DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for non-provisional application 19/035,345 filed January 23, 2025, which claims priority from provisional application 63/626,544. Claims 1-7, as originally filed, are currently pending.
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 § 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 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation “wherein each corresponding side strap body is threaded though the slot …” in line 17 which appears to be reciting the process of using the claimed device. However, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). MPEP 2173.05(p). It is suggested that the above limitation of claim 1 should be amended to instead recite “wherein each corresponding side strap body is configured to be threaded though the slot …” in order to focus on the capabilities of the device rather than specific actions performed by a user.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the slot of the side adjustment ring” in line 18; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that the above limitation of claim 1 should be amended to recite “a slot of the side adjustment ring”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein each corresponding upper strap body is threaded though the slot …” in line 7 which appears to be reciting the process of using the claimed device. However, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). MPEP 2173.05(p). It is suggested that the above limitation of claim 2 should be amended to instead recite “wherein each corresponding upper strap body is configured to be threaded though the slot …” in order to focus on the capabilities of the device rather than specific actions performed by a user.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the slide is moved upward along the first zipper tape and the second zipper tape” in lines 13-14 which appears to be reciting the process of using the claimed device. However, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). MPEP 2173.05(p). It is suggested that the above limitation of claim 1 should be amended to instead recite “the slide is configured to be moved upward along the first zipper tape and the second zipper tape” in order to focus on the capabilities of the device rather than specific actions performed by a user.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the corresponding side strap body is threaded though the slot …” in both lines 4-5 and again in lines 6-7 which appears to be reciting the process of using the claimed device. However, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). MPEP 2173.05(p). It is suggested that the above limitation of claim 6 should be amended to instead recite “the corresponding side strap body is configured to be threaded though the slot …” in order to focus on the capabilities of the device rather than specific actions performed by a user.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “the first time” in line 5 and “the second time” in line 8; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It is suggested that the above limitations of claim 6 be amended to “a first time” and “a second time”, respectively.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are included in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependence from rejected claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 would be allowable because the prior art fails to disclose the claimed sternum stabilization vest having the specific configuration of elements described in the claim. Claims 2-7 would be allowable based on their dependence from claim 1.
The closest prior art of record is Wyrick (US 2021/0346591) which discloses a vest (recovery garment 100) comprising two chest pads (front panels 201) and a supporting structure (back panel 202) including two side strap bodies (attachment flaps 216) (Figs. 1-3; ¶ 0035 & 0037). However, Wyrick fails to teach the variously claimed front fixing straps, front adjustment rings, side fixing straps, and side adjustment rings such that the side strap bodies can be threaded through slots of the adjustment rings as required by claim 1.
Reinhardt et al. (US 6,503,215) discloses bandage (1) comprising two front panels (overlap areas 2a, 2b) each including a first front fixing strap (loop 13) and a first front adjustment ring (deflection rings 7a, 7b), wherein the first front fixing strap (13) is arranged on a front side of each front panel (2a, 2b) and the first front adjustment ring (7a, 7b) is arranged at the first front fixing strap (13) and has a slot, and a supporting structure (curving part 11) including two side fixing straps (loop 14), two side adjustment rings (deflection rings 8a, 8b), and two strap bodies (tightening straps 3a, 3b), wherein the side fixing straps (14) are arranged at both lateral sides (ends 9a, 9b) of the supporting structure (11), the side adjustment rings (8a, 8b) are arranged at the side fixing traps (14), and the side strap bodies (3a, 3b) are arranged at the both lateral sides (9a, 9b) of the supporting structure (11), wherein each side strap body (3a, 3b) is configured to be threaded through a slot of the first front adjustment ring (7a, 7b) and a slot of the side adjustment ring (8a, 8b) (Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 41-53).
However, Reinhardt fails to teach a second front fixing strap arranged on the front side of the chest pad and located above the first front fixing strap, a second front adjustment ring arranged at the second front fixing strap, that the side strap bodies are located below the side fixing strap, wherein each side strap body is configured to also be threaded through slots of the second front adjustment ring.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Sparrow et al. (US 2024/0350929), DeLara (US 2022/0264971), van Beek (US 2021/0077290), Gillam (US 10,932,504), Lipshaw et al. (US 11,517,482), Shagdar et al. (US 10,786,382), Blackwell (US 9,854,851), Leibowitz (US 9,949,863), Hansen (US 9,681,692), Trane Jones (US 2015/0032068), Epple et al. (US 2009/0131841), Wagner (US 2008/0153370), Albright (US 6,773,318), Khanamirian (US 6,379,208), and Jones (US 3,449,778).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keri J. Nelson whose telephone number is 571-270-3821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachael E. 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.
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 12/31/2025