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. The claim limitation of “slidable pin and pinholes” in claim 20 has a priority date of 02/25/2015, while all other limitations in the claims have a priority date of App# 61/944,488 of 02/25/2014.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2025 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.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed 01/12/2026 has been entered. Currently, claims 1, 15-16, and 18-19 remain pending in the application. Independent claims was amended by the Applicant without the addition of new matter to include further narrowing limitations. Additionally, dependent claims 2-14, 17, and 20-23 were cancelled and claims 15-16 and 18-19 were amended to correct previous drawing objections, claim objections, and 35 USC 112(B) and 101 rejections that were set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/12/2025. Lastly, a pending 35 USC 112(B) rejections remains below.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the previous 35 USC § 102 and 103 rejections recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/12/2025.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks on Page 5 to Page 7, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, the amended claims have changed the scope of the claims and upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of new and current prior art of the record: Burns (US Patent Pub. No. 20090312683), Faouen et al. (WO 2008093023 A1), and Marion (U.S. Patent No. 5007415).
5. Overall, Examiner notes that Applicant may overcome this prior art of record by amending to recite positive limitations such as the brace plate 303 with screws 402 and plate 401 to secure leaf spring to with cuff in Figure 4 and also with the knob 501 buckle wire 503 in Figure 5 and how the knob buckle ratchet mechanism bows the leaf spring end closer to the user’s skin increasing its degree of curvature around the fulcrum. Additionally, a shape of the resilient pad such as being cylindrical, which may provide desirable roll during bowing. Lastly, other embodiments with a T-shaped cross section fulcrum instead of resilient pad as shown in Figure 7. Lastly, a negative limitation amendment or “consisting” transitional phrase to teach away from a possible prior art combination.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
6. 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations “ratcheting adjustment device” (recited in claim 19) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “members” and “device” coupled with functional language “attaching” and “tightening” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-2 and 7-23 (with respect to “attaching members”) and 11 (with respect to “tightening device”) has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Terms such as “device” followed by functional language is a generic placeholder for the phrase “means for”. The “ratcheting adjustment device” for the leaf spring is described as a buckle knob and wire, as shown in Figs. 5.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “the leaf spring knee brace”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Rephrase to read --the flat leaf spring--..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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, 15,16, and 18-19, as best understood given by the 35 USC 112(B) rejections above, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns (US Patent Pub. No. 20090312683) in view of Faouen et al. (WO 2008093023 A1) and in further view of Marion (U.S. Patent No. 5007415).
Regarding claim 1, Burns discloses a joint rehabilitation device (Paragraphs 27 and 30-31 and Figures 1 and 6, leg brace with spring 2 providing springing effect. Also, there are elastic nylon attachment thigh and calf straps 43,45. Also, leg brace is secured on anterior side 60 of leg in Figure 1 and also interchangeably secured on posterior side 70 of leg in Figure 6) comprising: a hinged brace 22,24 (Paragraph 27 and Fig. 4, hinged brace upper and lower struts 22,24 with pivot joint 14,16) configured to be secured to a leg and having upper 22 and lower 24 brace portions coupled by a pivot 14,16; adjustable straps 43,45 (Paragraphs 27 and 31 and Figures 1 and 6, elastic straps 43,45) configured to secure the joint rehabilitation device onto both an upper leg and a lower leg of a user; a spring 2 (Paragraph 30 and Figures 1 and 6, torsion spring 2 interchangeably attached on anterior or posterior side of user’s leg ) oriented along a front of a user's knee joint and connected to the upper and lower brace portions 22,24; and at least one support 8, 62,64 (Paragraphs 27, 31 and Figures 1, 6, 8, fulcrum 8 for posterior 70 attachment and fulcrums 62,64 for anterior 60 attachment for spacing spring 2 from knee joint) forming a fulcrum 8, 62,64 oriented adjacent (Paragraph 27 and Figures 1 and 4, hinged frame struts 22,24 with pivot hinge 14,16 on lateral side of user’s leg and having fulcrum 8 that is directly and transversely adjacent to pivot point 14,16 at knee joint via strap 54 therebetween with elastic springing band 2 providing a spring loading effect to flexion/extension. Also, fulcrum 62,64 are adjacent to knee joint in as much as that of Applicant’s adjacent fulcrums in Applicant’s Figure 3 ) to the pivot 14,16and including a resilient pad (Paragraph 31 and Figure 8, fulcrum 62,64 with resilient padding 63,65; see Applicant’s Specification Page 16, lines 22-23 defining padding/cushioning as resilient) configured to separate the spring 2 from the user's knee joint and prevent the spring 2 from contacting the user's knee joint during a partial range of motion.
Although Burns discloses alternative substitutable springs/elastic having smooth range of resistance, Burn fails to explicitly disclose the (1) spring is a leaf spring; (2) the leaf spring is flat.
Faouen teaches an analogous spring (Page 6/36, Paragraph 7 and Figure 4, padded fulcrum 12,13 attached to leaf spring 8 and placed against user’s body to space leaf spring from user’s body. Leaf spring 8 is attached to lumbar brace frame 2 via screw 9 at one end and ratchet/meshing grooves 11 at other end) is a leaf spring 8 attached to an analogous brace 2 with an analogous fulcrum 12,13 (Page 6/36, Paragraph 7 and Figure 4, padded fulcrum 12,13 attached to leaf spring 8 and placed against user’s body to space leaf spring from user’s body ).
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 the spring and a connection of the spring with the fulcrum and brace of Burns, so that the spring is a leaf spring having the fulcrum and brace attachments, as taught by Faouen, in order to provide an improved joint rehabilitation device with an enhanced spring that is a leaf spring attached with the fulcrum and brace for desirable support and tightness against a user’s joint for increased stability or mobility (Faouen, Page 6/36, Paragraph 7).
However, the combination of Burn in view of Faouen fails to explicitly disclose the (2) the leaf spring is flat.
Marion teaches an analogous joint rehabilitation device 10 (Col. 2, lines 59-68, Col. 3, lines 60-68 and Figure 3, brace 10 with flat long narrow bendable strip 14 and attachment straps 11,12)wherein the analogous leaf spring (Col. 2, lines 59-68, Col. 3, lines 60-68 and Figure 3, brace 10 with flat long narrow bendable strip 14, defining leaf spring, throughout knee flexion range of motion) is a flat leaf spring that can be bent and flexible enough to permit a range of motion up to and including a full range of motion for the knee joint.
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 cross sectional shape of the leaf spring of Burns in view of Faouen, so that the leaf spring is flat, as taught by Marion, in order to provide an improved joint rehabilitation device with an enhanced leaf spring that is flat and provides elasticity as well as bendable material property for better following of the knee joint bending path (Marion, Col. 2, lines 59-68 and Col. 3, lines 60-68), given by the increased flatness surface area.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Burns in view of Faouen in view of Marion discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the flat leaf spring (Burns, Paragraphs 27 and 30-31 and Figures 1 and 6; Faouen, Page 6/36, Paragraph 7 and Figure 4; Marion, Col. 2, lines 59-68, Col. 3, lines 60-68 and Figure 3) is flexible enough to permit a limited range of motion, and when oriented on the front of the knee the joint rehabilitation device pushes the knee joint into passive knee extension.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Burns in view of Faouen in view of Marion discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the flat leaf spring (Burns, Paragraphs 27 and 30-31 and Figures 1 and 6; Faouen, Page 6/36, Paragraph 7 and Figure 4; Marion, Col. 2, lines 59-68, Col. 3, lines 60-68 and Figure 3) is reconfigurable to be oriented along a back of the knee spring (Burns, Paragraphs 27 and 30-31 and Figures 1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Burns in view of Faouen in view of Marion discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the flat leaf spring (Burns, Paragraphs 27 and 30-31 and Figures 1 and 6; Faouen, Page 6/36, Paragraph 7 and Figure 4; Marion, Col. 2, lines 59-68, Col. 3, lines 60-68 and Figure 3) is oriented along the back of the knee (Burns, Paragraphs 27 and 30-31 and Figures 1), when the knee is extended, leg muscles associated with the knee are strengthened.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Burns in view of Faouen in view of Marion discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose a ratcheting adjustment device permitting the flat leaf spring to be tightened to adjust attachment to the leg.
Faouen further teaches a ratcheting adjustment device (Faouen, Page 6/36, Paragraph 7 and Figure 4, Leaf spring 8 is attached to lumbar brace frame 2 via screw 9 at one end and ratchet/meshing grooves 11 at other end changing stiffness and bowing), permitting the flat leaf spring (Faouen, Page 6/36, Paragraph 7 and Figure 4; Marion, Col. 2, lines 59-68, Col. 3, lines 60-68 and Figure 3) to be tightened to adjust attachment.
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 connection of one end of the leaf spring with the leg brace of Burns in view of Faouen in view of Marion, so that a ratcheting adjustment device permitting the flat leaf spring to be tightened to adjust attachment, as taught by Faouen, thereby adjusting attachment to the leg in the combination of Burns in view of Faouen in view of Marion, in order to provide an improved joint rehabilitation device with an enhanced leaf spring attachment with different variability of tightness and tension force from bowing against the user as given by incremental mesh ratcheting adjustment (Faouen, Page 6/36, Paragraph 7).
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
13. 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
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786