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 claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, and 16-19 filed 11/14/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In light of the amendments to the claims, a new teaching reference has been introduced. See updated office action below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 16-17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “the finger band” in lines 19 should be recited as “the at least one finger band”.
Regarding claim 1, “the finger band” in lines 22 should be recited as “the at least one finger band”.
Regarding claim 6, “tension control members” in line 3 should be recited as “tension control member”.
Regarding claim 16, “the cord” in line 20 should be recited as “the at least one cord”.
Regarding claim 16, "the finger" in lines 22 should be recited as "the user's finger".
Regarding claim 16, “the anchor” in line 25 should be recited as “the at least one anchor”.
Regarding claim 17, “to configured to” in line 4 should be recited as “configured to”.
Regarding claim 19, "substantially aligned with a metacarpal of the user's hand" in lines 4-5 should be recited as "configured to substantially align with a metacarpal of the user's hand".
Regarding claim 19, “each vein” in line 5 should be recited as “the at least one vein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the plurality of anchors" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because this claim depends on claim 5 and “the anchors” is introduced in claim 4. Further clarification is required. For examination purposes, claim 6 is being read as being dependent on claim 4.
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: “tension control member” in claim 1.
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 § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (referred to as “Hoffman”) (US 2010/0234182 A1) in view of Koby et al. (referred to as “Koby”) (US 2005/0273030 A1) in view of Kupferman (US 7,740,561) in view of Villepigue (US 5,538,488) further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz (US 2016/0361179 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman discloses an orthotic device (600) (see Fig. 7; device 600 is an orthotic device as device 600 supports the fingers, hands, and wrist of a user via forearm support section 602 and finger sleeves 604,606,608,610,612), comprising:
a brace (602) configured to be worn on a user’s hand and wrist (see Fig. 7 and [0064]; forearm support section 602 is a brace as it is configured to be worn on a user’s hand and wrist), the brace (602) comprising:
a first portion configured to cover a top portion of the user’s hand and wrist (see Fig. 7 and [0064]; forearm support section 602 has a first portion, which is a top portion that is shown in Fig. 7 as this top portion is configured to cover a top portion of the user’s hand and wrist);
a second portion connected to the first portion configured to substantially align with the user’s forearm, the second portion configured to cover a bottom portion of the user’s hand and wrist (see Fig. 7 and [0064]; the forearm support section 602 has a portion that extends across the back of the hand between the wrist and the knuckles, and thus this bottom portion is the second portion, and when the forearm support section 602 is opened up such that straps 654,658 are no longer attached together, the second portion would be connected to the first portion aligned with the user’s forearm); and
a closure mechanism (654,658) arranged and configured to form a closure between the first portion and the second portion and configured to secure the brace (602) worn on the user’s hand and wrist (see Fig. 7 and [0064]; straps 654,658 include hook-and-loop fasteners to form a closure between the first/top portion and the second/bottom portion of the forearm support section 602 configured to secure the brace worn on the user’s hand and wrist); and
a plurality of finger extension assemblies configured to respectively correspond to the user’s fingers (see Fig. 7; each of the user’s fingers have a plurality of finger extension assemblies indicated via elements 620,622,624,626+604,606,608,610+614,616,618), each one of the plurality of finger extension assemblies further comprising:
a tensioning member (620,622,624,626) anchored on an exterior surface of the brace (602) (see Fig. 7 and [0066]; tension struts 620,622,624,626 are anchored or attached to an exterior surface of the forearm support section 602 via openings 630,632,634,636,637), the tensioning member (620,622,624,626) extending from a proximal stopper (638) to a distal stopper (642) (see Fig. 7 and [0066]; the tension struts 620,622,624,626 extend from a first bulbous end 638 which is a proximal stopper to a second bulbous end 642 which is a distal stopper);
at least one finger band (604,606,608,610) configured to be worn on a phalange of the finger (see Fig. 7 and [0064]; the finger sleeves 604,606,608,610 are each wearable on a phalange of the finger), the finger band (604,606,608,610) adapted to receive the phalange (see Fig. 7 and [0064]; the finger sleeves 604,606,608,610 are each adapted to receive the phalange) and comprising:
a connecting element (614,616,618) configured to movably connect the finger band (604,606,608,610) to the tensioning member (620,622,624,626) proximate the distal stopper (642) (see Fig. 7 and [0067]-[0068]; tension strut slides 614,616,618 are connecting elements as they are configured to movably connect the finger sleeves 604,606,608,610 to the tension struts 620,622,624,626 proximate or near the second bulbous end 642).
Hoffman is silent on a thumb support configured to receive and accommodate a portion of the user’s thumb and configured to prevent thumb flexion of the user’s thumb; a tightening element configured to fasten the at least one finger band to the phalange; and a tension control member directly attached to the tensioning member proximate the proximal stopper, the tension control member configured to apply and control a tension on the at least one finger band connected to the tensioning member, wherein in response to the applied tension the tensioning member causes the user’s finger to change from a flexion position to an extended position.
However, Koby teaches an analogous brace (2) (see Fig. 1; wrist and thumb support 2 is an analogous brace that is wearable on a user’s hand and wrist), comprising a thumb support (14) configured to receive and accommodate a portion of the user’s thumb and configured to prevent thumb flexion of the user’s thumb (see Fig. 1 and [0020]; the wrist and thumb support 2 comprises a thumb support 14, which may be detachable to the main fabric sleeve 4, that is configured to receive and accommodate a portion of the user’s thumb as seen in Fig. 1, and thumb support 14 is capable of preventing thumb flexion of the user’s thumb via the at least two semi-rigid removable battens 52, better shown in Fig. 5, also see [0027]), providing a brace that is both comfortable for a user’s thumb, while retaining a significant stiffness that will urge but not force the wearer’s thumb to a neutral position (see [0003]) to stabilize, protect, and support the thumb.
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 brace (602) in the device of Hoffman to comprise a thumb support (14) configured to receive and accommodate a portion of the user’s thumb and configured to prevent thumb flexion of the user’s thumb as taught by Koby to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides a brace that is both comfortable for a user’s thumb, while retaining a significant stiffness that will urge but not force the wearer’s thumb to a neutral position (see [0003]) to stabilize, protect, and support the thumb.
