Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. In claim 11, lines 1-2, “a plurality of individual springs are arranged in the spring adapter” is vague and indefinite as to whether this plurality is the same as or different from the “plurality of compression springs” of the spring adapter as set forth in amended claim 1 (at lines 5-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-11, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Clifford et al., US 2013/0325123 A1, which discloses a load transferring system comprising a spring adapter and an orthopedic joint device, the latter having an upper part 302 and a lower part 304 fastened thereto so as to be pivotable about pivot axes (abstract; Figures 5-8; paragraphs 0048, 0055) and having a resistance device comprising a housing 328 in which piston 326 divides a fluid chamber into flexion and extension chambers (Figure 5; paragraph 0057); the spring adapter comprises compression springs 308 [paragraph 0054: a coil spring (second sentence) is innately capable of resiliently supporting tension and compression] circumferentially arranged around a piston rod of piston 326 (Figures 5-8; paragraph 0058) and tensioned when upper part 302 is pivoted relative to lower part 304 (paragraphs 0012, 0051), with a fastening device 318, or a piston coupling feature thereof, for securing the spring adapter directly to said piston rod (Figure 5; paragraphs 0055, 0057).
Regarding claims 2, 4-5, and 20, proximal and distal abutment regions are established at the ball-and-socket or other type of articulation at members 314 and 316 and members 318 and 320 and at the couplings of piston 326 and housing or cylinder 328 to a respective member 314, 318 (Figure 5; paragraphs 0055-0057). Regarding claim 6, the spring adapter may be assembled in a removable and interchangeable fashion to the other components (paragraphs 0056, 0058, 0062, 0074). Regarding claims 10 and 19, fastening device 318 is designed for reversibly securing the spring adapter to the piston rod in interlocking fashion or between upper part 302 and housing 328 (Figure 5; paragraphs 0055, 0057). Regarding claim 15, the spring adapter may have an adjustable form (paragraphs 0054, 0062). Regarding claims 16-17, “first and second connector means 310, 312 may include features” (paragraph 0058) or housing parts coupled directly or indirectly to upper part 302 and lower part 304, respectively (Figure 5). Regarding claim 20, the piston rod bearing corresponds to member 320 of the ball-and-socket (paragraph 0055) such that the spring adapter is partially arranged between housing 328 and piston rod bearing 320 (Figure 5). The further limitations of other claims are readily apparent (MPEP § 707) from the explanations presented above.
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.
Claims 12-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clifford et al., US 2013/0325123 A1. Regarding claims 12-13, different spring stiffnesses connected in series to form gradated spring behavior would have been obvious from the variant of Figures 21-22 in order “to create a specific pattern of tensioning throughout flexion of the knee joint to accommodate patients having different needs for unloading patterns” (last sentence of paragraph 0074). Regarding claim 14, the resistance device (with piston 326 and housing or cylinder 328) being a hydraulic damper would have been obvious to the ordinary practitioner at the effective filing date of the instant application in order to avoid an implanted vacuity or air pocket and to impart appropriate damping characteristics to knee joint movements. Regarding claim 18, an identification device would have been obvious in order to provide spring adjustment readings (paragraph 0062, last sentence) or coding for different selected springs; moreover, a tension gauge (paragraph 0062) identifies varying forces across a knee joint.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL (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 David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Melanie Tyson can be reached at telephone number 571-272-9062. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights