DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is based on the amendments filed September 16, 2025 for application 18/559,607. Claims 1, 7, 8, and 12-14 have been amended, claims 6, 9, and 10 have been cancelled, and claim 17 is newly presented; claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 11-17 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 . 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.
Drawings
The drawings received on September 16, 2025 are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument that the spacer (36) of the orthosis taught by Guenther is not mounted moveably on at least one the plurality of spring elements (26, 28) is not found persuasive. The spacer (36) is mounted (i.e., positioned against spring element 28 in use) and is movably (i.e., capable of being moved with respect to spring element 28). Further, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., structure of how the spacer is mounted movably to a spring element or type of movability) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments that Murphy does not teach a spring with higher resistance during dorsal flexion than plantar flexion and a spring being constructed from a plurality of spring elements with spacers mounted movably to one of the spring elements have been considered but are moot since these limitations are taught by Guenther and Logue. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites the limitation “at least one of the spring element” in line14; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the spring element” in the claim. For examination purposes, the above limitation of claim 17 has been interpreted as simply “the spring” as previously recited in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guenther (US 2010/0101118).
Regarding claim 1, Guenther discloses an orthosis (below-knee orthotic device 2) (Fig. 1) comprising:
a foot part (foot cuff 8) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0039),
a lower-leg part (below-knee cuff 4) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0039), and
a spring (resilient support 12), wherein the spring (12) connects the foot part (8) and the lower-leg part (4), and wherein, starting from a neutral position, the spring (12) provides a higher resistance during dorsal flexion than during plantar flexion (Figs. 1-3 & 5; ¶ 0030, 0039, 0041-0042, 0059, & 0088),
wherein the spring (12) comprises a plurality of spring elements (layers 26, 28) (Figs. 3 & 5; ¶ 0041),
wherein one or more spacers (elastic insert member 36) arranged between each of the spring elements (26, 28) in the plurality of spring elements (26, 28) (Fig. 6; 0044-0045), and
wherein at least one spacer (36) of the one or more spacers (36) is mounted movably on at least one of the plurality of spring elements (26, 28) (¶ 0044).
Regarding claim 8, Guenther discloses that the plurality of spring elements (26, 28) bear on one another in succession during dorsal flexion (Figs. 3 & 5; ¶ 0041).
Regarding claim 12, Guenther discloses that at least one of the plurality of spring elements (26, 28) is designed as a leaf spring (¶ 0030).
Regarding claim 13, Guenther discloses that the plurality of spring elements (26, 28) are arranged parallel to one another, wherein in a neutral position of the orthosis (2), the plurality of spring elements (26, 28) are shaped in an arch curved counter to a direction of walking (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Guenther discloses that at least two of the plurality of spring elements (26, 28) have different spring stiffnesses (¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 15, Guenter discloses that the spring (12) comprises a base spring element (12) on which the foot part (8) and the lower-leg part (4) are arranged (Fig. 1; ¶ 0039).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. (US 2022/0401285) (having a PCT filing date of November 17, 2020), in view of Guenther (US 2010/0101118), and in further view of Logue (US 2020/0253773).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy discloses an orthosis (device 100) comprising a foot part (second anchor 106), a lower-leg part (first anchor 104), and a spring (leaf spring 108e), wherein the spring (108e) connects the foot part (106) and the lower-leg part (104) (Fig. 1E; ¶ 0057 & 0064).
Although Murphy discloses that the spring (108a) can be configured to apply a torque to a user’s foot in a desired direction (¶ 0064-0065), Murphy fails to expressly teach that the spring provides a higher resistance during dorsal flexion than during plantar flexion.
Guenther discloses an orthosis (below-knee orthotic device 2) comprising a foot part (foot cuff 8), a lower-leg part (below-knee cuff 4), and a spring (resilient support 12) that connects the foot part (8) and the lower-leg part (4), wherein, starting from a neutral position, the spring (12) provides a higher resistance during dorsal flexion than during plantar flexion (Figs. 1-3 & 5; ¶ 0030, 0039, 0041-0042, 0059, & 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orthosis taught by Murphy such that spring provides a higher resistance during dorsal flexion than during plantar flexion as taught by Guenther for the purpose of providing a softer step-on of a user’s foot during plantar flexion and a more supportive push-off during dorsal flexion.
Although Guenther further discloses that the spring (12) comprises a plurality of spring elements (layers 26, 28) and one or more spacers (elastic insert member 36) arranged between each of the spring elements (26, 28) in the plurality of spring elements (26, 28), wherein at least one spacer (36) of the one or more spacers (36) is mounted movably on at least one of the plurality of spring elements (26, 28) (Fig. 3 & 5-6; 0041 & 0044-0045), the spacer (36) is position in a heel part (20) of the spring (12) rather than a vertical portion of the spring that would correspond with the spring (108e) of the orthosis (10) taught by Murphy.
Logue discloses an orthosis (system 100) comprising a foot part (foot plate 101), a lower-leg part (cuff 106), and a spring (first leaf spring 108, second leaf spring 110) that connects the foot part (101) and the lower-leg part (106), wherein the spring (108, 110) comprises a plurality of spring elements (first leaf spring 108, second leaf spring 110) and one or more spacers (spacer 112) arranged between each of the spring elements (108, 110) in the plurality of spring elements (108, 110), wherein at least one spacer (112) of the one or more spacers (112) is mounted movably on at least one of the plurality of spring elements (108, 110) (Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0009 & 0038-0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orthosis taught by the combination of Murphy and Guenther such that the spring comprises a plurality of spring elements and one or more spacers arranged between each of the spring elements in the plurality of spring elements, wherein at least one spacer of the one or more spacers is mounted movably on at least one of the plurality of spring elements as taught by Logue for the purpose of adjusting the dorsiflexion resistance profile of the orthosis as desired.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Murphy / Guenther / Logue discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Murphy further discloses a force transmission element (tether 112), wherein the spring (108e) is coupled to the force transmission element (112) and the force transmission element (112) is configured to transmit forces only when the foot part (106) is moved in a direction of dorsal flexion (Fig. 1E; ¶ 0040, 0060, & 0064-0065).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Murphy / Guenther / Logue discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Murphy further discloses that the force transmission element (112) is designed as a cable or any flexible elongated structure (¶ 0055).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Murphy / Guenther / Logue discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Murphy further discloses that the force transmission element (112) is designed for mounting or is mounted in an adjustable manner (¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Murphy / Guenther / Logue discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Murphy further discloses one or more actuators (actuator 110), wherein the force transmission element (112) is assigned to an actuator (110) of the one or more actuators (110), wherein a location of force transmission provided by the force transmission element (112) and/or a time of the force transmission provided by the force transmission element (112) is changeable by the actuator (110) (¶ 0042 & 0057).
Regarding claim 17, Murphy discloses an orthosis (device 100) comprising a foot part (second anchor 106), a lower-leg part (first anchor 104), and a spring (leaf spring 108e), wherein the spring (108e) connects the foot part (106) and the lower-leg part (104) (Fig. 1E; ¶ 0057 & 0064),
wherein the spring (108a) is coupled to a force transmission element (tether 112) (via second anchor 106) (Fig. 1E; ¶ 0040, 0060, & 0064-0065).
Although Murphy discloses that the spring (108a) can be configured to apply a torque to a user’s foot in a desired direction (¶ 0064-0065), Murphy fails to expressly teach that the spring provides a higher resistance during dorsal flexion than during plantar flexion.
Guenther discloses an orthosis (below-knee orthotic device 2) comprising a foot part (foot cuff 8), a lower-leg part (below-knee cuff 4), and a spring (resilient support 12) that connects the foot part (8) and the lower-leg part (4), wherein, starting from a neutral position, the spring (12) provides a higher resistance during dorsal flexion than during plantar flexion (Figs. 1-3 & 5; ¶ 0030, 0039, 0041-0042, 0059, & 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orthosis taught by Murphy such that spring provides a higher resistance during dorsal flexion than during plantar flexion as taught by Guenther for the purpose of providing a softer step-on of a user’s foot during plantar flexion and a more supportive push-off during dorsal flexion.
Although Guenther further discloses that the spring (12) comprises one or more spacers (elastic insert member 36) arranged adjacent the spring (12), wherein at least one spacer (36) of the one or more spacers (36) is mounted movably on the spring (12) (Fig. 3 & 5-6; 0041 & 0044-0045), the spacer (36) is position in a heel part (20) of the spring (12) rather than a vertical portion of the spring that would correspond with the spring (108e) of the orthosis (10) taught by Murphy.
Logue discloses an orthosis (system 100) comprising a foot part (foot plate 101), a lower-leg part (cuff 106), a spring (first leaf spring 108, second leaf spring 110) that connects the foot part (101) and the lower-leg part (106), and one or more spacers (spacer 112) arranged adjacent the spring (108, 110) (between the first leaf spring 108 and the second leaf spring 110), wherein at least one spacer (112) of the one or more spacers (112) is mounted movably on the spring (108, 110) (Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0009 & 0038-0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orthosis taught by the combination of Murphy and Guenther to include one or more spacers arranged adjacent the spring such that at least one spacer of the one or more spacers is mounted movably on the spring as taught by Logue for the purpose of adjusting the dorsiflexion resistance profile of the orthosis as desired.
Further, since the spring (108e) and the force transmission element (112) of the orthosis taught by Logue are both located behind the user’s leg, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the orthosis taught by the combination of Murphy / Guenther / Logue such that the one or more spacers are arranged between the spring and the force transmission element in order to maintain the placement of the spring and the force transmission element behind the user’s leg.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, in view of Welter (US 1,354,427).
Regarding claim 7, Guenther discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and further discloses that each of the plurality of spring elements bear against one another during dorsal flexion (Fig. 3; ¶ 0041).
However, Guenther fails to teach that each of the plurality of spring elements are arranged spaced apart from one another in a neutral position.
Welter discloses an analogous orthosis comprising a foot part (heel piece 2), a lower-leg part (calf piece 1), and a spring comprising a plurality of spring elements (springs 4, 5), wherein each of the plurality of spring elements (4, 5) are arranged spaced apart from one another in a neutral position of a user’s foot (Fig. 1; page 1, lines 63-76 & 82-84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the spring of the orthosis taught by Guenther such that each of the plurality of spring elements are arranged spaced apart from one another in a neutral position as taught by Welter for the purpose of adjusting the influence on the movement of a user’s foot.
Regarding claim 16, Guenther discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach at least one further spring element mounted exchangeably on the base spring element.
Welter discloses an analogous orthosis comprising a foot part (heel piece 2), a lower-leg part (calf piece 1), and a spring comprising a base spring element (spring 4) on which the foot part (2) and the lower-leg part (1) are arranged, and at least one further spring element (spring 5) mounted exchangeably on the base spring element (4) (Fig. 1; page 1, lines 63-76 & 85-92).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the spring of the orthosis taught by Guenther to include at least one further spring element mounted exchangeably on the base spring element as taught by Welter for the purpose of adjusting the influence on the movement of a user’s foot.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, in view of Engelman (US 2007/0265557).
Guenther discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach one or more actuators, wherein at least one spacer of the one or more spacers is assigned to an actuator of the one or more actuators.
Engelman discloses an orthosis comprising an analogous spacer (compression element 20) and an actuator (screw 7a), wherein the spacer (20) is assigned to the actuator (7a) (Figs. 1 & 14; ¶ 0010 & 0045-0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the orthosis taught by Guenther to include one or more actuators, wherein at least one spacer of the one or more spacers is assigned to an actuator of the one or more actuators as taught by Engelman for the purpose of adjusting the dorsiflexion moment of the orthosis.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keri J. Nelson whose telephone number is 571-270-3821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachael E. 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.
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 12/17/2025