DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 9/18/2025. Currently, claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending in the application. Claim 5 is cancelled by Applicant. New claims 7-21 are added by Applicant.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the previous objections to claim 1. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 2 are sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claims 1 and 2. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-4 are sufficient to overcome the previous objections to claims 1-4.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 6 is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 14-17 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims to the originally presented species of claim 1 and the species of new claims 14-17 recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. For instance, the originally presented species of claim 1 includes a tendon back plate, a radius plate and a radius loop portion, while the species of new claims 14-17 includes a first control loop and a second control loop. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 14-17 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Newly submitted claims 18-21 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims to the originally presented species of claim 1 and the species of new claims 14-17 recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. For instance, the originally presented species of claim 1 includes a radius loop portion, while the species of new claims 18-21 includes a first control loop and a second control loop. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 18-21 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “a radial plate cable guide,” which is a claim limitation lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification. This is not an issue of new matter. Applicant should amend the specification to include the cited language to avoid this error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “a metacarpal shell cable guide,” which is a claim limitation lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification. This is not an issue of new matter. Applicant should amend the specification to include the cited language to avoid this error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “a tendon back plate cable guide,” which is a claim limitation lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification. This is not an issue of new matter. Applicant should amend the specification to include the cited language to avoid this error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to maintain consistency and clarity throughout the claim(s), “the semi-rigid metacarpal shell” in lines 10-11 of the claim should be amended to recite ---the metacarpal shell---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 recites “wherein the tendon back plate is X-shaped, beginning near the user’s palm, and extending rearward, with legs of the tendon back plate accommodating the tendon back plate cable guide,” which is a claim limitation lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification. This is not an issue of new matter. Applicant should amend the specification to include the cited language to avoid this error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 recites “a portion of material,” which is a claim limitation lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification. This is not an issue of new matter. Applicant should amend the specification to include the cited language to avoid this error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “a cushion section that makes contacts the user’s arm” should be amended to recite ---a cushion section that makes contact with the user’s arm---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “tension adjustment mechanism” in claims 1 and 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “a tension adjustment mechanism comprising a dial associated with ratcheting gears that selectively engage with a locking and release button.” While this feature is taught by Applicant’s original disclosure, it is not taught to be included in the embodiment recited in claim 1, which is intended for use on the user’s wrist and includes a radius plate (104) and a metacarpal shell (102) (shown in Applicant’s Figure 18, for instance). Applicant’s original disclosure only teaches the “cable tensioner dial 6 and locking/release button 7” being a feature of the embodiment of Figure 6, which includes a tibial plate (2) and a femoral plate (4) and is intended for use on the user’s knee. Applicant’s original disclosure, therefore, does not provide support for a device having a radius, a metacarpal shell and a tension adjustment mechanism comprising a dial associated with ratcheting gears that selectively engage with a locking and release button, as claimed. Claims 2-4 and 6-13 depend on claim 1 and therefore, include the same error.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 6 recites “differential forces associated with selective lengthening and/or contraction of the metacarpal loop portion and/or the radius loop portion.” No support is provided for this claim limitation in Applicant’s specification as originally filed. Applicant’s original disclosure foes not teach the lengthening and/or contraction of the metacarpal loop portion and/or the radius loop portion being selective, or chosen by the user.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8 recites “the radius plate and the metacarpal shell are rigid or semi-rigid.” No support is provided for this claim limitation in Applicant’s specification as originally filed. While Applicant’s original disclosure teaches the radius plate (104) and the metacarpal shell (102) being semi-rigid, there is no teaching in Applicant’s original disclosure of these structures being entirely “rigid,” as claimed.
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 limitation “tension adjustment mechanism” (see claims 1 and 2) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 1 and 2 indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2-4 and 6-13 depend on claim 1 and therefore, include the same error.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the selective lengthening and/or contraction of the metacarpal loop portion and/or the radius loop portion" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the plate" in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear which of the radius plate and/or the tendon back plate Applicant is attempting to refer to. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “the plate” to mean ---the metacarpal plate---.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 9 recites the tendon back plate “beginning near the user’s palm,” which is a claim limitation indicating that Applicant is attempting to claim the user’s palm (which is non-statutory subject matter). Applicant should utilize “adapted to” or “capable of” language to avoid this error.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 12 recites “a cushion section that makes contacts the user’s arm,” which is a claim limitation indicating that Applicant is attempting to claim the user’s arm (which is non-statutory subject matter). Applicant should utilize “adapted to” or “capable of” language to avoid this error.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Sterling (US 2006/0200057).
In regards to claim 1, Sterling teaches in Figures 1A-3B, [0028], [0031], [0034-0035], [0040-0041] and [0043]
a radius plate (lower connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34) configured to receive a radius portion of an arm ([0028] teaches that the invention can be configured for “wrist braces;” thus, it is clear that it was contemplated that lower connecting arm 24/lower shell member 34 can be configured to receive a first radius portion of an arm; further, lower connecting arm 24/lower shell member 34 is capable of being positioned on a first radius portion of an arm) and including a tightening strap (as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 1C provided below), the radius plate (lower connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34) having a radial plate cable guide (the holes in lower shell member 34 through which the force transmitting element(s) 50 passes; shown in Figure 2);
a metacarpal shell (upper connecting arm 22, upper shell member 32) configured to receive a metacarpal portion of a hand ([0028] teaches that the invention can be configured for “wrist braces;” thus, it is clear that it was contemplated that upper connecting arm 22/ upper shell member 32 can be configured to receive a metacarpal portion of a hand; further, upper connecting arm 22/ upper shell member 32 is capable of being positioned on a metacarpal portion of a hand), the metacarpal shell (upper connecting arm 22, upper shell member 32) being hingedly interconnected to ([0035] teaches “pivoting element 30 permits the upper 22 and lower 24 arms to pivot with respect to one another” and “one of ordinary skill in the art can readily substitute other pivoting mechanisms, such as hinges, axels, hubs, bearings and the like to accomplish the function provided by the pivoting element 30”) the radius plate (lower connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34), thereby allowing movement of the wrist ([0028] teaches that the invention can be configured for “wrist braces;” thus, it is clear that it was contemplated that the device can enable movement of the wrist via pivoting element 30), the metacarpal shell (upper connecting arm 22, upper shell member 32) also having a metacarpal shell cable guide (the holes in upper shell member 32 through which the force transmitting element(s) 50 passes; shown in Figure 2);
a tendon back plate (force dosimeter 40) configured to be positioned on an underside of the wrist ([0028] teaches that the invention can be configured for “wrist braces;” force dosimeter 40 is capable of being positioned on an underside of the wrist), and wherein the tendon back plate (force dosimeter 40) cooperates with ([0030] teaches “shell members 32, 34 are each connected to a force dosimeter 40”) the radius plate (lower connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34) and the semi-rigid ([0034] teaches upper connecting arm 22 and upper shell member 32 being made of “semi-rigid material”) metacarpal shell (upper connecting arm 22, upper shell member 32), the tendon back plate (force dosimeter 40) having a tendon back plate cable guide (the holes in force dosimeter 40 through which the force transmitting element(s) 50 passes; shown in Figure 2);
a cable (force transmitting element(s) 50; [0031] teaches “the force transmitting element(s) 50 is a cable”) comprised of a substantially inelastic material ([0031] teaches force transmitting element(s) 50 being made of “rigid material,” which is a substantially inelastic material), wherein the cable (force transmitting element(s) 50) is routed (as shown in Figure 2) from the radius plate (lower connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34), around (as shown in Figure 2) the tendon back plate (force dosimeter 40), around and over the top of (as shown in Figure 2) the metacarpal shell (upper connecting arm 22, upper shell member 32), crossing over itself at a crossover point at (as shown in Figure 2) the tendon back plate (force dosimeter 40), and then back to the top of (as shown in Figure 2) the radius plate (lower connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34), and wherein the cable (force transmitting element(s) 50) is routed through ([0040] teaches “the force transmitting element(s) 50 can be introduced to operably engage the tensioning device 42”) a tension adjustment mechanism (dosing control device 41 and tensioning device 42; [0030] teaches “the dosing control device 41 is an assembly for adjusting the amount of force drawn by the tensioning device 42 on the force transmitting element(s) 50”) comprising a dial (top cover 109; [0041] teaches “the top cover 109 forms part of the dosing device 41, which in this embodiment includes a ratcheting assembly”) associated with (see [0041]; [0043] teaches “the top cover 109 is operably linked to a spur gear 102, which in turn engages spring gears 104”) ratcheting gears (spur gear 102, spring gears 104 and splines 121) that selectively engage with (see [0041]) a locking and release button (jewel base 113, jewel sticker closing mechanism 114 and the pawl on the underside of the top cover 109),
and wherein a radius loop portion (bottom loop of force transmitting element(s) 50, as shown in Figure 2) of the cable (force transmitting element(s) 50), which extends from the crossover point over the radius plate (lower connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34) and back to the crossover point (as shown in Figure 2), and a metacarpal loop portion (top loop of force transmitting element(s) 50, as shown in Figure 2) of the cable (force transmitting element(s) 50), which extends from the crossover point over the metacarpal shell (upper connecting arm 22, upper shell member 32) and back to the crossover point (as shown in Figure 2), are configured such that a lengthening of the metacarpal loop portion (top loop of force transmitting element(s) 50, as shown in Figure 2) results in a corresponding shortening of ([0031] teaches that the force transmitting element(s) 50 is a “single cable;” thus, lengthening of the top loop of force transmitting element(s) 50 would necessarily result in shortening of the bottom loop of force transmitting element(s) 50) the radius loop portion (bottom loop of force transmitting element(s) 50, as shown in Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
269
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Sterling teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sterling teaches in Figures 1B and 2 that the tension adjustment mechanism (dosing control device 41 and tensioning device 42) is mounted (indirectly) to the front of the radius plate (lower connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34), and wherein the cable (force transmitting element(s) 50) enters and exits from opposing sides of (as shown in Figures 1B and 2) the tension adjustment mechanism (dosing control device 41 and tensioning device 42).
In regards to claim 3, Sterling teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sterling teaches in Figure 2 and [0031] that the cable (force transmitting element(s) 50) is attached to (as shown in Figure 2; [0031] teaches “a single cable can be used, which has its ends 54 attached to the force dosimeter 40, and which loops around the upper and lower shell members 32, 34 of the bracing member 12”) the metacarpal shell (upper connecting arm 22, upper shell member 32).
In regards to claim 4, Sterling teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sterling teaches in [0010] that the cable (force transmitting element(s) 50) includes cable segments coupled together ([0010] teaches “the force transmitting element includes a plurality of cables”).
In regards to claim 6, Sterling teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sterling teaches in Figure 1B that differential forces (force vectors 14) associated with the selective lengthening and/or contraction of (Figure 1B teaches force vectors 14 contracting the top and bottom loops of force transmitting element(s) 50) the metacarpal loop portion (top loop of force transmitting element(s) 50, as shown in Figure 2) and/or the radius loop portion (bottom loop of force transmitting element(s) 50, as shown in Figure 2) urges the tendon back plate (force dosimeter 40) closer to (Figure 1B teaches force vectors 14 pulling upper connecting arm 22/upper shell member 32 and lower connecting arm 24/lower shell member 34 closer to force dosimeter 40) the metacarpal shell (upper connecting arm 22, upper shell member 32) and closer to the radius plate (lower connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34).
In regards to claim 7, Sterling teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sterling teaches in Figures 1B and 2 that a corresponding tightening force (upward force vector 14) resulting from the shortening of the radius loop portion (bottom loop of force transmitting element(s) 50, as shown in Figure 2) draws the radius plate (lower connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34) and the tendon back plate (force dosimeter 40) closer together (as shown in Figure 1B), and provides a radial force (downward force vector 14) along (as shown in Figure 1B) the metacarpal loop portion (top loop of force transmitting element(s) 50, as shown in Figure 2) directed toward the center of (as shown in Figure 1B) the metacarpal loop (top loop of force transmitting element(s) 50, as shown in Figure 2).
In regards to claim 8, Sterling teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sterling teaches in [0034] that the radius plate (lower connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34) and the metacarpal shell (upper connecting arm 22, upper shell member 32) are rigid or semi-rigid ([0034] teaches lower connecting arm 24 and lower shell member 34 being made of “semi-rigid material;” [0034] teaches upper connecting arm 22 and upper shell member 32 being made of “semi-rigid material”).
In regards to claim 10, Sterling teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sterling teaches in Figures 1A-1C, [0028] and [0057] that the metacarpal shell (upper connecting arm 22, upper shell member 32) includes (as shown in Figures 1A-1C) a portion of material (sleeve mounting 70; [0057] teaches “the mounting 70 is a fabric sleeve”) configured to extend over one or more of the user's fingers ([0028] teaches that the invention can be configured for “wrist braces;” thus, it is clear that it was contemplated that sleeve mounting 70 can contact the user’s arm in use, with the sleeve mounting 70 shown in Figures 1A-1C to project away from upper shell member 32 such that it is capable of extending over one or more of the user's fingers).
In regards to claim 12, Sterling teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sterling teaches in Figures 1A-1C, [0028] and [0039] that the radius plate (lower connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34), metacarpal shell (upper connecting arm 22, upper shell member 32), and tendon back plate (force dosimeter 40) include (as shown in Figures 1A-1C, the padding 52 and sleeve mounting 70 are positioned underneath the connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34, upper connecting arm 22, upper shell member 32 and force dosimeter 40) a cushion section (padding 52 and sleeve mounting 70; [0039] teaches “a padding 52 may be included on a surface of the sleeve mounting 70 as a contact surface for the force transmitting elements 50, which provides increased comfort to the wearer”) that makes contacts the user's arm ([0028] teaches that the invention can be configured for “wrist braces;” thus, it is clear that it was contemplated that padding 52 and sleeve mounting 70 can contact the user’s arm in use).
In regards to claim 13, Sterling teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 13. Sterling teaches in Figures 1A-1C that the cushion section (padding 52 and sleeve mounting 70) extends beyond an area covered by (as shown in Figures 1A-1C) the plate (lower connecting arm 24, lower shell member 34) and the metacarpal shell (upper connecting arm 22, upper shell member 32).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objection(s), the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 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. Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach wherein the tendon back plate is X-shaped, beginning near the user's palm, and extending rearward, with legs of the tendon back plate accommodating the tendon back plate cable guide, in combination with the other element(s) of the claim(s).
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 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. Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not teach wherein the metacarpal shell is connected to the radius plate without being hinged thereto with a material that functions as a natural spring, wherein some movement of the user's hand is allowed in an one direction, but that movement is met with increased force as the spring tension of the material increases, in combination with the other element(s) of the claim(s).
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 VICTORIA H FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6:00AM-4:00PM 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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/VICTORIA HICKS FISHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 1/13/2026