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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of at least one supporting element” in claim 6 and “means of at least one sealing element” in claim 5.
Since no 112f interpretation is recited in the instant disclosure, and “means for” is not used, it appears the applicant does not wish to invoke 112f.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/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 10 recites the limitation "the radial bearings" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 10 may have been meant to depend from claim 2 instead of claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 1, “wherein one fastening device” in line 6 of the claim should be “wherein one of the fastening devices” for consistent antecedent basis throughout.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krukenberg (DE4338946C1).
In regard to claim 1, Krukenberg discloses an orthopaedic joint device having an upper part 1 and a lower part 2, which are mounted on one another so as to be pivotable about a joint axis (at 3; see fig 4, 6) and between which a damper device 5,6 is arranged in order to provide a resistance to pivoting of the upper part (2) relative to the lower part (3), and the damper device (5,6) is mounted on the upper part and the lower part (mounted within the upper and lower parts 1,2 as shown in fig 6) via fastening devices (see annotated figure; the exact shape of how the bearings fit into the surrounding components with ledges are the fastening device under the broadest reasonable interpretation), wherein one fastening device has a head (head is defined as the front, forward or upper part or end of something), in which a bearing (9) is arranged, which is supported on an axle (at 3; see fig 6 for another view of axle), which is mounted in the upper part or lower part (2), characterized in that the axle (at 3) is mounted rotatably in the upper part or lower part 2, wherein the axle (at 3) itself rotates about its own longitudinal axis relative to the upper part or lower part (2) within bearings (9) that are fixed within the upper part or lower part (2; see figure 6, bearings 9 are fixed within). Element 3 is labeled as a hinge pin, which by definition rotates within the bearings.
In regard to claim 5, Krukenberg discloses the orthopaedic joint device as claimed in claim 1 and further discloses the axle (at 3) is secured in the upper part or lower part (secured in 1 and 2) by means of at least one sealing element 8.
In regard to claim 6, Krukenberg discloses the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and further teaches that the axle (at 3) is mounted so as to be supported axially on the upper part or lower part (2) by means of at least one supporting element 8. (means of at least one supporting element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation) Please note, claims 5 and 6 do not depend from each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
389
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krukenberg (DE4338946C1) in view of Cheng (6355071B1).
In regard to claims 2 and 10, Krukenberg meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and further teaches that the axle (at 3) is mounted in bearings 9 (rotary piston bearing).
However, Kurkenberg does not teach the bearings are radial bearings.
Cheng teaches the use of radial bearings that are needle bearings 2510, 2410.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the radial bearings of Cheng in place of the rotary bearings of Kurkenberg through functional equivalents since both are ring shaped bearings assisting the function of the axle MPEP 2144.06II.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krukenberg (DE4338946C1) in view of Haynes (WO2007/025116A2).
In regard to claim 3, Krukenberg meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 but does not teach the bearing type as claimed.
Haynes teaches that the bearing 425 is designed as a self-aligning ball bearing, a self-aligning roller bearing or a spherical plain bearing. [0090; 0083: roller bearings may be used to facilitate rotation of any of the pivotally connected components; roller bearings are naturally self aligning; fig 9B]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the roller bearing of Haynes in place of the bearing of Krukenberg because they are able to manage shock and impact and handle a greater load capacity than other bearing types.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krukenberg (DE4338946C1) in view of Olafsson (2008/0071387A1).
In regard to claim 4, Krukenberg meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and further teaches the bearing 9 is mounted in the head (see annotated figure.
However, Krukenberg does not teach the bearing is mounted between covering disks.
Olafsson teaches the bearing is mounted between covering discs 830 in the head. (see fig 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the covering discs of Olafsson on either side of the bearing and axle of Krukenberg because the covering discs provide better aesthetics and keep dirt and debris from accumulating within the bores [0062].
In regard to claim 7, Krukenberg meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 6 but does not teach the supporting element is of elastic design or elastically mounted.
Olafsson teaches the supporting element (seals) is of elastic design or is elastically mounted. [0019-0020: bearing assembly may include a plurality of seals; O-rings, gaskets, silicones; fig 7; 0054-0056].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the supporting element of Olafsson in the device of Krukenberg because the seals will prevent dirt from entering the system.
In regard to claim 9, Krukenberg meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and further discloses the joint device as claimed and further discloses that the bearing (9) is mounted on the axle (at 3) with an interference fit. (see fig 6) Since the bearing and axle do not have any other mechanism connecting them together, the fit is an interference fit.
However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Krukenberg does not explicitly state interference fit.
Olfasson teaches using a press fit of the axle into the surrounding structure [0056].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a press fit for the axle of Krukenberg as taught by Olfasson because this allows for a reduced size and reduce risk of binding [0056].
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes (WO2007/025116) in view of Shiraishi (JP11104156A).
In regard to claims 1 and 8, Haynes teaches an orthopaedic joint device (fig 8B) having an upper part 345 and a lower part 305, which are mounted on one another so as to be pivotable about a joint axis (pivots about joints 350, 355) and between which a damper device 320 is arranged in order to provide a resistance to pivoting of the upper part relative to the lower part, [0079]
and the damper device 320 is mounted on the upper part 345 and the lower part 305,
wherein the bearing is supported on an axle 355 [0083] and mounted rotatably in the upper or lower part 305 (see fig 8b);
characterized in that the axle 350 is mounted rotatably in the upper part or lower part (mounted in the lower part 305 as shown in figure 8a),
wherein the axle 355 itself rotates about its own longitudinal axis relative to the upper part or lower part [0083: hinge pin; this is how a hinge pin works] within bearings (interpreted as best understood to refer to additional bearings) that are fixed within the upper part or lower part. [0083: roller bearings may be used along with the associated connecting means to facilitate rotation of the pivotally connected components; in a hinge pin the pin rotates within the bearings].
However, Haynes does not teach the at least the axle is mounted by at least one fastening device which has a head and remains silent if the pivot 355 is a hinge pin (and therefore rotates about its own axis; although figure 8b the pin appears to pivot about its own axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the hinge pin of axle 350 [0083] as the axle 355 as well as they are functional equivalents and it appears that either axis would work equally well. MPEP 2144.06II
Shiraishi teaches at least one fastening device mounting an axle, the one fastening device has a head (see fastening device 862, 82 which have a head and connect to the axle in figure 6), in which a bearing (see 71) is arranged, which is supported on an axle (see fig 5-6), which is mounted in the upper part or lower part (see fig 5-6) the head is arranged or formed on a piston rod. (when applied to the axle 355 of Haynes, the head will be arranged on the piston rod)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the fastening devices of Shirashi to assist mounting the axle of Haynes in order to provide increased security and prevent dirt from getting into the joint.
It is recommended to further claim the details of the head.
Response to Arguments
In regard to the 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1, 4-5 and 8-9 as anticipated by Cheng (6355071B1), the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are directed towards new claim limitations which have been addressed above.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claims 2 and 10 as unpatentable over Cheng, no further arguments have been presented.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claim 3 over Cheng in view of Haynes (WO2007/025116A1), no further arguments have been presented.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claims 6-7 over Cheng in view of Krieg (EP0056602A1), no further arguments have been presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIE BAHENA whose telephone number is (571)270-3206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 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 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.
/CHRISTIE BAHENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights