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 Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 03/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Species A, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 224, 314, 330, 332, 404, 432, 512a, 512b . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, “form” is assumed to be a typo. The examiner suggests that this informality is corrected to “extending from a”. In line 4, “a joint” and in line 7, “the hinge;” are assumed to be typos . The examiner suggests that this informality is corrected to “a hinge joint ” in line 4 and “the hinge joint ” in line 7, referring to the “hinge joint” in Paragraph [0048] of the specification. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 2-3, “ movement portion” is assumed to be a typo. The examiner suggests that this informality is corrected to “ moveable portion” as seen in claim 1 and in line 4 of claim 8. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 is objected to for the following informality: In line 2, “include a multiple individual strands” is assumed to be a typo. The examiner suggests that this informality is corrected to “include multiple individual strands”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 is objected to for the following informalities: In line 2, “ a second joint, the second joint being” is assumed to be a type. The examiner suggests that this informality is corrected to “a second hinge joint , the second hinge joint being”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1- 2, 5- 16 , and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akhtar et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0249257 A1) in view of Puncreobutr et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0253740 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Akhtar discloses a muscle-driven endoprosthesis system ( Fig. 1A, articulating prosthesis 100 ) comprising: a bone extension ( see annotated Fig. 1A below , osseointegration abutment 300, Fig. 2A, proximal phalanx ) ; a joint ( see annotated Fig. 1A below ) at a second end ( see annotated Fig. 1A below ) of the bone extensio n ; a moveable portion ( see annotated Fig. 1A below, Fig. 2A, middle phalanx , distal phalanx ) coupled to the hinge (see annotated Fig. 1A below , Fig. 2A, proximal interphalangeal joint, distal interphalangeal joint ) ; and synthetic tendons ( see annotated Fig. 1A below , artificial tendons 230 ) coupled to the moveable portion ( middle phalanx ) , wherein the bone extension, hinge, and movable portion are sized and shaped to fit within a skin of a patient ( see annotated Fig. 1A below ) . Akhtar fails to disclose an intramedullary stem extending f rom a first end of the bone extension; wherein the intramedullary stem is sized and shaped to fit within a skin of a patient . Puncreobutr also discloses a muscle-driven endoprosthesis system ( Paragraph [0046], “interphalangeal joint bone”, Figs. 3A, 3B, implant 104 ) , comprising a hinge joint (Figs. 3A, 3B, hinge joint 117) and bone extension ( Figs. 3A, 3B, stem 118 ). Puncreobutr teaches an intramedullary stem (Figs. 3A, 3B, stem 119) extending form a first end of the bone extension (Figs. 3A, 3B) ; wherein the intramedullary stem is sized and shaped to fit within a skin of a patient (Paragraphs [0079 and 0082]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akhtar’s endoprosthesis system to include an intramedullary stem extending f rom a first end of the bone extension , wherein the intramedullary stem is sized and shaped to fit within a skin of a patient , as taught by Puncreobutr, in order to anchor the prosthetic hinge joint in bone (Paragraph [0043]). Regarding claim 2, Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr discloses wherein: a diameter of the intramedullary stem (Figs. 3A, 3B, stem 119) is less than a diameter of the bone extension (Figs. 3A, 3B, stem 118) . Regarding claim 5 , Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr discloses wherein: the joint (see annotated Fig. 1A above, Fig. 2A, proximal interphalangeal joint, distal interphalangeal joint) is a 1-degree-of-freedom (Paragraph [0095]) hinge joint (Paragraph [0073]) . Regarding claim 6 , Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr discloses wherein: an angular movement (angular movement shown in Fig. 2A) of the joint allows movement between 0 and 135 degrees ( Fig. 4, 80 to 160 degrees ). Akhtar’s range overlaps the claimed range of between 0 and 135 degrees. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akhtar’s angular movement to have an angular movement range between 0 and 135 degrees as claimed, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding claim 7 , Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr discloses wherein: the joint is a multiple-degree-of-freedom joint (Paragraph [0095] disclosing “at least one” degree of freedom ) . Regarding claim 8 , Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr discloses wherein: the synthetic tendons (artificial tendons 230) include a first synthetic tendon coupled to the move able portion (Fig. 1A, actuation point 110) on a first side of the joint (see annotated Fig. 1A above) and a second synthetic tendon coupled to the moveable potion (Fig. 1A, actuation point 110) on a second side of the joint (see annotated Fig. 1A above) . Regarding claim 9 , Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr discloses wherein: the synthetic tendons include multiple individual strands (Paragraph [0112], “braided PET” shows multiple strands) of biocompatible material (Paragraphs [0026 and 0112]) . Regarding claim 10 , Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr discloses wherein: the multiple strands of biocompatible material are coupled together along their length (Paragraphs [0111 and 0112]) . Regarding claim 11 , Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr discloses further comprising: a plurality of tendon attachment structures (Fig. 1A, actuation points 110) on the moveable portion (see annotated Fig. 1A below, Fig. 2A, middle phalanx, distal phalanx) . Regarding claim 12 , Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr discloses wherein: the plurality of tendon attachment structures define an aperture (Paragraphs [0039 and 0066], see annotated Fig. 2B below, channels) to receive a first of the plurality of synthetic tendons ( Paragraphs [0039 and 0066]). Regarding claim 13 , Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr discloses further comprising: a sleeve over-molded onto the moveable portion (Paragraph [0119], silicone sleeve). Regarding claim 14 , Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr discloses wherein: the sleeve is a compliant biocompatible material (Paragraph [0119], silicone sleeve). Regarding claim 15 , Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr discloses wherein: the sleeve is a silicone rubber (Paragraph [0119], silicone sleeve). Regarding claim 16 , Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr does not explicitly disclose wherein: the sleeve is between 1mm and 6mm thick . However, t here is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the thickness of the sleeve would result in a difference in function of the sleeve of Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being face d with modifying the thickness of the sleeve of Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the sleeve would function as intended being given the claimed thickness. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the sleeve thickness “may” be within the claimed range and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., between 1mm and 12mm, 1mm and 8mm, 2mm and 6mm, and 2mm and 5mm; see instant specification at Paragraph [005 4 ]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sleeve thickness of Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr to have a thickness between 1mm and 6mm as claimed as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. Regarding claim 20, Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr discloses further comprising: a second hinge joint (see annotated Fig. 1A above, Fig. 2A, distal interphalangeal joint) , the second hinge joint being at a distal end of the moveable portion (see annotated Fig. 1A above, Fig. 2A, middle phalanx) . Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akhtar et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0249257 A1) in view of Puncreobutr et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0253740 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Petranto (US PG Pub No. 2020/0315810). Regarding claim 3, Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr fails to disclose wherein: the moveable portion is a biocompatible material. Petranto also discloses a n endoprosthesis system ( implant 200 ) having a moveable portion ( Fig. 9, distal stem 206 ). Petranto teaches wherein: the moveable portion is a biocompatible material (Paragraph [0101]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akhtar’s in view of Puncreobutr moveable portion to be formed of a biocompatible material , as taught by Petranto, in order to ensure the prosthesis system is medical grade (Paragraph [0101]). Regarding claim 4 , Akhtar in view of Puncreobutr fails to disclose wherein: the bone extension is a biocompatible material. Petranto also discloses a bone extension (Fig. 9, proximal stem 20 2 ). Petranto teaches wherein: the bone extension is a biocompatible material (Paragraph [0100]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akhtar’s in view of Puncreobutr bone extension to be formed of a biocompatible material , as taught by Petranto, in order to ensure the prosthesis system is medical grade (Paragraph [010 0 ]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KARI L COCHRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9637 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Melanie Tyson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /KARI L COCHRAN/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774 /MELANIE R TYSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774