DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Rejection for Application 18/555,721 filed October 16, 2023. The current application is a 371 of PCT/US22/25121 filed April 15, 2022 which claims priority to U.S. Provisional patent application serial number 63/175,799, filed on April 16, 2021. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, 17-19 and 21-26 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 19, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims filed on May 04, 2026.
The claim objections indicated in the Office action filed March 09, 2026 are overcome by the amendments and are hereby withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1 and 15 change the scope of the claims, therefore new grounds of rejection are provided below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Carlson and Bauerfeind have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on either of these references.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Bejarano have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the teachings of Bejarano specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that "A person of ordinary skill in the art working on involuntary-movement dampening would not reasonably have looked to an orthotic-fit-adjustment brace for a solution to nerve-pressure positioning. Bejarano is therefore nonanalogous art under the two-part test of In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 ( Fed. Cir. 2004), and should not be included in the obviousness combination." This argument is unpersuasive as Bejarano, Tarkington and the present invention are drawn to orthopedic devices which places them in the same field of endeavor.
Applicant argues that "The Office Action's reliance on four separate references, each cited for a fragment of amended claim 1's limitations, is itself indicative of hindsight reconstruction." In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-13, 15, 17 and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0406093 (Tarkington) in view of US 2017/0360643 (Korrol).
Regarding claim 1, Tarkington discloses an involuntary movement dampening device (Tarkington discloses an exercise device that pivotally connects two portions of an extremity of a user and provides a resistance mechanism configured to exert force when a pivot is rotated. See the abstract and Figs. 1-10. The device of Tarkington is capable of use in dampening involuntary movements due to its rotation resistance.), comprising:
a first coupling extension including a first extension and a first coupling feature positioned along the first extension, the first coupling feature configured to secure to a first part of an extremity of a user (The exercise device 100 comprises foot support portion 101 as can be seen in Figs. 1-10. The foot support portion 101 is interpreted as a first coupling extension and comprises a framework 114, a foot support surface 150, and at least one strap 116. The framework 114 is interpreted as a first extension, and foot support surface 150 and straps 116 are interpreted as a first coupling feature. The foot support surface 150 and straps 116 are configured to receive and support a foot of the user while the user is using the device 100. See Figs. 8a and 8b and [0052]-[0053].);
a second coupling extension including a second extension and a second coupling feature positioned along the second extension, the second coupling feature configured to secure to a second part of the extremity of the user (The exercise device 100 comprises leg support portion 102 as can be seen in Figs. 1-10. The leg support portion 102 is interpreted as a second coupling extension and comprises a pair of legs 106, a contoured plate 104, and a strap 111. The pair of legs 106 is interpreted as a second extension, and the contoured plate 104 and strap 111 are interpreted as a second coupling feature. The contoured plate 104 and strap 111 are configured to receive a leg 122 of a user 123. See Figs. 8a and 8b and [0048]-[0049].);
an adjustable hinge that provides a pivotable coupling between the first extension and the second extension, the adjustable hinge providing more than one dampening settings, each dampening setting of the more than one dampening settings providing a different level of pivoting resistance between the first extension and the second extension to thereby at least dampen involuntary pivoting between the first part and the second part of the extremity (Resistance mechanism 103 allows for the leg support portion 102 to pivot about the foot support portion 101 and is therefore, interpreted as a hinge. See [0046] and Figs. 1-10. Additionally, the resistance mechanism 103 comprises a friction device 144 that can be adjusted to change the resistance of the resistance mechanism 103, making the resistance mechanism 103 an adjustable hinge. See [0057]. Rotation of an end cap 130 of the resistance mechanism 103 controls the pressure of stacked washers 125, 126, thus modifying the degree of friction created and the resultant resistance to pivoting of resistance mechanism 103. This allows for multiple dampening settings as the rotation of the end cap allows for continuous adjustment.).
Tarkington does not disclose a nerve pressure feature positioned along the first coupling feature, second coupling feature, or both, for applying a pressure against a nerve of a user when the associated first coupling feature, second coupling feature, or both, are coupled to the extremity, wherein the nerve pressure feature comprises a portion extending outwardly from an inner wall of the first coupling feature, second coupling feature, or both; and a movable element coupled to the nerve pressure feature, wherein the movable element is disposed within the first coupling feature, second coupling feature, or both, and is slidably coupled along the inner wall thereof to constrain the movable element along a predefined linear path along a guide surface of the inner wall thereof to allow the user to adjust a linear placement of the nerve pressure feature relative to the extremity of the user.
However, Korrol discloses a pressure applicating assembly comprising a pressure applicator apparatus 100 and a pressure applicator apparatus attachment strap assembly 200. The pressure applicator apparatus attachment strap assembly 200 is analogous to the strap 111 of Tarkington. The pressure applicator apparatus 100 includes a plurality of styluses that apply pressure to the skin and underlying tissue and therefore are nerve pressure features; [0088]-[0089]. The styluses are positioned along the strap assembly 200 and are capable of applying a pressure against a nerve of a user when the strap assembly 200 is coupled to the extremity. The styluses include a portion extending outwardly from an inner wall of the strap assembly 200; Fig. 1. A pressure applicator base member 110 is interpreted as a movable element and is coupled to the styluses. The base member 110 is disposed within strap assembly 200 via a pair of strap receiving slots 114 and is slidably coupled along the inner wall thereof to constrain the base member 110 along a predefined linear path along a guide surface of the inner wall thereof to allow the user to adjust a linear placement of the styluses relative to the extremity of the user; Figs. 1, 5 and 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the straps 111 of Tarkington to include the pressure applicator apparatus as taught by Korrol. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Korrol teaches that the pressure applicator apparatus 100 can be used to apply pressure to a patient's body to relieve discomfort from one or more ailments ([0084]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to wearable interfaces of physical therapy apparatuses.
Regarding claim 3, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the involuntary movement dampening device of claim 1, wherein the dampening device is configured to reduce involuntary pivoting movement is caused by tremors or other involuntary movements experienced along the extremity of the user (A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). In the instant case, the structure of Tarkington in view of Korrol as applied in claim 1 is capable of dampening tremors or other involuntary movements experienced along the extremity of the user.).
Regarding claim 4, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the involuntary movement dampening device of claim 1, wherein the nerve pressure feature includes an extruded material extending from an inner wall of the second coupling feature (The styluses of Korrol comprises material extending from the inner wall of the strap 111. The recitation “extruded” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).).
Regarding claim 5, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the involuntary movement dampening device of claim 4.
Tarkington in view of Korrol does not directly disclose wherein the extruded material includes a spherical shape.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the styluses of Korrol to be spherical, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape that is absent of persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed component is significant is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). A spherical shape would allow for a more distributed force to be applied to a user. Additionally, the recitation “extruded” remains a product-by-process limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the involuntary movement dampening device of claim 1, wherein the adjustable hinge includes a friction feature that increases pivoting resistance between the first extension and the second extension as compression of the friction feature is increased within the adjustable hinge (The resistance mechanism 103 comprises a friction device 144 that can be adjusted to change the resistance of the resistance mechanism 103, making the resistance mechanism 103 an adjustable hinge. See [0057]. Rotation of an end cap 130 of the resistance mechanism 103 controls the pressure of stacked washers 125, 126, thus modifying the degree of friction created and the resultant resistance to pivoting of resistance mechanism 103. This allows for multiple dampening settings as the rotation of the end cap allows for continuous adjustment.).
Regarding claim 9, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the involuntary movement dampening device of claim 8, wherein the friction feature decreases resistance in movement of the first and second extensions as compression of the friction feature decreases within the adjustable hinge (The resistance mechanism 103 comprises a friction device 144 that can be adjusted to change the resistance of the resistance mechanism 103, making the resistance mechanism 103 an adjustable hinge. See [0057]. Rotation of an end cap 130 of the resistance mechanism 103 controls the pressure of stacked washers 125, 126, thus modifying the degree of friction created and the resultant resistance to pivoting of resistance mechanism 103. This allows for multiple dampening settings as the rotation of the end cap allows for continuous adjustment.).
Regarding claim 10, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the involuntary movement dampening device of claim 1, wherein the adjustable hinge is configured to provide at least three different levels of pivoting resistance between the first extension and the second extension (The resistance mechanism 103 comprises a friction device 144 that can be adjusted to change the resistance of the resistance mechanism 103, making the resistance mechanism 103 an adjustable hinge. See [0057]. Rotation of an end cap 130 of the resistance mechanism 103 controls the pressure of stacked washers 125, 126, thus modifying the degree of friction created and the resultant resistance to pivoting of resistance mechanism 103. This allows for multiple dampening settings as the rotation of the end cap allows for continuous adjustment. The dampening settings are interpreted as comprising at least three since there are infinite settings for the end cap since it is continuous.).
Regarding claim 11, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the involuntary movement dampening device of claim 10, wherein the adjustable hinge includes an adjustment feature that can be rotated by a user to at least three different positions, each position configuring the adjustable hinge to provide one of the at least three different levels of pivoting resistance (The resistance mechanism 103 comprises a friction device 144 that can be adjusted to change the resistance of the resistance mechanism 103, making the resistance mechanism 103 an adjustable hinge. See [0057]. Rotation of an end cap 130 of the resistance mechanism 103 controls the pressure of stacked washers 125, 126, thus modifying the degree of friction created and the resultant resistance to pivoting of resistance mechanism 103. This allows for multiple dampening settings as the rotation of the end cap allows for continuous adjustment. The dampening settings are interpreted as comprising at least three since there are infinite settings for the end cap since it is continuous.).
Regarding claim 12, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the involuntary movement dampening device of claim 11, wherein the adjustable hinge includes a sensory feedback mechanism that provides at least one of a tactile feedback and an audible feedback to the user as a result of the adjustable hinge changing to a different level of pivoting resistance (The end cap 130 is interpreted as a tactile feedback as the user’s hand is used to turn the cap. The user can use the end cap 130 to determine the different degrees of resistance of the device thereby providing feedback.).
Regarding claim 13, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the involuntary movement dampening device of claim 1, wherein the first coupling feature and the second coupling feature each include an adjustable strap, an inflatable strap, or both (The straps 116 are interpreted as a first coupling feature and strap 111 is interpreted as a second coupling feature. Both straps 116 and 111 are adjustable with hook and loop fasteners. See [0049] and [0053].).
Regarding claim 15, Tarkington discloses a method of an involuntary movement dampening device (Tarkington discloses an exercise device that pivotally connects two portions of an extremity of a user and provides a resistance mechanism configured to exert force when a pivot is rotated. See the abstract and Figs. 1-10. The device of Tarkington is capable of use in dampening involuntary movements due to its rotation resistance.), comprising:
adjusting a pivoting resistance of an adjustable hinge of the involuntary movement dampening device to achieve a first level of pivoting resistance (Resistance mechanism 103 allows for the leg support portion 102 to pivot about the foot support portion 101 and is therefore, interpreted as a hinge. See [0046] and Figs. 1-10. Additionally, the resistance mechanism 103 comprises a friction device 144 that can be adjusted to change the resistance of the resistance mechanism 103, making the resistance mechanism 103 an adjustable hinge. See [0057]. Rotation of an end cap 130 of the resistance mechanism 103 controls the pressure of stacked washers 125, 126, thus modifying the degree of friction created and the resultant resistance to pivoting of resistance mechanism 103. This allows for multiple dampening settings as the rotation of the end cap allows for continuous adjustment.), the involuntary movement dampening device comprising:
a first coupling extension including a first extension and a first coupling feature positioned along the first extension, the first coupling feature configured to secure to a first part of an extremity of a user (The exercise device 100 comprises foot support portion 101 as can be seen in Figs. 1-10. The foot support portion 101 is interpreted as a first coupling extension and comprises a framework 114, a foot support surface 150, and at least one strap 116. The framework 114 is interpreted as a first extension, and foot support surface 150 and straps 116 are interpreted as a first coupling feature. The foot support surface 150 and straps 116 are configured to receive and support a foot of the user while the user is using the device 100. See Figs. 8a and 8b and [0052]-[0053].); and
a second coupling extension including a second extension and a second coupling feature positioned along the second extension, the second coupling feature configured to secure to a second part of the extremity of the user (The exercise device 100 comprises leg support portion 102 as can be seen in Figs. 1-10. The leg support portion 102 is interpreted as a second coupling extension and comprises a pair of legs 106, a contoured plate 104, and a strap 111. The pair of legs 106 is interpreted as a second extension, and the contoured plate 104 and strap 111 are interpreted as a second coupling feature. The contoured plate 104 and strap 111 are configured to receive a leg 122 of a user 123. See Figs. 8a and 8b and [0048]-[0049].),
wherein the adjustable hinge provides a pivotable coupling between the first extension and the second extension, the adjustable hinge providing more than one dampening settings, each dampening setting of the more than one dampening settings providing a different level of pivoting resistance between the first extension and the second extension to thereby at least dampen involuntary pivoting between the first part and the second part of the extremity (Resistance mechanism 103 allows for the leg support portion 102 to pivot about the foot support portion 101. See [0046] and Figs. 1-10. Additionally, the resistance mechanism 103 comprises a friction device 144 that can be adjusted to change the resistance of the resistance mechanism 103. See [0057]. Rotation of an end cap 130 of the resistance mechanism 103 controls the pressure of stacked washers 125, 126, thus modifying the degree of friction created and the resultant resistance to pivoting of resistance mechanism 103. This allows for multiple dampening settings as the rotation of the end cap allows for continuous adjustment.); and
wherein the involuntary movement dampening device is coupled to the extremity (The exercise device of Tarkington is coupled to the extremity of a user and specifically, the lower leg and foot of the user. See Figs. 8-10.).
Tarkington does not disclose applying a pressure against a nerve of a user when the associated first coupling feature, second coupling feature, or both, are coupled to the extremity, using a nerve pressure feature positioned along the first coupling feature, second coupling feature, or both, wherein the nerve pressure feature is coupled to a movable element, wherein the movable element is disposed within the first coupling feature, second coupling feature, or both, and is slidably coupled along the inner wall thereof to constrain the movable element along a predefined linear path along a guide surface of the inner wall thereof to allow the user to adjust a linear placement of the nerve pressure feature relative to the extremity of the user, and dampening an involuntary movement of the extremity of the user.
However, Tarkington is capable of dampening involuntary movement of the extremity of a user due to the resistance mechanism 103 comprising a friction device 144 which allows the resistance mechanism to dampen movement including involuntary movement. It is within the skills of one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the orthotic of Tarkington to a user having involuntary movement.
Additionally, Korrol discloses a pressure applicating assembly comprising a pressure applicator apparatus 100 and a pressure applicator apparatus attachment strap assembly 200. The pressure applicator apparatus attachment strap assembly 200 is analogous to the strap 111 of Tarkington. The pressure applicator apparatus 100 includes a plurality of styluses that apply pressure to the skin and underlying tissue and therefore are nerve pressure features; [0088]-[0089]. The styluses are positioned along the strap assembly 200 and are capable of applying a pressure against a nerve of a user when the strap assembly 200 is coupled to the extremity. The styluses include a portion extending outwardly from an inner wall of the strap assembly 200; Fig. 1. A pressure applicator base member 110 is interpreted as a movable element and is coupled to the styluses. The base member 110 is disposed within strap assembly 200 via a pair of strap receiving slots 114 and is slidably coupled along the inner wall thereof to constrain the base member 110 along a predefined linear path along a guide surface of the inner wall thereof to allow the user to adjust a linear placement of the styluses relative to the extremity of the user; Figs. 1, 5 and 6.
It would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for the exercise device of Tarkington to be applied to a user having involuntary movement. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Tarkington teaches that their device provides a passive resistance to rotational movement ([0059]). Passive resistance is useful in preventing involuntary movements since the resistance is always being applied while the device is worn. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that the reference is an orthotic provided with a passive resistance mechanism.
It would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the straps 111 of Tarkington to include the pressure applicator apparatus as taught by Korrol. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Korrol teaches that the pressure applicator apparatus 100 can be used to apply pressure to a patient's body to relieve discomfort from one or more ailments ([0084]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to wearable interfaces of physical therapy apparatuses.
Regarding claim 17, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the dampening is configured to reduce involuntary pivoting movement caused by tremors or other involuntary movements experienced along the extremity of the user (The structure of Tarkington in view of Korrol as applied in claim 15 dampens tremors or other involuntary movements experienced along the extremity of the user.).
Regarding claim 22, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the adjustable hinge includes a friction feature that increases pivoting resistance between the first extension and the second extension as compression of the friction feature is increased within the adjustable hinge (The resistance mechanism 103 comprises a friction device 144 that can be adjusted to change the resistance of the resistance mechanism 103, making the resistance mechanism 103 an adjustable hinge. See [0057]. Rotation of an end cap 130 of the resistance mechanism 103 controls the pressure of stacked washers 125, 126, thus modifying the degree of friction created and the resultant resistance to pivoting of resistance mechanism 103. This allows for multiple dampening settings as the rotation of the end cap allows for continuous adjustment.).
Regarding claim 23, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the friction feature decreases resistance in movement of the first and second extensions as compression of the friction feature decreases within the adjustable hinge (The resistance mechanism 103 comprises a friction device 144 that can be adjusted to change the resistance of the resistance mechanism 103, making the resistance mechanism 103 an adjustable hinge. See [0057]. Rotation of an end cap 130 of the resistance mechanism 103 controls the pressure of stacked washers 125, 126, thus modifying the degree of friction created and the resultant resistance to pivoting of resistance mechanism 103. This allows for multiple dampening settings as the rotation of the end cap allows for continuous adjustment.).
Regarding claim 24, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the adjustable hinge is configured to provide at least three different levels of pivoting resistance between the first extension and the second extension (The resistance mechanism 103 comprises a friction device 144 that can be adjusted to change the resistance of the resistance mechanism 103, making the resistance mechanism 103 an adjustable hinge. See [0057]. Rotation of an end cap 130 of the resistance mechanism 103 controls the pressure of stacked washers 125, 126, thus modifying the degree of friction created and the resultant resistance to pivoting of resistance mechanism 103. This allows for multiple dampening settings as the rotation of the end cap allows for continuous adjustment. The dampening settings are interpreted as comprising at least three since there are infinite settings for the end cap since it is continuous.).
Regarding claim 25, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the adjustable hinge includes an adjustment feature that can be rotated by a user to at least three different positions, each position configuring the adjustable hinge to provide one of the at least three different levels of pivoting resistance (The resistance mechanism 103 comprises a friction device 144 that can be adjusted to change the resistance of the resistance mechanism 103, making the resistance mechanism 103 an adjustable hinge. See [0057]. Rotation of an end cap 130 of the resistance mechanism 103 controls the pressure of stacked washers 125, 126, thus modifying the degree of friction created and the resultant resistance to pivoting of resistance mechanism 103. This allows for multiple dampening settings as the rotation of the end cap allows for continuous adjustment. The dampening settings are interpreted as comprising at least three since there are infinite settings for the end cap since it is continuous.).
Regarding claim 26, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the method of claim 25, wherein the adjustable hinge includes a sensory feedback mechanism that provides at least one of a tactile feedback and an audible feedback to the user as a result of the adjustable hinge changing to a different level of pivoting resistance (The end cap 130 is interpreted as a tactile feedback as the user’s hand is used to turn the cap. The user can use the end cap 130 to determine the different degrees of resistance of the device thereby providing feedback.).
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0406093 (Tarkington) in view of US 2017/0360643 (Korrol), and further in view of US 2020/0197209 (Bejarano et al.).
Regarding claim 7, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the involuntary movement dampening device of claim 1.
Tarkington in view of Korrol does not disclose at least one length adjusting feature for moving the first coupling feature or the second coupling feature closer to or further away from the adjustable hinge.
However, Bejarano discloses a brace including an upper support arm 102, a lower support arm 104, and a hinge assembly 106. The upper support arm 102 is coupled with an upper slide 162 which slidably moves second cuff 172. See Figs. 1 and 8A. The upper support arm 102 is analogous to a leg 106 of Tarkington and the second cuff 172 is analogous to the contoured plate 104 of Tarkington. [0064] – “Each of lateral and medial portions 160, 170 further comprises upper slider 162, configured to slidably couple to upper support arm 102 at any of a plurality of incremental degrees of extension”. The slider 162 is interpreted as a length adjusting feature for moving the second cuff 172 closer to or further away from the hinge assembly 106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to add a slider 162 to the contoured plate 104 of Tarkington to make the plate slidably adjustable along the legs 106 as taught by Bejarano. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Bejarano teaches “respective lengths and adjustments of upper and lower sliders 162, 164 and upper and lower support arms 102, 104 are such that a broader range of persons (e.g., taller and/or shorter persons) may be accommodated by brace 100 compared to other braces.” ([0062]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to orthotics with first and second coupling features separated by an adjustable hinge.
Regarding claim 14, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the involuntary movement dampening device of claim 1.
Tarkington in view of Korrol does not disclose wherein the second coupling extension includes more than one second coupling feature that are moveable along the second extension relative to each other and relative to the adjustable hinge.
However, Bejarano discloses a brace including an upper support arm 102, a lower support arm 104, and a hinge assembly 106. The upper support arm 102 is coupled with a first cuff 171 and a second cuff 172. See Figs. 1 and 8A. The upper support arm 102 is analogous to a leg 106 of Tarkington and the first and second cuffs 171,172 are analogous to the contoured plate 104 of Tarkington. Each of the first and second cuffs 171, 172 are moveable along the upper support arm 102; [0064; [0066]. Therefore, the upper support arm 102 includes more than one cuff 171, 172 that are moveable along the upper support arm 102 relative to each other and relative to the hinge assembly 106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to duplicate the contoured plate 104 of Tarkington and to modify the contoured plates 104 to make the plates moveable along the legs 106 as taught by Bejarano. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Bejarano teaches “respective lengths and adjustments of upper and lower sliders 162, 164 and upper and lower support arms 102, 104 are such that a broader range of persons (e.g., taller and/or shorter persons) may be accommodated by brace 100 compared to other braces.” ([0062]) and “a first cuff 171, a second cuff 172, a third cuff 173 and a fourth cuff 174, each configured to receive a respective strap for securing brace 100 to the appendage of the user at various locations above and below the joint of the user.” ([0073]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to orthotics with first and second coupling features separated by an adjustable hinge.
Regarding claim 21, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the method of claim 15.
Tarkington in view of Korrol does not disclose wherein the involuntary movement dampening device includes at least one length adjusting feature for moving the first coupling feature or the second coupling feature closer to or further away from the adjustable hinge
However, Bejarano discloses a brace including an upper support arm 102, a lower support arm 104, and a hinge assembly 106. The upper support arm 102 is coupled with an upper slide 162 which slidably moves second cuff 172. See Figs. 1 and 8A. The upper support arm 102 is analogous to a leg 106 of Tarkington and the second cuff 172 is analogous to the contoured plate 104 of Tarkington. [0064] – “Each of lateral and medial portions 160, 170 further comprises upper slider 162, configured to slidably couple to upper support arm 102 at any of a plurality of incremental degrees of extension”. The slider 162 is interpreted as a length adjusting feature for moving the second cuff 172 closer to or further away from the hinge assembly 106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to add a slider 162 to the contoured plate 104 of Tarkington to make the plate slidably adjustable along the legs 106 as taught by Bejarano. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Bejarano teaches “respective lengths and adjustments of upper and lower sliders 162, 164 and upper and lower support arms 102, 104 are such that a broader range of persons (e.g., taller and/or shorter persons) may be accommodated by brace 100 compared to other braces.” ([0062]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to orthotics with first and second coupling features separated by an adjustable hinge.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0406093 (Tarkington) in view of US 2017/0360643 (Korrol), and further in view of US 2002/0183662 (Lu).
Regarding claim 18, Tarkington in view of Korrol discloses the method of claim 15.
Tarkington in view of Korrol does not disclose wherein the nerve pressure feature includes an extruded material extending from an inner wall of the second coupling feature.
However, Lu discloses a veins and arteries massager using an extruded message pad 42 made up of extruded pellets 43. See [0022]. The extruded pellets 43 are analogous to the styluses of Korrol.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date for the styluses of Korrol to be made using an extruded material as taught by Lu. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because extrusion is a known process of manufacturing in the art due to its relatively low cost, high efficiency, and flexibility in operation. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to orthopedic padding.
Regarding claim 19, Tarkington in view of Korrol and Lu discloses the method of claim 18.
Tarkington in view of Korrol and Lu does not directly disclose wherein the extruded material includes a spherical shape.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the styluses of Korrol to be spherical, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape that is absent of persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed component is significant is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). A spherical shape would allow for a more distributed force to be applied to a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seth Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM – 11:00 AM or 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM ET.
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.
/SETH R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights