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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/12/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 Applicant argues amendments overcome the claim objections of record.
The Examiner respectfully agrees and withdraws claim objections.
On pages 9-10 Applicant argues amendments overcome the drawing objections.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting the amendments do not appear to address the drawing objections.
On pages 12-14 regarding prior art rejections, Applicant argues the Examiner failed to provide a valid motivation as to why a person of ordinary skill would modify Finlinson, but then quotes the Examiner’s provided motivation in their remarks, thus acknowledging a motivation was provided. Applicant then states that they disagree with the Examiner’s suggestion that it would be obvious to modify Finlinson because neither Finlinson nor Phillips discuss needing any additional elements to ease assembly.
The Examiner respectfully points out Finlinson (and Phillips) need not discuss all elements related to assembly that might possibly make assembly easy in order for a person of ordinary skill to find it obvious.
On pages 14-15 Applicant states the proposed modification would “increase the complexity” of Finlinson.
The Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s statement, but also points out that there is no rule/law that prevents increasing complexity of an invention via a modification.
On page 16 Applicant suggests the Examiner uses hindsight reasoning since the motivation to modify is not pulled from the reference of record.
The Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant that the Examiner can find motivation for modification based on knowledge common to a person of ordinary skill, and it does not need to be present within the cited references in order to be valid.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, outer perimeter, first surface, second surface, interior opening, the first plurality of recesses, first plurality of projections, the second plurality of recesses, the second plurality of projections, the central axis of the undulating body, internal seal, outer perimeter opening region, radially inward wall, first and second side walls, first surface opening region, middle wall, second surface opening region, the non-planar surface opening, the shaft retainer, the removeable fastener, the washer’s circumferential recess, the retainer comprising a spring, the mounting interface, the fastener, annular cavity, the transverse stop surface, corresponding stop surface, compression collar, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are further objected to for:
-figure 13a-e has at least four items 1126 although only one structure (contact surface) is understood to be represented by item 1126
-item 1124 is supposed to represent a “flange” but all arrows show item 1124 pointing towards a recess or flat surface
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9, 15-20, 22-23, 27-29, 32-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlinson et al. (US 20090036998 A1) hereinafter known as Finlinson in view of Phillips (US 20020120349 A1) hereinafter known as Phillips, further in view of Zipprich (WO 2010049135 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Finlinson discloses a mounting bracket (Figure 4) for connecting a prosthetic limb to a prosthetic foot (This is stated as an “intended use” of the claimed device. The applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 (II). In this case, the patented structure of Finlinson was considered capable of performing the cited intended use. See, for example Figures 1, 3) comprising:
a resilient ([0042] elastomeric structure) undulating body (160) comprising an outer perimeter (Figure 4), a first surface (Figure 6 top surface where items 168 project), a second surface opposite the first surface (Figure 6 bottom surface where items 169 project), and an interior opening therebetween (Figure 6 item 170),
a longitudinal shaft (120) located in the interior opening of the undulating member, the shaft comprising a bore interface with at least one contact surface (e.g. the outer wall of item 120),
an upper housing (130) coupled to the shaft (120) and contacting the first surface of the undulating member (Figure 4), and
a lower housing (140) contacting the second surface of the undulating member (Figure 4) and comprising a longitudinal lumen (142), a flange located on an upper surface of the lower housing comprising an internal bore (see Figure 4 where the shoulder 142 adjacent the internal bore is located),
wherein the shaft is moveably located in the lumen ([0049]) and the contact surface contacts the internal bore (Figure 4).
but is silent with regards to there being at least one lobe.
However, regarding claim 1 Phillips teaches that shafts and corresponding receiving bores can include divisions/engagement surfaces which engage one another to limit rotation therebetween ([0081], Figures 15-19). Finlinson and Phillips are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely modular prosthetics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bracket of Finlinson so the lower housing includes a lobe which engages with the surface of the shaft to result in the limiting of rotation between the lower housing with respect to the upper, in order to aid in ease of assembly of the bracket, the lobes providing guidance regarding the orientation the first/second prostheses and shaft should be in when finally assembled, thus reducing a possibility for error during assembly. Further, regarding claim 1, while Phillips teaches complementary shapes which are hexagonal, with flat divisions on the outer lumen and projection engagement surfaces on the inner shaft (Figure 15), Zipprich teaches that complementary engagement between a shaft and lumen of a prosthetic can include lobes (Figures 7-20, 25-42; “lobe” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a curved or rounded projection or division”). Finlinson and Zipprich are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely modular prosthetics. The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the interacting divisions/engagement surfaces of the hexagonal shape of the Finlinson Phillips Combination to have them be non-linear (or rather, curved/rounded in the shape of lobes) as is taught by Zipprich. The rounded nature of the projections/divisions are considered to be an obvious and non-essential change in shape. It has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as is taught by Phillips, with non-rounded/non-curved divisions/projections on each side of the hexagon, as long as the shapes remain complementary.
Regarding claim 2 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Phillips further teaches the shaft can include multiple contact surfaces (Figure 15 shows the inner shaft 124 with six contact surfaces, one on each side of the hexagon).
Regarding claim 3 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 2 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Phillips further teaches contact surfaces can have a rectangular shape (Figures 14-15 if each side is hexagonal, the contact surfaces for each one are elongated rectangles).
Regarding claim 4 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 3 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Phillips further teaches there are multiple sides (Figure 15 shows at least six sides, indicating at least 6 lobes present in the modified combination discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above), and Zipprich further teaches there are multiple lobes (Figures 7-20, 25-42 show between 2-4 lobes).
Regarding claim 5 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 4 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Phillips further teaches the multiple sides contact the multiple surfaces to resist torsional rotation ([0081]), and Zipprich also teaches the multiple lobes contact the multiple contact surfaces (Figures 7-20, 25-42 show the complementary lobes/contact surfaces), so the upper/lower housings of the Combination resist torsional rotation with respect to one another.
Regarding claims 6-9 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses a first plurality of projections on the first surface of the undulating body (clm 6) (Figure 6 item 168),
and the first prosthesis body comprises a first plurality of recesses configured to form a mechanical interfit with the projections of the undulating body (clm 7) ([0054]),
and the undulating body comprises a second plurality of projections on the second surface (clm 8) (Figure 6 item 169),
and the lower housing comprises a second plurality of recesses configured to form a mechanical interfit with the second plurality of projections (clam 9) (Figure 5 item 155; [0054]).
but is silent with regards to the projections being recesses, and the recesses being projections.
However, regarding claims 6-9 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bracket of the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination so the projections/recesses of the undulating body/first/second prostheses were reversed, since the person of ordinary skill understands the equivalence in the art of a male/female interlock being adjusted to be a female/male interlock, with reasonable equivalence in function. The courts have held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Regarding claim 15 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 8 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses the first/second plurality of [recesses/projections] each comprises four [recesses/projections] (Figures 5-6 show at least four).
Regarding claim 16 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 6 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses each of the [recesses/projections] of the first/second plurality comprises an outer perimeter opening region, a radially inward wall opposite the outer perimeter opening, and opposing first/second side walls flanking the radially inward wall (The Examiner refers to the 103 rejection relating to claims 6-9 above, wherein the recesses/projections illustrated are understood to be “switched”, so the recesses 155 are present in the undulating member 160, and projections 168/169 would be present in the first/second prosthesis 130/140. Considering this, Figure 5 of Finlinson shows how recesses have an outer perimeter region at the outer perimeter, a radially inward wall helping to form the recesses, and side walls which flank the inward wall to make the sides of the recesses).
Regarding claim 17 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 16 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses the radially inward wall and opposing first/second side walls comprise a U-shape on a transverse cross-section through the undulating member (if a recess from Figure 5 receives a cross-sectional cut, it is seen to have a complementary shape to a projection seen in Figure 6, and an inner wall and two side walls are seen to form a U-shape at their intersection in cross-section).
Regarding claims 18-19 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 17 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses each of the recesses of the first/second plurality (with reference to the 103 to claims 6-9 above) comprise a first/second surface opening region on the first/second surface of the undulating body which is continugous with the outer perimeter opening region of the same recess and a middle wall opposite the first/second surface opening region, wherein the middle wall is flanked by the first/second walls of the same recess (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 20 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 16 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the recesses comprising a non-planar surface opening.
However, regarding claim 20 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the surface opening so it is non-planar since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Flininston, since this does not have a consequence on the function of the device.
Regarding claim 22 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses the lower housing (140) is configured to permit axial movement of the longitudinal shaft (120) in the longitudinal lumen (Figure 4; [0049]),
and wherein Phillips further teaches rotational movement is permitted ([0081] indicates the complementary hexagonal shapes either prevent or limit rotation between the outer tube and inner shaft, indicating that prevention is one alternative, and limiting (e.g. at least some rotation is allowed).
Regarding claim 23 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 22 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses a shaft retainer (Figure 4 item 124) removeably attached to the shaft which is configured to resist separation of the shaft (120) and the lower housing (140) ([0049]).
Regarding claim 27 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses an attachment pyramid ([0050]).
Regarding claim 28 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 27 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses the pyramid is integrally formed with the longitudinal shaft ([0050] the pyramid at the other end of the shaft 120 moves therewith; “integral” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “essential to completeness: constituent; an integral part of the curriculum; formed as a unit with another part; composed of constituent parts; lacking nothing essential : entire”. The pyramid is considered part of a unit, lacking nothing essential with the shaft 120).
Regarding claim 29 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses a mounting interface (Figures 2, 4-5 item 150/152/154) configured to attach to a foot prosthesis ([0051]).
Regarding claim 32 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses the lower housing comprises an annular cavity to at least partially receive the undulating body (Figure 5 shows at least one annular cavity 155 for receiving part 166 of the undulating body).
Regarding claim 33 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses a diameter of the interior opening of the undulating body is greater than a diameter of the longitudinal shaft located therein (Figure 4; [0042] the shaft 120 passes through the central opening 170, which it would be unable to do unless the diameter of the opening were sized accordingly. Alternatively, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious for the diameter of the undulating body’s interior opening to be greater than the diameter of the longitudinal shaft located therein, in order to ensure the shaft would fit and slide therein as is described by Finlinson).
Regarding claim 34 the Finlinson Phillips Combination teaches the bracket of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses the longitudinal shaft (120) comprises a stop surface located between a first and second end thereof which is configured to displacably abut against a corresponding stop surface of the lower housing (Figure 4 shows the shape of the shaft having a shoulder which is complementary in shape to the compartment 142 of the second prosthesis 140 into which it is received; [0049]),
but is silent with regards to the shaft’s stop surface being transverse.
However, regarding claim 34 Phillips teaches a shaft (83) can have a transverse stop surface (Figures 9a-b shows shaft 83 with a transverse shoulder stop surface which is complementary in shape to the compartment in which it moves). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bracket of the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination so that the shoulder of the shaft is transverse as is taught by Phillips since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Finlinson.
Regarding claim 35 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses a compression collar located between the upper and lower housings (Figure 6 item 171) configured to limit displacement of the longitudinal shaft relative to the longitudinal lumen of the lower housing (the undulating body as a whole 160 including seal 171 acts to limit displacement of the longitudinal shaft relative to the lumen, as the whole body acts to stop the upper housing 130 which is attached to the shaft 120, from descending into the lumen of the second body 140).
Regarding claims 36-37 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein the Combination further teaches the contact surface contacting the lobe limits a torsional rotation of the upper housing with respect to the lower housing (this is considered inherent within the structure of the Combination, which has lobes that limit the range (see also Phillips Column 4 lines 1-2)),
but is silent with regards to the range within which the torsion is limited.
However, regarding claims 36-37 Phillips teaches that it is desirable to have a mounting bracket that includes a torsion range of about 20° (Column 12 lines 59-65), but also teaches that the user should desirably be able to adjust the degree of torsion resistance (Column 13 lines 51-52), indicating that torsion limiting is a recognized result effective variable. While Phillips does teach torsion resistance of “about 20°” (Col 12 lines 59-65), this is not an identical value to the claim requirement of “about 15°” (Applicant’s specification defines “about” as being +-5%, so the range indicated by Applicant in the claim is 14.25°-15.75°). The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, both are considered true, and the person of ordinary skill in the art, guided by Phillips who teaches variable torsion ranges can be desired and altered, would find it obvious to modify the predetermined torsion range to be about 15° as the claim requires.
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlinson in view of Phillips and Zipprich, further in view of Jayaraman (US 5755781 A).
Regarding claim 10 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination teaches the bracket of claim 8 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the first/second plurality of recesses being offset rotationally from one another when no net rotational forces are acting on the undulating body.
However, regarding claim 10 Jayaraman teaches that connectors between prosthetic parts can be either linearly aligned with one another (Figure 1 item 25), or rotationally offset from one another when no net rotational forces are acting thereupon (Figure 6 item 41). Finlinson and Jayaraman are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the Combination so that the recesses of FInlinson are rotationally offset from one another as is taught by Jayaraman since the courts have held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(E). In this case, the use of connectors arranged in any known alignment would have been obvious to try.
Regarding claim 11 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Jayaraman Combination teaches the bracket of claim 10 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses the first [projections/recesses] comprise an equal angular spacing relative to a central axis of the undulating body, and the second [projections/recesses] comprise an equal angular spacing relative to the central axis (Figures 5-7).
Claims 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlinson in view of Phillips and Zipprich, further in view of Jayaraman as is applied above, further in view of Geilman et al. (US 20050261783 A1) hereinafter known as Geilman.
Regarding claim 12 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Jayaraman Combination teaches the bracket of claim 10 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the angular spacing of the first and second [recesses/projections] being 90 degrees.
However, regarding claim 12 Geilman teaches that angular projections/recesses which mate together (Figure 14 item 611/631, 632/321) can have an angular spacing of 90 degrees (Figure 14). Finlinson and Gielman are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the spacing of the recesses/projections so they are 90 degrees from one another as is taught by Geilman since the courts have held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(E). In this case, the use of any amount of projections/recesses mating together would have been obvious to try.
Regarding claim 13 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Jayaraman Geilman Combination teaches the bracket of claim 12 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Jayaraman further teaches the pluralities of connectors ([recesses]) are offset by 40-65 degrees (Figure 6 shows connectors 41 offset by 45 degrees).
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlinson in view of Phillips, Zipprich, and Jayaraman as is applied above, further in view of Mauch (US 2859451 A).
Regarding claim 24 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Jayaraman Combination teaches the bracket of claim 23 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses the shaft retainer comprises a removeable fastener configured to removably attach to the longitudinal shaft (Figure 4 item 124; [0049] screw with a wide head),
but is silent with regards to there being an annular seal and a retaining washer.
However, regarding claim 24 Mauch teaches that retainers in prosthetic assemblies can include an annular seal (Figure 1 item 24) configured to slidably seal a shaft retainer (Figure 1 item 22) to a prosthesis body (Figure 1 item 10), and a retaining washer (Figure 2 item 23) with a circumferential recess in which the annular seal partially resides (Figure 1). Finlinson and Mauch are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shaft retainer so that it included a washer with a circumferential recess and annular seal as is taught by Mauch since the courts have held that the use of a known technique or method to improve a known device results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(C). In this case, the use of any mechanism to ensure a tight fit between elements of the prosthetic bracket would have been obvious to try.
Claims 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlinson in view of Phillips, Zipprich, and Jayaraman as is applied above, further in view of Gramala et al. (PL 246392 B1) hereinafter known as Gramala.
Regarding claim 24 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Jayaraman Combination teaches the bracket of claim 23 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses the shaft retainer comprises a removeable fastener configured to removably attach to the longitudinal shaft (Figure 4 item 124; [0049] screw with a wide head),
but is silent with regards to there being an annular seal and a retaining washer.
However, regarding claim 24 Gramala teaches that retainers in prosthetic assemblies (Figure 1) can include an annular seal (Figure 7 item 18/19) configured to slidably seal a shaft retainer (Figure 7) to a prosthesis body (Figure 7 item 11), and a retaining washer (Figure 7, item 13) with a circumferential recess in which the annular seal partially resides (Figure 7). Finlinson and Gramala are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shaft retainer so that it included a washer with a circumferential recess and annular seal as is taught by Gramala since the courts have held that the use of a known technique or method to improve a known device results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(C). In this case, the use of any mechanism to ensure a tight fit between elements of the prosthetic bracket would have been obvious to try.
Regarding claim 25 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Jayaraman Gramala Combination teaches the bracket of claim 24 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Gramala further teaches the shaft retainer comprises a spring (Figure 7 item 28).
Regarding claim 26 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Jayaraman Gramala Combination teaches the bracket of claim 25 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Gramala further teaches the spring is configured to maintain partial compression in an unloaded state (page 4 of the English translation, item 28 compression spring).
Claims 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlinson in view of Phillips and Zipprich as is applied above, further in view of Phillips (US 5181932 A) hereinafter known as Phillips ‘932.
Regarding claim 30 the Finlinson Phillips Combination teaches the bracket of claim 29 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Finlinson further discloses the mounting interface comprises a lumen (Figures 4-5 item 150),
but is silent with regards to the interface including a plurality of lumens, each for removably receiving a fastener.
However, regarding claim 30 Phillips ‘932 teaches that prosthetic assemblies can attach to a prosthetic foot via an interface (Figure 8 item 102) that includes a plurality of lumens (Figure 8; Column 9 line 67-Column 10 line 7) that can receive fasteners (Figure 8 item 98). Finlinson and Phillips ‘932 are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic legs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bracket of the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Combination to have the interface include a plurality of lumens for receiving fasteners as is taught by Phillips ‘932 since the courts have held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(E). In this case, it would be obvious to substitute any known method of connecting interfaces.
Regarding claim 31 the Finlinson Phillips Zipprich Phillips ‘932 Combination teaches the bracket of claim 30 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Phillips ‘932 further teaches the lumens are transverse lumens (Figure 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacqueline Woznicki whose telephone number is (571)270-5603. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerrah Edwards can be reached on 408-918-7557. 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.
/Jacqueline Woznicki/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 04/02/26
Prosecution Insights