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 .
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 8, 9, and 11 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 8 recites the limitation "the recess" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 requires that the attachment coupling structure is secured to the socket by integral formation but this is indefinite because claim 1 states “an attachment coupling structure that is configured to be secured” which is interpreted to mean that attachment coupling structure is not integral with the socket and instead can be secured to it. Applicant may consider amending claim 1 in a manner similar to claim 16 which recites “is integral to, or configured to be secured to” which allows for both integral and separate options.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lord et al. US 2015/0079861 (hereafter referred to as Lord).
Regarding claim 1, Lord discloses a system 10 for providing hydrotherapy (fig.3), the system comprising: an attachment coupling structure 14 that is configured to be secured to a bottom end portion of a socket 32, wherein the socket is configured to receive a residual limb 40 of a subject (figs. 1-3; the attachment coupling structure 14 is capable of being secured to the bottom end of socket 32 or some other socket; the socket is not positively claimed since the claim says “configured to be secured to” which is a functional limitation); and a fluid resistance attachment 12 that is coupled to the attachment coupling structure 14 (figs. 1-2), wherein the attachment coupling structure is configured to retain the fluid resistance attachment in a plurality of positions relative to the socket, wherein the plurality of positions are rotationally offset relative to each other about an axis. The claim defines the positions of the fluid resistance attachment with respect to the socket. Since the attachment coupling structure can be rotated/positioned to a desired angle with respect to and about the person’s residual limb and a socket, the device of Lord is capable of function as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, see figs. 1-3 for fin 12.
Regarding claim 10, see figs. 1-3 for socket 32/36 which is configured to receive the residual limb along a second axis which is considered a longitudinal axis of the residual limb. The axis/first axis, about which the attachment coupling structure can be positioned, is aligned with, and therefore parallel to, the second axis of the residual limb.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the device 10 can be positioned about the residual limb and socket in at least 16 different positions since it can be rotated 360 degrees with respect to the residual limb and socket.
Regarding claim 15, the sockets are not required by the claim since the claim does not positively recite that the system comprises a first socket and a second socket. The attachment coupling structure 14 of Lord is capable of coupling to both types of sockets.
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.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Madeira US 10,675,456. Lord discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Lord further discloses that the fluid resistance attachment 12 and the attachment coupling structure 14 may be fixed by mechanically joining them together (par.13), but Lord does not disclose that the fluid resistance attachment comprises a proximal end portion, the proximal end portion having at least one radial projection, wherein the attachment coupling structure comprises: a receptacle that is configured to receive the proximal end portion of the fluid resistance attachment; a plurality of catches positioned within the receptacle and spaced circumferentially about the axis, wherein each catch of the plurality of catches is configured to receive a respective radial projection of the at least one radial projection of the proximal end portion of the fluid resistance attachment, wherein the fluid resistance attachment is inhibited from rotation about the axis when each respective radial projection of the at least one radial projection is received by a respective catch of the plurality of catches; and a biasing element that is configured to axially bias the fluid resistance attachment in a first direction, wherein each catch of the plurality of catches is defined by a respective recess defined between opposed sidewalls of the receptacle, or wherein the attachment coupling structure comprises, for each radial projection of the proximal end portion of the fluid resistance attachment, a respective slot between sequential catches of the plurality of catches, wherein the respective slot is configured to receive a respective radial projection of the at least one radial projection along the axis.
Madeira teaches an attachment mechanism for a prosthetic device, in the same field of endeavor, wherein an attachment 52 comprises a proximal end portion (bottom portion in fig.8B), the proximal end portion having at least one radial projection (see the projections of 52 in fig.8B), wherein an attachment coupling structure 51 comprises: a receptacle 51a that is configured to receive the proximal end portion of the attachment 52, a plurality of catches (considered the bottom of channels 52a) positioned within the receptacle and spaced circumferentially about the axis (fig.6B and 8B), wherein each catch of the plurality of catches is configured to receive a respective radial projection of the at least one radial projection of the proximal end portion of the fluid resistance attachment, wherein the fluid resistance attachment is inhibited from rotation about the axis when each respective radial projection of the at least one radial projection is received by a respective catch of the plurality of catches (figs. 6B and 8B; col.5, lines 6-12); and a biasing element 53 (fig.8B) that is configured to axially bias the attachment 52 in a first direction (col.5, lines 6-12; the examiner appreciates that the reference numerals in the passage conflict with those in the figures but it is clear that the coiled element 53 in fig.8B is the same as “spring 54” in the specification, where “54” should be 53, and the “pronged-stud connector 53” should be pronged-stud connector 52 as shown in fig.8B), wherein each catch 52a of the plurality of catches is defined by a respective recess defined between opposed sidewalls of the receptacle (figs. 6B and 8B), and wherein the attachment coupling structure comprises, for each radial projection of the proximal end portion of the fluid resistance attachment, a respective slot (considered the vertical portions of 52a) between sequential catches of the plurality of catches, wherein the respective slot is configured to receive a respective radial projection of the at least one radial projection along the axis (figs. 6B and 8B), for the purpose of providing a mechanical connection between modular prosthetic components (col.5, lines 8-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mechanical connection taught by Madeira, including the radial projections, receptacle with catches, and biasing element, as a mechanical connection between the fluid resistance attachment 12 and the attachment coupling structure 14 of Lord in order to quickly and easily mechanically couple the components together.
Claims 1-3 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein US 10,667,928 (hereafter referred to as Goldstein) in view of Woolnough et al. US 5,997,583 (hereafter referred to as Woolnough).
Regarding claim 1, Goldstein discloses a system for providing hydrotherapy 10, 100 (figs. 1-2), the system comprising: an attachment coupling structure (considered a socket adapter as discussed in col.2, lines 32-34), a socket 14 configured to receive a residual limb of a subject (fig. 1); and a fluid resistance attachment 20 that is coupled to the socket by the attachment coupling structure (col.2, lines 32-34). Goldstein discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose that the attachment coupling structure is configured to be secured to a bottom end portion of a socket, wherein the attachment coupling structure is configured to retain the fluid resistance attachment in a plurality of positions relative to the socket, wherein the plurality of positions are rotationally offset relative to each other about an axis.
Woolnough teaches a lower limb prosthesis, in the same field of endeavor, wherein an attachment coupling structure 18 is configured to be secured to a bottom end portion of a socket 20 (fig.1), wherein the attachment coupling structure is configured to retain an attachment 10 in a plurality of positions relative to the socket, wherein the plurality of positions are rotationally offset relative to each other about an axis for the purpose of allowing for adjustment both translationally and angularly (col.4, lines 6-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment of the components of Goldstein to include an attachment coupling structure configured to be secured to a bottom end portion of the socket, wherein the attachment coupling structure is configured to retain the fluid resistance attachment in a plurality of positions relative to the socket, wherein the plurality of positions are rotationally offset relative to each other about an axis as taught by Woolnough in order to allow for adjustment of the position of the fluid resistance attachment to best suit a particular patient.
Regarding claim 2, see Goldstein figs. 1-2 for a fin.
Regarding claim 3, see Goldstein fig.2 for mesh 130.
Regarding claim 10, see Goldstein fig.1 for socket 14 which is received along a longitudinal axis of the residual limb. Goldstein as modified by Woolnough to include the attachment coupling structure includes a first vertical axis about which the fluid resistance attachment can rotate that is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the residual limb.
Regarding claim 11, while the adapter/attachment coupling structure and socket are shown by Woolnough to be separate, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have them be integrally formed since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the several parts would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) MPEP 2144.04 V B).
Regarding claim 12, see fastener 22 in fig.1 of Woolnough.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the system of Goldstein in view of Woolnough can be positioned about the residual limb and socket in at least 16 different positions since it can be rotated 360 degrees with respect to the residual limb and socket.
Regarding claim 15, the sockets are not required by the claim since the claim does not positively recite that the system comprises a first socket and a second socket. The attachment coupling structure of Goldstein in view of Woolnough is capable of coupling to both types of sockets.
Regarding claims 16-18, Goldstein in view of Woolnough discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above including a socket, an attachment coupling structure, and a fluid resistance attachment that is capable of selective removable coupling to the attachment coupling structure (see the rejection of claim 1 above). Goldstein in view of Woolnough, does not disclose a plurality of fluid resistance attachments, wherein each fluid resistance attachment is configured to provide a different amount of resistance upon displacement through water an equal movement rate, wherein the plurality of fluid resistance attachments comprise a plurality of fins having different surface areas.
However, Goldstein teaches the fin members 24 include one or a series of openings or holes 26 positioned along their length. The number and/or size of the holes 26 may be determined to adjust water resistance of the fins 24, and in particular may be adjusted so that the water resistance of the prosthesis 10, including the fins 24, matches or is substantially the same as the water resistance of the wearer's intact leg (col.2, line 63-col.3, line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide multiple fluid resistance attachments having different surface areas, as a result of different number and/or size of the holes, for the purpose of optimizing the water resistance for a particular wearer as taught by Goldstein.
Regarding claim 19, Goldstein in view of Woolnough discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Goldstein discloses coupling the fluid resistance attachment with an attachment coupling structure to the socket. Woolnough teaches adjusting the angle of the position of an attachment relative to a socket. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the first fluid resistance attachment from the first rotational position to a second rotational position in order to best suit a particular patient.
Regarding claim 20, Goldstein in view of Woolnough discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 19 as discussed above. As discussed above with respect to claims 16-18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of fins having a different surface area in order to optimize the system to the wearer. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to decouple a first fluid resistance attachment from the attachment coupling structure and couple a second different fluid resistance attachment to the attachment coupling structure in order to provide a different water resistance that is better suited to the wearer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 6, while Madeira teaches a biasing element 53 which is a spring (fig.8B), Madeira does not disclose that the biasing element comprises a body defining a biasing surface that biases against the fluid resistance attachment, and a plurality of springs that are coupled to the body, wherein the plurality of springs are circumferentially spaced about the axis. Regarding claim 8, while Madeira teaches a receptacle 51a (fig.8B), Madeira does not disclose at least one radially inwardly extending projection that extends inwardly from the outer wall into the receptacle, wherein radially inwardly extending projections define the catches.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tanaka et al. JP 2003-250823 discloses a kit comprising a plurality of differently configured prosthetic device, wherein the devices can be attached to an attachment coupling in a plurality of positions (fig.1). Hull US 6,126,502 discloses a system for providing hydrotherapy comprising an attachment mechanism, a socket, and an angularly adjustable fluid resistance attachment (fig.10). Steele US 5,139,450 discloses a system for providing hydrotherapy comprising a fin attachable to a residual limb of a subject.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN Y WOLF whose telephone number is (571)270-3071. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-2pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Melanie Tyson can be reached at (571)272-9062. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEGAN Y WOLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774