DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for application 18/505,721 filed November 9, 2023, which is a divisional of application 16/886,240 (now US Patent 11,819,442) filed May 28, 2020. Claims 1-11, as filed January 24, 2024, are currently pending.
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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I in the reply filed on February 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “119” has been used to designate both the wave spring and the ring of teeth in Fig. 1; however, reference character “129” should be used to designate the ring of teeth according to the specification [038] and as shown in Fig. 2. Further, reference character “107” has been used to designate the housing assembly and reference character “111” has been used to designate the core cap in Fig. 1; however, Fig. 5A uses reference character “107” to designate the core cap.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devens (US 5,346,463) in view of Sorrenti et al. (US 9,872,789).
Regarding claim 1, Devens discloses an orthotic device (orthopedic appliance 10) (Fig.1; column 3, lines 30-32) comprising:
a torque bar (bar 14 / rods 70+72) (Figs. 1 & 5-7; column 3, lines 32-35; column 4, lines 50-56);
a paddle (foot plate 22) (Figs. 1 & 5-7; column 3, lines 36-37); and
a housing assembly (housing 68) attached to a first end of the torque bar (14/70+72) and having the paddle (22) attached to the housing assembly (68) (Figs. 5-7; column 4, lines 50-56 & 62-65), the housing assembly (68) comprising:
a second adjusting system comprising a second pair of toothed elements (detent 106, notches 110) intermeshing in a second plurality of positions, each position in the second plurality of positions corresponding to an amount of torque applied to the paddle (22) (Figs. 5-7; column 5, lines 26-52).
However, Devens fails to teach a first adjusting system comprising a first pair of toothed elements intermeshing in a first plurality of positions corresponding to rotational angles of the paddle.
Sorrenti discloses an analogous housing assembly (joint 10) comprising a first adjusting system comprising a first pair of toothed elements (serrated edge face 44, serrated rim 46) intermeshing in a first plurality of positions, each position of the first plurality of positions corresponding to a rotational angle of a paddle (member 14), and a second adjusting system comprising a second pair of toothed elements (worm gear 18, worm drive 20) intermeshing in a second plurality of positions, each position in the second plurality of positions corresponding to an amount of torque applied to the paddle (14) (Figs. 1A-1B; column 6, lines 35-40, 45-52, 56-67; column 7, lines 1-12 & 47-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orthotic device taught by Devens to include a first adjusting system comprising a first pair of toothed elements intermeshing in a first plurality of positions corresponding to rotational angles of the paddle as taught by Sorrenti for the purpose of setting a starting or resting position of the paddle with respect to the torque bar.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Devens and Sorrenti discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Devens further discloses a torsion spring (spring 66) disposed within the housing assembly (68) and applying the amount of torque (Fig. 7; column 4, lines 65-68; column 5, lines 1-10 & 26-29).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Devens and Sorrenti discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, Sorrenti further discloses that the first adjustable system and the second adjustable system are independently adjustable (column 7, lines 47-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orthotic device taught by the combination of Devens and Sorrenti such that the first adjustable system and the second adjustable system are independently adjustable as further taught by Sorrenti for the purpose of individually setting the desired starting or resting position of the paddle and the desired torque applied to the paddle.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Devens and Sorrenti discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Devens further discloses a second housing assembly affixed to a second end of the torque bar (14/70+72) opposing the first end, the second housing assembly having a second paddle (foot plate 20) attached thereto, the second housing assembly and the second paddle (20) being a mirror image of the housing assembly (68) (Fig. 1; column 5, lines 54-56).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the combination of Devens and Sorrenti discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Devens further discloses that the paddle (22) is adapted to attached to an orthotic footwear, wherein the orthotic footwear is at least one of a shoe, a boot, and a sandal (Fig. 1; column 3, lines 38-42).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devens in view of Sorrenti as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tummillo (US 3,892,231).
The combination of Devens and Sorrenti discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach that the torque bar has an adjustable length, wherein the torque bar comprises two slideably connected bar elements and the adjustable length is adjusted by sliding at least one of the two bar elements.
Tummillo discloses an analogous orthotic device comprising a bar (holder member 18) having an adjustable length, wherein the bar (18) comprises two slideably connected bar elements (first part 20, second part 22) and the adjustable length is adjusted by sliding at least one of the two bar elements (20, 22) (Fig. 1; column 2, lines 35-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orthotic device taught by the combination of Devens and Sorrenti such that the torque bar has an adjustable length, wherein the torque bar comprises two slideably connected bar elements and the adjustable length is adjusted by sliding at least one of the two bar elements as taught by Tummillo for the purpose of spreading a user’s feet apart by a preferred amount and holding them in that position.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devens in view of Sorrenti as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Mitchell (US 2007/0142760).
The combination of Devens and Sorrenti discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Devens further discloses that the orthotic device (10) is for the treatment of torsional deformities of the lower limbs (column 1, lines 7-10). However, the combination of Devens and Sorrenti fails to expressly teach that the orthotic device is a clubfoot correction device.
Mitchell discloses an analogous orthotic device (splint assembly 1000) comprising a torque bar (rigid bars 1020+1040) and a paddle (angular adjustment/quick release member 700), wherein the orthotic device (1000) is a clubfoot correction device (Figs. 10-16; ¶ 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the orthotic device taught by the combination of Devens and Sorrenti as a clubfoot correction device as taught by Mitchell for the purpose of preventing relapses of corrected clubfeet by firmly, yet gently and comfortably, holding a baby’s feet in the corrected position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keri J. Nelson whose telephone number is 571-270-3821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachael E. 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.
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 2/12/2026