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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
A substitute specification including the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the specification and claims each appear to be written by someone who is not fluent in proper idiomatic English as the submitted specification is replete with grammatical errors, and the claims are replete with grammatical errors, and inconsistencies.
For example the specification recites “[001] This invention relates to Orthosis for clubfoot (CTEV) Correction and Maintenance based on Ponsiti Method” which has multiple improperly capitalized letters in orthosis, correction, and maintenance, and lacks the articles “a” before orthosis and “the” before Ponsiti Method. The rest of the specification extensively suffers grammatically similar to paragraph [001].
The disclosure is also objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification has multiple recitations of “Ponsiti” in the title of the specification, and paragraphs [001], [0016], [0018-0021], [0024], [0054], [0091-0092], [0122], [0130], [0132]. These recitations are a misspelling of “Ponseti”, which refers to Dr. Ignacio Ponseti, and his developed Ponseti® Method. These misspellings should be amended to recite “Ponseti”.
The specification has multiple recitations of “Allan key” in paragraphs [0040] and [0117]. These recitations are a misspelling of “Allen” which refers to a hex key made by Apex Tool Group™. These misspellings should be amended to recite “Allen”.
The use of the term “Ponseti Method” (improperly spelled “Ponsiti” throughout the specification), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
The use of the term “Allen key” (improperly spelled “Allan” throughout the specification), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and fixes the identified objections in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Orthosis for clubfoot” in line 1. This limitation should be amended to recite “An orthosis” to properly present the limitation of orthosis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Orthosis for clubfoot” in line 1. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “clubfoot”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “clubfoot (CTEV) Correction and Maintenance” in lines 1-2. This limitation should be amended to recite “clubfoot (CTEV) correction and maintenance” to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 1 should be amended to include a comma after comprising in line 2 to divide the preamble and body of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “are provided with strap slots” in line 7, and “the slots” in line 8. While not unclear, the limitation “are provided with strap slots” should be amended to recite “are each provided with a pair of strap slots” to properly present that the metatarsal top, and metatarsal bottom each are provided with a pair of strap slots. The limitation “the slots” should be amended to recite “the pair of strap slots of the metatarsal top and the pair of strap slots of the metatarsal bottom” to be consistent with the first recitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “allowing passage of strap” in line 8. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “allowing a passage” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “passage of strap” in line 8. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “passage of a forefoot strap” to properly present the claimed limitation, and to avoid clarity issues in view of claims 9, 12, and 13 which recite additional straps.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “for holding baby foot” in line 9. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “baby foot”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “connected to forefoot roll link” in line 10. This limitation while not unclear, should be amended to recite “connected to the forefoot roll link” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “connected to upper and top bases of hind foot assembly” in lines 12-13. This limitation while not unclear, should be amended to recite “connected to a hind foot assembly comprising a hind foot upper base and a hind foot top base” to properly present the limitations, and maintain clarity in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the forefoot roll link is connected to upper and top bases of hind foot assembly (5, 6) to execute the rolling motion of the forefoot” in lines 12-13. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the rolling motion of the forefoot”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Yaw Guide Base” in line 15. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “a yaw guide base” to properly present the limitation, and to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the Hind foot Top Base” in lines 15-16. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the hind foot top base” to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “to provide rolling of the hind foot” in line 16. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “to provide a rolling motion of the hind foot” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Yaw Guide Base (7) has a rotating joint with the Hind foot Top Base to provide rolling of the hind foot” in lines 15-16. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “rolling of the hind foot”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “through actuator A4” in lines 16-17. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “through an actuator A4” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Yaw Guide Base” in line 18. This limitation should be amended to recite “yaw guide base” to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “slides on Hind foot Yaw Link” in line 18. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “slides on a hind foot yaw link” to properly present the limitation, and to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “provide yawing” in line 19. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “provide a yawing motion” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “ the Yaw Guide Base (7) slides on Hind foot Yaw Link (8) to provide yawing of the hind foot” in lines 18-19. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “yawing of the hind foot”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the hindfoot yaw link” in line 20. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the hind foot yaw link” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “calf support links” in line 20. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “a pair of calf support links” to properly present the limitation and maintain clarity in the claims. Subsequent recitations should be amended similarly.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Calf Muscle Support” in line 22. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “a calf muscle support” to properly present the limitation, and remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Calf Muscle Support (10) is provided to support the calf muscle” in line 22. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the calf muscle”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Calf Support Links” in line 23. This limitation should be amended to recite “the calf support links” remove the improper capitalizations.
Claims 2-17 each recite the limitation “The Orthosis” in the preambles. These limitations should be amended to recite “The orthosis” to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the Metatarsal Top Link” in line 2. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the metatarsal top” to maintain consistency in the claims, and remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the Metatarsal Bottom Link” in line 2. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the metatarsal bottom” to maintain consistency in the claims, and remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the metatarsal top and bottom” in lines 4 and 5. These limitations, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the metatarsal top and the metatarsal bottom” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “are coupled with pitch and yaw link” in line 5. This limitation should be amended to recite “are coupled with the pitch and yaw link” to maintain consistency and clarity in the claims.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the metatarsal top and bottom (1, 2) are coupled with pitch and yaw link (3) supporting the metatarsals to perform the forefoot yawing motion” in lines 4-6. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the metatarsals” and “the forefoot yawing motion”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “by actuator A2” in line 3. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “by an actuator A2” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the Forefoot Roll Link” in line 2. This limitation should be amended to recite “the forefoot roll link” to remove the improper capitalizations
Claim 4 recites the limitation “is having rotating joint with” in line 2. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “comprises a rotating joint with” to be grammatically correct
Claim 4 recites the limitation “with Pitch and Jaw Link” in line 3. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “with the pitch and yaw link” for clarity, consistency, and grammatical purposes.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the Forefoot Roll Link (4) is having rotating joint with Pitch and Jaw Link (3) which gives the pitching motion of the forefoot” in lines 3 and 4. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the pitching motion of the forefoot”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “through actuator A2” in line 4. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “through an actuator A2” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the Hindfoot Top Base (6) is secured with Hindfoot Bottom Base (5)” in lines 4-5. This limitation should be amended to recite “the hind foot top base (6) is secured with hind foot bottom base (5)” to remove the improper capitalizations, and to include spaces in “hind foot” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “and the Forefoot Roll Link (4) having joint” in line 6. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “and the Forefoot Roll Link (4) having joint” to properly present the claimed limitation, and remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “with both bottom and top base” 6. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “with the hind foot bottom base, and the hind foot top base” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the Forefoot Roll Link (4) having joint with both bottom and top base (5,6) to provide rolling of the forefoot” in lines 6 and 7. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “rolling of the forefoot”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “rolling” in line 6. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the rolling motion” to maintain consistency and clarity in the claims with an earlier suggested amendment of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “using actuator A3” in line 8. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “using an actuator A3” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the Hindfoot Top Base (6), Hindfoot Bottom Base (5), and Forefoot Roll link” in lines 9. This limitation should be amended to recite “the hind foot top base (6), the hind foot bottom base (5), and the forefoot roll link” to remove the improper capitalizations, and to include spaces in “hind foot”, and recite “the” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “hind foot top base” in line 3. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the hind foot top base” to maintain consistency and clarity in the claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the hind foot top base (6) is provided to support the talus” in line 4. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the talus”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the hindfoot yaw link” in line 2. This limitation should be amended to recite “the hind foot yaw link” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “calf support links” in line 3. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the pair of calf support links” to be consistent with the earlier suggested amendment of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “by actuator A5” in line 3. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “by an actuator A5” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “through holes on both the links” in line 4. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “through a hole on the hind foot yaw link, and a hole on the calf support link” to maintain consistency and clarity in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “to accomplish the hindfoot pitching motion” in line 5. This limitation should be amended to recite “the hind foot” to maintain consistency in the claims, and to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the hindfoot pitching motion”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein Calf Muscle Support” in line 2. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “wherein the calf muscle support” to maintain consistency and clarity in the claims, and to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “Calf Muscle Support (10) is provided to support the calf muscle” in line 2. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the calf muscle”, or to remove “is provided to support the calf muscle” as this limitation is redundant and was presented earlier in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “Calf Support Links” in line 3. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “calf support links to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “using fastener including Bolt” in line 4. This limitation should be amended to recite “using a fastener including a bolt” to properly present the claimed limitation, and to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “passing through holes” in line 4. This limitation should be amended to recite “passing through a plurality of holes” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “multitude of holes” in line 5. This limitation should be amended to recite “a multitude of holes” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “and the calf support link has slots” in lines 9 and 10. This limitation should be amended to recite “a plurality of slots” to properly present the multiple slots.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “to draw straps” in line 10. This limitation should be amended to recite “a plurality of straps” to properly present the multiple straps. It is also recommended to recite “calf straps” to avoid a lack of clarity in view of the strap recited in claim
Claim 9 recites the limitation “there through” in line 10. This limitation should be amended to recite “therethrough”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “to draw straps there through to tie around the leg”. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the leg”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the Slider Links” in lines 2 and 4. Each limitation should be amended to recite “the slider links” to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “to Calf Support Links” in line 3 and “inside Calf Support Links” in line 5. Each limitation should be amended to recite “the calf support links” to maintain consistency in the claims, and to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “to have linear motion” in line 4. This limitation should be amended to recite “to have a linear motion” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “which allows the Slider Links (11) to have linear motion inside Calf Support Links (9) to compensate for the growth of the leg during the treatment” in lines 5-6. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the growth of the leg”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “Calf Muscle Support” in line 2. This limitation should be amended to recite “calf muscle support” to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the Calf Muscle Support (10) supports the calf muscle” in line 2. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the calf muscle”, or to remove “supports the calf muscle” as this limitation is redundant and was presented earlier in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “which is having” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “which has” to be grammatically correct.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “with holes” in line 4. This limitation should be amended to recite “a plurality of holes” to properly present the multiple holes.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the orthosis includes thigh Links”. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “a pair of thigh links” to properly present the claimed limitation, and to remove the improper capitalization.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “for attaching and grounding of the orthosis with the patient thigh” in line 4. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the patient thigh”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “using straps” in line 4. This limitation should be amended to recite “a plurality of straps” to properly present the multiple straps. It is also recommended to recite “thigh straps” to avoid a lack of clarity in view of the strap recited in claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “passing through slot” in line 4. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “passing through a slot” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the Thigh Links” in lines 5, and 6. Each limitation should be amended to recite “the thigh links” to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a fastener including Bolt” in line 8. This limitation should be amended to recite “a fastener including a bolt” to properly present the claimed limitation, and to remove the improper capitalization.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “that supports the thigh even when the knees are bent” in line 4-5. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the thigh” and “the knees”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “for straps” in line 6. This limitation should be amended to recite “a plurality of straps” to properly present the multiple straps. It is also recommended to recite “thigh straps” to avoid a lack of clarity in view of the strap recited in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “for straps to be secured around the thigh” in line 6. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the thigh”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “first six are corrective motions” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “a first six motions are corrective motions” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “at forefoot level” in line 4. This limitation should be amended to recite “a forefoot level” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “at hind foot level” in line 4. This limitation should be amended to recite “a hind foot level” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “one caters to the growth of leg of the patient and another one knee movement of the patient.” in lines 5-6. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “the growth of leg of the patient”, and “knee movement of the patient”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “using splines” in line 4. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “a plurality of splines” to properly present the claimed limitation. The subsequent recitations of splines in claim 15 should be amended to be consistent with this amendment.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “splines creates on outer body”. This limitation, should be amended to recite “using splines created on outer body” in view of the specification” [0038].
Claim 15 recites the limitation “on outer body” in line 4. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “an outer body” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “inner slider” in line 4. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “an inner slider” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “and outer cap” in line 5. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “and an outer cap” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 15 recite the limitation “in which the slider” in line 5. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the inner slider” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “in its initial position” in line 5. The use of a pronoun in this instance is not unclear. However, the claim should be amended to recite “in an initial position” to properly recite the limitation, and to maintain clarity in the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “between outer cap (20) and outer body” in line 6. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “between the outer cap (20) and the outer body” to maintain consistency and clarity in the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein Upon” in line 8. This limitation should be amended to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “of electromagnet marked” in line 9. This limitation should be amended to recite “of an electromagnet marked” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “allowing for rotation of outer cap” in line 12. This limitation should be amended to recite “allowing for a rotation of the outer cap” to properly present the claimed limitation, and to maintain consistency and clarity in the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “facilitated by motor” in line 12. This limitation should be amended to recite “facilitated by a motor” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein Once” in line 13. This limitation should be amended to remove the improper capitalizations.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the electromagnet” in line 14. This limitation should be amended to recite “the electromagnet marked” to maintain consistency and clarity in the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “to both outer cap and inner slider” in line 15. This limitation should be amended to recite “to both the outer cap and the inner slider” to maintain consistency and clarity in the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “restores the inner slider (21) returns” in line 16. This limitation should be amended to recite “restores the inner slider (21)” to remove the redundant limitation “restores”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “till” in line 17. This limitation should be amended to recite “until” to be grammatically correct.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “till manipulation” in line 17. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “a manipulation” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein in case of manual operation” in line 2. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “a manual operation” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “allowing for required rotation” in line 5. This limitation should be amended to recite “a required rotation” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “locking it in place” in line 8. The use of a pronoun in this instance is not unclear. However, the claim should be amended to recite “locking the inner slider in place” to properly recite the limitation, and to maintain clarity in the claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the key” in line 8. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the hex key” as Allen® key is a trademarked brand name and the claims should only refer to the generic term represented by the trademarked brand name.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “has provision” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “has a provision” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “of close loop actuator” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “a closed loop actuator” to properly present the claimed limitation, and to be grammatically correct.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “along with sensors” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “along with a plurality of sensors” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “for step motion” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a function of, and therefore a human organism in the recitation of “step motion”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “as well as locking/unlocking mechanism” in line 4. This limitation should be amended to recite “as well as a locking/unlocking mechanism” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “leading to automated deformity measurement” in line 5. This limitation should be amended to recite “leading to an automated deformity measurement” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “database creation” in line 5. This limitation should be amended to recite “a database creation” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “expert system development” in lines 5-6. This limitation should be amended to recite “an expert system development” to properly present the claimed limitation.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “which can predict more customize, accurate and optimum treatment for patients”. This limitation should be amended to include configured to language to avoid positively claiming a human organism in the recitation of “patients”, and should also be amended to make the limitation make sense grammatically.
As discussed above, the claims appear to have been written by someone who is not versed in proper idiomatic English. The list of objections indicated above, while substantial, may not include every offending limitation. The Examiner requests that Applicant thoroughly review their claim set and correct any objections found by Applicant that may not be indicated above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Locking/unlocking mechanism (for locking/unlocking) in claim 17. After consultation of Applicant’s specification, the structure considered to correspond to the locking/unlocking mechanism is the dial gauge recited in paragraph [0115] of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-17 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 1 contains the trademark/trade name “Ponseti (improperly spelled Ponsiti). Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a method of clubfoot correction and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rolling motion" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a rolling motion”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the forefoot" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a forefoot”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hind foot" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a hind foot”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the hindfoot yaw link is suspended on calf support links on two sides” in line 21. This limitation is unclear as to if the two sides are two sides of the hindfoot yaw link or two sides of the calf support links. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the hindfoot yaw link is suspended on calf support links on a first and second side of the hindfoot yaw link”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “(with reference to the Metatarsal top and bottom) each of which is provided with a slot (1b and 2b)”. This limitation is considered unclear in view of claim 1 which recites strap slots (1b, 2b) of the Metatarsal top and bottom. Thus, it is unclear as to if the slots of claim 2 are the same as presented in claim 1 or new slots. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the slots of claim 2 as being the same as those presented in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “so as to hold foot”. This limitation is considered unclear in view of claim 1 which recites “baby foot”. Thus, it is unclear as to if the foot of claim 2 is the same as presented in claim 1 or a new foot. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the foot of claim 2 as being the same as the foot presented in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the metatarsals" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a plurality of metatarsals”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the forefoot yawing motion" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a yawing motion of the forefoot”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the hole" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a first hole”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the holes” in line 8. This limitation lacks antecedent basis, and is considered unclear in view of claim 2 which recites “the hole” in line 7. It is unclear as to if the earlier recites, singular hole of claim 2 is included or in addition to the later recited holes, or one of the later recited holes. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “passes through a plurality of holes including the first hole”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the keyholes on both the linkages" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the keyholes” and “the linkages” in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a keyhole on the pitch and yaw link, and a keyhole on the forefoot roll link”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pitching motion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a pitching motion”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "hindfoot bottom base" in lines 5 and 9, and “bottom…base” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret these limitations as “hind foot upper base”. Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “hind foot bottom base” because the synonymous recitations of top base and upper base almost result in a lack of clarity.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "hind foot lower base" in line 2, There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “hind foot upper base”. Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “hind foot bottom base” and claim 5 to be consistent with this amendment, because the synonymous recitations of top base and upper base almost result in a lack of clarity.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a yaw guide base”. This limitation is considered unclear in view of claim 1 which recites a yaw guide base. Thus, it is unclear as to if the yaw guide base of claim 5 is the same as presented in claim 1 or new yaw guide base. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the yaw guide base of claim 5 as being the same as presented in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the talus" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a talus”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the hindfoot yaw link is suspended on calf support links on two sides” in lines 2 and 3. This limitation is unclear as to if the two sides are two sides of the hindfoot yaw link or two sides of the calf support links, and is further unclear if the two sides are the same as recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the hindfoot yaw link is suspended on calf support links on the first and second side of the hindfoot yaw link”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the hindfoot pitching motion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a pitching motion of the hind foot”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “using fastener including bolt (18) passing through holes. It is unclear in view of the drawings how a single bolt 18 passes through holes (i.e. multiple holes). For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “multitude of holes” in line 5. This limitation is unclear as to if the multitude of holes includes the holes presented earlier in the claim, or are a new multitude of holes. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the slider link" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a slider link”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “for the same” in line 9. This limitation is unclear as to what Applicant is referring to as “the same”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the calf support link” in line 9. It is unclear as to which calf support link of the earlier recited “calf support links” Applicant is referring to. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “each calf support link”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the leg" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a leg”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the slider links" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a plurality of slider links”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the Slider Links (11) are attached to Calf Support Links (9) having a plurality of holes (9b)”. It is unclear as to if the recited plurality of holes are of the slider links or the calf support links. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the growth" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a growth”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the leg" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a leg”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the treatment" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a treatment”.
Claim 11 recite the limitation “wherein the Calf Muscle Support (10) supports the calf muscle, which is having protrusions” in line 2-3. It is unclear as to if Applicant is claiming the calf muscle support, or the calf muscle has protrusions. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as the calf muscle support has protrusions.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the right and left” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a right and a left”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the right and left” in line 4. This limitation is unclear as to what is being claimed (i.e. towards the right and left side of the calf support, the protrusions, the calf muscle?). For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the patient thigh” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a thigh”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the above-knee part of the cast” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “an above-knee part of a cast”. Examiner recommends removing this limitation from claim 12 as the limitation does not limit the thigh link structure.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the thigh link” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a thigh link”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the slider link” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a slider link”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “on one side” in line 3. It is unclear as to if Applicant is claiming one side of the thigh link or the slider link. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the thigh” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a thigh”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the knees” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a knee”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the orthosis involves eight motions”. This limitation is unclear as to if the eight motions include the rolling motion of the forefoot, the rolling of the hind foot, and the yawing of the hindfoot as recited in claim 1, or if these are all new motions. It is also unclear as to how the connections claimed in claim 1 can accomplish eight separate motions as recited in claim 14 in view of the structures claimed in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the other two motions" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a pair of accommodating motions”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the growth of leg" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a growth of leg”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the patient" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a patient”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the orthosis mechanism" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the orthosis”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the rotary motion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a rotary motion”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "locking and unlocking it" in line 3. The pronoun renders the claim indefinite as to what previously recited structure “it” is referring to. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “connected to components that rotate relative to one another” in line 8. This limitation is unclear as to if Applicant is claiming the earlier recited structures are connected to undisclosed components which rotate relative to one another, or is claiming the earlier recited structures are connected to one another and rotate relative to each other. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “electromagnet marked” in line 9. This limitation is unclear as to if applicant is claiming the electromagnet is “marked” in some way, or if this is a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the permanent magnet marked” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a permanent magnet marked”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the permanent magnet marked” in line 10. This limitation is unclear as to if applicant is claiming the magnet is “marked” in some way, or if this is a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “to inner body” in line 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the inner slider”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the required amount of rotation” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a required amount of rotation”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the required amount of rotation” in line 13. This limitation is indefinite because the amount needed to qualify as “a required amount” is not defined by the specification, or the claims in such a way for one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what is being claimed in the recitation “required amount”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the spring” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a spring”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “its position of rest” in line 16. While the use of the pronoun “its” is clear that the pronoun refers to “the inner slider”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “position of rest” in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the initial position”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the mechanism” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the orthosis”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein in case of manual operation” in line 2. This limitation is unclear as to if Applicant is claiming a preferred embodiment of the invention, or an embodiment in case of some failure of an undisclosed automated operation. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 16 contains the trademark/trade name “Allen®” (improperly spelled as Allan) in line 3. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a hex key and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the cavity" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a cavity”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the outer cap" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “an outer cap”
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the inner slider" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “an inner slider”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a movement”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 4. This limitation is unclear as to what previously recited structure comprises the claimed movement. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the movement as it slides away" in line 4. The pronoun renders the claim indefinite as to what previously recited structure “it” is referring to. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “for required rotation” in line 5. This limitation is indefinite because the amount needed to qualify as “a required rotation” is not defined by the specification, or the claims in such a way for one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what is being claimed in the recitation “required rotation”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “restored to its original position”. The pronoun renders the claim indefinite as to what previously recited structure “it” is referring to. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the spring" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a spring”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "its position of rest" in line 7. While the use of the pronoun “its” is clear that the pronoun refers to “the inner slider”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “position of rest” in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the initial position”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the corrective orthosis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the orthosis”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “close loop actuator” in line 3. This limitation is considered unclear in view of claim 1 which recites an actuator A1, and an actuator A4. Thus, it is unclear as to if the close loop actuator of claim 17 is the same as either of the actuators presented in claim 1 or is a new actuator. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the close loop actuator of claim 17 as being either of the actuators presented in claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “leading to automated deformity measurement” in lines 4-5. This limitation is considered unclear because Applicant has not defined specifically what leads to the measurements (i.e. does the mere provision of a sensor (of which the specific type is not disclosed lead to said measurements, or does the provision of the close loop actuator lead to said measurements). For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “expert system development”. This limitation is indefinite because the amount needed to qualify as “an expert system development” is not defined by the specification, or the claims in such a way for one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what is being claimed in the recitation “expert”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “which can predict more”. This limitation is indefinite because the claim does not depict what event, measurement, or other undisclosed limitation can be “predicted more”. This limitation is also unclear because the metes and bounds of what previously recited structure is capable of predicting more and is not defined by the specification, or recited in the claim such that one of ordinary skill in the art could ascertain what is being claimed by the recitation of “predicted more” (i.e. the sensors, the database, the expert system developed). For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “customize,”. This limitation is indefinite because the metes and bounds of what can be “customized” is not defined by the specification, or recited in the claim such that one of ordinary skill in the art could ascertain what is being claimed by the recitation of “customize” (i.e. can previously recited database, expert system, locking/unlocking mechanism be customized, or can the subsequently recited treatment for patients be customized). For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “accurate,”. This limitation is indefinite because the metes and bounds of what is considered “accurate” is not defined by the specification, or recited in the claim such that one of ordinary skill in the art could ascertain what is being claimed by the recitation of “accurate”. Additionally, what may be “accurate” to one user may not be accurate for another user. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “optimum,”. This limitation is indefinite because the metes and bounds of what is considered “optimum” is not defined by the specification, or recited in the claim such that one of ordinary skill in the art could ascertain what is being claimed by the recitation of “optimum”. Additionally, what may be “optimum” to one user may not be optimum for another user. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and therefore, contain the same offending limitations.
As discussed above, the claims appear to have been written by someone who is not versed in proper idiomatic English. The list of claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indicated above, while substantial, may not include every offending limitation. The Examiner requests that Applicant thoroughly review their claim set and correct any offending limitations found by Applicant that may not be indicated above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The body of claim 6 is recited verbatim in lines 15-17 of claim 1 without including additional limitations. Thus, claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
The body of claim 7 is recited verbatim in lines 18-19 of claim 1 without including additional limitations. Thus, claim 7 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is considered to have allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: .
The subject matter not disclosed either singly, or in a combination of the prior art is the combination of “an orthosis comprising a metatarsal top (1), a metatarsal bottom (2) and a pitch and yaw link (3),… the pitch and yaw link (3) placed between the metatarsal top (1) and metatarsal bottom (2),… the pitch and yaw link (3) is connected to forefoot roll link (4);the forefoot roll link (4) is connected to upper and top bases of hind foot assembly (5, 6) to execute the rolling motion of the forefoot; Yaw Guide Base (7) has a rotating joint with the Hind foot Top Base (6) to provide rolling of the hind foot through actuator A4 (16) ;the Yaw Guide Base (7) slides on Hind foot Yaw Link (8) to provide yawing of the hind foot through the actuator A4 (16); the hindfoot yaw link (8) is suspended on calf support links (9) on two sides ”.
The closest art of record is that of Bairwa (IN 201811028509 A) which discloses a similar orthosis for clubfoot correction (see figure 12; see pg 1) which comprises a metatarsal portion (forefoot mechanism; see figures 12 and 24) and a yaw link (revolute joint between forefoot mechanism and rear foot portion; see figure 12 and 24) connected together by an actuator (pin in revolute joint; see figure 24), wherein the metatarsal portion is provided with strap slots allowing passage of strap through the slots for holding baby foot (see figure 12); upper and top bases of hind foot assembly (rear foot portion and pitching link; see figures 6 and 8) a rotating joint (joint in which yawing bolt is placed within pitching link; see figure 7 and 19) with the Hind foot Top Base (pitching link) to provide rolling of the hind foot through actuator A4 (yawing bolt; see figure 19); calf support links (support links; see figure 9) on two sides (see figure 12); Calf Muscle Support (rear portion of support links; see figure 23) is provided to support the calf muscle and is attached to the Calf Support Links (support links; see figure 23).
However, Bairwa does not disclose the indicated allowable limitations of “a metatarsal top and a metatarsal bottom; a pitch and yaw link (requiring two rotation axes); with the pitch and yaw link (3) placed between the metatarsal top (1) and metatarsal bottom (2); a forefoot roll link (4), a yaw guide base (7) Thus, because Bairwa does not disclose the structures of a metatarsal top and a metatarsal bottom, and a link capable of two rotational axis; a forefoot roll link and a yaw guide base, Bairwa does not disclose the connections between said metatarsal portions and the pitch and yaw link, and the connections of the forefoot roll link and yaw guide base with the other structures as claimed which allow for the orthosis to perform the claimed rolling, yawing, and sliding motions of the orthosis as required by claim 1. No art could be found in the Examiner’s search of the relevant CPC areas which taught the limitations not disclosed by Bairwa. It is for at least these reasons that claim 1 is considered to comprise allowable subject matter.
Claims 2-17 each depend from independent claim 1 and thus, have the same allowable subject matter of claim 1.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786