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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 8/6/26. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 5, 7-11, and 13-14 have been amended and no claims have been added nor cancelled. As such, claims 1-14 are pending in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 50, 52, and 54. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 § 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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the newly amended language “the strap being spaced apart from the first body to define a gap, wherein the strap is configured such that, responsive to a force exerted by the limb against the strap when the limb is positioned in the gap …” (line 6-8, emphasis added) appears to introduce new matter not found in the disclosure as originally filed. The ‘gap’ formed by the spacing between strap and first body can be seen in Fig. 1-2 as being portion, i.e. gap, between transition 16 defining radius 28 of the first body and the strap 22; however, the disclosure does not appear to support a user’s limb being positioned ‘in the gap’ but rather positioned on a side of the strap opposite of the gap (see Fig. 10 and also Fig. 7-8 which appears to show resulting clamping force). The disclosure does not provide adequate written description for the user’s limb positioned in the strap (i.e. between strap 22 and radius/transition 28 of the first body) which would result in the ends of the first body being drawn towards one another to apply a clamping force.
Regarding claim 11, the newly amended claim includes similar language to that discussed in claim 1 and which introduces new matter not found in the disclosure as originally filed. Positioning a user’s limb such that it comes into contact with the strap “within the gap” (line 6) does not appear to be supported but rather the user’s limb is positioned on a side of the strap opposite of the gap. There is lack of adequate written description for how such a clamping force can be provided via drawing the ends of the first body toward one another responsive to force exerted by the user’s limb against the strap when the limb is ’within the gap’.
Claims 2-10 and 12-14 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
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 11-14 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.
Regarding claim 11, the language “the user’s limbs” (line 8) is unclear as it is not known how the limb support can function to support limbs, plural, of the user, or if Applicant is intending to claim plural limbs of the user being supported as Applicant has only set forth a single user limb in the claim. Examiner suggests amending to read –the user’s limb--.
Claims 12-14 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome 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.
The prior art does not disclose, either alone or suggest in combination, the limb support/method thereof including the structural elements set forth (first body and its particulars as well as the strap as claimed, and in particular if the claimed invention specified that the device/method functions “when the limb is positioned on a side of the strap opposite the gap” for claim 1 or “the user’s limb comes into contact with the strap on a side opposite the gap” for claim 11. Such language appears to be consistent with the disclosure as originally filed and would obviate the above noted 112a rejections and distinguish over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
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 COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights