DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed 10/20/2025. Currently, claims 1-12 are pending in the application.
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.
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 one or more removable inserts arranged substantially perpendicular to the elongate direction of the central elongate portion when inserted and configured to lift a portion of the vest away from the body of the patient (see claim 12) 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.
Specification
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 legal phraseology, which is not permitted. The terms “comprising” (twice recited) and “comprises” should be removed from the abstract to avoid this error. 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 Objections
Claims 1-3, 8, 9 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: in order to maintain consistency and clarity throughout the claim(s), all recitations of “the central elongate portion” should be amended to recite ---the resilient central elongate portion---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: in order to maintain consistency and clarity throughout the claim(s), all recitations of “the attachment surfaces” should be amended to recite ---the attachment surface and the co-operating attachment surface---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 7, 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: in order to maintain consistency and clarity throughout the claim(s), all recitations of “the vest” should be amended to recite ---the post-surgical thoracic support vest---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: all recitations of “touch based” should be amended to recite ---touch-based---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “off centre” in line 2 of the claim should be amended to recite ---off-center---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “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) 1-7, 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 Figures 1-3, [0011] and [0029-0030] 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 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 surfaces (Velcro® strips 9 and 10).
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 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 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 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 central elongate portion (portion of band 1 defined in the annotated copy of Figure 2 provided above).
In regards to claim 7, Hansen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hansen teaches in the abstract, [0010], [0029] and [0031] that the pocket (pocket 4) is configured to allow the patient to attach and release the attachment surfaces (Velcro® strips 9 and 10) 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 vest ([0010] teaches that “the band forms part of a vest garment”).
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 centre with respect to the thorax of the patient when the 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 vest further comprises one or more removable inserts arranged substantially perpendicular to the elongate direction of the 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 [0049] and Figures 7-10 an analogous device wherein the vest (pannus support member 100; shown in Figure 7 to be structured like a vest) 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 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 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 vest of Hansen to further comprise one or more removable inserts arranged substantially perpendicular to the elongate direction of the central elongate portion when inserted and configured to lift a portion of the 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leibowitz (US 2017/0135847 A1)
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 12/10/2025