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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s cancelation of claim 15 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1, 16, and the cancelation of claim 15 has overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Therefore, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 are pending in the current Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 with respect to the claim analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. As stated in the previous 6 office actions: the claim analysis and interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph are not rejections. Furthermore, see the previous six actions with regards to Applicant’s traversal and arguments of the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Applicant’s specification may recite structures and support for the claimed structures, however, Applicant’s claims themselves do not recite enough structure in the claims to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably ascertain what structures are/are not encompassed by the terms “fastening device”, “elastic buffer”, and “elastomer elements”.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 under U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first fastening device, and second fastening device” (inherently for fastening) in claims 1 and 16. After consulting Applicant’s specification [0008] and drawings, these limitations are considered to encompass straps, or other securement features, and their equivalents as seen in Applicant’s figure 1.
“elastic buffer” (inherently for buffering) in claims 7-10. After consulting Applicant’s specification is considered as a cord shaped elastic member as per Applicant’s specification page [0015] and their equivalents.
“elastomer elements” in claim 8. After consulting Applicant’s specification, these elastomer elements are considered the same elements of the elastic buffer, only presented as multiple elements, and will be considered as at least two elastic members as per Applicant’s specification page [0015] and their equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a patient” and “a limb”. This limitation should be amended to recite “a patient” and “the patient”, or “a limb” and “the limb”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the joint device has three rotational degrees of freedom and three of the at least four degrees of freedom are the three rotational degrees of freedom”. This limitation as written is unconcise and is unclear as to what is being claimed. This limitation should be amended to recite “wherein the at least four degrees of freedom of the joint device comprises three rotational degrees of freedom” to be concise and clear.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the joint device has at least one translational degrees of freedom and, wherein one of the at least four degrees of freedom is the at least one translational degree of freedom”. This limitation as written is unconcise and is unclear as to what is being claimed. This limitation should be amended to recite “wherein the at least four degrees of freedom of the joint device comprises at least one translational degrees of freedom” to be concise and clear.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “further comprising rotation axes for at least two of the rotational degree of freedom wherein the rotation axes intersect each other”. This limitation is grammatically incorrect and unconcise. The claim should be amended to recite “wherein at least two of the three rotational degrees of freedom comprise intersecting rotation axes” to be concise and grammatically correct.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “is formed by elastomer elements”. This limitation should be amended to recite “at least one/a plurality of/etc. elastomer elements” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the rotation axis”. This limitation should be amended to recite “a rotation axis”, as “rotation axis” is not presented in claims 1 or 7 from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein at least four degrees of freedom”. This limitation should be amended to recite “the at least four degrees of freedom”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “further comprising rotation axes for at least two of the rotational degrees of freedom or the at least three rotational degrees of freedom, wherein the rotation axes intersect each other”. This limitation is unconcise which makes the claim confusing and difficult to understand. The claim should be amended to recite “wherein at least two of the three rotational degrees of freedom comprise intersecting rotation axes” to be concise and clear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 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 “inserted into the elongated hold guide”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which elongated hold guide of the two walls recited earlier in the claim is being referred to in the limitation. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “inserted into each of the elongated hole guides”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the elongated hold guide defines a portion of an arc”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which elongated hold guide of the two walls recited earlier in the claim is being referred to in the limitation. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “each of the elongated hold guides defines a portion of an arc”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “comprising rotation axes”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to if the rotation axes of claim 4 are in addition to the pivot axis recited in claim 1, or if one of the claimed rotation axes are the pivot axis of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the rotation axis”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to if the rotation axis of claim 8 is in addition to the pivot axis recited in claim 1, or is the pivot axis of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the at least two degrees of freedom of the at least four degrees of freedom are rotational degrees of freedom” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the at least two degrees of freedom” in the claims. Additionally, this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the at least two degrees of freedom recited in claim 13 are in addition to the three rotational degrees of freedom recited in claim 1, or if these are the same degrees of freedom. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the rotational degrees of freedom” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “rotation axes”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to if the rotation axes of claim 13 are in addition to the pivot axis recited in claim 1, or if one of the claimed rotation axes are the pivot axis of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein at least one rotational degree of freedom of the at least two degrees of freedom”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the at least two degrees of freedom” in the claims. Additionally, this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the at least one degrees of freedom recited in claim 14 is in addition to the three rotational degrees of freedom recited in claim 1, or if these are the same degrees of freedom. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “an elongate hole guide” in line 3. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the elongate hole guide of claim 14 is one of the two elongate hole guides recited in claim 1, or a new hole guide. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “inserted into the elongated hold guide”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which elongated hold guide of the two walls recited earlier in the claim is being referred to in the limitation. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “inserted into each of the elongated hole guides”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the elongated hold guide defines a portion of an arc”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which elongated hold guide of the two walls recited earlier in the claim is being referred to in the limitation. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “each of the elongated hold guides defines a portion of an arc”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “comprising rotation axes”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to if the rotation axes of claim 19 are in addition to the pivot axis recited in claim 16, or if one of the claimed rotation axes are the pivot axis of claim 16. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claims 3, 6-7, 9-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on a rejected claim, and thus, contain the same offending limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claims 1 and 16 not disclosed either singly or in combination is that of “wherein the joint device has at least four degrees of freedom between the joint device upper part and the joint device lower part;… the upper-part connection comprising two walls oriented parallel to each other and each defining an elongated hole guide;
a holder attached to the joint device upper part and the joint device lower part, wherein the holder is attached to the upper part connection by a sliding pin inserted into the elongated hole guide and attached to the holder, wherein the elongated hole guide defines a portion of an arc of a circle that defines a pivot axis of one of the at least four degrees of freedom which lies outside the joint device, and an actuator assigned to at least one rotational degree of freedom of the at least four degrees of freedom”.
The closest art of record is that of Bejarano (US 2018/0193180 A1) in view of Kaminsky et al. (US 2018/0250151 A1) as discussed in the non-final rejection mailed 09/16/2025, however, neither references discloses the joint device as discussed above.
Furthermore, no art could be found which disclosed, or made obvious a modification of an analogous orthosis which comprises a joint device having at least four degrees of freedom, which also comprised a holder connected through a sliding pin inserted into the elongated hole guide as claimed. It is for at least this reason that claims 1 and 16 are considered to comprise allowable subject matter.
Claims 3-4, 6-10, 13-14, and 18-19 are considered to comprise allowable subject matter insofar as the claims depend from claim 1 and 16 respectively and thus, contain the same limitations considered allowable.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL A MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights