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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments, filed 3/13/2026, to claims 1, 3, 7 acknowledged by Examiner. Additionally, applicant cancelled claim 2.
Claims 1, 3-9 are now pending.
Previous claim objection withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Reich does not provide for the structural and functional configuration as presently claimed (pages 7-9 of the remarks), Examiner disagrees. Firstly, as further updated in the rejection below, Reich provides for all the structures of a ring/cuff around a finger and an extension portion extending distally therein that extends along the finger and goes around the fingertip/distal portion of the finger. Thus, Reich clearly provides the structures as required as claimed. Regarding the functional limitations therein, Examiner notes first that this is an apparatus claim and not a method claim, wherein if the invention of the prior art is capable of performing the functions then the claim language is met. And as discussed in the updated rejection below, the structures of Reich are clearly capable of providing a longitudinal tension around the finger to provide hyperextension of the DIP joint therein, is capable of permitting movement of the PIP joint, and is capable of fitting around a finger at or proximal to a PIP joint of the wearer via the structures and material properties present within the invention. Furthermore, Applicant appears to be slightly off on the previously assertion of Reich wherein Applicant states “maintained by forces oriented longitudinally along the finger rather than by circumferential compression around the injured joint” (page 8 first paragraph), wherein Examiner is not asserting that the hyperextension is being provided by the circumferential compression at all in Reich. Examiner is asserting that as seen in Reich Fig. 1-4 the extension portion 26 is stretchable longitudinally along the finger such that when wrapped from the underside to the topside of the finger as seen in Fig. 3-4 for attachment the extension portion 26 may be stretched in attachment thus providing a longitudinal upward force on the DIP joint for placement into a hyperextended state thereof which is as is claimed and further in line with the inventive concepts of the present instant disclosure. As such, the 102 rejection under Reich is maintained for the present claims.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the 103 rejections appears to be substantively providing that the other references do not provide for the newly amended language of claim 1 or supposed deficiencies in Reich; however, these arguments are moot as Reich is being used to provide the amended claim language according to the argument above.
Examiner’s Notes
All references relied up on and not cited in the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/13/2026. These drawings are unacceptable.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the new drawings are sloppy with the new thick black lines drawn over still present gray pencil looking drawings. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Previous drawing objections maintained until the drawings are properly presentable.
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, 3-9 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 1 recites “extend along the finger toward a fingertip and around a distal portion of the finger” wherein the instant specification provides context that the “distal portion of the finger” appears to be the fingertip, so the recitation of both “a fingertip” and “a distal portion of the finger” appears to be reciting the same portion of the body. In examination the same structures/things are not supposed to be double recited, and the present claim language makes this limitation unclear how to read this limitation as such.
Claim 1 now recites “a fingertip” and claim 7 previously and currently recites “the tip of the finger”. There is now a conflict of antecedent basis as amended causing lack of clarity between these two recitations.
Claims 3-6, 8-9 rejected as being dependent on a rejected 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reich (US 6307118 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Reich discloses a splint device 10 (Figures 1-4, bandage 10 may function as splinting device, see Col. 3 lines 1-13), comprising:
a flexible ring or cuff 14 (Figure 1-4, elongated wrap 14 wraps around a finger both forming a ring around the finger as well as a cuff) configured to fit around the finger at or proximal to a proximal inter-phalangeal (PIP) joint (See Figures 1-4, wherein the ring or cuff 14 can cover the entirety of the finger and thus fitting around the PIP joint, specifically see Fig. 3 with the fingers side-by-side where the cuff/ring 14 is able to wrap around the finger at or proximal to the PIP joint, further see Col. 4 lines 59-67 and Col. 4 lines 10-34, wherein the wrap 14 may have different sizes, and as noted has bidirectional stretch thus is able to fit onto the finger in various sizes thus capable of fitting around the finger at or proximal to the PIP joint); and
an extension portion 26 extending distally from the flexible ring or cuff 14 (Figures 1-4, the extension portion 26 is extending from a distal end of the ring/cuff 14), and
configured to extend along the finger toward a fingertip (Fig. 1-4, the extension portion 26 extends along the finger to the fingertip) and around a distal portion of the finger (Fig. 1-4, the extension portion 26 extends around the distal portion of the finger being the finger tip) so as to apply longitudinal tension along the finger (Fig. 1-4 and Col. 4 lines 10-34, the bidirectional stretch of the invention is able to provide tension force therein when stretched, thus as seen in Fig. 1-4, when the extension portion 26 is wrapped around the distal end/fingertip of the user, the user may further stretch the attachment 28 of the extension to pull up the finger and thus apply longitudinal tension along the finger to place the finger/DIP into a hyperextended state);
wherein the extension portion 26 configured to maintain hyperextension of a distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint when the splint device is worn about a finger (See Figures 1-4, wherein the extension portion 26 is capable of locking interphalangeal joint into hyperextension if the extension portion 26 is extend further when attaching to the outside of ring or cuff 14 thus pulling the finger into a hyperextended shape, see Col. 4 lines 34-44, wherein “infinite adjustments” may be made therein for tightening the material) while permitting movement of the PIP joint (Fig. 1-4 and Col. 4 lines 10-34, the material is a loose weave material thus even when wrapped around the PIP joint of the user, some amount of movement is capable therein, also further see wherein the invention has different sizes thus being capable of being worn such that it is minimally around the PIP joint thus further allowing/permitting movement of the PIP joint, Examiner further notes that “movement” herein is not defined thus any amount of slight movement maps to such language, wherein the loose weave therein would enable at least some amount of slight movement).
