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 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3, 10 and 11 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 claims 3 and 10, the Examiner is not clear the location of the “open space”. Does the “open space” is located at the bottom or on top of the second socket? Or is on the left side of element 16 in Figure 4? Correction is required. Regarding claim 11, the Applicant’s representative discloses “further comprising a pair of top edge links”. The Examiner believes this phrase is indefinitive , since, the claim has not defined the location of the pair of top edge links. The top edge links are in the lower socket or in the upper socket? Correction is required. Additionally, the Examiner believes lines 2 and 3 of claim 11 is not clear. The Examiner suggest the following language: “said lower socket includes a top edge, a portion of the top edge proximate to the top edge links is curved below the remainder of the top edge.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-7, 9 - 13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ou et al US Patent Pub. 2023/0248545A1 . Regarding claims 1-4 and 9, Ou et al discloses an adjustable prosthetic gripping device (See Fig. 2) comprising a lower socket (3 and 2), adapted to receive and secure a first portion of a limb in a receptacle of said lower socket. The device also comprises an upper socket (4, see Fig. 3) adapted to receive and secure a second portion of said limb (upper limb) in a receptacle of said upper socket (4). An attachment (1); a socket connector (22) positioned at a distal end of said lower socket (2); wherein said lower socket (2) and said upper socket (4) are attached to one another and are rotatable with respect to one another (see the links 41, having a plurality of hinges capable of rotating element 3 with respect to element 4/44). Wherein said attachment (1) is configured to be removably secured to said socket connector at a number of different angles (see Fig. 1 showing that element (13) can rotate relative to element (2) to different angles so it can be connected to a right or left arms) ; and wherein said attachment (1) is configured to receive a tensile force caused by movement of said limb to cause said attachment to apply a gripping force (the force is exerted by wires 461) . Regarding the open space in claims 3 and 10, since, the open space is not defined and has been rejected under 35USC 112 rejection, the Examiner interpreted the “open space” as the spaces in the upper and/or lower sections of element (4) or the side opening shown in Fig. 3 where the strap (47) is covering. Regarding claim 4, see element (461) as the string. Regarding claim 5, see figure below showing the portion and the edges defining the open area of the first socket. Regarding claim 6, see figure above showing curved edges. Regarding claims 7 and 15 , see figure below and figure 1, for the Examiner’s interpretation of the apertures how the area aligned with an aperture and the locking objects. Regarding claim 11, the Examiner is interpreting the claim to the best of his ability and as broad as possible, since, the claim is unclear. See figure below showing the Examiner interpretation of the claim. The top edge of the socket is all curved from the top (where element 45 is located) to the bottom (where the hinge is located). Regarding claim 12, see element (47) as the strap. Regarding claim 13, see string (4 61) and the tensioning pin (432 and/or 45). Regarding the method claims 16, 17, 18 and 20 related to the assembly of the implant, see Fig. 2 showing the implant assembled, therefore, it reads on all the claimed assembled steps in addition it reads on all the structural limitations claimed in the claims above. 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 8, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou et al US Patent Pub. 2023/0248545A1 in view of LaChappelle US Patent 10,940,026B2 . Ou et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Ou et al is silent regarding a foam interior inside the socket. Regarding claim 8, LaChappelle teaches an implant comprising an artificial arm having a socket (110) comprising an interior surface having a foam interior for the purpose of providing a compressible or moldable material positioned between the socket and the amputated arm. See col. 7, lines 63-67 and col. 8, lines 1-5. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the inner liner of the Ou et al socket with the inner liner (foam) of the LaChappelle in order to provide a compressible or moldable material positioned between the socket and the amputated arm. Regarding claim 14, Ou et al does not disclose a worn gear, however, Ou et al discloses a coil drum (43) capable of performing the same function as the worm gear. Therefore, i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the worm gear with a coil drum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an equivalent known element on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Regarding claim 19, LaChappelle teaches an implant comprising an artificial arm having a socket (110) comprising an interior surface having a foam interior for the purpose of providing a compressible or moldable material positioned between the socket and the amputated arm. See col. 7, lines 63-67 and col. 8, lines 1-5. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to add also a foam to second socket (4) for also providing a compressible or moldable material positioned between the second socket and the upper arm. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALVIN J STEWART whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4760 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:30AM-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 Thomas Barrett can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4746 . 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. /ALVIN J STEWART/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 3/26/26