Hoffman in view of Koby discloses the invention as discussed above.
Hoffman in view of Koby is silent on a tightening element configured to fasten the at least one finger band to the phalange; and a tension control member directly attached to the tensioning member proximate the proximal stopper, the tension control member configured to apply and control a tension on the at least one finger band connected to the tensioning member, wherein in response to the applied tension the tensioning member causes the user’s finger to change from a flexion position to an extended position.
However, Kupferman teaches an analogous finger band (312) (see Fig. 8; strip 312 is an analogous finger band as strip 312 goes around a finger, as seen in Fig. 8), and a tightening element configured to fasten the at least one finger band (312) to the phalange (see Fig. 8 and Col. 8 lines 26-39; the tightening element is the end of strip 312 which Velcro material 362 which forms a tab that is pulled to adjustably secure the strip 312 around the finger of a user through the use of hook and loop, and thus fastens the strip 312 to the phalange), providing a customizable fit around the finger so that the finger bands can be as tight/loose as wanted.
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 substituted the finger bands (604,606,608,610 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby to be strips 312 of Kupferman such that there is a tightening element configured to fasten the at least one finger band to the phalange as taught by Kupferman to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides a customizable fit around the finger so that the finger bands can be as tight/loose as wanted.
Hoffman in view of Koby further in view of Kupferman discloses the invention as discussed above.
Hoffman in view of Koby further in view of Kupferman is silent on a tension control member directly attached to the tensioning member proximate the proximal stopper, the tension control member configured to apply and control a tension on the at least one finger band connected to the tensioning member, wherein in response to the applied tension the tensioning member causes the user’s finger to change from a flexion position to an extended position.
However, Villepigue teaches an analogous tensioning member (22,24,28) (see Fig. 3; tension cables 22 + spring member 24 + anchor wire 28 make up an analogous tensioning member), and a tension control member (30) attached to the tensioning member (22,24,28) (see Figs. 3-6 and Col. 3 lines 62-67 et seq. Col. 4 lines 1-21; adjustment means 30 is a tension control member as the adjustment means 30 controls the amount of tension/resistance of the tension cables 22, and as applicant defines a cord lock as “one or more components, at least some of which are moveable relative to each other for releasably clamping onto a cord to restrict movement of a cord through the cord lock,” see Pg. 13 [0046] of applicant’s specification, and thus the adjustment means 30 is interpreted as a cord lock as the anchor wire 28 is connected to adjustment knob 34 via adjustment knob axle 36 and thus when knob 34 is rotated, the tension in the wire 28,cable22, and spring members24 is effected, and to lock the position of the anchor wire 28, spring-loaded detent ball 40 is mounted within a cylindrical bore of the adjustment knob 34 and thus when the spring-loaded detent ball 40 engages with detent notches 38, the adjustment knob 34 and axle 36 are no longer able to move, or are locked in place, and thus the spring-loaded detent ball 40 indirectly clamps onto the anchor wire 28 to restrict movement of the anchor wire 28 and the adjustment means 30 is attached to tension cables 22+spring member 24+anchor wire 28, as seen in Fig. 3), the tension control member (30) configured to apply and control a tension on the at least one finger band (18) connected to the tensioning member (30), wherein in response to the applied tension the tensioning member (30) causes the user’s finger to change from a flexion position to an extended position (see Figs. 3-6 and Col. 3 lines 62-37 et seq. Col. 4 lines 1-21; the adjustment means 30 is configured to apply and control a tension on the digit cups 18 which are connected to the tension cables 22+spring member 24+anchor wire 28 and thus in response to the applied tension, the adjustment means 30 can cause the finger to change from a flexion position to an extended position), providing an adjustment mechanism that allows a user to easily change the tension in the tensioning member to better suit their needs.
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 provided the proximal ends of the tensioning member (620,622,624,626 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby further in view of Kupferman with a tension control member (30) + anchor wire 28 attached to the tensioning member, the tension control member (30) configured to apply and control a tension on the at least one finger band connected to the tensioning member, wherein in response to the applied tension the tensioning member causes the user’s finger to change from a flexion position to an extended position as taught by Villepigue to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides an adjustment mechanism that allows a user to easily change the tension in the tensioning member to better suit their needs. Therefore, the combination of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman further in view of Villepigue results in the tension control member (30 of Villepigue) attached to the tensioning member (620,622,624,626 of Hoffman) proximate the proximal stopper (638 of Hoffman) (as previously modified above, the adjustment means 30 of Villepigue is provided proximate or near the first bulbous end 638 of Hoffman as the adjustment means 30 of Villepigue is provided at the proximal ends of the tensioning members).
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman further in view of Villepigue discloses the invention as discussed above.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman further in view of Villepigue is silent on the tension control member being directly attached to the tensioning member.
However, Mateus Dias Quinaz teaches an analogous tensioning member (102) (see Fig. 1 and [0057], [0107]; artificial tendons 102 are flexible and resistant wires), and an analogous tension control member (104) directly attached to the tensioning member (102) (see Fig. 1 and [0057], [0059], [0108] which discusses how the artificial tendons 102 are directly connected or attached to the tensioning system 104, as seen in Fig. 1, which is an analogous tensioning system as the tensioning system locks the artificial tendons or wires, see [0110]-[0113]), providing a more direct adjustment mechanism for more accurate tension to be applied to the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to have modified the tension control member (30 of Villepigue) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman further in view of Villepigue to be directly attached to the tensioning member as taught by Mateus Dias Quinaz to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides a more direct adjustment mechanism for more accurate tension to be applied to the user.
Regarding claim 7, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further discloses wherein the closure mechanism (654,658 of Hoffman) comprises one or more releasable fasteners (see Fig. 7 of Hoffman and [0064] of Hoffman; the straps 654,658 of Hoffman include hook and loop fasteners, and thus are releasable fasteners).
Regarding claim 8, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz discloses the invention as discussed in claim 7. Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further discloses wherein each of the releasable fasteners comprises a mated pair of hook and loop strips (see Fig. 7 of Hoffman and [0064] of Hoffman; the straps 654,658 of Hoffman each include hook and loop fasteners, and thus strap 654 of Hoffman comprises a mated pair of hook and loop strips, and strap 658 of Hoffman comprises a mated pair of hook and loop strips).
Regarding claim 13, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further discloses wherein the tensioning member (620,622,624,626 of Hoffman) is a cord (see Fig. 7 of Hoffman and [0066] of Hoffman; tension struts 620,622,624,626 of Hoffman may be formed from a mixture of filaments or fibers, and thus is interpreted as cords, as applicant defines a cord in the specification as being comprised of multiple filaments or a monofilament, see Pg. 11 [0040] of applicant’s specification).
Regarding claim 14, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz discloses the invention as discussed in claim 13. Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further discloses wherein the tension control member (30 of Villepigue) is a cord lock (see Figs. 3-6 of Villepigue; as previously modified above, the adjustment means 30 of Villepigue is the tension control member, and is interpreted as a cord lock, as applicant defines a cord lock as “one or more components, at least some of which are moveable relative to each other for releasably clamping onto a cord to restrict movement of a cord through the cord lock,” see Pg. 13 [0046] of applicant’s specification, and thus the adjustment means 30 of Villepigue is interpreted as a cord lock as the anchor wire 28 of Villepigue is connected to adjustment knob 34 of Villepigue via adjustment knob axle 36 of Villepigue and thus when knob 34 of Villepigue is rotated, the tension in the wire 28,cable22, and spring members24 of Villepigue is effected, and to lock the position of the anchor wire 28 of Villepigue, spring-loaded detent ball 40 of Villepigue is mounted within a cylindrical bore of the adjustment knob 34 of Villepigue and thus when the spring-loaded detent ball 40 of Villepigue engages with detent notches 38 of Villepigue, the adjustment knob 34 and axle 36 of Villepigue are no longer able to move, or are locked in place, and thus the spring-loaded detent ball 40 of Villepigue indirectly clamps onto the anchor wire 28 of Villepigue to restrict movement of the anchor wire 28 of Villepigue).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Kilbey (US 9,463,109 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz is silent on a semi-rigid and bendable support pad removably attached to an interior surface of the second portion, the support pad arranged and configured to cover the bottom portion of the user’s wrist and configured to support the user’s wrist at a desired angle between the user’s hand and forearm.
However, Kilbey teaches an analogous brace (10) with an analogous first portion (18) and an analogous second portion (16) (see Fig. 1; wrist splint 10 is an analogous brace that is wearable on a user’s hand and wrist, and the wrist splint 10 has a top panel 18 which is a first portion as it is arranged to cover a top portion and bottom panel 16 is a second portion as it is arranged to cover a bottom portion), a semi-rigid and bendable support pad (46) removably attached to an interior surface of the second portion (16) (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 29-34; removable stay 46 is a semi-rigid stay, and thus is bendable to a certain degree, and is a support pad as it is a thin mat, and is removably attached to an interior surface of the bottom panel 16 via pocket 44), the support pad (46) arranged and configured to cover the bottom portion of the user’s wrist and configured to support the user’s wrist at a desired angle between the user’s hand and forearm (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 29-34; the removable stay 46 is arranged and configured to cover the bottom portion of the user’s wrist as it is arranged in the bottom panel 16, and supports the user’s wrist at a desired angle between the user’s hand and forearm), providing to stabilize the user’s anatomy in a desired orientation (see Col. 3 lines 29-31).
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 provided an interior surface of the second portion of the brace (602 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz with a semi-rigid and bendable support pad (46) removably attached to an interior surface of the second portion, arranged and configured to cover the bottom portion of the user’s wrist and configured to support the user’s wrist at a desired angle between the user’s hand and forearm as taught by Kilbey to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides to stabilize the user’s anatomy in a desired orientation (see Col. 3 lines 29-31).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Kilbey further in view of Koby.
Regarding claim 3, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed in claim 2.
Kilbey further teaches wherein the analogous brace (10) further comprises a pouch (44) formed and located between the exterior surface and the interior surface of the second portion (16) (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 29-34; pocket 44 is a pouch that is formed and located between an exterior surface and interior surface of the bottom panel 16, as the pocket 44 is shown in Fig. 1 to be on an interior side of the splint 10), the pouch (44) extending from an open end at the interior surface and configured to receive and accommodate the support pad (46) inserted thereto (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 29-34; the pocket 44 extends from an open end at the interior surface, which is shown in Fig. 1 as the removable stay 46 peeks out from pocket 44, and the pocket 44 receives and accommodates the removable stay 46 that is inserted into the pocket 44), providing an easy way to remove/insert the support pad to stabilize the user’s anatomy in a desired orientation (see Col. 3 lines 29-31).
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 provided the brace (602 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Kilbey with a pouch (44) formed and located between the exterior surface and the interior surface of the second portion, the pouch extending from an open end at the interior surface and configured to receive the accommodate the support pad inserted thereto as further taught by Kilbey to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides an easy way to remove/insert the support pad to stabilize the user’s anatomy in a desired orientation (see Col. 3 lines 29-31).
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed above.
Koby further teaches an analogous pouch (40) and an analogous support pad (26) (see Figs. 1-4; pocket 40 is an analogous pouch that accommodates and receives an analogous semi-rigid and bendable support pad which is batten 26 as batten 26 may be semi-rigid and thus has a degree of flexibility and thus is bendable, see [0021]), and the pouch (40) extending from an open end (44) to a closed end (see Fig. 4 and [0021]; the pocket 40 extends from opening 44, to removably receive batten 26, to a closed end as best shown in Fig. 4), providing a pocket that properly holds the support pad so that it does not fall out when in use.
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 pouch (44 of Kilbey) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Kilbey to extend from an open end to a closed end as further taught by Koby to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides a pocket that properly holds the support pad so that it does not fall out when in use.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Cofer et al. (referred to as “Cofer”) (US 11,179,263 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz is silent on wherein the brace further comprises a plurality of anchors corresponding to the plurality of finger extension assemblies, wherein each anchor is mounted on the exterior surface of the first portion, and the tensioning member of each finger extension assembly is anchored on the brace through the corresponding anchor.
However, Cofer teaches an analogous tensioning member (204) (see Fig. 2; wires 204 are analogous tensioning members as the wires 204 are tight-fitted to the glove and provide resistance/tension to the hand and finger movements), and wherein the brace (200) further comprises a plurality of anchors (206) corresponding to the plurality of the finger extension assemblies (see Fig. 2; medical device 200 comprises holders 206 which are anchors as the holders 206 anchor/hold down wires 204 and the holders 206 receive the corresponding wire 204 of the finger extension assemblies), wherein each anchor (206) is mounted on the exterior surface of the first portion, and the tensioning member (204) of each finger extension assembly is anchored on the brace (200) through the corresponding anchor (206) (see Fig. 2; the holders 206 are mounted on the exterior surface of the first portion of medical device 200 which is the top portion of the medical device 200 that is shown, and the wires 204 are anchored on the medical device 200 through the corresponding holder 206), providing to guide and hold down the tensioning members to the brace such that the tensioning members maintain their tension and position.
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 provided the exterior surface of the first portion of the brace (602 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz with a plurality of anchors (206) corresponding to the plurality of finger extension assemblies and the tensioning member is anchored on the brace through the corresponding anchor as taught by Cofer to have provided an improved orthotic brace that provides to guide and hold down the tensioning members to the brace such that the tensioning members maintain their tension and position.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Cofer further in view of Waller et al. (referred to as “Waller”) (US 5,527,244).
Regarding claim 5, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz is silent on wherein the brace further comprises a plurality of veins configured to respectively correspond to the user’s fingers, wherein each vein is located between the exterior surface and an interior surface of the brace and extending from a first opening to a second opening in a direction configured to substantially align with a metacarpal of the user’s hand, and wherein a portion of the tensioning member extends through the corresponding vein.
However, Cofer teaches an analogous tensioning member (204) (see Fig. 2; wires 204 are analogous tensioning members as the wires 204 are tight-fitted to the glove and provide resistance/tension to the hand and finger movements), and wherein the brace (200) further comprises a plurality of veins (206) configured to respectively correspond to the user’s fingers (see Fig. 2; the medical device 200 comprises holders 206 which are interpreted as veins as each of the holders 206 are configured to respectively correspond to the user’s fingers), wherein each vein (206) extending from a first opening to a second opening in a direction configured to substantially align with a metacarpal of the user’s hand (see Fig. 2; each holder 206 extends from a first opening to a second opening, as the wires 204 go through the holders 206, in a direction aligned with a metacarpal of the user’s hand as the holders 206 are parallel to the plane of the hand), and wherein a portion of the tensioning member (204) extends through the corresponding vein (206) (see Fig. 2; a portion of the wires 204 extends through the corresponding holders 206), providing to guide and hold down the tensioning members to the brace such that the tensioning members maintain their tension and position.
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 provided the brace (602 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz with a plurality of veins configured to respectively correspond to the user’s fingers, each vein extending from a first opening to a second opening in a direction configured to substantially align with a metacarpal of the user’s hand, and wherein a portion of the tensioning member extends through the corresponding vein as taught by Cofer to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides to guide and hold down the tensioning members to the brace such that the tensioning members maintain their tension and position.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Cofer discloses the invention as discussed above.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Cofer is silent on wherein each vein is located between the exterior surface and an interior surface of the brace.
However, Waller teaches an analogous vein (21-25) (see Fig. 1; extension support members 21-25 are interpreted as veins as the extension support members 21-25 resemble veins), and wherein each vein (21-25) is located between the exterior surface and an interior surface of the brace (2) (see Figs. 1-2; the extension support members 21-25 are each located between the exterior surface and interior surface both labeled as element 2 in Fig. 2 as Fig. 2 shows the cross section of the device, and extension support member 22 is embedded along the top side of respective fingers 11-25, and thus the extension support member 22 is in between the exterior and interior surface as shown in Fig. 2), providing a more aesthetically pleasing brace and provides better security of the tensioning members.
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 each of the veins (206 of Cofer) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Cofer to be located between the exterior surface and an interior surface as taught by Waller to have provided an improved orthotic device that is more aesthetically pleasing and provides better security of the tensioning members.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Morgalla (EP 4461273 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Cofer further in view of Waller discloses the invention as discussed in claim 4.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Cofer further in view of Waller is silent on wherein the brace further comprises a flap attached to the brace, the flap configured to removably cover the plurality of anchors and tension control members.
However, Morgalla teaches an analogous brace (1) (see Fig. 10A-10B; hand orthosis 1 is an analogous brace), wherein the brace (1) further comprises a flap (400) attached to the brace (1) (see Fig. 10A-10B and [0221]-[0222]; cover portion 400 is a flap as when cover portion 400 is in an open position like in Fig. 10B, it is a hanging piece attached at one side, and the cover portion 400 is attached to hand orthosis 1), the flap (400) configured to removably cover the tension control members (210) (see Figs. 10A-10B and [0221]-[0222]; the cover portion 400 removably covers the sliding mechanism 200 with the sliding element 210), providing a flap that is more aesthetically pleasing while also providing better security to the brace.
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 brace (602 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Cofer further in view of Waller to comprise a flap (400) attached to the brace, the flap configured to removably cover the tension control member as taught by Morgalla to have provided an improved orthotic device that is more aesthetically pleasing while also providing better security to the brace. Therefore, the combination of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Cofer in view of Waller further in view of Morgalla results in the flap (400 of Morgalla) configured to removably cover the anchors (206 of Cofer) (as previously modified above, the cover portion 400 of Morgalla is configured to removably cover the anchors 206 of Cofer and the tension control member 30 of Villepigue).
Regarding claim 15, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz is silent on a fabric cover configured to removably cover the exterior surface of the brace.
However, Morgalla teaches an analogous brace (1) (see Fig. 10A-10B; hand orthosis 1 is an analogous brace), and a fabric cover (400) configured to removably cover the exterior surface of the brace (1) (see Figs. 10A-10B and [0221]-[0222]; the cover portion 400 is a fabric cover as the cover portion 400 may be made of multiple layers including a layer made of nylon woven fabric, see [0095]-[0096], and the cover portion 400 removably covers the exterior surface of the hand orthosis 1), providing a cover that is more aesthetically pleasing while also providing better security to the brace as the cover protects the exterior surface elements.
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 provided the brace (602 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz with a fabric cover (400) configured to removably cover the exterior surface of the brace as taught by Morgalla to have provided an improved orthotic device that is more aesthetically pleasing while also providing better security to the brace as the cover protects the exterior surface elements.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Wheeler (US 2023/0390093 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz is silent on wherein each finger extension assembly comprises two finger bands configured to be respectively worn on an intermediate phalange and a proximal phalange of the user’s fingers.
However, Wheeler teaches an analogous finger band (40,50), wherein each finger extension assembly comprises two finger bands (40,50) configured to be respectively worn on an intermediate phalange and a proximal phalange of the user’s fingers (see Figs. 1-3; fingertip members 40 + ring members 50 are each finger bands as they are both strips of material that go around a user’s finger, and thus are two finger bands, and fingertip member 40 is configured to be worn on an intermediate phalange, depending on a user’s anatomy, and ring members 50 are configured to be worn on a proximal phalange of the user’s fingers depending on a user’s anatomy), providing a more secure and stable attachment to the fingers.
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 at least one finger band (604,606,608,610 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz to be two finger bands (40,50) respectively wearable on an intermediate phalange and a proximal phalange of the user’s fingers as taught by Wheeler to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides a more secure and stable attachment to the fingers.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Brook et al. (referred to as “Brook”) (US 4,875,469) further in view of Farrell et al. (referred to as “Farrell”) (US 7,601,130 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz is silent on wherein each finger band further comprises a rigid portion adapted to cover a top portion of the phalange and a flexible portion adapted to cover a bottom portion of the phalange, wherein the rigid portion and the flexible portion form a closed loop, and the connecting element is located on the rigid portion.
However, Brook teaches an analogous finger band (46) (see Figs. 1, 7, and 9), wherein each finger band (46) further comprises a portion (50) adapted to cover a top portion of the phalange (see Figs. 7 and 9; finger attachment device 46 comprises base 50 which is adapted to cover a top portion of the phalange) and a flexible portion (58) adapted to cover a bottom portion of the phalange (see Fig. 9; the finger attachment device 46 comprises an elastic band 58, and thus is a flexible portion, that is adapted to cover a bottom portion of the phalange), wherein the portion (50) and the flexible portion (58) form a closed loop (see Fig. 9; the base 50 and elastic band 58 form a closed loop/circle), and the connecting element (48+49) is located on the portion (50) (see Fig. 9; the arm 48+opening 49 make up a connecting element as the arm 48+opening 49 connects wires 36, like in Fig. 1, and the arm 48+opening 49 are located on base 50), providing a finger attachment device that is both comfortable and protective for a user.
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 each of the finger bands (604,606,608,610 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz to comprise a portion adapted to cover a top portion of the phalange and a flexible portion to cover a bottom portion of the phalange, wherein the portion and the flexible portion form a closed loop, and the connecting element is located on the portion as taught by Brook to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides a finger attachment device that is both comfortable and protective for a user.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Brook discloses the invention as discussed above.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Brook is silent on the portion being a rigid portion.
However, Farrell teaches an analogous finger band (160) adapted to cover a top portion (see Figs. 1-2 and 4; the digit splint 160 shown in Fig. 4 is an exemplary digit cap of fingertip cap 18 shown in Fig. 1, and digit splint 160 is adapted to cover a top portion of the phalange, as best seen in Fig. 2), and wherein each finger band further comprises a rigid portion (see Figs. 1-2 and 4, and Col. 9 lines 14-15; the digit splint 160 has a rigid frame and thus is a rigid portion), providing to properly protect a user’s fingers.
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 portion (50 of Brook) adapted to cover a top portion of the phalange in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Brook to be rigid as taught by Farrell to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides to properly protect a user’s fingers.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Brook in view of Farrell further in view of Hegland (US 2012/0289876 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Brook further in view of Farrell discloses the invention as discussed in claim 10.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Brook further in view of Farrell is silent on wherein the flexible portion comprises a foam strip tied to the rigid portion.
However, Hegland teaches an analogous flexible portion (20) and wherein the flexible portion (24) comprises a foam strip tied to the rigid portion (12,14,16) (see Figs. 1-3 and [0037]; support 20 is made up of spring 22 and foam cushion 24, and thus makes up a flexible portion, and support 20 comprises foam cushion 24 in the shape of a strip tied or fastened to loops 12,14,16, which may be rigid, see [0044]), providing a more comfortable material for a user.
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 flexible portion (58 of Brook) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Brook further in view of Farrell to be a foam strip tied to the rigid portion as taught by Hegland to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides a more comfortable material for a user.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Fried (US 10,603,202 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz is silent on wherein the brace is made of neoprene fabric.
However, Fried teaches an analogous brace (10) (see Figs. 1-2; splint 10 is an analogous brace), wherein the brace is made of neoprene fabric (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 11 lines 42-46; splint 10 includes a main body 20, which may be formed of neoprene fabric), providing a material that is both comfortable and water resistant.
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 brace (602 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz to be made of a neoprene fabric as taught by Fried to have provided an improved orthotic device that is both comfortable and water resistant.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Jurkat (DE102015113827 A1) (translation provided).
Regarding claim 16, Hoffman discloses a kit for an orthotic device (600) (see Fig. 7; device 600 is an orthotic device as device 600 supports the fingers, hands, and wrist of a user via forearm support section 602 and finger sleeves 604,606,608,610,612, and forms a kit), the kit comprising:
a brace (602) configured to be worn on a user’s hand and wrist (see Fig. 7 and [0064]; forearm support section 602 is a brace as it is configured to be worn a user’s hand and wrist), the brace (602) comprising:
a first portion configured to cover a top portion of the user’s hand and wrist (see Fig. 7 and [0064]; forearm support section 602 has a first portion, which is a top portion that is shown in Fig. 7 as this top portion is configured to cover a top portion of the user’s hand and wrist);
a second portion connected to the first portion along a center line configured to substantially align with the user’s forearm, the second portion configured to cover a bottom portion of the user’s hand and wrist (see Fig. 7 and [0064]; the forearm support section 602 has a portion that extends across the back of the hand between the wrist and the knuckles, and thus this bottom portion is the second portion, and when the forearm support section 602 is opened up such that straps 654,658 are no longer attached together, the second portion would be connected to the first portion along a center line aligned with the user’s forearm);
a closure mechanism (654,658) arranged and configured to form a closure between the first portion and the second portion and configured to secure the brace (602) worn on the user’s hand and wrist (see Fig. 7 and [0064]; straps 654,658 include hook-and-loop fasteners to form a closure between the first/top portion and the second/bottom portion of the forearm support section 602 is configured to secure the brace worn on the user’s hand and wrist); and
at least one cord (620,622,624,626) extending from a proximal end and a distal end (see Fig. 7 and [0066]; tension struts 620,622,624,626 are cords as they are made up of filaments, and each extend from a proximal end, which is the end that comprises the first bulbous end 638, to a distal end, which is the end that comprises the second bulbous end 642);
at least one finger band (604,606,608,610) configured to be worn on a phalange of the finger (see Fig. 7 and [0064]; the finger sleeves 604,606,608,610 are each configured to be worn on a phalange of the finger), the at least one finger band (604,606,608,610) adapted to receive the phalange (see Fig. 7 and [0064]; the finger sleeves 604,606,608,610 are each adapted to receive the phalange) and comprising:
a connecting element (614,616,618) removably connectable to the at least one cord (620,622,624,626) and movable along the at least one cord (620,622,624,626) (see Fig. 7 and [0067]-[0068]; tension strut slides 614,616,618 are connecting elements as they are removably connectable to the tension struts 620,622,624,626 and is movable along the tension struts 620,622,624,626 as the tension struts slide along the tension strut slides 614,616,618).
Hoffman is silent on a thumb support configured to receive and accommodate a portion of the user’s thumb and configured to prevent thumb flexion of the user’s thumb; a tightening element configured to fasten the at least one finger band to the phalange; and a cord lock directly attachable to the cord proximate to the proximal end, the cord lock configured to apply and control a tension on the at least one finger band connected to the cord lock and configured to cause a change of the finger from a flexion position to an extended position; and at least one anchor mountable on an exterior surface of the first portion of the brace, wherein the anchor is configured to anchor the cord onto the brace.
However, Koby teaches an analogous brace (2) (see Fig. 1; wrist and thumb support 2 is an analogous brace that is wearable on a user’s hand and wrist), comprising a thumb support (14) configured to receive and accommodate a portion of the user’s thumb and configured to prevent thumb flexion of the user’s thumb (see Fig. 1 and [0020]; the wrist and thumb support 2 comprises a thumb support 14, which may be detachable to the main fabric sleeve 4, that is configured to receive and accommodate a portion of the user’s thumb as seen in Fig. 1, and thumb support 14 is capable of preventing thumb flexion of the user’s thumb via the at least two semi-rigid removable battens 52, better shown in Fig. 5, also see [0027]), providing a brace that is both comfortable for a user’s thumb, while retaining a significant stiffness that will urge but not force the wearer’s thumb to a neutral position (see [0003]) to stabilize, protect, and support the thumb.
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 brace (602) in the device of Hoffman to comprise a thumb support (14) configured to receive and accommodate a portion of the user’s thumb and configured to prevent thumb flexion of the user’s thumb as taught by Koby to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides a brace that is both comfortable for a user’s thumb, while retaining a significant stiffness that will urge but not force the wearer’s thumb to a neutral position (see [0003]) to stabilize, protect, and support the thumb.
Therefore, Hoffman in view of Koby discloses the invention as discussed above.
Hoffman in view of Koby is silent on a tightening element configured to fasten the at least one finger band to the phalange; and a cord lock directly attachable to the cord proximate to the proximal end, the cord lock configured to apply and control a tension on the at least one finger band connected to the cord lock and configured to cause a change of the finger from a flexion position to an extended position; and at least one anchor mountable on an exterior surface of the first portion of the brace, wherein the anchor is configured to anchor the cord onto the brace.
However, Kupferman teaches an analogous finger band (312) (see Fig. 8; strip 312 is an analogous finger band as strip 312 goes around a finger, as seen in Fig. 8), and a tightening element configured to fasten the at least one finger band (312) to the phalange (see Fig. 8; the tightening element is the end of strip 312 which Velcro material 362 which forms a tab that is pulled to adjustably secure the strip 312 around the finger of a user through the use of hook and loop, and thus fastens the strip 312 to the phalange), providing a customizable fit around the finger so that the finger bands can be as tight/loose as wanted.
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 substituted the finger bands (604,606,608,610 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby to be strips 312 of Kupferman such that there is a tightening element configured to fasten the at least one finger band to the phalange as taught by Kupferman to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides a customizable fit around the finger so that the finger bands can be as tight/loose as wanted.
Hoffman in view of Koby further in view of Kupferman discloses the invention as discussed above.
Hoffman in view of Koby further in view of Kupferman is silent on a cord lock directly attachable to the cord proximate to the proximal end, the cord lock configured to apply and control a tension on the at least one finger band connected to the cord lock and cause a change of the finger from a flexion position to an extended position; and at least one anchor mountable on an exterior surface of the first portion of the brace, wherein the anchor is configured to anchor the cord onto the brace.
However, Villepigue teaches an analogous cord (22,24,28) (see Fig. 3; tension cables 22 + spring member 24 + anchor wire 28 make up analogous cords), and a cord lock (30) attachable to the cord (22,24,28) proximate to the proximal end (see Figs. 3-6 and Col. 3 lines 62-67 et seq. Col. 4 lines 1-21; adjustment means 30 is interpreted as a cord lock, as applicant defines a cord lock as “one or more components, at least some of which are moveable relative to each other for releasably clamping onto a cord to restrict movement of a cord through the cord lock,” see Pg. 13 [0046] of applicant’s specification, and thus the adjustment means 30 is interpreted as a cord lock as the anchor wire 28 is connected to adjustment knob 34 via adjustment knob axle 36 and thus when knob 34 is rotated, the tension in the wire 28,cable22, and spring members24 is effected, and to lock the position of the anchor wire 28, spring-loaded detent ball 40 is mounted within a cylindrical bore of the adjustment knob 34 and thus when the spring-loaded detent ball 40 engages with detent notches 38, the adjustment knob 34 and axle 36 are no longer able to move, or are locked in place, and thus the spring-loaded detent ball 40 indirectly clamps onto the anchor wire 28 to restrict movement of the anchor wire 28, and the adjustment means 30 is attachable to cables 22+spring member 24+anchor wire 28 as seen in Fig. 3 proximate or near the proximal end, which is the end closest to the user’s body), the cord lock (30) configured to apply and control a tension on the at least one finger band (18) connected to the cord lock (30) and cause a change of the finger from a flexion position to an extended position (see Figs. 3-6 and Col. 3 lines 62-37 et seq. Col. 4 lines 1-21; the adjustment means 30 is configured to apply and control a tension on the digit cups 18 which are connected to the adjustment means 30 via tension cables 22+spring member 24+anchor wire 28 and thus can cause the finger to change from a flexion position to an extended position), providing an adjustment mechanism that allows a user to easily change the tension in the tensioning member to better suit their needs.
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 provided the proximal ends of the cord (620,622,624,626 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby further in view of Kupferman with a cord lock (30) + anchor wire 28 attached to the tensioning member, the cord lock (30) configured to apply and control a tension on the finger band connected to the cord lock to cause the finger to change from a flexion position to an extended position as taught by Villepigue to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides an adjustment mechanism that allows a user to easily change the tension in the tensioning member to better suit their needs.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman further in view of Villepigue discloses the invention as discussed above.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman further in view of Villepigue is silent on the cord lock being directly attachable to the cord, and at least one anchor mountable on an exterior surface of the first portion of the brace, wherein the anchor is configured to anchor the cord onto the brace.
However, Mateus Dias Quinaz teaches an analogous cord (102) (see Fig. 1 and [0057], [0107]; artificial tendons 102 are flexible resistant wires or cords), and the analogous cord lock (104) is directly attachable to the cord (102) (see Fig. 1 and [0057], [0059], [0108] which discusses how the artificial tendons 102 are directly attached to the tensioning system 104, as seen in Fig. 1, which is a cord lock as the tensioning system 104 is configured to lock the artificial tendons or cord, see [0110]-[0113]), providing a more direct adjustment mechanism for more accurate tension to be applied to the user.
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 cord lock (30 of Villepigue) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman further in view of Villepigue to be directly attachable to the cord as taught by Mateus Dias Quinaz to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides a more direct adjustment mechanism for more accurate tension to be applied to the user.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz discloses the invention as discussed above.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz is silent on at least one anchor mountable on an exterior surface of the first portion of the brace, wherein the anchor is configured to anchor the cord onto the brace.
However, Jurkat teaches an analogous cord (27) (see Fig. 3; cables 27 are analogous cords), and at least one anchor (17) mountable on an exterior surface of the first portion of the brace (1) (see Figs. 2-3 and [0039]-[0040] of Jurkat translation; guides 17, only pointed out in Fig. 2 although are also shown in Fig. 3, are anchors as they hold down/anchor the cables 27, and guides 17 are mountable on an exterior surface of the first portion of orthosis 1, as Fig. 3 shows the guides 17 mounted onto an exterior surface of the first portion or top portion of orthosis 1), wherein the anchor (17) is configured to anchor the cord (27) onto the brace (1) (see Figs. 2-3 and [0039]-[0040] of Jurkat Translation; the guides 17 anchor or hold down the cables 27 onto the orthosis 1), providing to guide and hold down the tensioning members to the brace such that the tensioning members maintain their tension and position.
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 provided the exterior surface of the first portion of the brace (602 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue further in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz with at least one anchor (17) configured to anchor the cord onto the brace as taught by Jurkat to have provided an improved orthotic brace that provides to guide and hold down the tensioning members to the brace such that the tensioning members maintain their tension and position.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Jurkat further in view of Kilbey.
Regarding claim 17, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Jurkat discloses the invention as discussed in claim 16.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Jurkat is silent on a semi-rigid and bendable support pad removably attached to an interior surface of the second portion, the support pad arranged and configured to cover the bottom portion of the user’s wrist and configured to support the user’s wrist at a desired angle between the user’s hand and forearm.
However, Kilbey teaches an analogous brace (10) with an analogous first portion (18) and an analogous second portion (16) (see Fig. 1; wrist splint 10 is an analogous brace that is wearable on a user’s hand and wrist, and the wrist splint 10 has a top panel 18 which is a first portion as it is arranged to cover a top portion and bottom panel 16 is a second portion as it is arranged to cover a bottom portion), a semi-rigid and bendable support pad (46) removably attached to an interior surface of the second portion (16) (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 29-34; removable stay 46 is a semi-rigid stay, and thus is bendable to a certain degree, and is a support pad as it is a thin mat, and is removably attached to an interior surface of the bottom panel 16 via pocket 44), the support pad (46) arranged and configured to cover the bottom portion of the user’s wrist and configured to support the user’s wrist at a desired angle between the user’s hand and forearm (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 29-34; the removable stay 46 is arranged and configured to cover the bottom portion of the user’s wrist as it is arranged in the bottom panel 16, and supports the user’s wrist at a desired angle between the user’s hand and forearm), providing to stabilize the user’s anatomy in a desired orientation (see Col. 3 lines 29-31).
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 provided an interior surface of the second portion of the brace (602 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Jurkat with a semi-rigid and bendable support pad (46) removably attached to an interior surface of the second portion, arranged and configured to cover the bottom portion of the user’s wrist and configured to support the user’s wrist at a desired angle between the user’s hand and forearm as taught by Kilbey to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides to stabilize the user’s anatomy in a desired orientation (see Col. 3 lines 29-31).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Jurkat in view of Kilbey further in view of Koby.
Regarding claim 18, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Jurkat further in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed in claim 17.
Kilbey further teaches wherein the analogous brace (10) further comprises a pouch (44) formed and located between the exterior surface and the interior surface of the second portion (16) (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 29-34; pocket 44 is a pouch that is formed and located between an exterior surface and interior surface of the bottom panel 16, as the pocket 44 is shown in Fig. 1 to be on an interior side of the splint 10), the pouch (44) extending from an open end at the interior surface and configured to receive and accommodate the support pad (46) inserted thereto (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 29-34; the pocket 44 extends from an open end at the interior surface, which is shown in Fig. 1 as the removable stay 46 peeks out from pocket 44, and the pocket 44 receives and accommodates the removable stay 46 that is inserted into the pocket 44), providing an easy way to remove/insert the support pad to stabilize the user’s anatomy in a desired orientation (see Col. 3 lines 29-31).
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 provided the brace (602 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Jurkat further in view of Kilbey with a pouch (44) formed and located between the exterior surface and the interior surface of the second portion, the pouch extending from an open end at the interior surface and configured to receive and accommodate the support pad inserted thereto as further taught by Kilbey to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides an easy way to remove/insert the support pad to stabilize the user’s anatomy in a desired orientation (see Col. 3 lines 29-31).
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Jurkat further in view of Kilbey discloses the invention as discussed above.
Koby further teaches an analogous pouch (40) and an analogous support pad (26) (see Figs. 1-4; pocket 40 is an analogous pouch that accommodates and receives an analogous semi-rigid and bendable support pad which is batten 26 as batten 26 may be semi-rigid and thus has a degree of flexibility and thus is bendable, see [0021]), and the pouch (40) extending from an open end (44) to a closed end (see Fig. 4 and [0021]; the pocket 40 extends from opening 44, to removably receive batten 26, to a closed end as best shown in Fig. 4), providing a pocket that properly holds the support pad so that it does not fall out when in use.
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 pouch (44 of Kilbey) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Jurkat further in view of Kilbey to extend from an open end to a closed end as further taught by Koby to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides a pocket that properly holds the support pad so that it does not fall out when in use.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Jurkat in view of Cofer further in view of Waller.
Regarding claim 19, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Jurkat discloses the invention as discussed in claim 17.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Jurkat is silent on wherein the brace further comprises at least one vein configured to respectively correspond to the user’s fingers, wherein the at least one vein is located between the exterior surface and an interior surface of the brace and extending from a first opening to a second opening in a direction substantially aligned with a metacarpal of the user’s hand, and wherein each vein is configured to accommodate a portion of the at least one cord extending through the vein.
However, Cofer teaches an analogous cord (204) (see Fig. 2; wires 204 are analogous cords), and wherein the brace (200) further comprises at least one vein (206) configured ot respectively correspond to the user’s fingers (see Fig. 2; the medical device 200 comprises holders 206 which are interpreted as veins as each of the holders 206 are configured to respectively correspond to the user’s fingers), wherein the at least one vein (206) is extending from a first opening to a second opening in a direction substantially aligned with a metacarpal of the user’s hand (see Fig. 2; each holder 206 extends from a first opening to a second opening, as the wires 204 go through the holders 206, in a direction aligned with a metacarpal of the user’s hand as the holders 206 are parallel to the plane of the hand), and wherein each vein (206) is configured to accommodate a portion of the at least one cord (204) extending through the vein (206) (see Fig. 2; a portion of the wires 204 extends through the corresponding holders 206 and thus holders 206 accommodates a portion of the wires 204), providing to guide and hold down the tensioning members to the brace such that the tensioning members maintain their tension and position.
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 provided the brace (602 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Jurkat with at least one vein (206) configured to respectively correspond to the user’s fingers, the at least one vein extending from a first opening to a second opening in a direction substantially aligned with a metacarpal of the user’s hand, and wherein each vein is configured to accommodate a portion of the at least one cord extending through the vein as taught by Cofer to have provided an improved orthotic device that provides to guide and hold down the tensioning members to the brace such that the tensioning members maintain their tension and position.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Jurkat further in view of Cofer discloses the invention as discussed above.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Jurkat further in view of Cofer is silent on wherein the at least one vein is located between the exterior surface and an interior surface of the brace.
However, Waller teaches an analogous vein (21-25) (see Fig. 1; extension support members 21-25 are interpreted as veins as the extension support members 21-25 resemble veins), and wherein the at least one vein (21-25) is located between the exterior surface and an interior surface of the brace (2) (see Figs. 1-2; the extension support members 21-25 are each located between the exterior surface and interior surface both labeled as element 2 in Fig. 2 as Fig. 2 shows the cross section of the device, and extension support member 22 is embedded along the top side of respective fingers 11-25, and thus the extension support member 22 is in between the exterior and interior surface as shown in Fig. 2), providing a more aesthetically pleasing brace and provides better security of the tensioning members.
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 each of the veins (206 of Cofer) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Jurkat further in view of Cofer to be located between the exterior surface and an interior surface as taught by Waller to have provided an improved orthotic device that is more aesthetically pleasing and provides better security of the tensioning members.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz in view of Jurkat further in view of Morgalla.
Regarding claim 20, Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Jurkat discloses the invention as discussed in claim 16.
Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Jurkat is silent on wherein the brace further comprises a flap attached to the brace, the flap configured to removably cover the exterior surface of the first portion.
However, Morgalla teaches an analogous brace (1) (see Fig. 10A-10B; hand orthosis 1 is an analogous brace), and wherein the brace (1) further comprises a flap (400) attached to the brace (1) (see Figs. 10A-10B and [0221]-[0222]; cover portion 400 is a flap as when cover portion 400 is in an open position like in Fig. 10B, it is a hanging piece attached at one side, and the cover portion 400 is attached to hand orthosis 1), the flap (400) configured to removably cover the exterior surface of the first portion (see Figs. 10A-10B and [0221]-[0222]; the cover portion 400 removably covers the exterior surface of the first portion of the hand orthosis 1), providing a cover that is more aesthetically pleasing while also providing better security to the brace as the cover protects the exterior surface elements.
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 provided the brace (602 of Hoffman) in the device of Hoffman in view of Koby in view of Kupferman in view of Villepigue in view of Mateus Dias Quinaz further in view of Jurkat with a flap (400) attached to the brace, the flap configured to removably cover the exterior surface of the first portion as taught by Morgalla to have provided an improved orthotic device that is more aesthetically pleasing while also providing better security to the brace as the cover protects the exterior surface elements.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBIN HAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9-5 PM EST.
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.
/ROBIN HAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786 /ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786