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. Claim Objections Claims 2, 9, 11, 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 is objected to for referring to “a biological body segment”, “the anatomical three-dimensional shape”, and “the compiled data set” with improper antecedent basis. Claim 9 is objected to for referring to “a biological body segment”, “the compiled data set” with improper antecedent basis. Claim 11 is objected to for referring to “the spatial representation of bone” with improper antecedent basis. Claim 14 is objected to for referring to “a set of data features” with improper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Drawings The drawings are objected to because item “22” is used to represent both “gap” and “liner” in the specification. Further, the “openings” are represented by both 32 and 34 in the specification. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2- 3, 6 -8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. (US 6968246 B2 ) hereinafter known as Watson in view of Ezenwa ( US 20080147204 A1 ), further in view of Zhang et al. “Finite element modelling of a residual lower-limb in a prosthetic socket: a survey of the development in the first decade.” Medical Engineering & Physics 20 (1998) . pages 360-373. ), hereinafter known as Zhang . Regarding claim 2 Watson discloses a method of fabricating a prosthetic mechanical interface comprising a liner ( Figure 1 item 14 ) and a socket (Figure 1 item 16) for connecting a biological body segment to a wearable prosthetic device ( Figure 1 ) comprising: compiling a data set of features corresponding to the segment including a measurement of its anatomical 3d shape and a spatial representation of bone in the segment ( Column 2 lines 14-17; Column 3 lines 25-26; Column 4 lines 35-37 ), processing the data set to form a digital represent ation of the segment ( Column 4 lines 41-43; Figure 7b item 76; a mapping of boney prominences is understood to be a digital representation of the underlying segment ) and computing a digital representation from the digital representation of the segment ( Figure s 7b, 8b; Column 4 lines 45-48; Column 5 lines 63-65; a digital representation of the socket, overlay, and liner are modeled digitally based on the scanned data (although it is not clear if this is modeled at the same time to show the interface ) ), fabricating the liner and socket based on the digital representation (Column 6 lines 1-2; Column 4 lines 58-61) , but is silent with regards to whether the interface is shown in a digital representation showing the inside surface of the socket with the liner disposed therein and contacting the socket’s inside surface. However, regarding claim 2 Ezenwa teaches a method of manufacture of a prosthetic socket which includes measuring the pressure between the residual limb and socket, including a liner ( Ezenwa claim 8; this includes the socket liner interface), and Zhang teaches the interface between the residual limb and socket should have its pressure distribution modeled (which includes the liner interface as is taught by Ezenwa ) (page 361 column 1 paragraph 2). the interface between the socket and liner includes finite element analysis (FEA) (which inherently indicates a digital representation on a computer display) . Watson , Ezenwa , and Zhang are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic socket manufactu re . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Watson by showing the socket limb interface digitally as is taught by Zhang (and to have it include the liner at that interface as is taught by Ezenwa ) in order to show a full picture of the socket system before manufacture, thus giving the prosthetist more information regarding its final appearance, function, and features while accounting for areas of high pressure. Regarding claim 3 the Watson Ezenwa Zhang Combination teaches the method of claim 2 substantially as is claimed, wherein Watson further discloses the interface is a transtibial interface ( Column 6 lines 42-43 a below the knee amputation indicates a transtibial interface ). Regarding claim 6 the Watson Ezenwa Zhang Combination teaches the method of claim 2 substantially as is claimed, wherein Watson further discloses the data set is compiled using surface scanning, CT, MRI, or ultrasound ( Abstract ). Regarding claim 7 the Watson Ezenwa Zhang Combination teaches the method of claim 2 substantially as is claimed, wherein Zhang further discloses the method of socket manufacture should take into account tensile impedance at a plurality of anatomical points of the 3d shape (page 363 column 1 paragraph 2; fitting quality is determined by interfacial connecting stiffness or the ability of the interface to resist deformation; page 365 column 1 paragraph 1 soft tissues were meshed with different Young’s moduli in different regions, simulating the site-dependent stiffness of the tissues around the residual limb). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to modify the method of the Combination to utilize tensile impedance as is taught by Zhang in order to provide as complete a profile of the underlying tissue as possible to take into account user comfort and anatomy . Regarding claim 8 the Watson Ezenwa Zhang Combination teaches the method of claim 2 substantially as is claimed, wherein Watson further discloses the digital representation is made at a plurality of anatomical points (Figure 7b shows many points shown item 76); and the Combination teaches the representation being of the interface (see the rejection to claim 1 above). Claim s 4 , 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson, Ezenwa , and Zhang as is applied above, further in view of Schottdorf (US 20110161058 A1), and Caspers ( US 20120173001 A1 ). Regarding claim 4 the Watson Ezenwa Zhang Combination teaches the method of claim 2 substantially as is claimed, wherein Watson further discloses the spatial representation of bone includes a digital representation of a patella (Column 4 lines 35-36), but is silent with regards to the spatial representation of bone including a digital representation of the femur, tibia, and fibula. However, regarding claim 4 Schottdorf teaches that 3d image data acquired in order to manufacture a prosthesis can include information about the different tissues in the residual limb ([0016]), and Caspers teaches the residual limb can include bones such as the femur, tibia, and fibula ([0004], Figure 1). Watson, Schottdorf , and Caspers are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic sockets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of the Combination by viewing a digital representation of multiple bones within the leg including the tibia, fibula, and femur as is taught by Schottdorf and Caspers in order to ensure the entirety of the leg is accounted for in the planning of the manufacture of its prosthetic. Regarding claim 11 the Watson Ezenwa Zhang Schottdorf Combination teaches the method of claim 10 substantially as is claimed, wherein Watson further discloses the spatial representation of bone includes a digital representation of a patella (Column 4 lines 35-36), but is silent with regards to the spatial representation of bone including a digital representation of the femur, tibia, and fibula. However, regarding claim 11 Schottdorf teaches that 3d image data acquired in order to manufacture a prosthesis can include information about the different tissues in the residual limb ([0016]), and Caspers teaches the residual limb can include bones such as the femur, tibia, and fibula ([0004], Figure 1). Watson, Schottdorf , and Caspers are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic sockets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of the Combination by viewing a digital representation of multiple bones within the leg including the tibia, fibula, and femur as is taught by Schottdorf and Caspers in order to ensure the entirety of the leg is accounted for in the planning of the manufacture of its prosthetic. Regarding claim 13 the Wats on Ezenwa Zhang Schottdorf Combination teaches the method of claim 12 substantially as is claimed, wherein Watson further discloses the spatial representation of bone includes a digital representation of a patella (Column 4 lines 35-36), but is silent with regards to the spatial representation of bone including a digital representation of the femur, tibia, and fibula. However, regarding claim 13 Schottdorf teaches that 3d image data acquired in order to manufacture a prosthesis can include information about the different tissues in the residual limb ([0016]), and Caspers teaches the residual limb can include bones such as the femur, tibia, and fibula ([0004], Figure 1). Watson, Schottdorf , and Caspers are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic sockets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of the Combination by viewing a digital representation of multiple bones within the leg including the tibia, fibula, and femur as is taught by Schottdorf and Caspers in order to ensure the entirety of the leg is accounted for in the planning of the manufacture of its prosthetic. Claims 9-10, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson, Ezenwa , and Zhang as is applied above, further in view of Schottdorf as is applied above. Regarding claim 9 the Watson Ezenwa Zhang Combination teaches the method of claim 2 substantially as is claimed, wherein Watson furthe r discloses employing surface scanning to compile the data set of features corresponding to the body segment (abstract), and wherein Schottdorf further teaches employing a combination of surface scanning and CT, MRI, or ultrasound ( [0004] ) to compile the data set of features corresponding to the body segment. It would have been obvious to use a combination of multiple scanning mechanisms as is taught by Schottdorf in order to increase the accuracy and amount of data for the manufacture of the socket, thus leading to a more comfortable prosthesis for the patient. Regarding claim 1 0 the Watson Ezenwa Zhang Schottdorf Combination teaches the method of claim 9 substantially as is claimed, wherein Watson further discloses the interface is a transtibial interface (Column 6 lines 42-43 a below the knee amputation indicates a transtibial interface). Regarding claim 12 the Watson Ezenwa Zhang Schottdorf Combination teaches the method of claim 9 substantially as is claimed, wherein Watson further discloses the data set of features represents a measurement of the anatomical 3d shape of the segment and a spatial representation of bone in th e segment ( Column 2 lines 14-17; Column 3 lines 25-26; Column 4 lines 35-37 ). Regarding claim 14 the Watson Ezenwa Zhang Schottdorf Combination teaches the method of claim 9 substantially as is claimed, wherein Zhang further teaches compiling the data set compri ses employing electromechanical measurement tools ( page 367 column 1 paragraph 1 ). It would have been obvious to use an electromechanical tool as is taught by Zhang in order to increase the accuracy and amount of data for the manufacture of the socket, thus leading to a more comfortable prosthesis for the patient. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claims 5 and 15, the Watson Ezenwa Zhang Combination teaches the method substantially as is claimed, but is silent with regards to the data set including soft tissue depth, tissue distribution, tissue density, viscoelasticity, skin tensile strain, neural muscle activation, and sensitivity. However, regarding claims 5 and 15 Schottdorf (as is applied above) teaches a method of socket manufacture which includes a scanned data set which includes soft tissue depth ([0011] layer thickness of skin fat muscle or bone), tissue distribution ([0016] distribution of tissue types of the stump), tissue density ([0016] tissue properties such as density), and sensitivity to external pressure influenced by the underlying anatomy of the segment ([0016] sensation of pain/pain sensitivity). The prior art accordingly fails to teach socket manufacturing including a scanned data set which also includes viscoelasticity, skin tensile strain, and neural muscle activation in addition to those mentioned above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jacqueline Woznicki whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5603 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 10am-6pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jerrah Edwards can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 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. /Jacqueline Woznicki/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 02/25/26