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) 1-4, 6-7, 11-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davies (US 3989041).
With respect to claim 1, Davies discloses a method comprising: obtaining an anatomical support device (device 10 which is configured to be applied to the body to provide support to injured or weakened joints (col 3 lines 25-29) thus is interpreted as being a device that support anatomical regions on the body; the device inherently must be “obtained” in order to be applied to the body for use) comprising: an elongate body (“I” shaped configuration of device 10) extending along a longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end positioned opposite the first end (longitudinal axis is interpreted as extending from the end where wings 12 are provided to the opposing end where wings 14 are provided as shown in fig 1), the elongate body being formed of material (material 11) that is substantially inextensible along the longitudinal axis from the first end to the second end col 3 lines 36-37) and elastically extensible along a transverse axis extending orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (col 3 lines 32-36; transverse axis is interpreted as being in the width-wise direction), and an adhesive positioned on at least a portion of one side of the elongate body (the device 10 is a pressure sensitive adhesive tape material and thus includes a PSA on at least a portion of one side; see col 3 lines 33-34; col 3 line 65-col 4 line 5); applying the anatomical support device to an ankle of a patient (as shown in fig 2; col 4 lines 21-50) such that the first end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 12) is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient (as shown in fig 2) and the second end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 14) extends to a sole of a foot of the patient (as shown in fig 2, the end between tabs 13 and wings 14 wraps beneath the foot, over the sole); and
securing, by the adhesive after the applying, the anatomical support device to the patient (the device is secured in place adhesively – col 4 lines 26-27; see also fig 2 where the device is shown secured in place on the patient).
With respect to claim 2, Davies discloses the method as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Davies also discloses that the material is a woven textile material (col 3 lines 46-48).
With respect to claim 3, Davies discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Davies also discloses that the anatomical support device further comprises: a first wing extending away from the elongate body at a location between the first end and the second end and a second wing extending away from the elongate body opposite the first wing (tabs 13 in fig 1).
With respect to claim 4, Davies discloses the method as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Davies also discloses that the first wing and the second wing (tabs 13) are formed of the material and monolithically extend from the elongate body (as shown in fig 1, the device 10 is a monolithic structure where the tabs 13 are integrally formed with the “I” shaped body of the device and, thus, inherently must be formed from the same material 11 as the remainder of the device).
With respect to claims 6-7, Davies discloses the method as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Davies further teaches that the applying comprises wrapping the first wing across a dorsum of the foot and wrapping the second wing across an Achilles tendon (as shown in fig 2, one tab 13 wraps across the dorsum of the foot while the other tab 13 wraps across the Achilles tendon during use; see also annotated fig 2). Davies specifically teaches that application of the device 10 to the ankle in this manner selectively limits ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer (col 4 lines 33-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of Emslander so that the applying comprises wrapping the first wing across a dorsum of the foot and wrapping the second wing across an Achilles tendon, as taught by Davies, in order to selectively limit ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer.
ANNOTATED FIG 2 of Davies (US3989041):
PNG
media_image1.png
341
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, Davies discloses a method comprising: obtaining an anatomical support device (device 10 which is configured to be applied to the body to provide support to injured or weakened joints (col 3 lines 25-29) thus is interpreted as being a device that support anatomical regions on the body; the device inherently must be “obtained” in order to be applied to the body for use) comprising: an elongate body (“I” shaped configuration of device 10) extending along a longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end positioned opposite the first end (longitudinal axis is interpreted as extending from the end where wings 12 are provided to the opposing end where wings 14 are provided as shown in fig 1), a first wing extending away from the elongate body at a location between the first end and the second end and a second wing extending away from the elongate body opposite the first wing (tabs 13 in fig 1), and the elongate body, the first wing and the second wing being formed of material (material 11; as shown in fig 1, the device 10 is a monolithic structure where the tabs 13 are integrally formed with the “I” shaped body of the device and, thus, inherently must be formed from the same material 11 as the remainder of the device) that is substantially inextensible along the longitudinal axis from the first end to the second end col 3 lines 36-37) and elastically extensible along a transverse axis extending orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (col 3 lines 32-36; transverse axis is interpreted as being in the width-wise direction); and applying the anatomical support device to an ankle of a patient (the device is secured in place adhesively – col 4 lines 26-27; see also fig 2 where the device is shown secured in place on the patient; col 4 lines 21-50), wherein the applying comprises: positioning the first end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 12) at least partially along a fibula of the patient (as shown in fig 2) and positioning the second end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 14) on a sole of a foot of the patient (as shown in fig 2, the end between tabs 13 and wings 14 wraps beneath the foot, over the sole); positioning the first wing across a dorsum of the foot and positioning the second wing across an Achilles tendon (as shown in fig 2, one tab 13 wraps across the dorsum of the foot while the other tab 13 wraps across the Achilles tendon during use; see also annotated fig 2).
With respect to claim 12, Davies discloses the method as claimed (see rejection of claim 11) and Davies also discloses that the material is a woven textile material (col 3 lines 46-48).
With respect to claim 15, Davies discloses an anatomical support device (device 10 which is configured to be applied to the body to provide support to injured or weakened joints (col 3 lines 25-29) thus is interpreted as being a device that support anatomical regions on the body) comprising: an elongate body (“I” shaped configuration of device 10) extending along a longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end positioned opposite the first end (longitudinal axis is interpreted as extending from the end where wings 12 are provided to the opposing end where wings 14 are provided as shown in fig 1), the elongate body being formed of material (material 11) that is substantially inextensible along the longitudinal axis from the first end to the second end col 3 lines 36-37) and elastically extensible along a transverse axis extending orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (col 3 lines 32-36; transverse axis is interpreted as being in the width-wise direction), and an adhesive positioned on at least a portion of one side of the elongate body (the device 10 is a pressure sensitive adhesive tape material and thus includes a PSA on at least a portion of one side; see col 3 lines 33-34; col 3 line 65-col 4 line 5); wherein the anatomical support device is configured to adhere to an ankle of a patient (as shown in fig 2; col 4 lines 21-50; the device is secured in place adhesively – col 4 lines 26-27) such that the first end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 12) is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient (as shown in fig 2) and the second end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 14) extends to a sole of a foot of the patient (as shown in fig 2, the end between tabs 13 and wings 14 wraps beneath the foot, over the sole).
With respect to claim 16, Davies discloses the device as claimed (see rejection of claim 15) and Davies also discloses that the material is a woven textile material (col 3 lines 46-48).
With respect to claim 17, Davies discloses the device as claimed (see rejection of claim 15) and Davies also discloses that the anatomical support device further comprises: a first wing extending away from the elongate body at a location between the first end and the second end and a second wing extending away from the elongate body opposite the first wing (tabs 13 in fig 1).
With respect to claim 18, Davies discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 17) and Davies also discloses that the first wing and the second wing (tabs 13) are formed of the material (as shown in fig 1, the device 10 is a monolithic structure where the tabs 13 are integrally formed with the “I” shaped body of the device and, thus, inherently must be formed from the same material 11 as the remainder of the device).
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 11, 13, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emslander et al (US 2019/0328580) in view of Davies (US 3989041).
With respect to claim 1, Emslander discloses a method comprising:
Obtaining an anatomical support device (invention relates to support articles that provide compression and/or stabilization to joints, tendons or muscles and thus are interpreted as being devices that support anatomical regions on the body – abstract lines 1 and 3-5; specific reference is made to support article 1300 in figs 13A-13B and 14A-E; the device inherently must be “obtained” in order to be applied to the body for use), comprising:
an elongate body extending along a longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end positioned opposite the first end (backing 1310 has an elongate configuration in the portion of the device extending between top portion 1360 and oppositely disposed bottom portion 1365 as shown in fig 13B; the longitudinal axis is interpreted as extending along the device between top 1360 and bottom 1365 as this area of the device is positioned to extend longitudinally along the patient’s limb during use as shown in figs 14C and 14E),
the elongate body being formed of material (para [0010]) that is substantially inextensible along the longitudinal axis from the first end to the second end (article 1300 includes a reinforcing portion 1320 attached to backing 1310 which extends in the longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end between top 1360 and bottom 1365 as shown in fig 13B; the reinforcing portion is rigid and/or generally non-elastic and thus is interpreted as at least partly preventing the backing from stretching along the longitudinal axis where it is located; para [0120;0141]; the reinforcing portion can cover up to 75% of the total surface area – para [0011] which is interpreted as being a “substantial” portion and thus is interpreted as rendering the material substantially inextensible) and elastically extensible along a transverse axis extending orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (the backing can be formed of elastic fabric – para [0091] and is disclosed as having measurable machine-directional and cross-directional elongation at break values – para [0011] and thus is interpreted as being capable of elastically extending to permit elongation in both the machine/cross machine directions which correspond to the longitudinal and transverse directions), and
an adhesive (adhesive 1330; fig 13B) positioned on at least a portion of one side of the elongate body (the back major surface of backing 1310 is at least partially coated with adhesive 1330 – para [0057]);
applying the anatomical support device to an ankle of a patient (para [0014;0043]); and
securing, by the adhesive after the applying, the anatomical support device to the patient (para [0008,0009,0014]).
Emslander does not, however, explicitly disclose that the support is applied to the ankle such that the first end is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient and the second end extends to a sole of a foot of the patient.
Davies, however, teaches an analogous device and method wherein the support (device 10) is applied to the ankle (as shown in fig 2) such that the first end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 12) is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient (as shown in fig 2) and the second end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 14) extends to a sole of a foot of the patient (as shown in fig 2, the end between tabs 13 and wings 14 wraps beneath the foot, over the sole). Davies specifically teaches that application of the device 10 to the ankle in this manner selectively limits ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer (col 4 lines 33-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of Emslander so that application of the support to the ankle is performed in a manner such that the first end is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient and the second end extends to a sole of a foot of the patient, as taught by Davies, in order to selectively limit ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer.
With respect to claims 3-4, Emslander in view of Davies discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Emslander also discloses that the anatomical support device further comprises
a first wing (wing portion 1370) extending away from the elongate body at a location between the first and second ends (as shown in fig 13B), and
a second wing (wing portion 1375) extending away from the elongate body opposite the first wing (as shown in fig 13B); and
the first and second wings are formed of the material and monolithically extend from the elongate body (as shown in fig 13B the wings are integrally formed with portions 1360 and 1365 to form the device and thus are interpreted as being formed from the same material as the body of the device).
With respect to claim 5, Emslander in view of Davies discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 3) and Emslander also discloses that the first wing and second wing (1370 and 1375) extend along the transverse axis (as shown in figs 13A-13B, the wings 1370 and 1375 extend in the horizontal direction which is interpreted as being the transverse axis).
With respect to claims 6-7, Emslander in view of Davies discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 3) and Davies further teaches that the applying comprises wrapping the first wing across a dorsum of the foot and wrapping the second wing across an Achilles tendon (as shown in fig 2, one tab 13 wraps across the dorsum of the foot while the other tab 13 wraps across the Achilles tendon during use; see also annotated fig 2). Davies specifically teaches that application of the device 10 to the ankle in this manner selectively limits ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer (col 4 lines 33-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of Emslander so that the applying comprises wrapping the first wing across a dorsum of the foot and wrapping the second wing across an Achilles tendon, as taught by Davies, in order to selectively limit ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer.
ANNOTATED FIG 2 of Davies (US3989041):
PNG
media_image1.png
341
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, Emslander discloses a method comprising:
Obtaining an anatomical support device (invention relates to support articles that provide compression and/or stabilization to joints, tendons or muscles and thus are interpreted as being devices that support anatomical regions on the body – abstract lines 1 and 3-5; specific reference is made to support article 1300 in figs 13A-13B and 14A-E; the device inherently must be “obtained” in order to be applied to the body for use), comprising:
an elongate body extending along a longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end positioned opposite the first end (backing 1310 has an elongate configuration in the portion of the device extending between top portion 1360 and oppositely disposed bottom portion 1365 as shown in fig 13B; the longitudinal axis is interpreted as extending along the device between top 1360 and bottom 1365 as this area of the device is positioned to extend longitudinally along the patient’s limb during use as shown in figs 14C and 14E),
the elongate body, the first wing, and the second wing being formed of material (para [0010]; as shown in fig 13B the wings are integrally formed with portions 1360 and 1365 to form the device and thus are interpreted as being formed from the same material as the body of the device) that is substantially inextensible along the longitudinal axis from the first end to the second end (article 1300 includes a reinforcing portion 1320 attached to backing 1310 which extends in the longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end between top 1360 and bottom 1365 as shown in fig 13B; the reinforcing portion is rigid and/or generally non-elastic and thus is interpreted as at least partly preventing the backing from stretching along the longitudinal axis where it is located; para [0120;0141]; the reinforcing portion can cover up to 75% of the total surface area – para [0011] which is interpreted as being a “substantial” portion and thus is interpreted as rendering the material substantially inextensible) and elastically extensible along a transverse axis extending orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (the backing can be formed of elastic fabric – para [0091] and is disclosed as having measurable machine-directional and cross-directional elongation at break values – para [0011] and thus is interpreted as being capable of elastically extending to permit elongation in both the machine/cross machine directions which correspond to the longitudinal and transverse directions), and
applying the anatomical support device to an ankle of a patient (para [0014;0043]; para [0008,0009,0014]).
Emslander does not, however, explicitly disclose that the applying comprises: positioning the first end at least partially along a fibula of the patient, positioning the second end on a sole of a foot of the patient, positioning the first wing across a dorsum of the foot of the patient, and positioning the second wing across an Achilles tendon of the patient.
Davies, however, teaches an analogous device and method wherein the support (device 10) is applied to the ankle (as shown in fig 2) and the applying includes positioning the first end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 12) at least partially along a fibula of the patient (as shown in fig 2); positioning the second end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 14) on a sole of a foot of the patient (as shown in fig 2, the end between tabs 13 and wings 14 wraps beneath the foot, over the sole); positioning the first wing across a dorsum of the foot and positioning the second wing across an Achilles tendon (as shown in fig 2, one tab 13 wraps across the dorsum of the foot while the other tab 13 wraps across the Achilles tendon during use; see also annotated fig 2). Davies specifically teaches that application of the device 10 to the ankle in this manner selectively limits ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer (col 4 lines 33-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of Emslander so that the applying comprises: positioning the first end at least partially along a fibula of the patient, positioning the second end on a sole of a foot of the patient, positioning the first wing across a dorsum of the foot of the patient, and positioning the second wing across an Achilles tendon of the patient, as taught by Davies, in order to selectively limit ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer.
With respect to claim 13, Emslander in view of Davies discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 11) and Emslander also discloses that the first wing and second wing (1370 and 1375) extend along the transverse axis (as shown in figs 13A-13B, the wings 1370 and 1375 extend in the horizontal direction which is interpreted as being the transverse axis).
With respect to claim 15, Emslander discloses an anatomical support device (invention relates to support articles that provide compression and/or stabilization to joints, tendons or muscles and thus are interpreted as being devices that support anatomical regions on the body – abstract lines 1 and 3-5; specific reference is made to support article 1300 in figs 13A-13B and 14A-E; the device inherently must be “obtained” in order to be applied to the body for use), comprising:
an elongate body extending along a longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end positioned opposite the first end (backing 1310 has an elongate configuration in the portion of the device extending between top portion 1360 and oppositely disposed bottom portion 1365 as shown in fig 13B; the longitudinal axis is interpreted as extending along the device between top 1360 and bottom 1365 as this area of the device is positioned to extend longitudinally along the patient’s limb during use as shown in figs 14C and 14E),
the elongate body being formed of material (para [0010]) that is substantially inextensible along the longitudinal axis from the first end to the second end (article 1300 includes a reinforcing portion 1320 attached to backing 1310 which extends in the longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end between top 1360 and bottom 1365 as shown in fig 13B; the reinforcing portion is rigid and/or generally non-elastic and thus is interpreted as at least partly preventing the backing from stretching along the longitudinal axis where it is located; para [0120;0141]; the reinforcing portion can cover up to 75% of the total surface area – para [0011] which is interpreted as being a “substantial” portion and thus is interpreted as rendering the material substantially inextensible) and elastically extensible along a transverse axis extending orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (the backing can be formed of elastic fabric – para [0091] and is disclosed as having measurable machine-directional and cross-directional elongation at break values – para [0011] and thus is interpreted as being capable of elastically extending to permit elongation in both the machine/cross machine directions which correspond to the longitudinal and transverse directions), and
an adhesive (adhesive 1330; fig 13B) positioned on at least a portion of one side of the elongate body (the back major surface of backing 1310 is at least partially coated with adhesive 1330 – para [0057]);
wherein the anatomical support device is configured to adhere to an ankle of a patient (para [0014;0043]; para [0008,0009,0014]).
Emslander does not, however, explicitly disclose that the support is adhered to the ankle such that the first end is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient and the second end extends to a sole of a foot of the patient.
Davies, however, teaches an analogous device and method wherein the support (device 10) is applied to the ankle (as shown in fig 2) such that the first end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 12) is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient (as shown in fig 2) and the second end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 14) extends to a sole of a foot of the patient (as shown in fig 2, the end between tabs 13 and wings 14 wraps beneath the foot, over the sole). Davies specifically teaches that application of the device 10 to the ankle in this manner selectively limits ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer (col 4 lines 33-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the device of Emslander so that application of the support to the ankle is performed in a manner such that the first end is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient and the second end extends to a sole of a foot of the patient, as taught by Davies, in order to selectively limit ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer.
With respect to claims 17-18, Emslander in view of Davies discloses the device substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 15) and Emslander also discloses that the anatomical support device further comprises
a first wing (wing portion 1370) extending away from the elongate body at a location between the first and second ends (as shown in fig 13B), and
a second wing (wing portion 1375) extending away from the elongate body opposite the first wing (as shown in fig 13B); and
the first and second wings are formed of the material (as shown in fig 13B the wings are integrally formed with portions 1360 and 1365 to form the device and thus are interpreted as being formed from the same material as the body of the device).
With respect to claim 19, Emslander in view of Davies discloses the device substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 17) and Emslander also discloses that the first wing and second wing (1370 and 1375) extend along the transverse axis (as shown in figs 13A-13B, the wings 1370 and 1375 extend in the horizontal direction which is interpreted as being the transverse axis).
Claims 2, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emslander et al (US 2019/0328580) in view of Davies (US 3989041) and further in view of Creighton et al (US 20100312160).
With respect to claim 2, Emslander in view of Davies discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Emslander also discloses that the material is a woven textile material (para [0010]). Emslander also discloses that the elongate body is resistant to stretching from the first end to the second end in a longitudinal direction (article 1300 includes a reinforcing portion 1320 attached to backing 1310 which extends in the longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end between top 1360 and bottom 1365 as shown in fig 13B; the reinforcing portion is rigid and/or generally non-elastic and thus is interpreted as at least partly preventing the backing from stretching along the longitudinal axis where it is located; para [0120;0141])
Emslander does not, however, disclose that the woven material is substantially inextensible in the longitudinal direction.
Creighton, however, teaches an anatomical support device (garment configured to apply compressive pressure to a limb to provide support and fatigue relief – para [0056]) wherein “the compression fabric could be knitted of Rochelle or Tricot or another knitted weave, or could be a woven fabric” because “woven fabrics are especially valuable in designing such a system due to their ability to be designed with abrupt end-stretch” (para [0084]) and, more specifically, a first portion may be characterized by a one-way stretch material (para [0186]) and thus would impart stretch resistance in one direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the woven material in the device of Emslander in view of Davies for the one-way stretch woven material in Creighton since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
With respect to claim 12, Emslander in view of Davies discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 11) and Emslander also discloses that the material is a woven textile material (para [0010]). Emslander also discloses that the elongate body is resistant to stretching from the first end to the second end in a longitudinal direction (article 1300 includes a reinforcing portion 1320 attached to backing 1310 which extends in the longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end between top 1360 and bottom 1365 as shown in fig 13B; the reinforcing portion is rigid and/or generally non-elastic and thus is interpreted as at least partly preventing the backing from stretching along the longitudinal axis where it is located; para [0120;0141])
Emslander does not, however, disclose that the woven material is substantially inextensible in the longitudinal direction.
Creighton, however, teaches an anatomical support device (garment configured to apply compressive pressure to a limb to provide support and fatigue relief – para [0056]) wherein “the compression fabric could be knitted of Rochelle or Tricot or another knitted weave, or could be a woven fabric” because “woven fabrics are especially valuable in designing such a system due to their ability to be designed with abrupt end-stretch” (para [0084]) and, more specifically, a first portion may be characterized by a one-way stretch material (para [0186]) and thus would impart stretch resistance in one direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the woven material in the device of Emslander in view of Davies for the one-way stretch woven material in Creighton since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
With respect to claim 16, Emslander in view of Davies discloses the device substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 15) and Emslander also discloses that the material is a woven textile material (para [0010]). Emslander also discloses that the elongate body is resistant to stretching from the first end to the second end in a longitudinal direction (article 1300 includes a reinforcing portion 1320 attached to backing 1310 which extends in the longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end between top 1360 and bottom 1365 as shown in fig 13B; the reinforcing portion is rigid and/or generally non-elastic and thus is interpreted as at least partly preventing the backing from stretching along the longitudinal axis where it is located; para [0120;0141])
Emslander does not, however, disclose that the woven material is substantially inextensible in the longitudinal direction.
Creighton, however, teaches an anatomical support device (garment configured to apply compressive pressure to a limb to provide support and fatigue relief – para [0056]) wherein “the compression fabric could be knitted of Rochelle or Tricot or another knitted weave, or could be a woven fabric” because “woven fabrics are especially valuable in designing such a system due to their ability to be designed with abrupt end-stretch” (para [0084]) and, more specifically, a first portion may be characterized by a one-way stretch material (para [0186]) and thus would impart stretch resistance in one direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the woven material in the device of Emslander in view of Davies for the one-way stretch woven material in Creighton since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claims 8-10, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emslander et al (US 2019/0328580) in view of Davies (US 3989041) and further in view of Ficchi (US 2015/0257939).
With respect to claim 8, Emslander in view of Davies discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose that a first perforated line separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line separates the elongate body from the second wing.
Ficchi, however, teaches an adhesive bandage configured for application on the foot of a user (see abstract; claim 8), the bandage (1; fig 1) comprising an elongate body (2) and first and second wings that extend away from the elongate body (flexible arms 3a,3b,4a,4b) and including a first perforated line that separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line that separates the elongate body from the second wing (the flexible arms each include a perforated line 5 traversing the width of each flexible arm wherein the perforated lines function as a tear strip to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage – para [0020]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of Emslander in view of Davies so that the device further includes a first perforated line that separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line that separates the elongate body from the second wing, as taught by Ficchi, in order to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage.
With respect to claims 9-10, Emslander in view of Davies and further in view of Ficchi discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 8) and Ficchi further teaches separating the first wing from the elongate body along the first perforated line and separating the second wing from the elongate body along the second perforated line (the perforated lines function as a tear strip to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage – para [0020]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of Emslander in view of Davies and further in view of Ficchi to further include separating the first wing from the elongate body along the first perforated line and separating the second wing from the elongate body along the second perforated line, as taught by Ficchi, in order to allow a user to remove the wings to prevent interference with the adhesion of the bandage.
With respect to claim 14, Emslander in view of Davies discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 11) but does not disclose that a first perforated line separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line separates the elongate body from the second wing.
Ficchi, however, teaches an adhesive bandage configured for application on the foot of a user (see abstract; claim 8), the bandage (1; fig 1) comprising an elongate body (2) and first and second wings that extend away from the elongate body (flexible arms 3a,3b,4a,4b) and including a first perforated line that separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line that separates the elongate body from the second wing (the flexible arms each include a perforated line 5 traversing the width of each flexible arm wherein the perforated lines function as a tear strip to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage – para [0020]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of Emslander in view of Davies so that the device further includes a first perforated line that separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line that separates the elongate body from the second wing, as taught by Ficchi, in order to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage.
With respect to claim 20, Emslander in view of Davies discloses the device substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 17) but does not disclose that a first perforated line separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line separates the elongate body from the second wing.
Ficchi, however, teaches an adhesive bandage configured for application on the foot of a user (see abstract; claim 8), the bandage (1; fig 1) comprising an elongate body (2) and first and second wings that extend away from the elongate body (flexible arms 3a,3b,4a,4b) and including a first perforated line that separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line that separates the elongate body from the second wing (the flexible arms each include a perforated line 5 traversing the width of each flexible arm wherein the perforated lines function as a tear strip to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage – para [0020]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the device of Emslander in view of Davies so that the device further includes a first perforated line that separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line that separates the elongate body from the second wing, as taught by Ficchi, in order to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage.
Claims 8-10, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies (US 3989041) in view of Ficchi (US 2015/0257939).
With respect to claim 8, Davies discloses the method as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose that a first perforated line separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line separates the elongate body from the second wing.
Ficchi, however, teaches an adhesive bandage configured for application on the foot of a user (see abstract; claim 8), the bandage (1; fig 1) comprising an elongate body (2) and first and second wings that extend away from the elongate body (flexible arms 3a,3b,4a,4b) and including a first perforated line that separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line that separates the elongate body from the second wing (the flexible arms each include a perforated line 5 traversing the width of each flexible arm wherein the perforated lines function as a tear strip to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage – para [0020]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of Davies so that the device further includes a first perforated line that separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line that separates the elongate body from the second wing, as taught by Ficchi, in order to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage.
With respect to claims 9-10, Davies in view of Ficchi discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 8) and Ficchi further teaches separating the first wing from the elongate body along the first perforated line and separating the second wing from the elongate body along the second perforated line (the perforated lines function as a tear strip to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage – para [0020]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of Davies in view of Ficchi to further include separating the first wing from the elongate body along the first perforated line and separating the second wing from the elongate body along the second perforated line, as taught by Ficchi, in order to allow a user to remove the wings to prevent interference with the adhesion of the bandage.
With respect to claim 14, Davies discloses the method as claimed (see rejection of claim 11) but does not disclose that a first perforated line separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line separates the elongate body from the second wing.
Ficchi, however, teaches an adhesive bandage configured for application on the foot of a user (see abstract; claim 8), the bandage (1; fig 1) comprising an elongate body (2) and first and second wings that extend away from the elongate body (flexible arms 3a,3b,4a,4b) and including a first perforated line that separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line that separates the elongate body from the second wing (the flexible arms each include a perforated line 5 traversing the width of each flexible arm wherein the perforated lines function as a tear strip to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage – para [0020]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of Davies so that the device further includes a first perforated line that separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line that separates the elongate body from the second wing, as taught by Ficchi, in order to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage.
With respect to claim 20, Davies discloses the device as claimed (see rejection of claim 17) but does not disclose that a first perforated line separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line separates the elongate body from the second wing.
Ficchi, however, teaches an adhesive bandage configured for application on the foot of a user (see abstract; claim 8), the bandage (1; fig 1) comprising an elongate body (2) and first and second wings that extend away from the elongate body (flexible arms 3a,3b,4a,4b) and including a first perforated line that separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line that separates the elongate body from the second wing (the flexible arms each include a perforated line 5 traversing the width of each flexible arm wherein the perforated lines function as a tear strip to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage – para [0020]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the device of Davies so that the device further includes a first perforated line that separates the elongate body from the first wing and a second perforated line that separates the elongate body from the second wing, as taught by Ficchi, in order to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired such as in situations where the arm will interfere with the adhesion of the bandage.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 12064321 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘321 Patent) in view of Davies (US 3989041).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3, 11-12, and 15-17 would have been obvious over claims 9-10 of the ‘321 Patent to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Specifically, claim 1 of the present application differs from claim 9 of the ‘321 Patent in that the patented claim recites the step of “applying the anatomical support device to an ankle of a patient such that the first end is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient and the second end extends to a sole of a foot of the patient” which is not disclosed in claim 9 of the ‘321 Patent.
However, Davies discloses a method comprising: obtaining an anatomical support device (device 10 which is configured to be applied to the body to provide support to injured or weakened joints (col 3 lines 25-29) thus is interpreted as being a device that support anatomical regions on the body; the device inherently must be “obtained” in order to be applied to the body for use) comprising: an elongate body (“I” shaped configuration of device 10) extending along a longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end positioned opposite the first end (longitudinal axis is interpreted as extending from the end where wings 12 are provided to the opposing end where wings 14 are provided as shown in fig 1), the elongate body being formed of material (material 11) that is substantially inextensible along the longitudinal axis from the first end to the second end col 3 lines 36-37) and elastically extensible along a transverse axis extending orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (col 3 lines 32-36; transverse axis is interpreted as being in the width-wise direction), and an adhesive positioned on at least a portion of one side of the elongate body (the device 10 is a pressure sensitive adhesive tape material and thus includes a PSA on at least a portion of one side; see col 3 lines 33-34; col 3 line 65-col 4 line 5); applying the anatomical support device to an ankle of a patient (as shown in fig 2; col 4 lines 21-50) such that the first end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 12) is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient (as shown in fig 2) and the second end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 14) extends to a sole of a foot of the patient (as shown in fig 2, the end between tabs 13 and wings 14 wraps beneath the foot, over the sole); and securing, by the adhesive after the applying, the anatomical support device to the patient (the device is secured in place adhesively – col 4 lines 26-27; see also fig 2 where the device is shown secured in place on the patient). Davies specifically teaches that application of the device 10 to the ankle in this manner selectively limits ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer (col 4 lines 33-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of claim 9 of the ‘321 Patent so that application of the support to the ankle is performed in a manner such that the first end is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient and the second end extends to a sole of a foot of the patient, as taught by Davies, in order to selectively limit ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer.
All of the limitations of claims 2-3 can be found in claims 9-10 of the ‘321 Patent.
Claim 11 of the present application differs from claim 9 of the ‘321 Patent in that the patented claim recites the step of “applying the anatomical support device to an ankle of a patient, wherein the applying comprises positioning the first end at least partially along a fibula of the patient, positioning the second end on a sole of a foot of the patient, positioning the first wing across a dorsum of the foot of the patient, and positioning the second wing across an Achilles tendon of the patient” which is not disclosed in claim 9 of the ‘321 Patent.
However, Davies discloses a method comprising: obtaining an anatomical support device (device 10 which is configured to be applied to the body to provide support to injured or weakened joints (col 3 lines 25-29) thus is interpreted as being a device that support anatomical regions on the body; the device inherently must be “obtained” in order to be applied to the body for use) comprising: an elongate body (“I” shaped configuration of device 10) extending along a longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end positioned opposite the first end (longitudinal axis is interpreted as extending from the end where wings 12 are provided to the opposing end where wings 14 are provided as shown in fig 1), a first wing extending away from the elongate body at a location between the first end and the second end and a second wing extending away from the elongate body opposite the first wing (tabs 13 in fig 1), and the elongate body, the first wing and the second wing being formed of material (material 11; as shown in fig 1, the device 10 is a monolithic structure where the tabs 13 are integrally formed with the “I” shaped body of the device and, thus, inherently must be formed from the same material 11 as the remainder of the device) that is substantially inextensible along the longitudinal axis from the first end to the second end col 3 lines 36-37) and elastically extensible along a transverse axis extending orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (col 3 lines 32-36; transverse axis is interpreted as being in the width-wise direction); and applying the anatomical support device to an ankle of a patient (the device is secured in place adhesively – col 4 lines 26-27; see also fig 2 where the device is shown secured in place on the patient; col 4 lines 21-50), wherein the applying comprises: positioning the first end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 12) at least partially along a fibula of the patient (as shown in fig 2) and positioning the second end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 14) on a sole of a foot of the patient (as shown in fig 2, the end between tabs 13 and wings 14 wraps beneath the foot, over the sole); positioning the first wing across a dorsum of the foot and positioning the second wing across an Achilles tendon (as shown in fig 2, one tab 13 wraps across the dorsum of the foot while the other tab 13 wraps across the Achilles tendon during use; see also annotated fig 2). Davies specifically teaches that application of the device 10 to the ankle in this manner selectively limits ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer (col 4 lines 33-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of claim 9 of the ‘321 Patent to include the step of applying the anatomical support device to an ankle of a patient, wherein the applying comprises positioning the first end at least partially along a fibula of the patient, positioning the second end on a sole of a foot of the patient, positioning the first wing across a dorsum of the foot of the patient, and positioning the second wing across an Achilles tendon of the patient, as taught by Davies, in order to selectively limit ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer.
All of the limitations of claim 10 can be found in claim 10 of the ‘321 Patent.
Claim 15 of the present application differs from claim 9 of the ‘321 Patent in that the patented claim recites that the anatomical support device is “configured to adhere to an ankle of a patient such that the first end is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient and the second end extends to a sole of a foot of the patient” which is not disclosed in claim 9 of the ‘321 Patent.
However, Davies discloses an anatomical support device (device 10 which is configured to be applied to the body to provide support to injured or weakened joints (col 3 lines 25-29) thus is interpreted as being a device that support anatomical regions on the body) comprising: an elongate body (“I” shaped configuration of device 10) extending along a longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end positioned opposite the first end (longitudinal axis is interpreted as extending from the end where wings 12 are provided to the opposing end where wings 14 are provided as shown in fig 1), the elongate body being formed of material (material 11) that is substantially inextensible along the longitudinal axis from the first end to the second end col 3 lines 36-37) and elastically extensible along a transverse axis extending orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (col 3 lines 32-36; transverse axis is interpreted as being in the width-wise direction), and an adhesive positioned on at least a portion of one side of the elongate body (the device 10 is a pressure sensitive adhesive tape material and thus includes a PSA on at least a portion of one side; see col 3 lines 33-34; col 3 line 65-col 4 line 5); wherein the anatomical support device is configured to adhere to an ankle of a patient (as shown in fig 2; col 4 lines 21-50; the device is secured in place adhesively – col 4 lines 26-27) such that the first end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 12) is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient (as shown in fig 2) and the second end (end of device 10 between tabs 13 and wings 14) extends to a sole of a foot of the patient (as shown in fig 2, the end between tabs 13 and wings 14 wraps beneath the foot, over the sole). Davies specifically teaches that application of the device 10 to the ankle in this manner selectively limits ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer (col 4 lines 33-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the device in claim 9 of the ‘321 Patent so that it is configured to adhere to an ankle of a patient such that the first end is positioned at least partially along a fibula of the patient and the second end extends to a sole of a foot of the patient, as taught by Davies, in order to selectively limit ankle inversion while still allowing plantar flexion, comfort and conformability to the wearer.
All of the limitations of claims 16-17 can be found in claims 9-10 of the ‘321 Patent.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Bushby (US 2014/0245700) discloses a method comprising: Obtaining an anatomical support device (figs 15-18; the device inherently must be “obtained” in order to be applied to the body for use) comprising an elongate body (502) extending in a longitudinal direction between a first end (end at 804) and a second end positioned opposite the first end (end divided into 2 parts, opposite to end at 804 in fig 15), the elongate body being formed of a woven textile material (para [0096]) that is substantially stretch resistant in at least one direction (para [0095]); and an adhesive material positioned on at least a portion of one side of the elongate body (512; para [0098]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN CARREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-7234. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-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, Rachael 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.
/CAITLIN A CARREIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786