Regarding claim 3, Reich discloses the invention of claim 1.
Reich discloses wherein the flexible ring or cuff 14 is configured to grip the finger at or proximal to the PIP joint and not slide (Col. 3 lines 9-11, ring or cuff 14 does not slip when gripping a finger).
Regarding claim 6, Reich discloses the invention of claim 1.
Reich discloses the extension portion 26 comprises a tape or ribbon 26 (Figures 1-4, extension portion 26 is a tape based on the definition from Merriam Webster [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tape] wherein a tape is a “narrow flexible strip or band” wherein the extension portion 26 is narrow, flexible, and is a strip/band of material).
Regarding claim 7, Reich discloses the invention of claim 6.
Reich discloses wherein the tape or ribbon 26 is connected to the ring or cuff 14 at a bottom portion of the ring or cuff 14 (See Figures 1-4, wherein when worn on the finger the tape 26 is connected at a bottom portion of the ring or cuff 14), configured to extend around the tip of the finger (See Figure 3-4), and attaches to a top portion of the ring or cuff 14 using a connector 28 (Figures 1-4, connector 28, being hook fastener, attaches to a top portion of the ring or cuff 14; see Col. 4 lines 29-33).
Regarding claim 8, Reich discloses the invention of claim 7.
Reich discloses wherein the connector 28 allows tension of the tape or ribbon 26 to be adjusted so to maintain hyperextension of the DIP joint but not cause discomfort to the user (Col. 4 lines 29-45, wherein the connector 28, being releasable hook material, can be used to adjust the attachment of the tape 26 thus changing the finger shape and position if desired including hyperextension of the DIP joint, wherein the device does not provide for any aspects of causing discomfort).
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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reich (US 6307118 B1) in view of Sherman (US 5036838 A).
Regarding claim 4, Reich discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Reich does not disclose wherein the flexible ring or cuff comprises a material selected from the group consisting of silicone, rubber, and soft plastic.
However, Reich makes reference to Sherman US 5036838 as a known in the art bandage being formed of loop material (Col. 2 lines 35-40).
Sherman teaches an analogous bandage 10 (Figures 1-4), wherein the bandage made be formed of a foam plastic (Col. 4 lines 5-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have picked the fabric material of Reich forming the ring or cuff 14 to be a plastic (foam plastic) as taught by Sherman in order to provide satisfactory cushioning to the user (Sherman Col. 4 lines 5-20).
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reich (US 6307118 B1) in view of Lampe (US 20060206047 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Reich discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Reich does not disclose the extension portion comprises a plastic splint.
However, Reich does disclose being used with a splint (Col. 3 lines 3-10).
Furthermore, Lampe teaches an analogous bandage 100 (Figures 1A-1G) comprising an analogous extension portion extending around a tip of a finger (Figures 1A-1G), wherein the extension portion comprises a plastic splint 121 (Figure 1B and [0132], wherein the splint may be plastic [0077,0153]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the extension portion 26 of Reich with the plastic splint 121 as taught by Lampe in order to improve immobilization of the finger tip for healing (Lempe [0025]).
Regarding claim 9, Reich discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Reich does not disclose further comprising a rigid dorsal splint configured to be located on a dorsal side of the finger at the DIP joint.
However, Reich does disclose being used with a splint (Col. 3 lines 3-10).
Furthermore, Lampe teaches an analogous bandage 100 (Figures 1A-1G) comprising an analogous extension portion extending around a tip of a finger (Figures 1A-1G), wherein the extension portion comprises a rigid dorsal splint 121 (Figures 1A-1G) configured to be located on a dorsal side of the finger at the DIP joint (See Figure 1G, wherein the splint 121 is present on the dorsal side of the finger and is at the dorsal interphalangeal joint).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the extension portion 26 of Reich with the splint 121 as taught by Lampe in order to improve immobilization of the finger tip for healing (Lempe [0025]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN S ALBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 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, 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.
/KEVIN S ALBERS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786