DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yin et al. (CN 104288877A).
With respect to claim 1, Yin et al. discloses a splint device, comprising:
a rigid board (1 and as shown in the reproduced image of figs.1-2 below) inflatable by way of a first inflation valve (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.2 below) and [0010] to selectively transition from a flexible state to a rigid state via air bulb or pump (4, fig.1) being used in conjunction with the inflation valve (4, fig.1); and
a soft inflatable bladder or inflatable bolster [0010] and (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.1 below) positioned relative to the rigid board and inflatable by way of a second inflation valve (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.1 below) and (abstract, opening the valve of the inflatable bolster is gas outtake) and being inflatable independently of the rigid board (as shown in fig.1), the soft inflatable bladder or inflatable bolster configured to be positioned adjacent a palm of the hand when the device is worn;
wherein the rigid board is configured to and capable of being positioned along a volar portion of a hand, a wrist, and an arm of a user; [the device is being used for intravenous injection, [0002] as such is capable of being the aforementioned function, 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
500
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, Yin et al. discloses when the device is worn about the hand, the wrist, and the arm of the user, the rigid board can be inflated to become rigid, and the soft inflatable bladder can be inflated to adjust an angle of the hand relative to the arm from 0° to about 20°. Note: [at the neutral position would be considered 0° and is capable of about 20° based upon the amount of air used to inflate the splint].
With respect to claim 12, Yin et al. discloses the splint is capable of and configured to provide relief from carpal tunnel syndrome discomfort. 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.
With respect to claim 13, regarding the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will inherently perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); (under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device) see MPEP 2112.01(1), as such, Yin et al. discloses a method for providing relief from carpal tunnel syndrome discomfort, comprising: placing the device of claim 1 over the hand of a user; inflating the rigid board of the device to make said rigid board rigid; and inflating the soft inflatable bladder of the device to change an angle of the back of the hand relative to the arm between 0° and about 20°.
With respect to claim 14, regarding the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will inherently perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); (under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device) see MPEP 2112.01(1), as such, Yin et al. discloses a method for providing relief from carpal tunnel syndrome discomfort, comprising: placing the device of claim 1 over the hand of a user; and inflating the soft inflatable bladder of the device to change an angle of the back of the hand relative to the arm between 0° and about 20°.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varn U.S. Patent No. (6,773,410 B2).
With respect to claim 2, Yin et al. substantially discloses the invention as claimed except a dorsal pad configured to be positioned along a dorsal portion of the hand, the wrist, and the arm.
Varn however, teaches a dorsal carpal tunnel splint (10, figs.9-10) comprising a dorsal pad (24) and ([Col.3], lines 14-17) positioned along a dorsal portion of the hand, the wrist and the arm (as shown in fig.10).
In view of the teachings of Varn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the splint device of Yin et al. by incorporating a dorsal pad configured to be positioned along a dorsal portion of the hand, the wrist, and the arm for absorbing perspiration and moisture while providing comfort to the anatomy of the user ([Col.4], lines 29-32).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Yin et al./Varn substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Yin et al. as modified by Varn further discloses flexible bands (38, 38, fig.1) extending between the dorsal pad and the rigid board (as shown in fig.1).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Yin et al./Varn substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Yin et al. inherently discloses when the device is worn by a user and the rigid board and the soft inflatable bladder are not inflated, the wrist would not be positioned at an angle relative to the arm.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Yin et al./Varn substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Yin et al. further discloses when the device is worn by a user and the rigid board and the soft inflatable bladder are inflated, the hand would be positioned at an angle relative to the arm between 0° and about 20°. Note: [at the neutral position would be considered 0° and is capable of about 20° based upon the amount of air used to inflate the splint].
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Yin et al./Varn substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Varn further teaches the dorsal pad (24) extends to the rigid board (12, as shown in fig.10).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al./Varn as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wedge, Jr. U.S. Patent (5,409,447).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Yin et al./Varn substantially discloses the invention as claimed except one or more cross bands used to connect two flexible bands of the flexible bands to one another.
Wedge, Jr. however, teaches an orthopedic assembly (abstract) comprising cross bands (8) for connecting flexible bands (15, figs.1 and 3).
In view of the teachings of Wedge, Jr., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the flexible bands of Yin et al./Varn by incorporating one or more cross bands used to connect two flexible bands of the flexible bands to one another for stabilizing the two flexible bands.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al./Varn as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dillingham U.S. Publication No. (2020/0281755 A1).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of the combination of Yin et al./Varn substantially discloses the invention as claimed except a glove cover configured to fit around the rigid board and the dorsal pad.
Dillingham however, teaches an orthopedic splint for people with arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, sprains, fractures, tendonitis, repetitive strain injury, osteoporosis, or other wrist injury (abstract) for supporting the hand and wrist of a user (as shown in fig.9) and comprising a glove cover (200) configured to fit around the orthopedic splint and [0035].
In view of the teachings of Dillingham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the splint of Yin et al./Varn by incorporating a glove cover configured to fit around the rigid board and the dorsal pad to provide additional compression and support for the painful and inflamed areas of a user's wrist and hand [0035] of Dillingham.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dillingham U.S. Publication No. (2020/0281755 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Yin et al. substantially discloses the invention as claimed except a glove cover extending around the rigid board and around the hand.
Dillingham however, teaches an orthopedic splint for people with arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, sprains, fractures, tendonitis, repetitive strain injury, osteoporosis, or other wrist injury (abstract) for supporting the hand and wrist of a user (as shown in fig.9) and comprising a glove cover (200) configured to fit around the orthopedic splint and [0035].
In view of the teachings of Dillingham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the splint of Yin et al. by incorporating a glove cover extending around the rigid board and around the hand to provide additional compression and support for the painful and inflamed areas of a user's wrist and hand [0035] of Dillingham.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Yin et al./ Dillingham substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Dillingham further teaches the glove cover is configured to provide compressive pressure to the hand, the wrist, and the arm [0035] and (fig.9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-6, filed 03/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 are under 35 U.S.C. in view of the combination of Mann et al./Jacoby, Sr. 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 Yin et al. The Office maintain the teaching references to cure the deficiencies of Yin et al.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism have been withdrawn in view of amendments to claims 9-10.
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 OPHELIA ALTHEA HAWTHORNE whose telephone number is (571)270-3860. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, 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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 5712703076. 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.
/OPHELIA A HAWTHORNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights