DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/26/2024. These drawings are accepted.
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 21-23, 25, 26, 35, 36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Austin et al. in US Publication 2015/0374082.
Regarding Claim 21, Austin teaches a foot for a medical mobility device, comprising: an upper portion (200) including a first end portion defining an opening (204) configured to receive an end of a medical mobility device (104), and a second end portion (A, see below); a traction surface (202) coupled to the second end portion of the upper portion, the second end portion of the upper portion and the traction surface defining an annular cavity (in which 206 is positioned) therebetween, wherein the upper portion and the traction surface are configured to tilt relative to one another (“the center portion 200 may bend and rotate if a user holds a cane at an angle with respect to the cane base 100” – see Paragraph 0017); and a cushion ring (206) positioned in the annular cavity, wherein the cushion ring is configured to compress between the upper portion and the traction surface during tilting of the traction surface relative to the upper portion, wherein the cushion ring fills an entirety of the annular cavity.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Austin teaches a post (B) positioned on a central longitudinal axis defined by the foot and coupling the second end portion of the upper portion to the traction surface, wherein the cushion ring is positioned about the post.
Regarding Claim 23, Austin teaches that the traction surface and the post are monolithically formed with one another.
Regarding Claim 25, Austin teaches that the cushion ring defines a central passageway through which the post extends (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 26, Austin teaches that the traction surface has an underside (see Fig. 6) configured to engage a ground surface, and a concave upper surface (at C) engaged with a convex bottom surface of the cushion ring.
Regarding Claim 35, Austin teaches a medical mobility device, comprising: a leg (104) having a bottom end portion (toward the bottom end); and a foot (100) including: an upper portion (200) defining an opening (204) at a first end portion of the upper portion, the bottom end portion of the leg supported in the opening along a central longitudinal axis defined by the foot; a base configured (202) to be positioned on a ground surface; a central post (B) extending vertically between and interconnecting a second end portion (A) of the upper portion and the base; and a cushion ring (206) positioned about the central post and between the upper portion and the base, wherein the cushion ring is discrete from the central post, the upper portion, and the base and is engaged to the central post, the upper portion, and the base.
Regarding Claim 36, Austin teaches that the upper portion includes a midsection (D) extending between the first and second end portions, the midsection not contacting the cushion ring.
Regarding Claim 39, Austin teaches that the cushion ring defines a central passageway through which the central post extends (see Fig. 4).
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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin as applied to Claim 22 above in view of Youngren in US Patent 1438883. Austin is silent on the use of a hollow cushion. Youngren teaches a cushion (B) for a mobility device that is a hollow, sealable bladder containing a gas (air). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cushion ring of Austin by using a hollow gas filled cushion as taught by Youngren in order to all the user to adjust the resilience of the cushion.
Claims 27-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin et al. in US Publication 2015/0374082 in view of Youngren in US Patent 1438883.
Regarding Claim 27, Austin teaches a foot for a medical mobility device, comprising: an upper portion (200) including a first end portion defining an opening (204) configured to receive an end (104) of a medical mobility device, and a second end portion (A), the second end portion having a cylindrical extension (B) extending centrally therefrom; a bottom portion (202) including a first end portion (the upper end thereof), and a second end portion (see Fig. 6) configured to contact a ground surface, the first end portion of the bottom portion including a cylindrical extension (B) extending centrally therefrom and connected to or monolithically formed with the cylindrical extension of the upper portion such that the upper portion and the bottom portion define a ring-shaped area therebetween (in which 206is positioned); and a cushion (206) discrete from the cylindrical extensions and secured between the upper portion and the bottom portion and around the cylindrical extensions, wherein the cushion fills an entirety of the ring-shaped area.
Austin is silent on the use of a gas-filled cushion. Youngren teaches a cushion (B) for a mobility device that is a gas (air)-filled cushion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cushion ring of Austin by using a gas-filled cushion as taught by Youngren in order to all the user to adjust the resilience of the cushion.
Regarding Claim 28, Austin, as modified, teaches that the gas-filled cushion defines a central passageway through which the cylindrical extensions extend (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 29, Austin, as modified, teaches that the second end portion of the bottom portion has an underside (see Fig. 6) configured to engage a ground surface, and the first end portion of the bottom portion has a concave upper surface (at C) engaged with a convex bottom surface of the gas-filled cushion.
Regarding Claim 30, Austin, as modified, teaches (see Fig. 4) that the cylindrical extensions are monolithically formed with one another.
Regarding Claim 31, Austin, as modified, teaches that the cylindrical extensions are connected to one another (they are unitary).
Regarding Claim 32, Austin, as modified, teaches that the cylindrical extensions are fabricated from a resilient material (see Paragraph 0021).
Regarding Claim 34, Austin, as modified, teaches that the cylindrical extension of the upper portion is solid.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin, as modified, as applied to Claim 27 above in view of Higginbotham in US Patent 2857925. Austin, as modified, is silent on the depth of the opening. Higginbotham teaches a foot including an upper portion (1) and an opening (2) therein, wherein the opening has a bottom-most end spaced axially above a bottom-most end of the upper portion (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Austin, as modified, by using an opening with a bottom above the bottom of the upper portion as taught by Higginbotham in order to allow the central post to be more flexible and the foot to be more complaint for the user.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin, as applied to Claim 35 above in view of Dollarhide in US Publication 2017/0312164. Austin is silent on the use of a foam cushion. Dollarhide teaches a cushion ring (202) that includes foam (see Paragraph 0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cushion ring of Austin by using a foam cushion ring as taught by Dollarhide in order to provide a resilient and lightweight cushion for the device.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin as applied to Claim 35 above in view of Youngren in US Patent 1438883. Austin is silent on the use of a hollow cushion. Youngren teaches a cushion (B) for a mobility device that is a hollow, sealable bladder containing a gas (air). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cushion ring of Austin by using a hollow gas filled cushion as taught by Youngren in order to allow the user to adjust the resilience of the cushion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 40 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21, 27, and 35 and their dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6-7, filed 4/01/2026, with respect to the Drawing Objections and Rejection of Claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 40 and Drawing Objections have been withdrawn.
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 NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah Chandler Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights