DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is based on the amendments filed August 19, 2026 for application 19/393,320. Claims 1, 7, 12, 14, and 17 have been amended, claim 11 has been cancelled, and claim 21 is newly presented; claims 1-10 and 12-21 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 . 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinz et al. (US 6,213,968) in view of Porterfield et al. (US 4,794,916).
Heinz discloses a tightening mechanism (pulley sets 120L, 120R + central brace body segment 112c) for an orthotic brace (brace 110) (Fig. 7; column 9, lines 35-40; column 10, lines 8-12) comprising:
a plurality of belt pulley bases (pulley banks 122a, 122d) including a first belt pulley base (pulley bank 122a) and a second belt pulley base (pulley bank 122d) (Fig. 7; column 10, lines 12-23);
a plurality of strap pulley bases (pulley banks 122b + left side of central brace body segment 112c, herein after referred to as 112cL and 122c + right side of central brace body segment 112c, herein after referred to as 112cR) including a first strap pulley base (pulley bank 122b+112cL) and a second strap pulley base (122c+112cR) (Fig. 7; column 10, lines 12-23);
a plurality of cord segments (cables 28) including a first cord segment (cable 28 of pulley set 120L, herein after referred to as 28L) and a second cord segment (cable 28 of pulley set 120R, herein after referred to as 28R), wherein the first cord segment (28L) segment adjustably couples the first belt pulley base (122a) and the first strap pulley base (122b+112cL), and wherein the second cord segment (28R) adjustably couples the second belt pulley base (122d) and the second strap pulley base (122c+112cR) (Fig. 7; column 10, In 14-27); and
a strapping (note two straps joining opposing edges 114f, 114g of central brace body segment 112c) that couples the first strap pulley base (122b+112cL) with the second strap pulley base (122c+112cR), wherein the strapping is secure at a region (112cL) of the first strap pulley base (122b+112cL) and is secured at a region of the second strap pulley base (122c+112cR) (Fig. 7; column 10, lines 4-6).
However, Heinz fails to expressly teach that the strapping is elastic.
Porterfield discloses a tightening mechanism for an orthotic brace (lumbar stabilizer 10) comprising rear extremities (20, 21) (that are analogous to the two units of the central brace body segment 112c taught by Heinz) and an elastic strapping (connecting strips 30, 31) that elastically couples the rear extremities (20, 21) (Figs. 1-2; column 4, lines 53-64; column 6, lines 53-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the strapping of the tightening mechanism taught by Heinz to be elastic as taught by Porterfield for the purpose of exerting controlled pressure to a patient’s lumbar spine area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding the allowability of claim 21 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claim defines a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claim patentably distinguishes them from the references. Specifically, Applicant’s argument that claim 21 should be allowed based on the allowance of claim 1 despite the change in claim language is not found persuasive since the limitations “secured at a region of the first strap pulley base” and “secured at a region of the second strap pulley base” are more narrow than the allowed limitation of “threaded through a slot of the first strap pulley base and a slot of the second strap pulley base” as recited in claim 1. As noted in the above rejection, the claimed first and second strap pulley bases have been interpreted to be analogous to the pulley banks 122b and 122c each in combination with the left and right sides of central brace body segment 112c, respectively, of the device taught by Heinz. As such, the strapping joining the opposing edges 114f, 114g of the central brace body segment 112c are secured at regions 112c of the first and second strap pulley bases.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 9/30/2026
