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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1, 3, and 10 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 3 has overcome the previous claim objection. Therefore, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 10 has overcome the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Therefore, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Currently claims 1, 3-10, 12, and 14-17 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 02/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adhesia (FR 2,363,319 A1) and Chambers et al. (WO 2024/044267 A1) respectively 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Adhesia and Chambers et al. in view of the newly found reference of Foley (GB 2,170,112 A) as described below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9-10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADHESIA MANUF BANDES PLATREES (FR 2363319 A1) (hereinafter Adhesia; Examiner relies on a machine translation of the reference provided by Espacenet.com) in view of Foley (GB 2,170,112 A).
In regards to claim 1, Adhesia discloses A halo gravity traction apparatus (walking orthopedic device; see [0004]; see figure 1), comprising:
a frame structure (frame of device; see figure 1);
a wire (42; see [0004]; see figure 1) having a first end (end attached to 43; see figure 1) and a second end (end attached to 44; see figure 1);
a halo ring connector (47a; see [0004]; see figure 4) at the first end of the wire (see figure 1);
a biasing mechanism (45; see [0004]; see figure 1);
wherein the frame structure (frame) is configured to support the wire (42) and the biasing mechanism (45; see figure 1) ; and
wherein the biasing mechanism (45) is configured to apply free weight traction (45 being a counterweight applies free weight traction) to apply a downward pulling force to the wire (42) at the second end of the wire (end attached to 44; see figure 1).
Adhesia does not disclose the biasing mechanism is switchable between applying spring loaded traction and applying free weight traction.
However, Foley teaches an analogous traction apparatus (apparatus; see pg 1 ln 111; see figure 1; see pg 2 ln 40-46 that the device applies traction to a user’s spine) comprising an analogous frame (1; see pg 1 ln 116; see figure 1) and an analogous biasing mechanism (pulley system; see pg 2 ln 60-65; see figure 3); wherein the biasing mechanism (pulley system) is switchable between applying spring loaded traction (traction applied by 27; see pg 2 ln 66-100; see figure 3) and applying free weight traction (traction applied by 25; see pg 2 ln 75-80; see figure 3) for the purpose of providing more than one biasing means (see pg 1 ln 85-90).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the biasing mechanism as disclosed by Adhesia and to have formed the biasing mechanism to be switchable between spring-loaded traction or free weight traction as taught by Foley in order to have provided an improved traction apparatus that would add the benefit of providing more than one biasing means (see pg 1 ln 85-90), thereby allowing the user to customize the biasing mechanism based on the user’s specific wants and needs.
In regards to claim 3, Adhesia as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Adhesia further discloses further comprising a connector member (44; see [0004]; see figure 1) at the second end of the wire (end attached to 44), connectable to the biasing mechanism (45; see figure 1).
In regards to claim 9, Adhesia as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Adhesia further discloses wherein the frame structure (frame) comprises:
a plurality of vertical posts (55 and 56; see [0004]; see figure 2);
a horizontal bar (53; see [0004]; see figure 1) connecting the vertical posts (55 and 56; see figure 1);
an overhead beam (52; see [0004]; see figure 1) extending from the horizontal bar (53; see figure 1); and
a base (1; see [0004]; see figure 1) for supporting the vertical posts (55 and 56; see figure 1),
wherein the wire is guided by wheels (48 and 49; see [0004]; see figure 1) at the frame structure (frame) such that the halo ring connector (47a) is suspended from the overhead beam (52; see figure 1).
In regards to claim 10, Adhesia as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Adhesia further discloses wherein the frame structure (frame) is configured as a walker (1 is configured as a walker; see [0004] in reference to “the “walker” is designated by 1), and wherein the base (1) comprises:
a plurality of horizontal base bars (13-16; see [0004]; see figure 1);
a horizontal front beam (6; see [0004]; see figure 2); and
at least three wheels (23-26; see [0004]; see figure 2).
In regards to claim 12, Adhesia as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Adhesia further discloses wherein the base (1) comprises a wheel chair (31; see [0004]; see figure 1; 1 is considered to comprise a wheel chair in that 31 defines a seat or chair, and 1 also has wheels 23-26).
In regards to claim 14, Adhesia as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Adhesia further discloses wherein the biasing mechanism (45) is attached to the frame structure (frame) at a low attachment point (see figure 1 that 45 is attached to the frame at an attachment point lower than 52 and thus is considered a “low” attachment point), such that the wire (42) runs upwards from the biasing mechanism (45) and is guided along the frame structure (frame; see figure 1).
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chambers et al. (WO 2024/044267 A1) (hereinafter Chambers) which claims priority from US Provisional application 63/400,204, which was filed 08/23/2022 before Applicant’s effective filing date of 10/3/2023 in view of Foley.
In regards to claim 1, Chambers discloses a halo gravity traction apparatus (10; see [0029]; see figure 1), comprising:
a frame structure (32; see [0031]; see figure 1);
a wire (30; see [0030]; see figure 1) having a first end (36; see [0031]; see figure 1) and a second end (38; see [0031]; see figure 1);
a halo ring connector (28; see [0030]; see figure 1) at the first end of the wire (36; see figure 1);
a biasing mechanism (40-42; see [0031] and [0036; see figure 1);
wherein the frame structure (32) is configured to support the wire (30) and the biasing mechanism (40-42; see figure 1); and
wherein the biasing mechanism (40-42) is configured to apply spring-loaded traction (41 being a spring applies a spring-loaded traction) to apply a downward pulling force to the wire (30) at the second end of the wire (38; see [0041]).
Chambers does not disclose the biasing mechanism is switchable between applying spring loaded traction and applying free weight traction.
However, Foley teaches an analogous traction apparatus (apparatus; see pg 1 ln 111; see figure 1; see pg 2 ln 40-46 that the device applies traction to a user’s spine) comprising an analogous frame (1; see pg 1 ln 116; see figure 1) and an analogous biasing mechanism (pulley system; see pg 2 ln 60-65; see figure 3); wherein the biasing mechanism (pulley system) is switchable between applying spring loaded traction (traction applied by 27; see pg 2 ln 66-100; see figure 3) and applying free weight traction (traction applied by 25; see pg 2 ln 75-80; see figure 3) for the purpose of providing more than one biasing means (see pg 1 ln 85-90).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the biasing mechanism as disclosed by Chambers and to have formed the biasing mechanism to be switchable between spring-loaded traction or free weight traction as taught by Foley in order to have provided an improved traction apparatus that would add the benefit of providing more than one biasing means (see pg 1 ln 85-90), thereby allowing the user to customize the biasing mechanism based on the user’s specific wants and needs.
In regards to claim 3, Chambers as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Chambers further discloses further comprising a connector member (44, 46, 48; see [0033]; see figure 8) at the second end of the wire (38), connectable to the biasing mechanism (40-42; see figure 8).
In regards to claim 4, Chambers as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Chambers further discloses wherein the connector member (44, 46, 48) comprises a rope lock (48) for securing the wire (30) at a desired tension (see [0033]).
In regards to claim 5, Chambers as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Chambers further discloses wherein the second end of the wire (38) comprises a handle (44) for pulling the wire (30) when threaded through the rope lock (48) to apply tension (see [0033]).
In regards to claim 6, Chambers as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Chambers further discloses wherein the biasing mechanism (40-42) comprises:
a casing (40) attached to the frame structure (32; see figure 10) and having an aperture at an upper wall of the casing (40; see figure 1 that 40 comprises an aperture for receiving 37 near 54);
a spring device (41) configured in the casing (40), connectable to the wire (38) through the aperture (41 indirectly attaches to 30 through the aperture via 37, 44, 46, and 48; see figure 10).
In regards to claim 7, Chambers as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Chambers further discloses wherein the spring device (41) comprises:
at least one spring (41 is a spring);
a spring connector (34; see [0031]; see figure 1) connected to the at least one spring (41; 34 is connected to 41; see [0031]);
an attachment member (37; see figure 9) extending from the spring connector (34) through the aperture in the casing (41) for connection to the wire (30; see figure 1 that 37 extends into the aperture of 40 near 54).
In regards to claim 9, Chambers as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Chambers further discloses wherein the frame structure (32) comprises:
a plurality of vertical posts (66 and 68; see [0046]; see figure 1);
a horizontal bar (51; see [0047]; see figure 1) connecting the vertical posts (66 and 68; see figure 1);
an overhead beam (50; see [0035]; see figure 1) extending from the horizontal bar (51; see figure 1); and
a base (62; see [0047]; see figure 1) for supporting the vertical posts (66 and 68; see figure 1), wherein the wire (30) is guided by wheels (52a and 52b; see [0035]; see figure 1) at the frame structure (32) such that the halo ring connector (26) is suspended from the overhead beam (50; see figure 1).
