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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/21/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are pending of which Claim(s) 1, 15 is/are presented in independent form.
All references relied up on and not cited in the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
Claims 4, 13, 18 withdrawn.
Claims 1, 15 amended.
Claims 21-30 newly added.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-17, 19-30 examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending 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. New references of Hall (US 9492342 B2) and Vixathep (US 20140024506 A1) have been provided.
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 2-3, 9-10, 16-17, 19 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 2 recites “at least one handle” wherein it is unclear if this is referring back to one of the handles of the previously established “one or more handles” or a different handle. Examiner will interpret this as - at least one handle of the one or more handles-.
Claim 3 recites “one end extending from the femoral portion of the frame and one end extending from the tibial portion of the frame”, wherein “one end” is repeated twice herein making it confusing if they are the same end or different ends. Examiner will interpret this as – a first end extending from the femoral portion of the frame and a second end extending from the tibial portion of the frame-.
Claim 9 recites “a hub” and “a second hub” wherein there is a lack of clarity if this first recitation of “a hub” should be interpreted as a “first hub” or some other hub or even also the second hub.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first hub". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret this as referring to the “hub” as defined by “a distal end of the femoral portion of the frame is defined by a hub” in claim 9.
Claim 16 recites “at least one handle” wherein it is unclear if this is referring back to one of the handles of the previously established “one or more handles” or a different handle. Examiner will interpret this as - at least one handle of the one or more handles-.
Claim 17 recites “the at least one handle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and further wherein it is unclear if this is referring back to one of the handles of the previously established “one or more handles” or a different handle. Examiner will interpret this as – an at least one handle of the one or more handles-.
Claim 19 recites “a hub” and “a second hub” wherein there is a lack of clarity if this first recitation of “a hub” should be interpreted as a “first hub” or some other hub or even also the second hub.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, 14, 21-26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceriani (US 20060155229 A1) in view of Hall (US 9492342 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Ceriani discloses a surgical leg holder for manipulating a leg during surgery (Fig 1, brace 10 capable of use during surgery as it leaves a majority of the leg exposed), the surgical leg holder comprising:
a frame comprising a proximal femoral portion (Fig 1, femur portion 14a), a joint (Fig 1, joint 12a) and a tibial portion distal the joint (Fig 1, tibial portion 16a), the frame capable of angular adjustment about the joint ([0031], joint allows for locking angular adjustments)…
and one or more fasteners to circumscribe at least a portion of a leg to secure the leg to the frame (Fig 1, fasteners 82a, 84a, 84b, and 82b).
Ceriani is silent on one or more handles rigidly attached to the frame and extending outward therefrom, the one or more handles comprising a rigid structural member configured to be grasped by a user.
However, Hall teaches an analogous conventional knee brace 1300 (Fig. 13-14 and Col. 7 lines 47-53) comprising one or more handles 101 rigidly attached to an analogous frame 1300 (Fig. 13-14) and extending outward therefrom, the one or more handles 101 comprising a rigid structural member 101U configured to be grasped by a user (Fig. 13-14 and Col. 7 lines 47-53) (Fig. 12-14, the handle 101 is rigidly attached to the knee brace at the hinge joint 1301 as shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the handle 101 as taught by Hall for attachment as claimed to the joint 12a of Ceriani therein in order to enable the leg to be manipulated for positioning and knee rehabilitation therein (Abstract of Hall).
With respect to claim 2, Ceriani in view of Hall discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Hall further teaches wherein at least one handle 101 extends from both the femoral portion and the tibial portion of the frame (Hall Fig. 13-14, the handle 101 attaches at a hinge joint formed by both an analogous femoral portion 1302U and an analogous tibial portion 1302L and thus extends from both the tibial and femoral portions both making up the hinge 1301 therein).
With respect to claim 3, Ceriani in view of Hall discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Hall further teaches wherein the at least one handle 101 is a single, u-shaped handle (Fig. 13-14 and Col. 7 lines 47-53) with one end extending from the femoral portion of the frame and one end extending from the tibial portion of the frame (Fig. 13-14 there are two ends of the U-shaped handle 101 therein, wherein each end is connected at a joint/hinge hub 1301 therein formed by both the an analogous femoral portion 1302U and an analogous tibial portion 1302L, and thus one end is extending from the tibial portion of the frame therein and so is the other end extending from the femoral portion therein as each end is extending from both as a whole).
With respect to claim 5, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 1.
Ceriani further comprising one or more pads secured to an inner side of the frame (Ceriani Fig 1, [0039], pads 72).
With respect to claim 6, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 5.
Ceriani further discloses comprising at least one pad secured to the femoral portion of the frame and at least one pad secured to tibial portion of the frame (Ceriani Fig 1, [0039], pads 72 on each of the femoral 14 and tibial 16 portions).
With respect to claim 7, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 1.
Ceriani further discloses wherein the femoral portion of the frame includes a femoral portion end connector and a thigh shaft (Ceriani Fig 1, femoral portion end connector 20a and thigh shaft 14a), the femoral portion end connector capable of being placed in a first position in which the femoral portion end connector is movable about the thigh shaft in an axial direction and a second position in which the femoral portion is locked with respect to the thigh shaft (Ceriani Fig 1, femoral portion 20a movable and lockable in an axial direction with respect to the thigh shaft 14a via lock 138).
With respect to claim 8, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 7.
Ceriani further discloses wherein the tibial portion of the frame includes a tibial portion end connector movable about a tibial shaft (Ceriani Fig 1, tibial end connector 24a and tibial shaft 26a), the tibial portion end connector capable of being placed in a first position in which the tibial portion end connector is movable about the tibial shaft about an axial direction and a second position in which the tibial portion is locked with respect to the tibial shaft (Fig 1, tibial connector 24a movable along and lockable relative to the tibial shaft 26a via lock 138; “about” interpreted as “relative to” rather than “in rotation”).
With respect to claim 9, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 1.
Ceriani discloses wherein a distal end of the femoral portion of the frame is defined by a hub and a proximal end of the tibial portion of the frame is defined by a second hub (Ceriani Fig 4, Fig 1, hubs at each end of the tibial and femoral portions which define the joint 12).
With respect to claim 10, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 9.
Ceriani discloses wherein the joint is capable of being placed in a first position in which the first hub is rotatable about the second hub and a second position in which the first hub and second hub cannot be rotated with respect to each other (Ceriani [0030], hubs make up joint 12 which is lockable).
With respect to claim 11, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 1.
Ceriani discloses wherein the one or more fasteners includes one or more of a belt, strap, sleeve or clamp (Ceriani Fig 1, straps 82a, 84a, 84b, and 82b make up fasteners 82a, 84a, 84b, and 82b).
With respect to claim 12, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 1.
Ceriani further comprising a second frame, the one or more fasteners securing the leg between the first frame and the second frame (Ceriani Fig 1, other frame made up of 14b and 16b).
With respect to claim 14, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 1.
Hall teaches wherein an outer surface of the frame comprises one or more handle mating members (Fig. 13-14, outer surface of the frame/brace 1300 comprises the handle mating member 1301 for attachment of the handle 101).
With respect to claim 21, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 1.
Hall teaches wherein the one or more handles are detachably coupled to the frame (Fig. 13-14 and Col. 3 line 60 and Col. 5 lines 23-24, handle is detachable from the frame/brace therein).
With respect to claim 22, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 1.
Hall teaches wherein the one or more handles 101 comprise a unitary member 101U extending outward from the frame (Fig. 13-14, the member 101U of the handle 101 is extending from the frame via intervening structures of the handle 101 therein, the member 101U is shown through Fig. 1A-1B to be a unitary member of the overall handle).
With respect to claim 23, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 21.
Hall teaches wherein the one or more handles 101 are selectively attachable to different locations on the frame (Fig. 13-14, the handle ends attach to two separate different points/sides/locations 1301 on the frame for attachment, being selective attachment as being detachable, Col. 3 line 60 and Col. 5 lines 23-24).
With respect to claim 24, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 23.
Hall teaches wherein the frame comprises a plurality of handle mounting locations (Fig. 13-14, frame of Hall comprises two handle mounting locations 1301 on each side of the frame as shown thus being a plurality of handle mounting locations).
With respect to claim 25, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 21.
Hall teaches wherein the frame is configured to receive a plurality of different leg support components (Fig. 13-14 and Col. 7 lines 47-53, the frame has “handle attachment hardware 1301” thus capable of receiving different handles being different leg support structures) (Fig. 13-14, the frame/brace further comprises leg straps 1303 being also different leg support components therein) (Examiner further notes that this functional claim is broad for simply having the frame configured/capable of receiving a plurality of different leg support components, there being no actual recited structure therein).
With respect to claim 26, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 25.
Hall teaches wherein the plurality of different leg support components comprise supports of different sizes or curvatures (Examiner notes this claim is broad as the plurality of different leg support components here in claim 26 is defined as functional language in claim 25) (Hall teaches as modified with Ceriani in Col. 7 lines 47-53, the frame has “handle attachment hardware 1301” enabling any of the handles 101 as shown in Fig. 1-17 to be attached therein, wherein the handles 101 as shown in Fig. 1-2, the handle may be adjusted in size as shown with the arrows, thus there may be various handles of different sizes that are attachable to the frame being a plurality of different leg support components comprise supports of different sizes with the handles being supports).
With respect to claim 30, Ceriani/Hall discloses The surgical leg holder of claim 1.
Ceriani wherein the one or more fasteners comprise flexible securing members configured to conform to a portion of the leg (Fig 1, fasteners 82a, 84a, 84b, and 82b are straps, see [0041], wherein straps are implicitly flexible securing members which are configured to conform to the leg as shown in Fig. 2-3)
Claims 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghanem (US 9,248,330) in view of Ceriani (US 20060155229 A1) in view of Hall (US 9492342 B2).
With respect to claim 15, Ghanem discloses a method of manipulating a leg during a surgical procedure comprising introducing the leg to a surgical leg holder (Fig 1, procedure of exercising the legs), the surgical leg holder comprising:
a frame comprising a proximal femoral portion (Fig 1, portion of frame 36 where the femur would lie is the femoral portion), …and
one or more fasteners to circumscribe at least a portion of a leg to secure the leg to the frame (Fig 3, fasteners 42).
Ghanem is silent on a joint and a tibial portion distal the joint, the frame capable of angular adjustment about the joint; one or more handles rigidly attached to the frame and extending outward therefrom, the one or more handles comprising a rigid structural member configured to be grasped by a user.
Ceriani teaches an analogous leg frame having a frame comprising a proximal femoral portion (Fig 1, femur portion 14a), a joint (Fig 1, joint 12a) and a tibial portion distal the joint (Fig 1, tibial portion 16a), the frame capable of angular adjustment about the joint ([0031], joint allows for locking angular adjustments).
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 device of Ghanem with a joint as taught by Ceriani in order to better fit different types of users (Ceriani [0003]).
Ghanem/Ceriani is silent on one or more handles rigidly attached to the frame and extending outward therefrom, the one or more handles comprising a rigid structural member configured to be grasped by a user.
However, Hall teaches an analogous conventional knee brace 1300 (Fig. 13-14 and Col. 7 lines 47-53) comprising one or more handles 101 rigidly attached to an analogous frame 1300 (Fig. 13-14) and extending outward therefrom, the one or more handles 101 comprising a rigid structural member 101U configured to be grasped by a user (Fig. 13-14 and Col. 7 lines 47-53) (Fig. 12-14, the handle 101 is rigidly attached to the knee brace at the hinge joint 1301 as shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the handle 101 as taught by Hall for attachment as claimed to the joint 12a of Ceriani as modified therein in order to enable the leg to be manipulated for positioning and knee rehabilitation therein (Abstract of Hall).
With respect to claim 16, Ghanem in view of Ceriani in view of Hall discloses the invention of claim 15 above.
Hall further teaches wherein at least one handle 101 extends from both the femoral portion and the tibial portion of the frame (Hall Fig. 13-14, the handle 101 attaches at a hinge joint formed by both an analogous femoral portion 1302U and an analogous tibial portion 1302L and thus extends from both the tibial and femoral portions both making up the hinge 1301 therein).
With respect to claim 17, Ghanem in view of Ceriani in view of Hall discloses the invention of claim 15 above.
Hall further teaches wherein the at least one handle 101 is a single, u-shaped handle (Fig. 13-14 and Col. 7 lines 47-53) with one end extending from the femoral portion of the frame and one end extending from the tibial portion of the frame (Fig. 13-14 there are two ends of the U-shaped handle 101 therein, wherein each end is connected at a joint/hinge hub 1301 therein formed by both the an analogous femoral portion 1302U and an analogous tibial portion 1302L, and thus one end is extending from the tibial portion of the frame therein and so is the other end extending from the femoral portion therein as each end is extending from both as a whole).
With respect to claim 19, Ghanem in view of Ceriani in view of Hall discloses the invention of claim 15 above.
Ceriani further teaches wherein a distal end of the femoral portion of the frame is defined by a hub and a proximal end of the tibial portion of the frame is defined by a second hub (Ceriani Fig 4, Fig 1, hubs at each end of the tibial and femoral portions which define the joint 12).
With respect to claim 20, Ghanem in view of Ceriani in view of Hall discloses the invention of claim 15 above.
Ceriani further teaches wherein the joint is capable of being placed in a first position in which a first hub is rotatable about a second hub and a second position in which the first hub and the second hub cannot be rotated with respect to each other (Ceriani [0030], hubs make up joint 12 which is lockable).
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceriani (US 20060155229 A1) in view of Hall (US 9492342 B2) in view of Vixathep (US 20140024506 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Ceriani/Hall discloses the invention of claim 21 above.
Ceriani/Hall does not disclose wherein the one or more handles are detachably coupled to the frame via a spring-biased locking member movable between an engaged position in which the handle is secured to the frame and a disengaged position in which the handle is removable from the frame.
However, Vixathep teaches an analogous handle 12 (Fig. 1-2 and [0033]) being analogously detachably attached onto an analogous frame member 18 (Fig. 1-3, dumbbell transverse member 18 [0032] being attached to the handle 12) (being in the analogous field of invention and problem solving of detachably attaching on a handle to another member), wherein the handle 12 is detachably coupled to the frame 18 (Fig. 1-3), via a spring-biased locking member 27 ([0035-0036] “spring-loading locking pin 27”) movable between an engaged position in which the handle is secured to the frame and a disengaged position in which the handle is removable from the frame (Fig. 1-3 and [0035-0036] the pin 27 may be engaged and thus providing a locked position between the handle and frame, and depressed/disengaged to enable the handle to be removed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the one or more handles that detachably coupled to the frame of Ceriani/Hall to be via the spring-biased locking member 27 as taught by Vixathep in order to provide further securement of the handle therein that would ensure it is not removed from the frame when the handle is grasped and pulled (Vixathep [0036]).
Regarding claim 28, Ceriani/Hall in view of Vixathep discloses the invention of claim 27 above.
Vixathep further teaches wherein the spring-biased locking member is configured to be manually actuated to release the handle from the frame. ([0036] spring biased locking pin 27 is manually depressed (actuated) to release the handle).
Regarding claim 29, Ceriani/Hall in view of Vixathep discloses the invention of claim 27 above.
Vixathep further teaches wherein the spring-biased locking member comprises a spring-loaded pin ([0035-0036] “spring-loading locking pin 27”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN S ALBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Rachael 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.
/KEVIN S ALBERS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights