DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 4/10/2026. Currently, claims 1-6 and 8-12 are pending in the application. Claim 7 is cancelled 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the drawings is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to the drawings.
Applicant’s amendment to the abstract is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to the specification.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-3, 8, 9 and 12 are sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claims 1-3, 8, 9 and 12. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claim 1. Applicant’s amendments to claims 2, 11 and 12 are sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claims 2, 11 and 12. Applicant’s amendments to claims 4 and 5 are sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claims 4 and 5. Applicant’s amendment to claim 11 is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claim 11.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 3 is not sufficient to overcome the previous rejections of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. While Applicant argues that claim 3 was amended to overcome the outstanding rejection(s) (by amending claim 3 to depend from claim 2 and amending “the upper surface” in claim 3to recite ---an upper surface---), no such amendments are made to claim 3 as filed on 4/10/2026. Claim 3, therefore, remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as detailed below.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 11 is not sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. While Applicant argues that claim 11 was amended to overcome the outstanding rejection (by amending “the position of the pocket” to recite ---a position of the pocket---), no such amendment was made to claim 11 as filed on 4/10/2026. Claim 11, therefore, remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as detailed below.
In response to applicant's argument that Hansen does not teach wherein the pocket is configured to allow the patient to attach and release the attachment surface to the co-operating attachment surface using a single hand while wearing the post-surgical thoracic support vest, the examiner reminds Applicant that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the present case, it is clear that a user is capable of placing their hand inside of the pocket 4, grasping the handle 6, and utilizing the handle 6 to move the band 1 with a single hand and attach and release Velcro® strips 9 and 10.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “300” (see Figure 3 filed 4/10/2026). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The amendment filed 4/10/2026 is objected because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the size, shape and location of the inserts 300 as shown in new Figure 3.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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: “touch-based fastening arrangement” in claims 4 and 5.
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 disclosure teaches the following corresponding structure as performing the claimed function: hook and loop fastener.
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 § 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.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the adjustable support strap" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the upper surface" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is 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. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the position of the pocket" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-6, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansen (US 2006/0047236 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Hansen teaches in the abstract, Figures 1-3, [0010-0011] and [0029-0031] a resilient ([0011] teaches that the band 1 is made of “a stretchable fabric;” [0011] teaches that the band 1 is made of "Millerighe" bandage material, which is a resilient material) central elongate portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided below) configured to be wrapped around the thorax of a patient (as shown in Figure 3); a first peripheral portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided below) disposed at (as shown in Figure 2) a first end (right end, as shown in Figure 2) of the central elongate portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided below), the first peripheral portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided below) comprising (as shown in Figure 2): a pocket (pocket 4) disposed on an outer surface of ([0029] teaches “the external surface of the band, i.e. the surface not in contact with the chest of the user, has pockets 4 which are attached to the band 1”) the first peripheral portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided below), the pocket (pocket 4) arranged so as to allow the patient to insert at least a part of a hand into ([0029] teaches “pockets 4 which are attached to the band 1 and have an opening 5 for the user's hand to enter”) the pocket (pocket 4); and an attachment surface (Velcro® strips 10) disposed on an inner surface of (as shown in phantom in Figure 2) the first peripheral portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided below); and a second peripheral portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided below) disposed at (as shown in Figure 2) a second end (left end, as shown in Figure 2) of the resilient ([0011] teaches that the band 1 is made of “a stretchable fabric;” [0011] teaches that the band 1 is made of "Millerighe" bandage material, which is a resilient material) central elongate portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided below), wherein the second peripheral portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided below) comprises (as shown in Figure 2) a co-operating ([0030] teaches “complimentary Velcro strips 9 and 10”) attachment surface (Velcro® strips 9) on an outer surface of (as shown in Figure 2) the second peripheral portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided below) and is configured to be releasably secured to (as taught in [0030]) the first peripheral portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided below) via the attachment surface and the co-operating attachment surface (Velcro® strips 9 and 10), wherein the pocket (pocket 4) is configured to allow the patient to attach and release the attachment surface (Velcro® strips 10) to the co-operating ([0030] teaches “complimentary Velcro strips 9 and 10”) attachment surface (Velcro® strips 9) using a single hand while wearing (the abstract teaches “one or more grips (6) which are wholly or partially concealed within pockets (4) with which the patient may alter the tension of the chest encircling band;” [0029] teaches “pockets 4 which are attached to the band 1 and have an opening 5 for the user's hand to enter and grip the handle 6;” [0031] teaches “the patient can raise his hands to the handles 6 within the pockets 4 through the pocket openings 5, and by pushing his hands towards one another can tighten the band around the chest, thus increasing the tension applied to the chest;” thus, it is clear that a user is capable of placing their hand inside of the pocket 4, grasping the handle 6, and utilizing the handle 6 to move the band 1 with a single hand and attach and release Velcro® strips 9 and 10) the post-surgical thoracic support vest ([0010] teaches that “the band forms part of a vest garment”).
PNG
media_image1.png
325
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Hansen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hansen teaches in Figures 1-3, [0010] and [0029] an adjustable ([0029] teaches “the braces are removably attached towards the front of the band (from the wearer's point of view) by Velcro strips 3;” Velcro® is a removable and adjustable attachment mechanism) support strap (braces 2) extending from an upper edge of (as shown in Figures 1 and 2) the resilient central elongate portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided above) and configured to set and maintain a vertical position of the post-surgical thoracic support vest ([0010] teaches that “the band forms part of a vest garment”) around the patent's thorax (the engagement of braces 2 with Velcro® strips 3 is capable of being vertically adjusted in order to set and maintain a vertical position of the vest).
In regards to claim 3, Hansen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hansen teaches in Figures 1-3 and [0029] that the adjustable ([0029] teaches “the braces are removably attached towards the front of the band (from the wearer's point of view) by Velcro strips 3;” Velcro® is a removable and adjustable attachment mechanism) support strap (braces 2) is arranged to pass over the shoulders of the patient (as shown in Figure 3) and be releasably secured to ([0029] teaches “the braces are removably attached towards the front of the band (from the wearer's point of view) by Velcro strips 3”) a pair of connecting strips (Velcro® strips 3; Figure 2 teaches two Velcro® strips 3) which extend from the upper surface of (Figure 2 teaches the two Velcro® strips 3 each having a length that projects downward in a direction away from the upper surface of the first peripheral portion) the resilient central elongate portion, first peripheral portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided above) or second peripheral portion.
In regards to claim 4, Hansen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hansen teaches in [0030] that the attachment surface (Velcro® strips 10) and the co-operating attachment surface (Velcro® strips 9) together comprise a touch-based fastening arrangement ([0030] teaches “complimentary Velcro strips 9 and 10;” Velcro® is a touch based fastening arrangement).
In regards to claim 5, Hansen teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 4. Hansen teaches in [0030] that the touch-based fastening arrangement ([0030] teaches “complimentary Velcro strips 9 and 10;” Velcro® is a touch based fastening arrangement) is a hook and loop fastener ([0030] teaches “complimentary Velcro strips 9 and 10;” Velcro® is a hook and loop fastener).
In regards to claim 6, Hansen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hansen teaches in Figures 1 and 3 that an opening (opening 5) of the pocket (pocket 4) is arranged perpendicular to (Figures 1 and 3 teach the opening 5 being oriented vertically) the elongate direction (horizontal direction) of the resilient central elongate portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided above).
In regards to claim 10, Hansen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hansen teaches in [0011] that the first peripheral portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided above) and second peripheral portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided above) are made of a resilient material ([0011] teaches that the band 1 is made of “a stretchable fabric;” [0011] teaches that the band 1 is made of "Millerighe" bandage material, which is a resilient material).
In regards to claim 11, Hansen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hansen teaches in Figure 3 and [0010] that the position of the pocket (pocket 4) is off-center with respect to the thorax of the patient when the post-surgical thoracic support vest ([0010] teaches that “the band forms part of a vest garment”) is worn by the patient (Figure 3 teaches the pocket 4 being positioned at a location that is not central on the user’s thorax).
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) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 2006/0047236 A1) in view of PERRAUDEAU et al. (FR 3,036,950 A1) (with reference to the attached translation).
In regards to claim 8, Hansen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hansen does not teach that the resilient central elongate portion is made of a mix of polyamide and elastane in the ranges of 50-70% polyamide and 30-50% elastane.
However, PERRAUDEAU et al. teaches on page 5 an analogous device wherein the resilient central elongate portion (central portion of belt 1) is made of a mix of polyamide and elastane in the ranges of 50-70% polyamide and 30-50% elastane (page 5 teaches “the belt 1 is composed of 39% elastane and 61% polyamide”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the resilient central elongate portion of Hansen such that the central elongate portion is made of a mix of polyamide and elastane in the ranges of 50-70% polyamide and 30-50% elastane as taught by PERRAUDEAU et al. because this material is known to provide that “the belt 1 is elastically deformable so as to guarantee the user UTL freedom of movement and optimal breathing,” as PERRAUDEAU et al. teaches on page 5.
In regards to claim 9, Hansen and PERRAUDEAU et al. teach the apparatus of claims 1 and 8. Hansen and PERRAUDEAU et al. do not teach that the resilient central elongate portion is made of a mix of polyamide and elastane in the ratio 59% polyamide and 41% elastane.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to provide that the resilient central elongate portion is made of a mix of polyamide and elastane in the ratio 59% polyamide and 41% elastane, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention would find it obvious that the ratio of polyamide and elastane in the resilient central elongate portion could be modified as necessary for the material to most comfortably fit an individual wearer.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 2006/0047236 A1) in view of Long Sharps et al. (US 2012/0024296 A1).
In regards to claim 12, Hansen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hansen does not teach that the post-surgical thoracic support vest further comprises one or more removable inserts arranged substantially perpendicular to the elongate direction of the resilient central elongate portion when inserted and configured to lift a portion of the vest away from the body of the patient.
However, Long Sharps et al. teaches in the abstract, [0049] and Figures 7-10 an analogous device wherein the post-surgical thoracic support vest (pannus support member 100; shown in Figure 7 to be structured like a vest; taught in the abstract to be used post-surgery) further comprises one or more removable inserts (removable accessory 800; taught in [0049] and Figures 7-10 to be inserted between the inner surface 240 of the belt portion 200 and the user’s skin) arranged substantially perpendicular to (Figures 7-10 teach the removable accessory 800 having a height that extends vertically) the elongate direction (horizontal direction) of the resilient ([0036] teaches the front section 211 being made of nylon, which is a resilient material) central elongate portion (front section 211 of the belt portion 200) when inserted (as shown in Figures 7-10) and configured to lift a portion of the post-surgical thoracic support vest (pannus support member 100) away from the body of the patient (as shown in Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the post-surgical thoracic support vest of Hansen to further comprise one or more removable inserts arranged substantially perpendicular to the elongate direction of the resilient central elongate portion when inserted and configured to lift a portion of the post-surgical thoracic support vest away from the body of the patient as taught by Long Sharps et al. because this element is known to “provides additional support and padding” for the user, as Long Sharps et al. teaches in [0049].
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 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 5/7/2026
Prosecution Insights