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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/07/2026 have been fully considered. The amendments overcame the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Rejection of under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kampas et al (10,130,496).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the rejection of under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kampas et al (10,130,496), note that the covering shell was rejected and interpreted as including elements 4 and/or 3 if necessary. The examiner’s position regarding rejecting the remainder of applicant’s arguments directed to at least claim 1 is detailed below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kampas et al (10,130,496).
Kampas teaches a covering shell (at least 3, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16) for a prosthesis of a replaced limb, the covering shell resembling at least parts of the replace limb as shown.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
256
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The covering shell comprising at least two zones of different flexibility (first flexibility at least one of 15, 16, 3, 4; second flexibility 11),
PNG
media_image3.png
533
715
media_image3.png
Greyscale
an arrangement of said zones in relation to one another corresponding (broad) with an arrangement of the parts (soft tissue vs tendons) of the given limb having different hardnesses, the covering shell resembling through different flexibilities thereof different parts of the replaced limb when touched (self-evident). It is the examiner’s position that the fist zone (reinforcement) can be determined from the second zone when touched.
Claim 2, wherein a first zone differs from a second zone in relation to at least one of a thickness, material, and pattern in order to obtain a first zone having a different flexibility from a second zone. See at least column 6, line 53 – column 8, line 5 teaching at least adding a reinforcing element to the main body including thickening (column 7, line 60).
Claim 3, wherein at least one of the following:
a first zone 11 has a lesser flexibility than a second zone (15 or 16), the first zone 11 being arranged to coincide with a hard part of the limb, and
a second zone (15 or 16) has a greater flexibility than a first zone 11, the second zone being arranged to coincide with a soft part of the limb.
Claim 4, the shell according to claim 3, wherein the first zone and the second zone have different thicknesses (see at least the discussion for claim 2), and the first zone and the second zone are a rib 11 or a recess 15 or 16. See column 5,lines 37 et seq. of Kampas et al naming 15 and 16 as recesses.
Claim 5, wherein the shell has a tubular shape capable of receiving said prosthesis (prosthetic foot and below-knee part, column 1, lines 61-65; also see the abstract) inside the tubular shape as shown.
Claim 6, a flexibility of the shell mostly changes along a circumference of the ankle shell 1 going from the recess (15, 16) to the reinforcement element 11.
Claim 7, the shell according to claim 2, the shell being adapted for housing a leg prosthesis as shown and discussed for claim 5 above.
Claim 9, the shell according to claim 2, wherein an outer surface of the shell is mostly smooth and the changes in thickness are located on an inner surface of the shell. See at least column 6, lines 62 et seq. teaching the reinforcement element 11 (making changes in thickness) can be arranged on the inner face of the main body 10 which would leave the outer surface mostly smooth.
Claim 10 claims the combination of the covering shell of claim 1 integral with a leg prosthesis. See the included figure above and discussion of claim 7.
Claim 11, see covering shell comprising at least one lug 12 on a bottom edge of the tubular shape capable of interlocking reversibly in the shell of the prosthetic foot 3, so as attach it removably to the tubular shape. See at least column 5, lines 19-36.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to teach the combination of all limitation of claims 1, 2, 7 and 8.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See 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 BRUCE EDWARD SNOW whose telephone number is (571)272-4759. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 5712729062. 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