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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-24 and 28-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/09/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 16 in the reply filed on 3/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner has divided the claims into many alleged different inventions and the application only describes several different embodiments. Applicant continues, elements 110, 1120, 130 are elements that are present in most if not all of the embodiments. This is not found persuasive because the test for unity is that the inventions share a technical feature that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. In this case Lizotte teaches the technical feature of elongated member 110, first connector 120 and second connector 130 shared by the claims and, therefore, claims lack unity.
Note that this application was not filed under U.S. practices, therefore, any arguments related to U.S. restriction practices are hereby moot.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chege et al (WO 2018/064725, applicant provided reference).
Referring to all embodiments and figures, Chege et al teaches an upper extremity prosthesis for placement on a residual limb of a person (see claims 16-17) comprising:
an elongated member 4 having a first end and an opposite second end (self-evident and interchangeable);
outer prosthetic shell (fairing, such as 21, 41 etc.) having a first end and an opposite second end (self-evident and interchangeable); and
and at least a first support (one of 5 and 6; Fig. 4) and a second support (the other of 5 and 6), wherein the first support and the second support surround and are fixedly coupled to the elongated member 4 at first and second attachment points (see par. 00106-00107 and all figures), respectively, the outer prosthetic shell 21 surrounding and being coupled to the first support and the second support (Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-27 are 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 upper extremity prosthesis of claim 1 further comprising wherein an inner face of the first support includes a recessed section and the second support includes a through hole that is colinear with the recessed section.
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.”
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sevier (2018/016117): elongated member 102 with first and second supports 104.
PNG
media_image1.png
688
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Harris (9956093): pylon, at least a first support and an outer shell.
PNG
media_image2.png
336
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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