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
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, provisional application No. 62/863,152, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Provisional application No. 62/863,152 does not provide support for the limitation “a cable arranged in a continuous loop” as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Provisional application No. 62/863,152 recites in the specification on paragraph [51] that “The strap attachment 110 preferably comprises a wire 115 having first and second ends 117, 119 pivotally attached to the base component 102. The wire 115 may be formed from an alloy or other suitable metal, polymer, or composite material. A roller 116 is secured to the wire 115 over which the strap 108 secures, and prevents binding of the strap 108” but does not recite that the wire forms, or is capable of forming a continuous loop as recited in the independent claims of the instant application. Therefore, the instant application is not entitled to the filing date of Provisional Application No. 62/863,152.
Prior filed application 16/437,413 does provide support for the limitation of the cable forms a continuous loop in the specification paragraph [94]. Thus, the instant application is given the effective filing date of 06/11/2019 from prior filed application 16/437,413.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 12, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 should be amended to recite “a group consisting/comprised of” to properly recite the Markush grouping.
Claim 12 should be amended to recite “a group consisting/comprised of” to properly recite the Markush grouping.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the first and second openings are located and corresponding to”. This limitation should be amended to recite “correspond to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14 and 20 are 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 14 recites the limitation "the first and second sides" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a first side and a second side”
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first and second sides" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a first side and a second side”
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) 1-2, 6, 8-10, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Capra et al. (US 2015/0190262 A1) (hereinafter Capra).
In regards to claim 1, Capra discloses A strap attachment (710; see [0056]; see figure 7b) arranged to pivotally attach to an orthopedic device (730; see [0058]; see figure 7c; the lace of 710 being formed from a flexible material (see [0074] in reference to the cable or lace being flexible; thus, the lace of 710 is similarly flexible) is arranged to pivot when 710 is attached to 730) and support a strap (714; see [0056]; see figure 7c), the strap attachment (710) comprising:
a cable (lace; see [0054]; see figure 7c; see [0023] that an earlier embodiment of the lace is described as being a lace or cable; thus, the lace of 710 is a cable) arranged in a continuous loop (see figure 7b);
a tube (715; see [0056]; see figure 7b-c; see [0056] in reference to 715 comprising “channels or apertures through which lace is inserted”; thus, 715 forms a tube for receiving the lace) through which the cable slidably extends (see [0056]).
In regards to claim 2, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra further discloses wherein the cable (lace) has first and second ends secured to one another by a connector (712; see [0056]; see figure 7b) to form the continuous loop (see figure 7b that two ends of the lace enter 712 and with 712 form the continuous loop of the lace).
In regards to claim 6, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra further discloses wherein the tube (715) defines an elongate center portion (center portion through which the lace extends; see figure 7b-c) and first and second radial end portions (upper and lower extending portions of 715 which extend to 714) extending from first and second sides of the elongate center portion (see figures 7b-c).
In regards to claim 8, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra further discloses wherein the tube (715) is rotatable about the cable (lace; 715 being a channel for removably receiving the lace is capable of rotating about the lace when attached to the lace and disconnected from 714).
In regards to claim 9, Capra discloses A strap system (system as seen in figure 7b-c) comprising:
an elongate strap (714; see [0056]; see figure 7b) having a predetermined width (see figure 7b);
a strap attachment (710; see [0056]; see figure 7b) including a cable (lace; see [0054]; see figure 7c; see [0023] that an earlier embodiment of the lace is described as being a lace or cable; thus, the lace of 710 is a cable) arranged in a continuous loop (see figure 7b), and (715; see [0056]; see figure 7b-c; see [0056] in reference to 715 comprising “channels or apertures through which lace is inserted”; thus, 715 forms a tube for receiving the lace) through which the cable slidably extends (see [0056]);
wherein the tube (715) defines a width corresponding in size to the predetermined width of the elongate strap (714; see figure 7b-c).
In regards to claim 10, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra further discloses wherein the cable (lace) has first and second ends secured to one another by a connector (712; see [0056]; see figure 7b) to form the continuous loop (see figure 7b that two ends of the lace enter 712 and with 712 form the continuous loop of the lace).
In regards to claim 14, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra further discloses wherein the tube (715) defines an elongate center portion (center portion through which the lace extends; see figure 7b-c) and first and second radial end portions (upper and lower extending portions of 715 which extend to 714) extending from first and second sides of the elongate center portion (see figures 7b-c).
In regards to claim 16, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra further discloses wherein the tube (715) is rotatable about the cable (lace; 715 being a channel for removably receiving the lace is capable of rotating about the lace when attached to the lace and disconnected from 714).
In regards to claim 17, Capra discloses An orthopedic device (an orthopedic device (730; see [0058]; see figure 7c), comprising:
a frame (body of 730 over which 710 is placed; see figure 7c; frame is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “the underlying constructional system or structure that gives shape or strength” (See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frame) the body of 730 over which 710 is placed gives shape to 730, and thus, by definition is a frame) defining an interior cavity (interior cavity of 730 which receives 718; see figure 7c and 9c (9c showing a similar construction of a brace as seen in figure 7c)) and an exterior side portion (outer portion of 730 upon which 710 is placed; see figure 7c and 9c), the frame (body of 730) defining at least first and second openings (first and second openings which expose 718; see figures 7c and 9c) along the exterior side portion communicating to the interior cavity (see figures 7c and 9c);
a strap attachment (710; see [0056]; see figure 7b) including a cable (lace; see [0054]; see figure 7c; see [0023] that an earlier embodiment of the lace is described as being a lace or cable; thus, the lace of 710 is a cable) arranged in a continuous loop (see figure 7b), and a tube (715; see [0056]; see figure 7b-c; see [0056] in reference to 715 comprising “channels or apertures through which lace is inserted”; thus, 715 forms a tube for receiving the lace) through which the cable slidably extends (see [0056]);
wherein the cable (lace) slidably extends through the first and second openings (the lace is slidably received within 718; and thus slidably extends through the first and second openings which expose 718) and the continuous loop extends between the first and second openings along the exterior side portion and in the interior cavity (see figures 7c and 9c that the lace extends as claimed).
In regards to claim 18, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra further discloses further comprising an elongate strap (714; see [0056]; see figure 7b) having a predetermined width (see figure 7b);
wherein the tube (715) defines a width corresponding in size to the predetermined width of the elongate strap (714; see figure 7b-c).
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) 3-4, 7, 11-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capra in view of Hammerslag et al. (US 2008/0066272 A1) (hereinafter Hammerslag).
In regards to claim 3, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra does not explicitly disclose wherein the cable is formed from a material selected from a group of metal, polymer, and composite materials.
However, Hammerslag teaches an analogous strap attachment (25; see [0037]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous cable (23; see [0037]; see figure 1) and tube (50; see [0042]; see figure 1) through which the cable (23) slidably extends (see [0042]); wherein the cable (23) is formed from a material selected from a group of metal, polymer, and composite materials (see [0050]) for the purpose of exhibiting sufficient axial strength and bendability (see [0050]).
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 material of the cable as disclosed by Capra and to have formed the material of the cable from a group of metal, polymer, and composite materials as taught by Hammerslag in order to have provided an improved cable that would add the benefit of exhibiting sufficient axial strength and bendability (see [0050]).
In regards to claim 4, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra does not explicitly disclose wherein the cable is a wire or braided cable.
However, Hammerslag teaches an analogous strap attachment (25; see [0037]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous cable (23; see [0037]; see figure 1) and tube (50; see [0042]; see figure 1) through which the cable (23) slidably extends (see [0042]); wherein the cable (23) is a wire or braided cable (see [0050]) for the purpose of exhibiting sufficient axial strength and bendability (see [0050]).
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 cable as disclosed by Capra and to have formed the cable as a wire or braided cable as taught by Hammerslag in order to have provided an improved cable that would add the benefit of exhibiting sufficient axial strength and bendability (see [0050]).
In regards to claim 7, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra does not explicitly disclose wherein the tube is formed from a metal or polymeric material.
However, Hammerslag teaches an analogous strap attachment (25; see [0037]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous cable (23; see [0037]; see figure 1) and tube (50; see [0042]; see figure 1) through which the cable (23) slidably extends (see [0042]); wherein the tube (50) is formed from a metal or polymeric material (see [0047]) for the purpose of providing a low friction material which facilitates the sliding of the cable through the tube (see [0047]).
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 material of the tube as disclosed by Capra and to have formed the tube from the metal or polymeric material as taught by Hammerslag in order to have provided an improved tube that would add the benefit of providing a low friction material which facilitates the sliding of the cable through the tube (see [0047]).
In regards to claim 11, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra does not explicitly disclose wherein the cable is formed from a material selected from a group of metal, polymer, and composite materials.
However, Hammerslag teaches an analogous strap attachment (25; see [0037]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous cable (23; see [0037]; see figure 1) and tube (50; see [0042]; see figure 1) through which the cable (23) slidably extends (see [0042]); wherein the cable (23) is formed from a material selected from a group of metal, polymer, and composite materials (see [0050]) for the purpose of exhibiting sufficient axial strength and bendability (see [0050]).
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 material of the cable as disclosed by Capra and to have formed the material of the cable from a group of metal, polymer, and composite materials as taught by Hammerslag in order to have provided an improved cable that would add the benefit of exhibiting sufficient axial strength and bendability (see [0050]).
In regards to claim 12, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra does not explicitly disclose wherein the cable is a wire or braided cable.
However, Hammerslag teaches an analogous strap attachment (25; see [0037]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous cable (23; see [0037]; see figure 1) and tube (50; see [0042]; see figure 1) through which the cable (23) slidably extends (see [0042]); wherein the cable (23) is a wire or braided cable (see [0050]) for the purpose of exhibiting sufficient axial strength and bendability (see [0050]).
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 cable as disclosed by Capra and to have formed the cable as a wire or braided cable as taught by Hammerslag in order to have provided an improved cable that would add the benefit of exhibiting sufficient axial strength and bendability (see [0050]).
In regards to claim 15, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra does not explicitly disclose wherein the tube is formed from a metal or polymeric material.
However, Hammerslag teaches an analogous strap attachment (25; see [0037]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous cable (23; see [0037]; see figure 1) and tube (50; see [0042]; see figure 1) through which the cable (23) slidably extends (see [0042]); wherein the tube (50) is formed from a metal or polymeric material (see [0047]) for the purpose of providing a low friction material which facilitates the sliding of the cable through the tube (see [0047]).
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 material of the tube as disclosed by Capra and to have formed the tube from the metal or polymeric material as taught by Hammerslag in order to have provided an improved tube that would add the benefit of providing a low friction material which facilitates the sliding of the cable through the tube (see [0047]).
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capra in view of Jerome et al. (US 2006/0135889 A1) (hereinafter Jerome).
In regards to claim 5, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra does not explicitly wherein the tube includes a roller.
However, Jerome teaches an analogous strap attachment (23; see [0038]; see figure 5) comprising a ring structure (49; see [0039]; see figure 5) which has a similar function of fastening and tightening straps (21; see [0039]; see figure 5) of an analogous orthopedic device (1; see [0038]; see figure 1); wherein the ring structure (49) includes a roller (51; see [0039]; see figure 5; rotating sleeve 51 rotates about 49 and thus, functions as, and is considered “a roller”) for the purpose of providing a mechanical advantage for the user while tightening, and fastening the straps (see [0039]).
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 tube as disclosed by Capra and to have included the roller as taught by Jerome in order to have provided an improved tube that would add the benefit of providing a mechanical advantage for the user while tightening, and fastening the straps (see [0039]).
In regards to claim 13, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra does not explicitly wherein the tube includes a roller.
However, Jerome teaches an analogous strap attachment (23; see [0038]; see figure 5) comprising a ring structure (49; see [0039]; see figure 5) which has a similar function of fastening and tightening straps (21; see [0039]; see figure 5) of an analogous orthopedic device (1; see [0038]; see figure 1); wherein the ring structure (49) includes a roller (51; see [0039]; see figure 5; rotating sleeve 51 rotates about 49 and thus, functions as, and is considered “a roller”) for the purpose of providing a mechanical advantage for the user while tightening, and fastening the straps (see [0039]).
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 tube as disclosed by Capra and to have included the roller as taught by Jerome in order to have provided an improved tube that would add the benefit of providing a mechanical advantage for the user while tightening, and fastening the straps (see [0039]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capra in view of Slautterback (US 6,517, 501 B1).
In regards to claim 19, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra does not disclose wherein the exterior side portion defines a recess in which the first and second openings are located and corresponding to the predetermined width of the elongate strap.
However, Slautterback teaches an analogous orthopedic device (10; see [col 6 ln 13-21]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous exterior side portion (12; see [col 6 ln 15-20]; see figure 1) and an analogous elongate strap (16; see [col 6 ln 23-25]; see figure 1); wherein the exterior side portion (12) defines a recess (18; see [col 6 ln 25-30]; see figure 1) corresponding to the predetermined width of the elongate strap (16; see [col 6 ln 60-35]) for the purpose of receiving the strap flush with the surface of the orthopedic device (See [col 6 ln 60-35]).
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 exterior side portion as disclosed by Capra and to have included the recess as taught by Slautterback in order to have provided an improved orthopedic device that would add the benefit of providing a means for receiving the strap flush with the surface of the orthopedic device (See [col 6 ln 60-35]).
Thus, the exterior surface of Capra as now modified to include the recess in the exterior side portion as taught by Slautterback forms the first and second openings in the recess as claimed.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capra in view of Thorsteinsdottir et al. (US 2016/0242945 A1) (hereinafter Thorsteinsdottir) and Hammerslag.
In regards to claim 20, Capra discloses the invention as discussed above.
Capra further discloses wherein the cable (lace) has first and second ends secured to one another by a connector (712; see [0056]; see figure 7b) to form the continuous loop (see figure 7b that two ends of the lace enter 712 and with 712 form the continuous loop of the lace);
wherein the tube (715) defines an elongate center portion (center portion through which the lace extends; see figure 7b-c) and first and second radial end portions (upper and lower extending portions of 715 which extend to 714) extending from first and second sides of the elongate center portion (see figures 7b-c);
wherein the predetermined width of the strap (714) corresponds in width to the elongate center portion (see figure 7b-c).
Capra does not disclose; the connecter extending in the interior cavity; and
wherein the cable is a wire or braided cable.
However, Thorsteinsdottir teaches an analogous frame (24; see [0081]; see figure 7) defining an interior cavity (; see [0090]; see figure 10), an exterior side portion (101); further comprising an analogous strap attachment (118 and 120; see [0083]; see figure 7) including a cable (120; see [0083]; see figure 12) comprising first and second ends (ends of 120 connected to 118; see figure 12) which are connected via a connector (118; see [0083]; see figure 12); the connector (118) extending in the interior cavity (cavity formed by 101 and 24; see figure 9) for the purpose of concealing or covering various components over certain lengths over the inner sleeve segment (see [0017]).
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 connector and cable as disclosed by Capra and to have formed the connector and cable within the interior cavity of the frame by covering the connector and cable as taught by Thorsteinsdottir in order to have provided an improved orthopedic device that would add the benefit of concealing or covering various components over certain lengths over the inner sleeve segment (see [0017]) thereby preventing the connector, and cable from unwanted wear and tear caused by being exposed to the external environment, as well as protecting the user from injury via unwanted interactions with the cable under tension.
Capra as now modified by Thorsteinsdottir still does not explicitly disclose wherein the tube is formed from a metal or polymeric material.
However, Hammerslag teaches an analogous strap attachment (25; see [0037]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous cable (23; see [0037]; see figure 1) and tube (50; see [0042]; see figure 1) through which the cable (23) slidably extends (see [0042]); wherein the tube (50) is formed from a metal or polymeric material (see [0047]) for the purpose of providing a low friction material which facilitates the sliding of the cable through the tube (see [0047]).
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 material of the tube as disclosed by Capra as now modified by Thorsteinsdottir and to have formed the tube from the metal or polymeric material as taught by Hammerslag in order to have provided an improved tube that would add the benefit of providing a low friction material which facilitates the sliding of the cable through the tube (see [0047]).
Conclusion
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