In regards to claim 10, Chambers as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Chambers further discloses wherein the frame structure (32) is configured as a walker (see figure 3), and wherein the base (62) comprises:
a plurality of horizontal base bars (lower bars of walker);
a horizontal front beam (front bars of walker); and
at least three wheels (four wheels; see figure 3).
In regards to claim 12, Chambers as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Chambers further discloses wherein the base (62) comprises a wheelchair, supporting the vertical posts (66 and 68; see figure 2).
In regards to claim 14, Chambers as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Chambers further discloses wherein the biasing mechanism (40, 41, 42) is attached to the frame structure (32) at a low attachment point (see figure 1 that 40, 41, and 42 is attached to 32 at an attachment point lower than 50 and thus is considered a “low” attachment point), such that the wire (30) runs upwards from the biasing mechanism (40, 41, 42; see figure 1) and is guided along the frame structure (32; see figure 1).
In regards to claim 15, Chambers as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Chambers as now modified by Foley does not explicitly disclose wherein the low attachment point is below a height of 100 cm from ground level of the frame structure.
However, Chambers teaches that the frame (and therefore the height of the low attachment point) can be built for differing heights for varying groups of users, such as pediatric patients (see [0035]). Thus, a height of the frame (and therefore a height of the low attachment point) is considered to be a result effective variable in that changing the height of the frame based on the size of the varying groups of users affects the ability of halo gravity traction apparatus to properly apply traction forces to a user’s cranium. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the height of the frame (and therefore the height of the lower attachment point) of Chambers as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the height of the low attachment point of Chambers as now modified by Foley by building the frame from a height such that the low attachment point is below a height of 100cm from ground level of the frame structure as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). Such a modification would add the benefit of positioning the low attachment point of the biasing mechanism at a height which would accommodate shorter patients such as pediatric patients (see [0035]).
In regards to claim 16, Chambers as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Chambers further discloses wherein the biasing mechanism (40-42) comprises:
a casing (40) attached to the frame structure (32; see figure 10) and having an aperture at an upper wall of the casing (40; see figure 1 that 40 comprises an aperture for receiving 37 near 54);
a spring device (41) configured in the casing (40), connectable to the wire (38) through the aperture (41 indirectly attaches to 30 through the aperture via 37, 44, 46, and 48; see figure 10); and
wherein the casing (40) is attached to the horizontal front beam (front bar of walker; 40 is attached to 32, 32 is attached to the walker via 76, therefore 40 is indirectly attached to the front bars of the walker).
In regards to claim 17, Chambers as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Chambers further discloses wherein the biasing mechanism (40-42) comprises:
a casing (40) attached to the frame structure (32; see figure 10) and having an aperture at an upper wall of the casing (40; see figure 1 that 40 comprises an aperture for receiving 37 near 54);
a spring device (41) configured in the casing (40), connectable to the wire (38) through the aperture (41 indirectly attaches to 30 through the aperture via 37, 44, 46, and 48; see figure 10); and
wherein the casing (40) is attached behind a backrest of the wheelchair (see figure 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chambers in view of Foley as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of McKeon et al. (US 8,273,047 B1) (hereinafter McKeon).
In regards to claim 8, Chambers as now modified by Foley discloses the invention as discussed above.
Chambers as now modified by Foley does not disclose further comprising a tension indicator on the spring device and a tension scale on the casing to indicate the applied traction force.
However, McKeon teaches an analogous spring device (31; see [col 6 ln 1-11]; see figure 14) which is utilized to apply an analogous traction force to an individual (see Title); further comprising a tension indicator (32; see [col 8 ln 40-45]; see figure 14) on the spring device (31) and a tension scale (104 and 105; see [col 8 ln 40-45]; see figure 14) on the casing to indicate the applied traction force (see [col 8 ln 40-55]) for the purpose of providing an easy to read means for measuring the amount of traction being applied to the patient (see [col 8 ln 50-55]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the casing of the spring device as disclosed by Chambers as now modified by Foley and to have included the tension indicator and scale as taught by McKeon in order to have provided an improved spring device that would add the benefit of providing an easy to read means on the spring device for measuring the amount of traction being applied to the patient (see [col 8 ln 50-55]).
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 DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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 571-270-3076. 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.
//DANIEL A MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights