DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 19 August 2025, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 21-31 and 40-48 are currently presented for examination, of which claims 31 and 40 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 21-30 and 41-48, in the reply filed on 19 August 2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Brief Description of the Drawings collectively groups a range of Figures at paragraph [0021] without identifying each Figure within the group individually. The examiner encourages Applicant to list each of the Figure numbers individually to reduce the opportunity for confusion. The examiner notes that, for example, paragraph [0022] collectively groups multiple figures, however it is readily apparent which Figures are described.
The use of the terms Velcro® and FidLock ® at paragraph [0074]; Dacron® and Kevlar® at paragraph [0077]; Teflon and Delrin® at paragraph [0084]; Velcro® at paragraph [0174]; and Sureform® at paragraph [0180] which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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: a tightening means in claims 21 and 41. The tightening mechanism appears to be described in paragraph [00107].
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites “the socket comprises one or more laminated layers” at lines 1-2. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret this limitation. To the best of the examiner’s understanding, lamination requires more than one layer of material bonded or pressed together. It may be that Applicant is attempting to describe a layer of a laminated material (understood to be a single layer formed of a combination of multiple layers of material), as implied by paragraph [0087] of the Specification as filed. Applicant could clarify the meaning of this claim term by amending the claim to clarify that the laminated layers of claim 23 are formed of previously laminated material or by amending the claim to recite “two or more laminated layers,” for example.
Claim 42 recites “the socket comprises one or more laminated layers” at lines 1-2. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret this limitation. To the best of the examiner’s understanding, lamination requires more than one layer of material bonded or pressed together. It may be that Applicant is attempting to describe a layer of a laminated material (understood to be a single layer formed of a combination of multiple layers of material), as implied by paragraph [0087] of the Specification as filed. Applicant could clarify the meaning of this claim term by amending the claim to clarify that the laminated layers of claim 42 are formed of previously laminated material or by amending the claim to recite “two or more laminated layers,” for example.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-22, 26, 28-29, 41, 45, and 47
Claims 21-22, 26, 28-29, 41, 45, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent 7,727,284 to Warila (hereinafter “Warila”).
Regarding claim 21, Warila discloses a prosthetic socket assembly (see Fig. 5), comprising: a socket (22) comprising a sidewall (walls of socket 22; see Fig. 5), a cavity (interior, empty space within 22) configured to receive a liner (intended use; 26), a distal end (lower end with respect to Fig. 5), and a guide path (openings, including 36 and 42); a tensioning line (30); and a tightening mechanism (44); wherein the tightening mechanism (44) is configured to control the movement of the tensioning line such that the tensioning line is configured to draw the liner (intended use) into the cavity of the socket (22) and towards the distal end of the socket (lower end of socket), and wherein the guide path extends within the sidewall of the socket from the distal end of the socket toward the tightening mechanism (see Fig. 5; guide path extends at least partially through sidewall in the directions claimed).
Regarding claim 22, Warila discloses the limitations of claim 21, and further Warila discloses that the sidewall of the socket (22) is substantially rigid so as to maintain a form of the sidewall when forces are applied during use (formed of rigid material; see Col. 2, lines 30-33). The examiner notes a recitation of a definition for the term “substantially rigid” at paragraph [0076] of the Specification as filed and takes the position that the rigid material disclosed by Warila is encompassed by the definition.
Regarding claim 26, Warila discloses the limitations of claim 21, and further Warila discloses that the tightening mechanism (44) is configured to apply a tension force to the tensioning line (30) to displace the liner (intended use) downwardly into the cavity of the socket (see Col. 3, lines 54-59) along a longitudinal axis of the socket (22).
Regarding claim 28, Warila discloses the limitations of claim 21, and further Warila discloses that the tensioning line (30) comprises a connector (32) disposed at an end thereof (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 29, Warila discloses the limitations of claim 21, and further Warila discloses that the connector (32) comprises a connection interface comprising one or more of threading, a buckle, a strap (strap connector shown interacting with buckle of tensioning device 44), a snap, a hook-and-pile fastener, or a magnet.
Regarding claim 41, Warila discloses a prosthetic socket assembly (see Fig. 5), comprising: a socket (22) comprising a sidewall (walls of socket 22; see Fig. 5), a cavity (interior, empty space within 22) configured to receive a liner (intended use; 26), a distal end (lower end with respect to Fig. 5), and a guide path (openings, including 36 and 42); a tensioning line (30); and a tightening mechanism (44); wherein the tightening mechanism (44) is configured to control the movement of the tensioning line such that the tensioning line is configured to draw the liner (intended use) into the cavity of the socket (22) and towards the distal end of the socket (lower end of socket), wherein the sidewall is substantially rigid (formed of rigid material; see Col. 2, lines 30-33) and wherein the guide path extends within the sidewall of the socket from the distal end of the socket toward the tightening mechanism (see Fig. 5; guide path extends at least partially through sidewall in the directions claimed). The examiner notes a recitation of a definition for the term “substantially rigid” at paragraph [0076] of the Specification as filed and takes the position that the rigid material disclosed by Warila is encompassed by the definition.
Regarding claim 45, Warila discloses the limitations of claim 41, and further Warila discloses that the tightening mechanism (44) is configured to apply a tension force to the tensioning line (30) to displace the liner (intended use) downwardly into the cavity of the socket (see Col. 3, lines 54-59) along a longitudinal axis of the socket (22).
Regarding claim 47, Warila discloses the limitations of claim 41, and further Warila discloses that the connector (32) comprises a connection interface comprising one or more of threading, a buckle, a strap (strap connector shown interacting with buckle of tensioning device 44), a snap, a hook-and-pile fastener, or a magnet.
Claims 27, 30, 46 and 48, and Alternatively, Claims 21-22, 26, 28, 41, and 45
Claims 21-22, 26-28, 30, 41, 45-46, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0289999 to Radspieler (hereinafter “Radspieler”).
Regarding claim 21, Radspieler discloses a prosthetic socket assembly (1), comprising: a socket (2) comprising a sidewall (walls of socket 2; see Fig. 1), a cavity (interior, empty space within 22) configured to receive a liner (intended use; 5), a distal end (lower end with respect to Fig. 1), and a guide path (opening at 16; see Fig. 3); a tensioning line (15; see paragraph [0043]); and a tightening mechanism (14); wherein the tightening mechanism (14) is configured to control the movement of the tensioning line such that the tensioning line is configured to draw the liner (intended use) into the cavity of the socket (2) and towards the distal end of the socket (lower end of socket at 16), and wherein the guide path extends within the sidewall of the socket from the distal end of the socket toward the tightening mechanism (3; guide path extends at least partially through sidewall in the direction claimed).
Regarding claim 22, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 21, and further Radspieler discloses that the sidewall of the socket is substantially rigid (see paragraph [0036]; body of socket formed of rigid material) so as to maintain a form of the sidewall when forces are applied during use. The examiner notes a recitation of a definition for the term “substantially rigid” at paragraph [0076] of the Specification as filed and takes the position that the rigid material disclosed by Radspieler is encompassed by the definition.
Regarding claim 26, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 21, and further Radspieler discloses that the tightening mechanism (14) is configured to apply a tension force to the tensioning line (15; see paragraph [0020]) to displace the liner (5) downwardly into the cavity of the socket along a longitudinal axis of the socket (compare Figs. 2, 3, and 4).
Regarding claim 27, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 21, and further Radspieler discloses that the tightening mechanism (14) comprises a motor (see paragraph [0020]) to effect automated tightening or loosening of the tensioning line (15; driven by electronic control device, see paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 28, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 21, and further Radspieler discloses that the tensioning line (15) comprises a connector disposed at an end thereof (see paragraph [0047]; pulling means is connected at proximal end).
Regarding claim 30, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 21, and further Radspieler discloses that an entire length of the guide path (16) extends within the sidewall from the distal end of the socket (2) to the tightening mechanism (14; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 41, Radspieler discloses a prosthetic socket assembly (1), comprising: a socket (2) comprising a sidewall (walls of socket 2; see Fig. 1), a cavity (interior, empty space within 22) configured to receive a liner (intended use; 5), a distal end (lower end with respect to Fig. 1), and a guide path (opening at 16; see Fig. 3); a tensioning line (15; see paragraph [0043]); and a tightening mechanism (14); wherein the tightening mechanism (14) is configured to control the movement of the tensioning line such that the tensioning line is configured to draw the liner (intended use) into the cavity of the socket (2) and towards the distal end of the socket (lower end of socket at 16), wherein the sidewall is substantially rigid (see paragraph [0036]; body of socket formed of rigid material) and wherein the guide path extends within the sidewall of the socket from the distal end of the socket toward the tightening mechanism (3; guide path extends at least partially through sidewall in the direction claimed). The examiner notes a recitation of a definition for the term “substantially rigid” at paragraph [0076] of the Specification as filed and takes the position that the rigid material disclosed by Radspieler is encompassed by the definition.
Regarding claim 45, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 41, and further Radspieler discloses that the tightening mechanism (14) is configured to apply a tension force to the tensioning line (15; see paragraph [0020]) to displace the liner (5) downwardly into the cavity of the socket along a longitudinal axis of the socket (compare Figs. 2, 3, and 4).
Regarding claim 46, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 41, and further Radspieler discloses that the tightening mechanism (14) comprises a motor (see paragraph [0020]) to effect automated tightening or loosening of the tensioning line (15; driven by electronic control device, see paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 48, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 41, and further Radspieler discloses that an entire length of the guide path (16) extends within the sidewall from the distal end of the socket (2) to the tightening mechanism (14; see Fig. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 24 and 43
Claims 24 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warila as applied to claims 21 and 41 above.
Regarding claim 24, Warila discloses the limitations of claim 21. Warila does not explicitly disclose that the socket comprises one or more 3D printed structures.
The examiner understands the phrase “one or more 3D printed structures” to recite a product-by-process limitation (see MPEP 2113). The MPEP instructs that “even through 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. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113(I)). There is nothing of record to distinguish the socket of Warila as formed by its process from a socket of the same geometry formed by 3D printing process, and so the socket comprising one or more 3D printed structures as claimed is understood to be unpatentable over Warila.
Thus, claim 24 is obvious over Warila.
Regarding claim 43, Warila discloses the limitations of claim 21. Warila does not explicitly disclose that the socket comprises one or more 3D printed structures.
The examiner understands the phrase “one or more 3D printed structures” to recite a product-by-process limitation (see MPEP 2113). The MPEP instructs that “even through 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. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113(I)). There is nothing of record to distinguish the socket of Warila as formed by its process from a socket of the same geometry formed by 3D printing process, and so the socket comprising one or more 3D printed structures as claimed is understood to be unpatentable over Warila.
Thus, claim 43 is obvious over Warila.
Alternatively, Claims 24 and 43
Claims 24 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radspieler as applied to claims 21 and 41 above.
Regarding claim 24, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 21. Radspieler does not explicitly disclose that the socket comprises one or more 3D printed structures.
The examiner understands the phrase “one or more 3D printed structures” to recite a product-by-process limitation (see MPEP 2113). The MPEP instructs that “even through 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. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113(I)). There is nothing of record to distinguish the socket of Radspieler as formed by its process from a socket of the same geometry formed by 3D printing process, and so the socket comprising one or more 3D printed structures as claimed is understood to be unpatentable over Radspieler.
Thus, claim 24 is obvious over Radspieler.
Regarding claim 43, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 21. Radspieler does not explicitly disclose that the socket comprises one or more 3D printed structures.
The examiner understands the phrase “one or more 3D printed structures” to recite a product-by-process limitation (see MPEP 2113). The MPEP instructs that “even through 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. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113(I)). There is nothing of record to distinguish the socket of Radspieler as formed by its process from a socket of the same geometry formed by 3D printing process, and so the socket comprising one or more 3D printed structures as claimed is understood to be unpatentable over Radspieler.
Thus, claim 43 is obvious over Radspieler.
Claims 23, 25, 42, and 44
Claims 23, 25, 42, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warila as applied to claims 21 and 41 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2011/0071647 to Mahon (hereinafter “Mahon”).
Regarding claim 23, Warila discloses the limitations of claim 21, however Warila does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach that the socket comprises one or more laminated layers. However, it is known in the art of prosthetics to provide socket assembly comprising laminated layers.
For example, Mahon teaches a prosthesis (100) including a socket (120) defining a wall (142). Mahon teaches that its socket (see Fig. 3) may include multiple layers (122; see paragraph [0070]) which form a lamination.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Warila to include providing a conventional socket configuration including one or more lamination layers as taught by Mahon. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would reasonably be expected to operate in the manner taught by Warila without modification of the principles of operation of Warila, as the structure of the wall of the socket of Warila is not described as being critical to the prosthesis. Nothing of record suggests that a socket formed of one or more layers of a lamination would behave differently than a socket formed without such one or more layers.
Thus, the combination of Warila and Mahon teaches the limitations of claim 23.
Regarding claim 25, Warila discloses the limitations of claim 21, however Warila does not explicitly disclose that the socket comprises one or more plastic resins. Warila discloses that the socket may be formed of hard plastic (see Col. 2, lines 30-33), however appears to be silent as to what hard plastic. However, it is known in the art of limb prostheses to provide socket members which comprise plastic resins.
For example, Mahon teaches a prosthesis (100) including a socket (120) defining a wall (142). Mahon teaches that its socket may include one or more hardened plastic resins (paragraph [0061]). Mahon teaches that a variety of materials may be suitable for use in forming the socket (paragraph [0061]; 120).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Warila to include providing a conventional socket configuration including one or more plastic resins as taught by Mahon. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would reasonably be expected to operate in the manner taught by Warila without modification of the principles of operation of Warila, as the structure of the wall of the socket of Warila is not described as being critical to the prosthesis. Further, there is nothing of record to suggest that a hard plastic material formed from a resin would behave differently from any other hard plastic material. Mahon’s description of multiple materials suggests that the material of the socket will not materially change the operation of the socket.
Thus, the combination of Warila and Mahon teaches the limitations of claim 25.
Regarding claim 42, Warila discloses the limitations of claim 41, however Warila does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach that the socket comprises one or more laminated layers. However, it is known in the art of prosthetics to provide socket assembly comprising laminated layers.
For example, Mahon teaches a prosthesis (100) including a socket (120) defining a wall (142). Mahon teaches that its socket (see Fig. 3) may include multiple layers (122; see paragraph [0070]) which form a lamination.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Warila to include providing a conventional socket configuration including one or more lamination layers as taught by Mahon. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would reasonably be expected to operate in the manner taught by Warila without modification of the principles of operation of Warila, as the structure of the wall of the socket of Warila is not described as being critical to the prosthesis. Nothing of record suggests that a socket formed of one or more layers of a lamination would behave differently than a socket formed without such one or more layers.
Thus, the combination of Warila and Mahon teaches the limitations of claim 42.
Regarding claim 44, Warila discloses the limitations of claim 41, however Warila does not explicitly disclose that the socket comprises one or more plastic resins. Warila discloses that the socket may be formed of hard plastic (see Col. 2, lines 30-33), however appears to be silent as to what hard plastic. However, it is known in the art of limb prostheses to provide socket members which comprise plastic resins.
For example, Mahon teaches a prosthesis (100) including a socket (120) defining a wall (142). Mahon teaches that its socket may include one or more hardened plastic resins (paragraph [0061]). Mahon teaches that a variety of materials may be suitable for use in forming the socket (paragraph [0061]; 120).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Warila to include providing a conventional socket configuration including one or more plastic resins as taught by Mahon. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would reasonably be expected to operate in the manner taught by Warila without modification of the principles of operation of Warila, as the structure of the wall of the socket of Warila is not described as being critical to the prosthesis. Further, there is nothing of record to suggest that a hard plastic material formed from a resin would behave differently from any other hard plastic material. Mahon’s description of multiple materials suggests that the material of the socket will not materially change the operation of the socket.
Thus, the combination of Warila and Mahon teaches the limitations of claim 44.
Alternatively, Claims 23, 25, 42, and 44
Claims 23, 25, 42, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radspieler as applied to claims 21 and 41 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2011/0071647 to Mahon (hereinafter “Mahon”).
Regarding claim 23, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 21, however Radspieler does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach that the socket comprises one or more laminated layers. Radspieler teaches only that its socket body is produced from rigid material (see paragraph [0036]).
However, it is known in the art of prosthetics to provide socket assembly comprising laminated layers.
For example, Mahon teaches a prosthesis (100) including a socket (120) defining a wall (142). Mahon teaches that its socket (see Fig. 3) may include multiple layers (122; see paragraph [0070]) which form a lamination.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Radspieler to include providing a conventional socket configuration including one or more lamination layers as taught by Mahon. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would reasonably be expected to operate in the manner taught by Radspieler without modification of the principles of operation of Radspieler, as the structure of the wall of the socket of Radspieler is not described as being critical to the prosthesis. Nothing of record suggests that a socket formed of one or more layers of a lamination would behave differently than a socket formed without such one or more layers.
Thus, the combination of Radspieler and Mahon teaches the limitations of claim 23.
Regarding claim 25, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 21, however Radspieler does not explicitly disclose that the socket comprises one or more plastic resins. Radspieler discloses that the socket may be formed of a plastic material (see paragraph [0036]), however appears to be silent as to what plastics are suitable.
However, it is known in the art of limb prostheses to provide socket members which comprise plastic resins.
For example, Mahon teaches a prosthesis (100) including a socket (120) defining a wall (142). Mahon teaches that its socket may include one or more hardened plastic resins (paragraph [0061]). Mahon teaches that a variety of materials may be suitable for use in forming the socket (paragraph [0061]; 120).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Radspieler to include providing a conventional socket configuration including one or more plastic resins as taught by Mahon. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would reasonably be expected to operate in the manner taught by Radspieler without modification of the principles of operation of Radspieler, as the structure of the wall of the socket of Radspieler is not described as being critical to the prosthesis. Further, there is nothing of record to suggest that a plastic material formed from a resin would behave differently from any other plastic material. Radspieler’s description of multiple materials suggests that the material of the socket will not materially change the operation of the socket.
Thus, the combination of Radspieler and Mahon teaches the limitations of claim 25.
Regarding claim 42, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 41, however Radspieler does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach that the socket comprises one or more laminated layers.
However, it is known in the art of prosthetics to provide socket assembly comprising laminated layers.
For example, Mahon teaches a prosthesis (100) including a socket (120) defining a wall (142). Mahon teaches that its socket (see Fig. 3) may include multiple layers (122; see paragraph [0070]) which form a lamination.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Radspieler to include providing a conventional socket configuration including one or more lamination layers as taught by Mahon. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would reasonably be expected to operate in the manner taught by Radspieler without modification of the principles of operation of Radspieler, as the structure of the wall of the socket of Radspieler is not described as being critical to the prosthesis. Nothing of record suggests that a socket formed of one or more layers of a lamination would behave differently than a socket formed without such one or more layers.
Thus, the combination of Radspieler and Mahon teaches the limitations of claim 42.
Regarding claim 44, Radspieler discloses the limitations of claim 41, however Radspieler does not explicitly disclose that the socket comprises one or more plastic resins. Radspieler discloses that the socket may be formed of plastic (see paragraph [0036]), however appears to be silent as to what plastic materials are suitable.
However, it is known in the art of limb prostheses to provide socket members which comprise plastic resins.
For example, Mahon teaches a prosthesis (100) including a socket (120) defining a wall (142). Mahon teaches that its socket may include one or more hardened plastic resins (paragraph [0061]). Mahon teaches that a variety of materials may be suitable for use in forming the socket (paragraph [0061]; 120).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Radspieler to include providing a conventional socket configuration including one or more plastic resins as taught by Mahon. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would reasonably be expected to operate in the manner taught by Radspieler without modification of the principles of operation of Radspieler, as the structure of the wall of the socket of Radspieler is not described as being critical to the prosthesis. Further, there is nothing of record to suggest that a hard plastic material formed from a resin would behave differently from any other hard plastic material. Mahon’s description of multiple materials suggests that the material of the socket will not materially change the operation of the socket.
Thus, the combination of Radspieler and Mahon teaches the limitations of claim 44.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent 9.987,150 to Bremer (hereinafter “Bremer”) teaches a prosthetic device including a liner and a puller device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726