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
The amendment filed 10/9/2025 has been received and made of record. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are being examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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 20 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 20 recites the frame “is manufactured entirely as a single component in a same technological process”. It is unclear what the “same technological process” is referring to. Same as what? If they are all manufactured in the same facility is that considered the same technological process? Furthermore, this is a product by process limitation so it is unclear what effect it has on the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Airy et al (US 5,052,379).
Regarding claim 1, Airy discloses an orthotic device comprising: a frame (Figure 1) further comprising: an upper-strap (28) configured to be strapped on or around an upper-part of a limb of a subject (Figure 1); an upper-lateral-element (40) connected to the upper-strap; a lower-strap (30) configured to be strapped on or around a lower-part of the limb of the subject (Figure 1); a lower-lateral-element (110) connected to the lower-strap (Figure 1); a hinge (22a) connected to the upper-lateral-element and the lower-lateral-element, wherein the hinge comprises a sleeve (42, 148) and a hoop (112), wherein the hoop is coupled to the sleeve and is configured to rotate within the sleeve (Figures 2-3; Abstract; Col. 8, lines 45-65); and wherein a circular hole is formed throughout a center of the hinge (figure 2, holes 144, 134, 160); and a stop (130 and 164 or 34) connected to the orthotic device via the circular hole formed at the center of the hinge, the stop part being configured to restrict at least a portion of the rotation of the hinge (Figures 2 and 7; Col. 9, lines 33-45; Col. 10, lines 39-55).
Regarding claim 2, Airy discloses wherein the stop part has a disc shape (164) comprising a rim (outside portion of 164 having stops 166 and 168), wherein the rim further comprises a first-recess configured to accommodate the upper-lateral-element (recessed portion between 166 and 168 that accommodates 40, Figure 4), wherein the first-recess has a first-recess-length and wherein the upper-lateral-element can rotate with respect to the lower-lateral-element and with respect to the stop part along the first-recess-length between the two ends each end of the first-recess (Figure 4; Col. 9, lines 33-45).
Regarding claim 3, Airy discloses wherein the rim further comprises a second-recess configured to accommodate the lower-lateral-element, wherein the second-recess has a second-recess-length (recessed portion between stops 166 and 168 that accommodates 110, Figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Airy discloses wherein the second-recess-length is substantially equal to a width of the lower-lateral-element and wherein the lower-lateral- element cannot rotate with respect to the stop part (when the stop 168 is placed in the hole 192 that is adjacent 110, Figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Airy discloses wherein the stop has a disc shape (164) comprising a rim (outer portion comprising 166, 168), wherein the rim comprises a first-recess configured to accommodate the upper-lateral- element (space between 166 and 168 that accommodates 40, Figure 4), wherein the first-recess has a first-recess-length is equal to a width of the upper-lateral-element (Figure 4) and wherein the upper-lateral-element cannot rotate with respect to the stop-part and the lower-lateral-element thereby immobilizing the limb (when additional stop 34 is attached Col. 11, lines 8-15).
Regarding claim 6, Airy discloses the stop part further comprises a protrusion (204 or 132; Figures 3 and 7) configured to pass through the center of the hinge and to attach the stop to the hinge (Figures 3 and 7).
Regarding claim 7, Airy disclose wherein the upper-strap further comprise fasteners (80’, 92’) configured to attach one end of the upper-strap to another end of the upper- strap (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Airy discloses one or more pads (96’, 96’’) attached to the upper-strap and the lower-strap wherein the pads provide for a comfortable attachment interface between the straps and the limb of the subject (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Airy discloses wherein the frame is manufactured as a single flexible flat element which can be bent so as to allow the upper- strap and the lower-strap to be wrapped around the limb (at least a portion is flat and deformable Figure 1; Col. 5, lines 22-33).
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that the device of Airy appears to be identical to the device claimed although produced by a different process. Therefore the burden is upon the applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the two. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 11, Airy discloses an orthotic device comprising: a frame (Figure 1) further comprising: an upper-strap (28) configured to be strapped on or around an upper-part of a limb of a subject (Figure 1); an upper-lateral-element (40) connected to the upper-strap; a lower-strap (30) configured to be strapped on or around a lower-part of the limb of the subject (Figure 1); a lower-lateral-element (110) connected to the lower-strap (Figure 1); a hinge (22a) connected to the upper-lateral-element and the lower-lateral-element, wherein the hinge comprises a sleeve (42, 148) and a hoop (112), wherein the hoop is coupled to the sleeve and is configured to rotate within the sleeve (Figures 2-3; Abstract; Col. 8, lines 45-65); and wherein a circular hole is formed throughout a center of the hinge (figure 2, holes 144, 134, 160); and a stop (130 and 164 or 34) connected to the orthotic device via the circular hole formed at the center of the hinge, the stop part being configured to restrict at least a portion of the rotation of the hinge (Figures 2 and 7; Col. 9, lines 33-45; Col. 10, lines 39-55) based on a recessed portion of a rim of the stop (recessed portion defined by the distance between two stop pins 166, 168; Figures 2-4; Col. 9, lines 33-45).
Regarding claim 12, Airy discloses wherein when the length of the recessed portion is a first length, the hinge is operable to rotate within first stop part allows a rotation of the hoop-hinge-part in the sleeve-hinge-part by a first-rotation-angle and when the length of the recessed portion is a second length, the hinge is operable to rotate within wherein the second stop part allows a rotation of the hoop-hinge-part in the sleeve-hinge-part by a second-rotation-angle which is different from the first-rotation-angle (distance between two stop pins 166, 168 is able to be changed to provide different angles of rotation; Figures 2-4; Col. 9, lines 33-45).
Regarding claim 13, Airy discloses wherein the first-rotation-angle corresponding to the first length blocks rotation such that the limb is immobilized (when the stop 168 is placed closest to 110, Figure 4), and wherein the second-rotation- angle corresponding to the second length allows at least some of the rotation stop part is different from zero (when stop 168 is placed in the hole 192 farther away from 110 as shown in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Airy discloses wherein the first length is used for a certain medical need of the limb of the subject whereas the second length is used for another medical need of the limb of the subject (Figures 2-4; Col. 9, lines 33-45).
Regarding claim 15, Airy discloses an orthosis comprising: a frame (Figure 1) comprising: straps(26, 28, 30, 32) with fasteners (Figure 1), hinges (at 22a, 22b) and lateral elements (40, 110), wherein each hinge of the hinges has a hole (144, 134, 160) formed throughout a center of the hinge (Figure 2), and each hinge which consists of a sleeve (42, 148) with an arcuate shape connected to one a first lateral element (Figures 2-3), and a hoop (112) connected to the other a second lateral element (Figures 2-3); stops (130, 164 on each side), wherein each stop of the stops is provided with grooves (Figure 3, grooves accommodating 112, 148), and a rim (outer portion of 164 including 166, 168), wherein the rim is provided with recesses, wherein a first recess of the recesses is provided with a first width corresponding to at least a first width of the first lateral element with fit tolerance (distance between 166 and 168 that accommodates 40, Figure 4), and a second recess of the recesses is provided with a second width corresponding to at least a second width of the second lateral element with fit tolerance (distance between 166 and 168 on opposite side that accommodates 110; Figure 4), and a protrusion situated in a central part of the stop (132; Figure 4).
Regarding claim 16, Airy discloses that the fastener of each strap of the straps consists of an opening (88) on one end of the strap, and a protrusion (86) on the other end thereof (Figure 1A; Col. 6, lines 11-34).
Regarding claim 17, Airy discloses that the straps are provided with mounting openings (88).
Regarding claim 18, Airy discloses that the straps are provided with pads (96) on the inner side.
Regarding claim 19, Airy discloses that the stops have the shape of discs (164; Figure 2)
Regarding claim 20, Airy discloses that the frame is manufactured entirely as a single component in a same technological process (insofar as it is attached together, Figure 1).
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 Kari Rodriquez whose telephone number is 571-270-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-3 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.
/KARI K RODRIQUEZ/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786