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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “101” has been used to designate both first main body and second main body. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment to the specification was received on 06/26/2026. These amendments are acknowledged and accepted by the Office.
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, 7-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robins U.S. Patent No. (4,383,526).
With respect to claim 1, Robins discloses a binding device or splint (shown in figs.1-7) for localized binding of pelvic structures of a patient ([Col.2], lines 11-18, for use in immobilizing such as a broken femur or a hip dislocation, note: the hips are a part of the pelvis]), the binding device comprising:
a first main body or a base panel (10a, 10b and 10c, figs.1 and 3) comprising a plurality of panels (20a-c on the left and right side of the main panel or base panel as shown in fig.1) and (16a-c on the left and right side of the main body or base panel (as shown in fig.1),
wherein the first main body (10a, 10b and 10c, figs.1 and 3) is configured to encircle at least part of the pelvic structure (as shown in figs.5-6) and ([Col.2], lines 11-18),
wherein a first engagement feature via slot (46, fig.1) and ([Col.6], lines 27-31, one segment can be nestably received within another segment and the two segments can be held fast to each other as by cravats extended through aligned apertures] and ([Col.3], lines 53-63) of the first main body is configured to engage with an elongated member or (cravat C, figs.3-4 and 6-7) and ([Col.3], lines 53-63); and
wherein a first panel of the plurality of panels is configured to fold against a second panel of the plurality of panels (as shown in figs.2-4).
With respect to claim 2, Robins discloses each panel of the plurality of panels is hingedly connected by a hinged connection via (fold lines 14 and 18, fig.1) and ([Col.3], lines 36-39) to an adjacent panel of the plurality of panels (as shown in fig.1).
With respect to claim 7, Robins discloses a proximal panel (16a-c on the left and right sides) of a plurality of panels of the first main body is configured to fold against a secondary panel (20a-c on the left and right sides) of the plurality of panels, thereby reducing a length (the horizontal length) of the first main body (as shown in figs.2-4).
With respect to claim 8, Robins discloses the first engagement feature comprises a primary engagement slot (46, fig.1) and ([Col.3], lines 53-63) defined by the proximal panel (as shown in fig.1), the primary engagement slot being configured to receive a portion of the elongated member or cravat (c) and ([Col.3], lines 53-63).
With respect to claim 9, Robins discloses the second panel defines a secondary engagement slot that aligns with the primary engagement slot when the proximal panel is folded over the second panel ([Col.3], lines 47-52) and ([Col.6], lines 27-31, one segment can be nestably received within another segment and the two segments can be held fast to each other as by cravats extended through aligned apertures] and (figs.3-4).
With respect to claim 10, Robins discloses a second main body (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.1 below) coupled to the first main body, wherein: the first engagement feature is a first engagement slot (46, fig.1) that is defined by a proximal panel (16a-16c on the right side, as shown in fig.1) of the first main body, the first engagement slot (46) being configured to receive the elongated member or (cravat C, figs.3-4 and 6-7); and the second engagement feature is a second engagement slot (46) that is defined by a distal panel (20a-c on the left side) of a plurality of panels of the second main body, the second engagement slot (46) being configured to receive the elongated member or (cravat C, figs.3-4 and 6-7), and a second engagement feature (slot 46) of the second main body is configured to engage with the elongated member or (cravat C, figs.3-4 and 6-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, regarding the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed (see rejection to claim 1 above), 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, Robins discloses a method for localized binding of pelvic structures of a patient, the method comprising: encircling at least part of a pelvic structure with a first main body of a binding device; engaging an elongated member with a first engagement feature of the first main body; and constricting the elongated member.
With respect to claim 12, Robins discloses the first engagement feature is an engagement slot (46, fig.1) and ([Col.3], lines 53-63) defined by a proximal panel of the first main body, and wherein engaging the elongated member or cravat (c) and ([Col.3], lines 53-63) with the engagement slot (46) comprises extending the elongated member through the engagement slot (as shown in figs.3-4).
With respect to claim 13, Robins discloses moving the first main body from a stowable configuration, as for example, underneath a bed or sofa when not in use ([Col.1], lines 17-22, the primary object of the invention is to provide a traction splint for use as soon as it could be applied to a fractured femur and held in place until the orthopedic surgeon could take corrective measures. The time consumed might range anywhere from five minutes to five hours]. Note: stowed position is being interpreted as “when not in use” to a flat configuration (as shown in fig.1) and ([Col.2], lines 11-18), the proximal panel of the first main body being folded against a secondary panel (20a-c on the left and right sides) of the first main body when the first main body is in the stowable configuration (as shown in figs.2-4).
With respect to claim 14, Robins discloses engaging the elongated member or cravat (c) with a second engagement feature or slot (46), the second engagement feature or slot (46) being an engagement slot defined by a distal end of the first main body (as shown in fig.3).
With respect to claim 16, Robins discloses a binding system or splint (shown in figs.1-7) for localized binding of pelvic structures of a patient ([Col.2], lines 11-18, use in immobilizing such as a broken femur or a hip dislocation, note: the hips are a part of the pelvis]), the binding system comprising:
an elongated member or cravat (c) and ([Col.3], lines 53-63); and
a binding device comprising a first main body or a base panel (10a, 10b and 10c, figs.1 and 3) that is configured to encircle at least part of the pelvic structure (as shown in figs.5-6) and ([Col.2], lines 11-18), the binding device having a first engagement feature or slot (46) engaged with the elongated member or cravat (c) and (as shown in figs.3-4).
With respect to claim 17, Robins discloses the first main body or a base panel (10a, 10b and 10c, figs.1 and 3) comprises a plurality of panels (20a-c on the left and right side of the main panel or base panel as show in fig.1) and (16a-c on the left and right side of the main body or base panel (as shown in fig.1), each panel being hingedly connected via (fold lines 14 and 18, fig.1) and ([Col.3], lines 36-39) to an adjacent panel of the plurality of panels, wherein a first panel of the plurality of panels of the first main body is configured to fold against a second panel of the plurality of panels of the first main body (as shown in figs.2-4), thereby moving the first main body towards a stowable configuration, as for example, underneath a bed or sofa when not in use ([Col.1], lines 17-22, the primary object of the invention is to provide a traction splint for use as soon as it could be applied to a fractured femur and held in place until the orthopedic surgeon could take corrective measures. The time consumed might range anywhere from five minutes to five hours]. Note: stowed position is being interpreted as “when not in use”.
With respect to claim 18, Robins discloses the first engagement feature comprises a primary engagement slot (46, fig.1) defined by a proximal panel (16a-c on the left and right sides) of a plurality of panels of the first main body (as shown in fig.1), and wherein the elongated member or cravat (c) is received by the first engagement slot (46, as shown in figs.3-4).
With respect to claim 19, Robins discloses the elongated member or cravat (c) is engaged with a second engagement feature (46) of the binding device, the second engagement feature (46) comprising a primary engagement slot (46) defined by a distal panel (20a-c of the left and right side, as shown in fig.1) of one of the first main body and a second main body (16a-c, left and right side, as shown in fig.1).
With respect to claim 20, Robins discloses the plurality of panels of the first main body comprises a secondary panel (20a-c on the left and right sides) hingedly coupled via (fold lines 14 and 18, fig.1) and ([Col.3], lines 36-39) to the proximal panel, the secondary panel (20a-c on the left and right sides) defining a secondary engagement slot (40) that aligns with the primary engagement slot (40) of the proximal panel when the proximal panel is folded over onto the secondary panel (20a-c on the left and right sides, figs.2-4) such that the first engagement feature comprises the secondary engagement slot ([Col.3], lines 53-63) and ([Col.6], lines 27-31, one segment can be nestably received within another segment and the two segments can be held fast to each other as by cravats extended through aligned apertures].
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) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robins as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Grohs et al. U.S. Patent No. (6,250,713 B1).
With respect to claim 3, Robins substantially discloses the invention as claimed except the hinged connection is a living hinge.
Grohs et al. however, teaches a lifting member comprising side panels hinged to a main portion, such as by a living hinge ([Col.5], lines 64-67) and (figs.5-6).
In view of the teachings of Grohs et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hinged connection of Robins by incorporating a living hinge in order to allow the panels to be able to bend or rotate.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Robins/Grohs et al. substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Robins further discloses the first engagement feature is an engagement slot (46, fig.1) defined by a proximal panel of the plurality of panels (as shown in fig.1), the first engagement slot (46, fig.1) being configured to receive the elongated member (cravat C, figs.3-4 and 6-7) and ([Col.3], lines 53-63).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Robins/Grohs et al. substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Robins further discloses the first main body (10a, 10b and 10c, figs.1 and 3) is configured to move between a flat configuration (as shown in fig.1) and ([Col.2], lines 11-18), and a stowable configuration, as for example, underneath a bed or sofa when not in use ([Col.1], lines 17-22, the primary object of the invention is to provide a traction splint for use as soon as it could be applied to a fractured femur and held in place until the orthopedic surgeon could take corrective measures. The time consumed might range anywhere from five minutes to five hours]. Note: stowed position is being interpreted as “when not in use”.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Robins/Grohs et al. substantially discloses the invention as claimed. Robins further discloses each of the plurality of panels of the first main body is folded against at least one other panel of the plurality of panels (as shown in figs.3-5) when the first main body is in the stowable configuration, as for example, underneath a bed or sofa when not in use ([Col.1], lines 17-22, the primary object of the invention is to provide a traction splint for use as soon as it could be applied to a fractured femur and held in place until the orthopedic surgeon could take corrective measures. The time consumed might range anywhere from five minutes to five hours]. Note: stowed position is being interpreted as “when not in use”.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robins.
With respect to claim 15, Robins substantially discloses the invention as claimed but did not explicitly discloses sizing the binding device to fit a user, wherein sizing the binding device comprises at least one of folding back excess portions of the first main body and coupling the first main body to a second main body; and engaging the elongated member with a second engagement feature of the binding device, Robins however, suggests in ([Col.6], lines 17-27, the segments or sections may be selectively positionable as to each other along the splint length or certain of the segments may be eliminated for a particular usage, thus permitting a wide range of size adjustability. For instance, in the event that an injured adult leg is to be treated, the splint would be assembled using all segments or sections. In the case of a child's leg, it might be desirable to use only the distal and medial segments or the proximal and medial segments. For pediatric injuries, the distal segment alone may be used), therefore, it would have been well within the skill of an ordinary artisan to modify the sizing of the binding device to fit a user, wherein sizing the binding device comprises at least one of folding back excess portions of the first main body and coupling the first main body to a second main body based on the particular usage as suggested and taught by Robins.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/26/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of copending Application No. (17/589,830) has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the Office fails to explain how a singular mention of hip dislocation in Robins can possibly teach a binding device for localized binding of the pelvic structures of a patient. Instead, the Office merely argues that the hips are a part of the pelvis. But Robins says absolutely nothing about pelvic binding. Furthermore, Robins singular mention of hip dislocation is limited to immobilizing the dislocated hip. A simple internet search quickly reveals that immobilizing a dislocated hip involves immobilization of the leg, which is the subject of Robins.
This is not found to be persuasive, in response to applicant's argument that Robins says absolutely nothing about pelvic binding, 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. Furthermore, immobilization can produce localized internal or external compression. Splints, or braces can exert external pressure on blood vessels and soft tissues. Robins utilize the use of cravat for affixing the splint to the anatomy of the user; the cravat can be applied firmly for compression to control bleeding or support a joint.
Applicant further argues, each of Claims 1, 11, and 16 include limitations regarding the main body being configured to at least partially encircle the pelvic structure. At best, Robins teaches encircling a leg at a location that is below the hips. (Robins, col. 5 lines 39-64 and Figs. 5-7). As such, Robins fails to disclose any portion of the splint encircling the pelvic structures, as is required by each of Claims 1, 11, and 16.
This is not found to be persuasive because the splint is capable of encircling the pelvic structure as disclose in ([Col.2], lines 8-18, the splint can be made available for all of the first responder types of units, it representing a manufacturing cost of something in the order of one dollar. It may be conveniently carried in flat disassembled configuration by a medical man in his bag or automobile or by a paramedic crew in its ambulance or as first aid equipment and may be quickly and conveniently erected at the site of an accident by appropriate folding, and cutting, if indicated, into a suitable configuration (emphasis added) for use in immobilizing such as a broken femur or a hip dislocation] and ([Col.6], lines 18-23, the segments or sections may be selectively positionable as to each other along the splint length or certain of the segments may be eliminated for a particular usage, thus permitting a wide range of size adjustability].
The amendment to claims 7-10 overcome the 112(b) rejection, therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 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