesives, or sealants (Id., column 10 lines 54-67, column 11 lines 15-49). Jacobine teaches that the composition is formed as a reaction product of structural formula I which contains an isocyanate-reactive group and a diisocyanate (Id., column 5 lines 20-62). Jacobine teaches that the compositions include a curing system, which may include catalysts and photoinitiators which act to accelerate or otherwise promote the curing of the composition (Id., column 9 lines 53-57). Jacobine teaches that the composition is designed primarily as a radiation curing product (Id., column 10 lines 54-67). Jacobine teaches that due to the configuration of many substrates, there are many shadow areas that cannot be cured by radiation (Id.). Jacobine teaches that to overcome this deficiency, a second curing mechanism, specifically a built-in moisture cure mechanism after exposure to radiation, is available to complete curing of uncured areas (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the hybrid-mesh cast sleeve of Rhee, wherein the hardening agent comprises each of an isocyanate, photoinitiator, and the claimed catalyst which is moisture and UV curable, as taught by Allenberg and Jacobine, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional cast sleeve comprising a curable resin composition which predictably allows the resin to be cured in shadow areas.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the hybrid-mesh cast sleeve of Rhee, wherein the cast sleeve comprises synthetic yarns, as taught by Allenberg, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional cast sleeve comprising fibers known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar castings impregnated with curable resins.
Regarding the claimed amounts, the prior art combination teaches that amine concentrations and catalysts amounts should be 0.2-2.0% of the composition (Allenberg, column 16 lines 16-45). Additionally, the prior art combination teaches that in order to effect quick and efficient polymerization under UV light, 0.01 to 5 weight percent of a photoinitiator may be incorporated into the composition (Jacobine, column 10 lines 6-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the hybrid-mesh cast sleeve of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the amount of the dual cure compound, such as within the claimed amounts, as suggested by the prior art combination, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional cast sleeve comprising dual cure compound amounts known in the art as being predictably suitable for curable resins based on the desired curing efficiency. Note that the reaction product of the prior art is dual light and moisture curable.
Regarding claims 7-10, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what structure is required by the claims. However, the prior art combination establishes that castings were known in the art as being suitable for various parts of the body, including the forearm and thumb (Allenberg, column 10 line 10 to column 11 line 36), wherein colors may be applied to the casting material to facilitate placement of the reinforcing compound (Id., column 13 lines 9-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the hybrid-mesh cast sleeve of the prior art combination, wherein the sleeve is constructed for use as claimed, including having the desired lines, colors and aesthetics as claimed, as suggested by the prior art, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional cast sleeve having the desired structure and aesthetics suitable for the intended application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights