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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “32” has been used to designate both “ankle joint” in Figs. 3C and 4D and “reference marker” in Figs. 4B-4C. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 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: “means for attaching the structure to the prosthetic limb” in claim 8 and “means for attaching the prosthetic leg to a residual leg” in claim 14 . 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. The specification indicates th e means in claim 8 to be strap 48 in Fig. 4A. 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 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. Cla ims 1-8 and 10-13 ar e rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach (3111683) in view of Hillman et al. (2022/0039975) “Hillman” . Regarding claim s 1 -2 , Bach discloses a structure 1 (Figs. 1-4) for covering a prosthetic limb (col. 1, lin. 9-12) , the structure comprising: a plurality of weft strands 4 (cables 4 are capable of acting like weft strands) ; a substantially rigid support 7 configured to run along the part of the structure which deforms least with movement of the structure (claim 1 discloses resilient staves 7 having structural rigidity) ; and wherein the plurality of weft strands are attached to the substantially rigid support at a plurality of points such that the weft strands pivot independently of the substantially rigid support with movement of the structure (the weft strands 4 are attached to the rigid support 7 at openings 10 via threads 12 and 13; Fig. 3-4; col. 2, lin. 51-60) . Bach is silent regarding a fabric a nd at least one warp element and one or more cables attached to the plurality of weft strands of the fabric. However, Hillman teaches a similar prosthetic limb cover 2 (Fig. 1) comprising a fabric 10 (Fig. 4) at least one warp element (bi-elastic textile extending in two directions; Fig. 4 and par. 0037) and one or more cables 8 attached to the plurality of weft strands of the fabric 10 (Fig. 4) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure in Bach to include a fabric a nd at least one warp element and one or more cables 8 attached to the plurality of weft strands of the fabric , as taught and suggested by Hillman, for evenly distributing pressure and thereby increasing the degree of comfort when wearing the fabric structure (par. 0017 of Hillman). Regarding claims 3 -5, the combination of Bach in view of Hillman discloses w herein the fabric is woven , knitted and 3D printed (Fig. 4 of Hillman discloses a knitted fabric which is capable of being woven or interlaced with the fibers and being 3D printed). F urthermore, the claimed phrase “3D printed” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and a product-by-process claim is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113. Regarding claim 6, Bach discloses a second plurality of weft strands (Fig. 3 discloses multiple strands of weft strands 4 which can be divided into first and second plurality of weft strands on different sides of the structure). Regarding claim 7, Bach discloses w herein the structure is substantially hollow (socket 1 is hollow by definition; Fig. 1) . Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Bach discloses a means 3 for attaching the structure to the prosthetic limb (lower extremity 3 can be used to attach to a prosthetic limb; Fig. 1) . Regarding claim 10, Bach discloses wherein the substantially rigid support 7 comprises one or more flexible portions (claim 1 discloses the staves 7 are resilient) . Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bach in view of Hillman further discloses comprising an outer layer (base 4 in Hillman) for receiving and enclosing the structure (par. 0034) . Regarding claim 12, Bach in view of Hillman discloses assembly comprising a prosthetic limb and a structure 1 as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) . Regarding claim 13, Bach discloses the structure is fully capable of covering a prosthetic limb which is fully capable of being a prosthetic arm ( col. 1, lin. 9-12 ). Cla im 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach (3111683) in view of Hillman et al. (2022/0039975) “Hillman” further in view of Summit (2009/0093891). Bach in view of Hillman discloses the claimed invention of claim 1; except for wherein the structure further comprises a zip. However, Summit teaches a similar structure comprising a zip (0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prosthetic limb in Bach in view of Hillman to include a zip, as taught and suggested by Summit, for using a releasable fastener (par. 0064). Cla ims 14-19 ar e rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach (3111683) in view of Hillman et al. (2022/0039975) “Hillman” further in view of Takami et al. (2007/0150069) “ Takami ” Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Bach in view of Hillman discloses the claimed invention of claim 12; except for wherein the prosthetic limb is a prosthetic leg comprising one or more of: an ankle joint; a knee joint; a pylon connecting the ankle joint and the knee joint and configured to form a prosthetic shin; a means for attaching the prosthetic leg to a residual leg; and a length connecting the knee joint to the means for attaching the prosthetic leg to the residual leg, and wherein the length is configured to form a prosthetic thigh. However, Takami teaches a similar prosthetic limb 1 (Fig. 1) comprising a prosthetic leg 1 comprising one or more of: an ankle joint 7 ; a knee joint 4 ; a pylon 6 connecting the ankle joint and the knee joint and configured to form a prosthetic shin; a means 2 for attaching the prosthetic leg to a residual leg 2 ; and a length 3 connecting the knee joint to the means for attaching the prosthetic leg to the residual leg, and wherein the length is configured to form a prosthetic thigh (Fig. 1) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prosthetic limb in Bach in view of Hillman to include a prosthetic leg comprising one or more of: an ankle joint; a knee joint; a pylon connecting the ankle joint and the knee joint and configured to form a prosthetic shin; a means for attaching the prosthetic leg to a residual leg; and a length connecting the knee joint to the means for attaching the prosthetic leg to the residual leg, and wherein the length is configured to form a prosthetic thigh , as taught and suggested by Takami , for providing a prosthetic limb that functions as a knee and ankle joint. Regarding claims 15-19, the combination of the substantially rigid support 7 in Bach with the ankle joint 7 and means 2 for attaching the prosthetic leg to the residual leg of Takami allows for substantially rigid support runs between the ankle joint and the means for attaching the prosthetic leg to the residual leg and wherein the substantially rigid support runs along the middle of both the inside and outside of the prosthetic thigh, when the prosthetic thigh is viewed from the side , w herein the substantially rigid support comprises a flexible portion at the knee joint which curves from the prosthetic thigh to the top of the prosthetic shin ; wherein the substantially rigid support runs along the prosthetic shin and wherein the substantially rigid support runs along the inside and the outside of the prosthetic ankle joint (the curved resilient stave 7 of Bach allows for a flexible portion that is fully capable of being arranged on the outside of the knee joint, shin and ankle joint of Takami ) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASHITA SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5417. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-5pm M-Th; 8am-4pm Fri (MT). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Jerrah Edwards , can be reached at 408-918-7557 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /YASHITA SHARMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774