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 .
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this submission of the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species D and subspecies D(vii) of claims 1-6, 13, and 15-24 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-12, 14, and 25-26 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1b, 2-7, and 30 have written text; see MPEP 1825(11.11). 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because there are numerical characters. Also, delete the text “Fig. 2” from the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is “actuation element” in claims 1-2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Terms such as element following by functional language are generic placeholders for the phrase “means for”. For examination purposes, “actuation element” in claims 1-2 is interpreted as “a lever, a pin, a pulling element, an eccentric, a link or another force transmission device” (Specification, Page 3, lines 20-22) and any equivalent thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lefeber et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170165088).
Regarding claim 1, Lefeber discloses an orthopedic joint device 3,4 (Paragraphs 21, 119 -121, 140-141, 233-234, 243, 335 and Figures 5-9, orthotic joint device with upper first member 3 and lower second member 4 with pivotal clutch joint 22 therebetween having inner ring 26, outer ring 25, blocking roller element 27, unlocking pins 31, actuator lever arm 33 all for allowing pivoting in a first pivoting direction and selectively blocking in opposite second pivoting direction), comprising: an upper part 3; a lower part 4 mounted on the upper part 3 so as to be pivotable 22 about a pivot axis; a blocking device 25,26,27 which blocks a pivoting movement of the upper part 3 relative to the lower part 4 wherein the blocking device 25,26,27 never blocks in one direction of pivoting and, wherein in an opposite direction of pivoting, the blocking device 25,26,27 is switchable from a release position to a blocking position; and an actuation element 33 (Paragraphs 234 and Figures 5-7, actuation element lever 33 arranged between two freewheels for unlocking locking the rotation of the clutch 23 via actuator servomotor 38; this is the structure as defined by the 35 USC 112f analysis above) assigned to the blocking device25,26,27 that holds the blocking device 25,26,27 in the release position or moves the blocking device 25,26,27 to the release position.
Regarding claim 2, Lefeber discloses the invention as described above and further discloses
the actuation element 33 (Paragraphs 234 and Figures 5-7, actuation element lever 33 arranged between two freewheels for unlocking locking the rotation of the clutch 23 via actuator servomotor 38) is assigned an actuator 38.
Regarding claim 3, Lefeber discloses the invention as described above and further discloses blocking device 25,26,27 (Paragraphs 21, 105, 110, 119 -121, 140-141, 233-234, 243, 335 and Figures 5-9, blocking roller elements 27 are each slidable and pivotable/rotatable between the first MCM part 18 formed by the outer raceway 25 connected in an elastic way to the first member 3 as well as between the inner raceway 26 forming the second MCM part 19 having a blocking region 29), has at least one blocking element 27 which is mounted pivotably or slideably on the upper part 3 and is engageable with a blocking region 29 on the lower part 4.
Regarding claim 5, Lefeber discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the at least one blocking element 27 (Paragraph 114 and Figure 8, blocking element 27 held against pins 31, run on bevels 29 of inner raceway 26, and a blocking region of outer raceway 25 forming frictional force opposite the biasing spring 28 force) is in frictional contact with the blocking region.
Regarding claim 6, Lefeber discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the at least one blocking element 27 (Paragraph 114 and Figure 8, blocking element 27 held against pins 31, run on bevels 29 of inner raceway 26, and a blocking region of outer raceway 25 forming frictional force opposite the biasing spring 28 force) is elastically pretensioned 28 in a direction of the blocking region.
Regarding claim 16, Lefeber discloses the invention as described above and further discloses a central bearing (Paragraph 103 and Figures 5, 7, central bearing at axis AA’ within inner raceway 26 and outer raceway 25 for guiding the rotation of the joint), wherein the blocking device 25,26,27 is guided via the central bearing.
Regarding claim 17, Lefeber discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the upper part 3 is in direct contact with both the central bearing (Paragraph 103 and Figures 5, 7, central bearing at axis AA’ directly contacting within inner raceway 26 for guiding the rotation of the joint)and the blocking device 25,26,27.
Regarding claim 18, Lefeber discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the blocking device 25,26,27 comprises an outer ring 25and an inner ring 26, wherein the at least one blocking element 27 is arranged between (Paragraphs 21, 119 -121, 140-141, 233-234, 243, 335 and Figures 5-9) the outer ring 25and an inner ring 26.
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 4, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefeber et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170165088), as applied to claim 1, in view of Henschen (U.S. Patent No. 3436069).
Regarding claim 4, Lefeber discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the at least one blocking element 27 (Paragraphs 21, 105, 110, 119 -121, 140-141, 233-234, 243, 335 and Figures 5-9, blocking roller element 27 r bearings receive frictional and biasing forcing when pushed against the blocking region, pin 31, and bevels 29 by spring 28) when in a blocking position (Paragraphs 112, 114 and Figure 8, blocking element 27 held against pins 31, run on bevels 29 of inner raceway 26, and a blocking region of outer raceway 25 via biasing springs 28) bears on the blocking region.
However, Lefeber fails to explicitly disclose blocking element is formed as a blocking bracket, blocking angle, blocking pad, blocking wedge, brake linings or blocking hook.
Henschen teaches an analogous blocking device 26,56,60 (Col. 4, lines 1-11, and Figure 6, inner 60, outer 56, and blocking element 26) wherein at least one analogous blocking element 26 (Col. 4, lines 1-11, and Figure 6, cushioning pad blocking roller elements 26 that are blocked in blocking region against outer member 56 and run-on bevels 63 of inner member 60) is formed as a blocking pad 26.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a material of the blocking element of the blocking device of Lefeber, so that the blocking element is formed as a blocking pad, as taught by Henschen, in order to provide an improved orthopedic joint device with an enhanced blocking element that is elastic for absorptive padding against impact forces against the blocking region for desirable joint pivoting (Henschen, Col. 4, lines 1-11), and thereby providing overload protection via elastic deformation of the blocking element shape.
Regarding claim 13, Lefeber discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose the blocking device is equipped with an overload protection.
Henschen teaches an analogous blocking device 26,56,60 (Col. 4, lines 1-11, and Figure 6, inner 60, outer 56, and blocking element 26) with analogous blocking element 26 (Col. 4, lines 1-11, and Figure 6, cushioning pad blocking roller elements 26 that are blocked in blocking region against outer member 56 and run-on bevels 63 of inner member 60 which elastically deform to allow slip through when an overload force is reached) is equipped with an overload protection.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a material of the blocking element of the blocking device of Lefeber, so that the blocking device is equipped with an overload protection, as taught by Henschen, in order to provide an improved orthopedic joint device with an enhanced blocking element that is elastic for absorptive padding against impact forces against the blocking region for desirable joint pivoting (Henschen, Col. 4, lines 1-11), and thereby providing overload protection via elastic deformation of the blocking element shape.
Regarding claim 13, Lefeber discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one blocking element is designed or mounted in such a that, in an event of an overload, a slip-through occurs.
Henschen teaches an analogous blocking device 26,56,60 (Col. 4, lines 1-11, and Figure 6, inner 60, outer 56, and blocking element 26) wherein at least one analogous blocking element 26 (Col. 4, lines 1-11, and Figure 6, cushioning pad blocking roller elements 26 that are blocked in blocking region against outer member 56 and run-on bevels 63 of inner member 60 which elastically deform to allow slip through when an overload force is reached) is designed and/or mounted in such a that, in an event of an overload, a slip-through occurs.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a material of the blocking element of Lefeber, so that the blocking element is designed and/or mounted in such a that, in an event of an overload, a slip-through occurs, as taught by Henschen, in order to provide an improved orthopedic joint device with an enhanced blocking element that is elastic for absorptive padding against impact forces against the blocking region for desirable joint pivoting (Henschen, Col. 4, lines 1-11), and thereby providing overload protection via elastic deformation of the blocking element shape.
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefeber et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170165088), as applied to claim 18, and in further view of Shu (U.S. Patent No. 6862955 ).
Regarding claim 19, Lefeber discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the outer ring is elastic or slotted.
Shu teaches a similar joint (Col. 2, lines 50-67, Col. 3, lines 1-44 and Figures 3 and 7-8, joint allowing controlled rotation in one direction and not in other of an outer ring 70 and inner ring 50 within housing 22) wherein the analogous outer ring 70 (Col. 2, lines 50-67, Col. 3, lines 1-44 and Figures 3 and 7-8, expanding and compressing outer C-shaped ring 70, thereby is elastic and slotted for receiving the force of the wheel rotation) is elastic and/or slotted.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a material and shape of the outer ring of Lefeber, so that the outer ring is elastic and/or slotted, as taught by Shu, in order to provide an improved orthopedic joint device with an enhanced outer ring that is elastically slotted for desirable control of rotation as given by expanding and compressing circumference properties (Shu, Col. 2, lines 50-67, Col. 3, lines 1-44).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lefeber in view of Shu discloses the invention as described above and further discloses the outer ring (Lefeber: 25) has an elasticity (Shu, Col. 2, lines 50-67, Col. 3, lines 1-44 and Figures 3 and 7-8, adjustable outer ring 70 given by expanding and compressing material as well as partial ring C-shape) that is adjustable by a choice of the material.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Lefeber in view of Shu discloses the invention as described above and further discloses the outer ring (Lefeber: 25) is slotted (Shu, Col. 2, lines 50-67, Col. 3, lines 1-44 and Figures 3 and 7-8, adjustable outer ring 70 given by expanding and compressing material as well as slotted partial ring C-shape) and is mounted in a manner secure against rotation in a housing (Lefeber, Paragraph 105, the outer raceway 25 connected in an elastic way to housing of the first member 3, thereby is secure against rotation relative the housing).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lefeber in view of Shu discloses the invention as described above and further discloses the outer ring (Lefeber: 25) is slotted (Shu, Col. 2, lines 50-67, Col. 3, lines 1-44 and Figures 3 and 7-8, adjustable outer ring 70 given by expanding and compressing material as well as slotted partial ring C-shape) and assigned a prestressing device (Lefeber, Paragraph 105, the outer raceway 25 connected in an elastic way to the first member 3; Shu, Col. 2, lines 50-67, Col. 3, lines 1-44 and Figures 3 and 7-8, spring 34) for changing an inner circumference of the outer ring(Lefeber: 25).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Lefeber in view of Shu discloses the invention as described above and further discloses a rotational elasticity (Lefeber, Paragraph 105, the outer raceway 25 connected in an elastic way to the first member 3; Shu, Col. 2, lines 50-67, Col. 3, lines 1-44 and Figures 3 and 7-8, adjustable outer ring 70 given by expanding and compressing material as well as slotted partial ring C-shape) in a blocking direction (Lefeber, Paragraph 114 and Figure 8, blocking element 27 held against pins 31, run on bevels 29 of inner raceway 26, and a blocking region of outer raceway 25 forming frictional force opposite the biasing spring 28 force) is changeable via the outer ring (Lefeber: 25).
Claims 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefeber et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170165088), as applied to claim 18, and in further view of Ertl et al. (DE 102018217497 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Lefeber discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the outer ring is elastic or slotted.
Ertl teaches an analogous orthopedic joint device (Page 8/27, Paragraph 2-3 and Figures 1-2, orthotic joint 4 for ankle) with an analogous braking device (and Figures 1-2, 4a-4b, braking roller elements 19 pretensioned by first spring 32 into braking region 13 and braking second spring 31 within outer ring 14 and inner ring 18) comprising analogous braking elements 19 and analogous inner ring and analogous outer ring wherein the analogous outer ring 14 (Page 8/27, Paragraph 2-3 and Figures 1-2, slotted outer ring 16) is slotted.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a material and shape of the outer ring of Lefeber, so that the outer ring is slotted, as taught by Ertl, in order to provide an improved orthopedic joint device with an enhanced outer ring that is slotted for desirable control of rotation as given by controlled abutment given within the slotted regions of the outer ring (Ertl, Page 8/27, Paragraph 2-3).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Lefeber in view of Ertl discloses the invention as described above and further discloses the outer ring (Lefeber: 25) is slotted (Ertl, Page 8/27, Paragraph 2-3, slotted outer ring 16) and is mounted in a manner secure against rotation in a housing (Lefeber, Paragraph 105, the outer raceway 25 connected in an elastic way to housing of the first member 3, thereby is secure against rotation relative the housing).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Lefeber in view of Ertl discloses the invention as described above and further discloses a rotational elasticity (Lefeber, Paragraph 105, the outer raceway 25 connected in an elastic way to the first member 3) in a blocking direction (Lefeber, Paragraph 114 and Figure 8, blocking element 27 held against pins 31, run on bevels 29 of inner raceway 26, and a blocking region of outer raceway 25 forming frictional force opposite the biasing spring 28 force) is changeable via the outer ring (Lefeber: 25).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefeber et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170165088) in view of Shu (U.S. Patent No. 6862955 ), as applied to claim 23, and in further view of Henschen (U.S. Patent No. 3436069).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Lefeber in view of Shu discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose the rotational elasticity in the blocking direction has a non-linear spring profile.
Henschen teaches an analogous blocking device 26,56,60 (Col. 4, lines 1-11, and Figure 6, inner 60, outer 56, and blocking element 26) wherein the analogous rotational elasticity in the analogous blocking direction (Col. 4, lines 1-11, and Figure 6, cushioning pad blocking roller elements 26 that are blocked in blocking region against outer member 56 and run-on bevels 63 of inner member 60 which elastically deform and flatten, such that as the pads 26 are trapped and rotating in the blocking region, there is compression, shear, and rolling axis and off-axis forces which inherently results in geometrical curvature and geometrical non-linearity) has a non-linear spring profile.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a shape and material of the blocking element of Lefeber, so that the rotational elasticity in the blocking direction has a non-linear spring profile, as taught by Henschen, in order to provide an improved orthopedic joint device with an enhanced blocking element that is elastic for absorptive padding against impact forces against the blocking region for desirable joint pivoting (Henschen, Col. 4, lines 1-11), and thereby providing overload protection via geometrical non-linear elastic deformation of the blocking element shape.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ring (US 5031606 A) teaches an orthopedic joint device.
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Milo whose telephone number is (571)272-6476. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00-5:00.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached on +1(571) 270-3076. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL MILO/
Art Unit 3786
/OPHELIA A HAWTHORNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786