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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and specification are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have overcome the previous drawing objections. Therefore, the previous drawing objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1, 4-11, and 13-17 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s addition of new claims 28-31 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 4-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-16 have overcome the previous claim objections. Therefore, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 5, 10, 16, and 17 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Therefore, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 has overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-31 are pending in the current application, with claims 19-27 being withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument of claim 1 that Verkade does not disclose a pocket as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Relying upon the cited definitions of pocket provided by Applicant of “receptacle” (an object or space used to contain something) or “container” (an object that can be used to hold something), Examiner notes that structures 902 and 130 together are an object or structure which define a space therebetween used to contain the orthopedic splint (102; see figure 11). Thus, by definition, structures 902 and 130 together form an adjustable pocket as claimed.
With respect to Applicant’s argument of claim 14 that the combination of Verkade in view of Darby is impermissible hindsight modification which renders the prior art invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the combination of Verkade in view of Darby is impermissible hindsight. Examiner first points to Verkade [0055] which states “it is recognized that other fastening devices such as knotted laces, flexible hook-and-loop straps, elastic bands, and other similar securable adjustable devices may be used in conjunction with an outer sleeve 902 to provide the desired ankle joint compression”. Darby teaches one such similar securable adjustable device on an analogous ankle brace, and thus, the modification of Verkade in view of Darby is not impermissible hindsight modification which renders the prior art invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, as Verkade contemplates the use of other fastening mechanisms, and the fastening mechanism of Darby would still allow for the provision of a desired ankle joint compression (see Darby [0048]).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments of new claims 28-31 and their allowability. Examiner respectfully disagrees, each claim is addressed and rejected below.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons above, and thus, the previous claim rejections are maintained and updated in view of the amendments.
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, “padding of the buckle” of claim 31 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Currently the drawings and specification do not provide reference numerals for either of these claimed structures.
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.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the current drawings are black and white photographs of the claimed invention. As per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b)(1) “Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention”. Additionally “The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent”. In the instant case, photographs are not the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the term “generally upward”. This limitation should be amended to remove the relative term “generally” because the term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 recites the term “relatively greater”. This limitation should be amended to remove the relative term “relatively” because the term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites the term “generally upward”. This limitation should be amended to remove the relative term “generally” because the term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the fastening strap” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “the adjustable fastening strap” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 30 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 28 is 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 28 recites the limitation “a lining having a fabric pattern including at least one physical or material characteristic corresponding to the moldable thermoplastic material”. This recitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what is claimed with the recitation “at least one physical or material characteristic corresponding to the moldable thermoplastic material” (i.e. is this a corresponding shape (physical characteristic), a corresponding material (physical and material characteristics), a corresponding rigidity, etc.). For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a lining having a fabric pattern which is a shape, size, or geometry corresponding to the moldable thermoplastic material” as discussed on page 12 of Applicant’s specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-13, 18, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verkade et al. (US 2020/0038221 A1) (hereinafter Verkade).
In regards to claim 1, Verkade discloses an ankle brace (100; see [0029]; see figure 1) configured to be worn by a target wearer (see [abstract]), the ankle brace (100) comprising:
a foot plate (150; see [0041]; see figure 1) having a foot bed (104; see [0029]; see figure 1) having a contour configured to underlie a foot of the target wearer (see [0032]), the foot bed (104) having a heel cup (114 and 116; see [0042]; see figure 1) extending generally upward from the foot bed and configured to be disposed along a posterior aspect of the ankle of the target wearer (see figure 1);
an orthopedic splint (102; see [0029]; see figure 1) pivotably coupled to the foot plate (foot plate comprising 104; see figure 1) and configured to at least partially wrap around a lower leg of the target wearer (see [0032]), the orthopedic splint (102) disposed in an adjustable pocket (pocket formed via 902 and 130; see [0031]; see figure 11; 902 is adjustable along 102 (see [0055]); additionally 902 and 130 form a space for receiving 102, and thus as discussed above, form an adjustable pocket by definition), the adjustable pocket (pocket formed via 902 and 130) configured to adjust compression of the orthopedic splint (102) relative to the lower leg of the wearer to promote a rehabilitative position of a tibia and a fibula of the target wearer (see [0054]).
In regards to claim 4, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses wherein the foot plate (150) comprises a medial wing (112; see [0041]; see figure 1) configured to extend generally upward from the foot bed (104; see figure 1) and along a medial aspect of the ankle of the target wearer, the foot plate (150) also including a lateral wing (110; see [0041]; see figure 1) configured to extend generally upward from the foot bed (104; see figure 1) and along a lateral aspect of the ankle of the target wearer.
In regards to claim 5, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses wherein the medial wing (112) is configured to extend over a medial malleolus of the ankle of the target wearer and the lateral wing (110) is configured to extend over a lateral malleolus of the ankle of the target wearer (see [0042]).
In regards to claim 7, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses wherein a front foot portion (front portion of 104) of the foot bed (104) defines a front edge (see figure 1) that is configured not to extend beyond metatarsal bone heads of the target wearer (see [0045] in reference to “the foot bed 104 does not extend under the ball of the wearer's foot”, thus 104 does not extend beyond metatarsal bone heads found in the ball of the user’s foot).
In regards to claim 8, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses wherein the front edge is configured to be disposed within an area defined between the metatarsal bone heads of the target wearer and tarsometatarsal joints of the target wearer (see [0045] in reference to “the foot bed 104 does not extend under the ball of the wearer's foot”, thus the front edge of 104 is disposed within an area defined between the metatarsal bone heads of the target wearer and tarsometatarsal joints).
In regards to claim 9, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses wherein the lateral wing (110), the medial wing (112), the heel cup (114 and 116), and the foot bed (104) collectively form an open section between a front ankle portion (front portion of 110 and 112) of the ankle brace (100) and a front foot portion (front portion of 104; see figure 3) of the ankle brace (100) configured for facilitating mobility of the target wearer (see [0034] in reference to “allowing the brace to closely simulate the natural bending motion of the human ankle” thereby facilitating mobility of the wearer).
In regards to claim 10, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses wherein the lateral wing (110), the medial wing (112), the heel cup (114 and 116), and the foot bed (104) collectively form the open section between the front ankle portion (front portion of 110 and 112) and the front foot portion (front portion of 104; see figure 3) for facilitating an articulation of the foot plate (150) relative to the orthopedic splint (102; see [0034]).
In regards to claim 11, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses wherein the front ankle portion (front portion of 110 and 112) and the front foot portion (front portion of 104) are positionable to avoid contact with the ankle brace (100; see figure 3 that the front portions of 110, 112, and 104 do not contact any other portion of 100).
In regards to claim 12, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses wherein the orthopedic splint (102) comprises a moldable thermoplastic material (see [0035]).
In regards to claim 13, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses where in the heel cup (114 and 116) extends above and is configured to enclose a calcaneus of the target wearer (114 and 116 cup the ankle and provide calcaneal support; see [0042]).
In regards to claim 18, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses wherein at least the foot plate (104) is sized to be inserted in a shoe of the target wearer (see [0045]).
In regards to claim 28, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses wherein the adjustable pocket (pocket formed via 902 and 130) comprises a lining (130) having a fabric pattern including at least one physical or material characteristic (shape and size of 130) corresponding to the moldable thermoplastic material (material of 102; see figure 1 that the size and shape of 130 corresponds to the shape of the material of 102).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verkade.
In regards to claim 2, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade does not explicitly disclose wherein the heel cup comprises a first set of material properties and a front foot portion of the foot bed comprises a second set of material properties that is different than the first set of material properties.
However, Verkade teaches a second embodiment of the heel cup (152 and 154; see [0043]; see figure 10) wherein the heel cup (152 and 154) comprises a first set of material properties and a front foot portion (front portion of 104) of the foot bed (104) comprises a second set of material properties that is different than the first set of material properties (see [0043] in reference to bend regions 152, 154 may be slightly more flexible than the foot plate 150) for the purpose of allowing the device to facilitate conformance of the ankle brace with the anatomy of a particular wearer (see [0043]).
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 the heel cup as disclosed by the first embodiment of Verkade and to have made the heel cup more flexible than the front foot portion of the foot bed, thereby providing the heel cup with a first set of material properties, and the front foot portion of the foot bed with a second set of material properties that is different than the first set of material properties as taught by the second embodiment of Verkade in order to have provided an improved heel cup that would add the benefit of allowing the device to facilitate conformance of the ankle brace with the anatomy of a particular wearer (see [0043]).
In regards to claim 3, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses wherein the heel cup (114 and 116 as now modified) has relatively greater flexibility than the front foot portion (front portion of 104) of the foot bed (104; see [0043]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verkade in view of Richie Jr. (US 6,602,215 B1).
In regards to claim 6, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade does not disclose wherein the medial wing and the lateral wing each extend along an interior surface of the orthopedic splint.
However, Richie Jr. teaches an analogous ankle brace (20; see [Col 3 ln 15-32]; see figure 1), comprising an analogous foot plate (28; see [Col 3 ln 34-40]; see figure 1), and an analogous orthopedic splint (22 and 24; see [Col 3 ln 25-30]; see figure 1); further comprising a medial wing (46; see [Col 3 ln 45-50]; see figure 2) extending upwards from the foot plate (28; see figure 2), and a lateral wing (48; see [Col 3 ln 50-55]; see figure 2) extending upwards from the foot plate (28; see figure 1); wherein the medial wing (46) and the lateral wing (48) each extend along an interior surface of the orthopedic splint (22 and 24; see figures 1 and 2).
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 the medial and lateral wings as disclosed by Verkade and to have positioned the medial and lateral wings along the interior surface of the orthopedic splint as taught by Richie Jr. in order to have provided an improved set of medial and lateral wings that would add the benefit of allowing the orthopedic splint, when fastened and tightened onto the user’s leg, to compress onto the medial and lateral wings, thereby providing additional stability to the user’s heel and ankle when using the device.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verkade in view of Darby (US 2002/0128574 A1).
In regards to claim 14, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses wherein the adjustable pocket (pocket formed via 902 and 130) comprises at least one strap (904; see [0055]; see figure 11; 904 being laces is considered equivalent to a strap). Verkade also discloses that the strap can utilize other fastening devices to provide the desired ankle joint compression (see [0055]).
Verkade does not disclose a corresponding buckle receiving the at least one strap, and a ratchet configured for adjusting a compression force exerted for securing the orthopedic splint against the lower leg of the target wearer.
However, Darby teaches an analogous ankle brace (100; see [0029]; see figure 1) and teaches an analogous strap (24; see [0046]; see figure 1) and a corresponding buckle (46; see [0046]; see figure 8c) receiving the strap (24), and a ratchet (46 are ratchet buckles) configured for adjusting a compression force exerted for securing the orthopedic splint (100) against the lower leg of the target wearer (see [0048]) for the purpose of providing an adjustable means to compress the patient's encased limb at the desired and comfortable compression level (see [0048]).
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 the strap as disclosed by Verkade and to have substituted Verkade’s strap for the strap and ratchet buckle as taught by Darby in order to have provided an improved strap that would add the benefit of providing an adjustable means to compress the patient's encased limb at the desired and comfortable compression level (see [0048]).
In regards to claim 15, Verkade as now modified by Darby discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade as now modified by Darby further discloses wherein the buckle (46 of Darby) is configured to be positioned on a lateral side of the leg of the target wearer (see Darby [0013] in reference to the view of figure 2 being a lateral view, therefore 46 of Darby is considered to be positioned on a lateral side of the leg).
In regards to claim 16, Verkade as now modified by Darby discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade as now modified by Darby further discloses wherein the buckle (46 of Darby) is configured to be releasably attached to a plurality of grooves defined by the at least one strap (24 of Darby; see Darby [0047]).
In regards to claim 30, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade further discloses wherein the adjustable pocket (pocket formed via 902 and 130) comprises a strap (904; see [0055]; see figure 11; 904 being laces is considered equivalent to a strap). Verkade also discloses that the strap can utilize other fastening devices to provide the desired ankle joint compression (see [0055]).
Verkade does not disclose a corresponding buckle receiving the strap, and a ratchet configured for adjusting a compression force exerted for securing the orthopedic splint against the lower leg of the target wearer.
However, Darby teaches an analogous ankle brace (100; see [0029]; see figure 1) and teaches an analogous strap (24; see [0046]; see figure 1) and a corresponding buckle (46; see [0046]; see figure 8c) receiving the strap (24), and a ratchet (46 are ratchet buckles) configured for adjusting a compression force exerted for securing the orthopedic splint (100) against the lower leg of the target wearer (see [0048]) for the purpose of providing an adjustable means to compress the patient's encased limb at the desired and comfortable compression level (see [0048]).
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 the strap as disclosed by Verkade and to have substituted Verkade’s strap for the strap and ratchet buckle as taught by Darby in order to have provided an improved strap that would add the benefit of providing an adjustable means to compress the patient's encased limb at the desired and comfortable compression level (see [0048]).
In regards to claim 31, Verkade as now modified by Darby discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade as now modified by Darby further discloses wherein the buckle (46 of Darby) comprises padding (902 and 130 together form the pocket as discussed above; 130 is EVA foam (i.e. padding; see [0048]); thus, 46 of Darby which is substituted into 902 comprises 130 which is padding) having one or more layers of elastomeric material (EVA foam is a layer of closed-cell, elastomeric foam).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verkade in view of Fuller et al. (US 5,496,263 A) (hereinafter Fuller).
In regards to claim 17, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade does not disclose further comprising an adjustable fastening strap connected to a front foot portion and the ankle brace is configured to receive the foot of the target wearer between the fastening strap and the foot plate to compressibly retain the foot of the target wearer on the foot plate.
However, Fuller teaches an analogous ankle brace (20; see [Col 7 ln 15-20]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous foot plate (24; see [Col 7 ln 15-20]; see figure 1); further comprising an adjustable fastening strap (36; see [col 7 ln 35-40]; see figure 1) connected to the front foot portion (see figure 1 that 36 is connected to a front portion of 24) and the ankle brace (20) is configured to receive the foot of the target wearer between the fastening strap (36) and the foot plate to compressibly retain the foot of the target wearer on the foot plate (24; see [col 9 ln 20-25]) for the purpose of drawing portions of the device closer together to snugly engage the user’s foot in order to provide support and stabilization (see [col 9 ln 20-25]).
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 the front foot portion of the foot plate as disclosed by Verkade and to have included the adjustable fastening strap connected to the front foot portion for compressibly retaining the user’s foot on the foot plate as taught by Fuller in order to have provided an improved foot plate that would add the benefit of drawing portions of the device closer together to snugly engage the user’s foot in order to provide support and stabilization (see [col 9 ln 20-25]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verkade in view of Eriksson (US 5,720,715 A).
In regard to claim 29, Verkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Verkade does not disclose wherein the adjustable pocket comprises neoprene material attached to a compression sleeve configured to be wrapped against the lower leg of the target wearer.
However, Eriksson teaches an analogous ankle brace (B; see [col 3 ln 5-6]; see figure 1; while B is described as an ankle bandage, B comprises structure 11 which is a rigid stabilizing support body (see [col 1 ln 45]), and thus, is an ankle brace) which comprises an analogous orthopedic splint (11; see [col 3 ln 25-30]; see figure 3) disposed within an adjustable pocket (25; see [col 3 ln 25-30]; see figure 4; 25 conforms to 11 which is intended to be adjusted to each individual user (See [col 2 ln 22-28]), thus, 25 is “adjustable”); wherein the adjustable pocket comprises neoprene material (B is formed from neoprene material (see [col 4 ln 51-52]); thus, 25 which is formed by 26 and 27 of B (see [col 3 ln 25-30]) comprises neoprene) attached to a compression sleeve (portions of 1 divided from 25 by 6 and 7; see [col 3 ln 18-35]; see figures 1 and 5; 1 while not explicitly described as a compression sleeve, 1 is formed from neoprene rubber, which is capable of providing compressive forces and functioning as a compression sleeve) configured to be wrapped against the lower leg of the target wearer (see figure 1) for the purpose of providing a material of the pocket which is a flexible, resilient, heat insulating which provides comfort and reduced abrasion to the foot while also allowing the thermoplastic orthopedic splint to maintain its heated plastic state for a long period of time for appropriate adjustment and formation of the orthopedic splint to the individual user (see [col 1 ln 49-50] and [col 2 ln 43-50]), and for providing a sleeve which surrounds the ankle and instep region of the foot giving full support to the ankle region (see [col 1 ln 35-42] and [col 3 ln 6-10]).
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 the material of the adjustable pocket as disclosed by Verkade by forming the pocket from the neoprene material as taught by Eriksson, and to have modified the adjustable pocket as disclosed by Verkade by attaching the adjustable pocket to a compression sleeve as taught by Eriksson in order to have provided an improved ankle brace that would add the benefit of providing a material of the pocket which is a flexible, resilient, heat insulating which provides comfort and reduced abrasion to the foot while also allowing the thermoplastic orthopedic splint to maintain its heated plastic state for a long period of time for appropriate adjustment and formation of the orthopedic splint to the individual user (see [col 1 ln 49-50] and [col 2 ln 43-50]), and for providing a sleeve which surrounds the ankle and instep region of the foot giving full support to the ankle region (see [col 1 ln 35-42] and [col 3 ln 6-10]). Thereby increasing the ease at which a user may heat form the orthopedic splint of Verkade to the user (see Verkade [0035]) and increasing the supportive capability provided by the ankle brace of Verkade.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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