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 5, 10, 12, and 19 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 5, line 2, “two” should follow rather than precede “at least”. In claim 10, line 2, “applies” should be --apply--. In claim 12, lines 1-2, “the hydraulic damping unit” lacks a proper antecedent basis.
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, 3-5, 8-10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Lurssen et al., US 2016/0151190 A1, which discloses an orthosis joint comprising a second element 30 pivotally mounted on a first element 20 (Figures 6, 18, 20-21; paragraphs 0001-0002, 0018-0019, 0034-0036, 0039, 0045-0046) upon which a spring support 10 having at least two spring elements 60 is mounted (Figures 1-6, 18, 20-21; paragraphs 0009, 0015, 0017, 0039, 0044) such that a first pivot direction is countered by a resilient reactive force applied by one of spring elements 60 and an opposite second pivot direction is countered by a resilient reactive force applied by another of spring elements 60 [Figures 18, 20-21; abstract; paragraphs 0014, 0045, 0049 (“via balls 61”), 0050-0052], wherein a pre-load of each spring element 60 is independently adjustable by using a respective threaded stopper 142 or 152 in a mounted state of the orthosis joint (Figures 18, 20-21; paragraphs 0017, 0042, 0049).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, spring elements 60 are arranged one behind the other along an anterior-posterior direction when the joint is utilized in an ankle orthosis (paragraphs 0001, 0045), for example. Regarding claims 4 and 15, spring elements 60 are designed to be compressed between a respective ball 61 and stopper 142 or 152 (Figure 18; paragraph 0049). Regarding claims 5, 8, 16, and 20, tensile and compression directions may be defined as opposite directions along the same line on the same side of bearing point 13 and pivot shaft (paragraph 0034) such that a tension along said line imparts a moment about the pivot shaft for compressively loading the spring element 60 on the opposite side of bearing point 13 to apply a reaction force, and a compression along the same line loads the spring element 60 on the same side as said line to apply a reactive force to the compression; the “force transmission element” (Applicant’s claim 8, second line) thus involves the region of bearing point 13 and/or ball or balls 61. Regarding claim 10, angles of engagement may be interpreted as the respective angles between a spring element 60 longitudinal axis and the axial direction of first element 20; alternatively, pre-loading of spring elements 60 may adjustably be lessened so as to impart a joint laxity between first and second ankle angles. The further limitations of other claims are clearly evident from the drawings and the explanations presented above (MPEP §§ 707 and 2125).
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 11-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lurssen et al., US 2016/0151190 A1. “Several functional elements can be arranged one behind another in series, in order to combine different functions” (paragraph 0013, first sentence), and these functional elements may include dampers (paragraph 0012). Hydraulic dampers were quite common in the art at the effective filing date of the instant application and would have been an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in order to broaden the range of response characteristics available to a diversity of users for a variety of activities (paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0015-0016, 0051-0052). The further limitations of claim 19 are addressed above relative to Applicant’s claim 8.
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 Thomas Barrett can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4746. 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