DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marcelli U.S. Patent No. (5,339,834).
With respect to claim 1, Marcelli discloses an extremity support for use in intravenous therapy (as shown in figs.1-4D) comprising a stabilizer (11,12, fig.1) and at least one window (18), wherein the extremity support does not prevent visualization of the extremity when affixed to a patient in need thereof, due to the transparency from which the window is constructed does not prevent visualization of the extremity when affixed to a patient (as shown in fig.4C).
With respect to claim 2, Marcelli discloses an extremity support for use in intravenous therapy comprising (as shown in figs.1-4D): a stabilizer (11,12, fig.1), at least one window (18), and at least one strap (21A, 2lB, 22A and 22B, fig.1); wherein when the extremity support is affixed to a patient's extremity, the window allows for visualization of the extremity without removal of the extremity support, (abstract, covers may be provided with sections of transparent material to view the infusion site without having to remove the device); and wherein the strap (21A, 2lB, 22A and 22B) secures the extremity support to the patient's extremity (as shown in fig.4C-D).
With respect to claim 3, Marcelli discloses the extremity support comprises three straps (21A, 2lB, 22A and 22B, fig.1).
With respect to claim 5, Marcelli discloses the stabilizer further comprises at least one anchor (20a, 20b, fig.1); and wherein the strap (21A, 2lB, 22A and 22B) is affixed to the anchor (as shown in fig.3).
With respect to claim 6, Marcelli discloses the extremity support is an arm support (as shown in figs.4C-D).
With respect to claim 8, Marcelli discloses the stabilizer is transparent (abstract).
With respect to claim 12, Marcelli discloses the stabilizer further comprises ventilation holes (35) and ([Col.3], lines 34-41).
With respect to claim 15, Marcelli discloses the stabilizer further comprises padding (16a, 16b) and ([Col.3], lines 7-11).
With respect to claim 16, Marcelli discloses the extremity support comprises one strap (21A, 2lB, 22A and 22B).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 7, 9, 11 13 and 17-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marcelli as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Calvert U.S. Patent No. (5,728,053).
With respect to claim 4, Marcelli substantially discloses the invention as claimed except the stabilizer further comprises at least one slit to accommodate the strap.
Calvert, however, teaches an extremity support (as shown in figs.1 and 4) comprising a slit or loops (58, fig.4) to accommodate the strap ([Col.5], lines 31-34).
In view of the teachings of Calvert, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the extremity support of Marcelli by incorporating at least one slit in order to allow the straps to extend around the frame or the extremity support and attach one to the other, hence, providing reinforcement to the straps.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Marcelli/Calvert substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Calvert further teaches the extremity support is a leg support ([Col.3], lines 36-45).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Marcelli/Calvert substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Calvert further teaches the stabilizer is plastic ([Col.4], lines 1-4).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Marcelli/Calvert substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Calvert further teaches the stabilizer comprises at least two windows (44, fig.4).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Marcelli/Calvert substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Calvert further teaches the stabilizer is contoured to fit a patient's extremity ([Col.3], lines 36-45).
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Marcelli/Calvert substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Calvert further teaches the straps are stretch warp ([Col.5], lines 37-39, the straps 50 are presently constructed of elastic webbing).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Marcelli/Calvert substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Calvert further teaches the strap comprises elastic ([Col.5], lines 37-39, the straps 50 are presently constructed of elastic webbing).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marcelli as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Barber U.S. Patent No. (4,928,677).
With respect to claim 10, Marcelli substantially discloses the invention as claimed except the stabilizer is wire.
Barber however, teaches a splint for supporting the wrist and forearm or a stabilizer (abstract) comprising a wire ([Col.3], lines 42-43 and 65-68) and ([Col.4], lines 1-13) and (fig.1).
In view of the teachings of Barber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the stabilizer of Marcelli by incorporating wire that they are flexible and individually adjustable to enable the gradual urging of bones back into the normal position and is conformable to the contour of the portion of the body.
With respect to claim 14, Marcelli substantially discloses the invention as claimed except the stabilizer is the shape of an hourglass.
Barber however, teaches a splint for supporting the wrist and forearm or a stabilizer (abstract) comprising an hourglass configuration (as shown in figs.1-2 and 4).
In view of the teachings of Barber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the stabilizer of Marcelli having an hourglass configuration for supporting the ventral or underside of the forearm. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the stabilizer of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47
Claims 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marcelli U.S. Patent No. (5,339,834) in view of Calvert U.S. Patent No. (5,728,053).
With respect to claim 19, Marcelli substantially discloses an arm support for use in intravenous therapy (as shown in figs.1-4D) comprising:
a stabilizer ((11,12, fig.1),
a window (18, fig.1), and
at least one strap (21a-21b or 22a-22b, fig.1);
wherein the stabilizer further comprises and at least one anchor (20a, 20b, fig.1); wherein the strap (21a-21b or 22a-22b) is affixed to the anchor (as shown in fig.3); and wherein when the extremity support is affixed to a patient's extremity, the window allow for visualization of the patient's extremity without the removal of the extremity support (abstract, the covers may be provided with sections of transparent material to view the infusion site without having to remove the device).
Marcelli substantially discloses the invention as claimed except (1) at least two window (2) at least one opening to accommodate the strap.
Calvert, however, teaches an extremity support (as shown in figs.1 and 4) comprising at least two windows (44, fig.4) and at least one opening or loops (58, fig.4) to accommodate the strap ([Col.5], lines 31-34).
In view of the teachings of Calvert, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the stabilizer of Marcelli to incorporate at least windows in order to be aligned to a desired treatment site ([Col.5], lines 23-27) of Calvert, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Marcelli/Calvert substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Marcelli further discloses the extremity support comprises two straps (21a-21b or 22a-22b, fig.1).
Conclusion
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