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 § 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 4 and 7 are 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 4, it is unclear what applicant is intending to claim: wherein the force applicator further comprises a specific geometry such that the telescoping element makes contact with the specific geometry of the force applicator. The scope of “specific geometry” is indefinite.
Claim 7, further comprising a force applicator connected to the socket wall, wherein the telescoping element is anchored to the force applicator, wherein when the telescoping element translates inwardly, the force applicator produces the load on the residual limb. Please clarify connected to the socket wall; please indicate the drawing it is shown. For this action, connected to the socket wall includes directly and indirectly.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pohlig (5,507,836).
Pohlig teaches an expandable wall prosthetic socket for a residual limb comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
338
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a fixed retention ring 66 installed into a side of a wall of the socket 68;
and a telescoping element 64, wherein the telescoping element interacts with the fixed retention ring to allow the telescoping element to translate inwardly and outwardly through the socket wall, such that the telescoping element is producing a load on the residual limb.
Claim 2, nut 66 is fixed to the socket and is interpreted as a retention plate.
Claim 3, a force applicator 60 connected to the socket wall via the telescoping element.
Claim 4, the force applicator is interpreted as having a specific geometry such that the telescoping element makes contact with the specific geometry of the force applicator.
Claim 5, the figure above shows four different elements 64 working together interpreted as wherein the telescoping element comprises a plurality of interconnected elements.
Claim 7, a force applicator 60 connected to the socket wall via the telescoping element.
Claim 8, the figure above shows four telescoping elements.
Claim 9, Pohlig teaches three cheeks, each comprising a telescoping element, a plurality of force applicators connected to the socket wall via friction.
Claims 10-11, the method of manufacture does not differentiate the claimed device.
Claim 18. An expandable wall prosthetic socket for a residual limb, comprising: an applicator having a back plate and a front plate; wherein the back plate comprises a retention ring 66, and wherein the back plate is mounted to a wall of the socket 68 via friction; a telescoping element 64, wherein the telescoping element interacts with the retention ring to allow the telescoping element to translate inwardly and outwardly through the socket wall; wherein the front plate 60 comprises a force applicator, wherein when the telescoping element translates inwardly, the telescoping element makes contact with the force applicator such that the force applicator produces the load on the residual limb.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pohlig (5,507,836).
Pohlig teaches an expandable wall prosthetic socket for a residual limb as described above, however, it is unclear if embodiment in figure 6 uses a inner sleeve such as the embodiment of figure 1. See column 3, lines 1-8 teaching the inner sleeve 6 is flexible and removable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used an inner sleeve with the embodiment of figure 6 to provide cushioning for the amputated limb. The frictional force would result in the force applicator being attached onto said prosthetic liner.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pohlig (5,507,836) in view of Alley et al (11,382,774).
Pohlig teaches an expandable wall prosthetic socket for a residual limb as described above, however, fails to teach the retention ring comprises a rotating segment.
Alley et al teaches a similar device comprising a force applicator 101 for pressing against an amputated limb and uses a slightly different telescoping element comprising rotating segment 107 in the side wall and a threaded telescoping element 108.
PNG
media_image2.png
576
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (engineer, medical doctor) to have substituted the retention ring with a rotating segment 107 which translates the telescoping element 108 inwardly and outwardly to obtain predictable results. Further, it would have been obvious that the rotating segment must installed into a side wall to provide a counter force to the force applicator. In this combination, the force applicator is fixed via additional elements to the telescoping element as shown above.
Claim 14, Pohlig teaches, as shows above, four different telescoping element working together interpreted as wherein the telescoping element comprises a plurality of interconnected elements.
Claim 15, Pohlig teaches an expandable wall prosthetic socket for a residual limb as described above, however, it is unclear if embodiment in figure 6 uses an inner sleeve such as the embodiment of figure 1. See column 3, lines 1-8 teaching the inner sleeve 6 is flexible and removable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used an inner sleeve with the embodiment of figure 6 (used in the combination rejection) to provide cushioning for the amputated limb.
Claim 16, Pohlig four telescoping elements.
Claim 17, Pohlig teaches three cheeks (12, 14, 20), each comprising a telescoping element, a plurality of force applicators connected to the socket wall via friction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE EDWARD SNOW whose telephone number is (571)272-4759. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday through Thursday.
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.
/BRUCE E SNOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774