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
The applicant’s arguments regarding the restriction requirement are found convincing and the restriction requirement is withdrawn with regard to all species.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “interface” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
It appears the interface may be present but labeled using different terminology. Please correct for consistent antecedent basis throughout.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
Claim 21 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19236202. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it has been held that a genus anticipates a species and the copending application anticipates each and every aspect of the instant claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 22 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 19236202. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it has been held that a genus anticipates a species and the copending application anticipates each and every aspect of the instant claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 23 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 19236202. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it has been held that a genus anticipates a species and the copending application anticipates each and every aspect of the instant claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 24 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 19236202. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it has been held that a genus anticipates a species and the copending application anticipates each and every aspect of the instant claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 25 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 19236202. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it has been held that a genus anticipates a species and the copending application anticipates each and every aspect of the instant claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 26 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 19236202. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it has been held that a genus anticipates a species and the copending application anticipates each and every aspect of the instant claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 27 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 19236202. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it has been held that a genus anticipates a species and the copending application anticipates each and every aspect of the instant claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 28 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 19236202. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it has been held that a genus anticipates a species and the copending application anticipates each and every aspect of the instant claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 29 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 19236202. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it has been held that a genus anticipates a species and the copending application anticipates each and every aspect of the instant claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 21-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saadon (WO2021021754A1) in view of Hosmer (2333009).
In regard to claim 21, Saadon teaches a limb differential (interpreted as a residual limb) handle adapter 2200 (attaches to a handle [0069]), comprising:
a split coupling mount (terminal device in fig 22 comprising 2210, 2204, 2206) configured to removably attach to a handle (capable of removably attaching due to the circular shaped cavity within 2214, fig 22; 0069) the split coupling mount (terminal device, fig 22) including a lower portion (2206) having a lower curved channel (concavity of 2206) disposed in an upper surface of the lower portion (will be the upper surface of the lower portion 2206 when the device is closed) and an upper portion (2204) having an upper curved channel (concavity within 2204) disposed in a lower surface of the upper portion (when the device is closed) such that as reversibly assembled the lower curved channel and the upper curved channel cooperate to form a coupling conduit (interior of see fig 22) having an internal surface configured to contact the handle around a periphery of the handle (fig 22, will contact the periphery of at least some handles depending on their shape),
the split coupling mount (terminal device) further including a plurality (defined as two or more) of fasteners 2210, 2212 configured to reversibly tighten the upper portion to the lower portion (fig 22);
and an upper body prosthetic. [0032: prosthetic interface can interact with a prosthetic such as an upper body prosthetic]
However, Saadon does not teach two or more fasteners spaced along an elongate dimension of the handle (along the width of the adapter), a rotational joint as claimed or that the upper body prosthetic specifically includes a socket.
It has been held that a mere duplication of the working parts of the invention, yielding a predictable result, requires no more than routine skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use two fasteners (duplicate 2210) instead of one for extra security (in order to work properly the fasteners would need to be placed next to one another, or along the width of the handle). Absent a teaching of criticality (new or unexpected results), this arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed. MPEP 2144.04VIB
Hosmer teaches a rotational joint 36, 37, 41 configured to removably attach to (capable of being removed by removing screws and rivots shown in figure 5) and extend from an upper surface of the upper portion of the split coupling mount (extends from upper surface of attachment 40 and will therefore extend from the upper portion of the split coupling mount when combined with Saadon), the rotational joint 37, 41 including a socket 36, an interface 37 disposed in the socket 36 (see fig 5), and a shaft 38 extending from the interface
the differential limb socket (socket 17, 19-25 in figure 1) being removably coupled (capable of being removed when fasteners shown in figure 5 are removed) to the rotation joint (36, 37, 41). (see figures 1, 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to use the rotational joint of Hosmer with the prosthetic device of Saadon because this allows attachment to a terminal device for an individual with a transhumeral amputation (claim 3).
Hosmer further teaches an upper extremity socket. (figure 1, includes 17, 19-25)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to use the socket of Hosmer in place of the upper body prosthetic of Saadon because the socket allows for adjustments (see laces 17 in figure 1) and ventilation (see openings between 23 and 25 in figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 22, Saadon meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 21, but does not teach the differential limb socket as claimed.
Hosmer further teaches the limb differential handle adapter is free of locking mechanisms restricting disengagement of the differential limb (interpreted as best understood to refer to the residual limb) from the differential limb socket. The socket shown in figure 1 of Hosmer comprising 17 and 19-25 does not have any locking mechanisms attached to the limb. Accordingly, there are not any locking mechanism restricting disengagement of the differential limb from the differential limb socket.
In regard to claim 23, Saadon meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 21, but does not teach the rotational joint as claimed.
Hosmer further teaches the rotational joint is a ball-and-socket joint. (see figure 5)
In regard to claim 24, Saadon meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 21, but does not teach the rotational joint as claimed.
Hosmer further teaches the differential limb socket is attached to the shaft 38 of the rotational joint. (see figures 2, 5)
In regard to claim 25, Saadon meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 21, but does not teach the rotational joint as claimed.
Hosmer further teaches the differential limb socket is attached to the socket 36 of the rotational joint. (see fig 1, 5)
In regard to claim 26, Saadon meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 21, and further teaches the handle is a handlebar. [0070: circular handle; 0069: various handles]
In regard to claim 27, Saadon meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 26, and further teaches the handlebar is a bicycle handlebar. [0070: circular handle; 0069: various handles]
In regard to claim 28, Saadon meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 26, and further teaches the handlebar is a motorcycle handlebar, a moped handlebar, an all-terrain vehicle handlebar, a jet ski handlebar, or a snowmobile handlebar. [0070: circular handle; 0069: various handles]
In regard to claim 29, Saadon meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 21, and further teaches the handle is a stroller, carriage, cart, or hand truck handle. [0070: circular handle; 0069: various handles]
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 571-272-9062. 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