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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1,2, 4—12 have been examined in this application. Claim 3 has been canceled. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 07/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1—3, 9, 10 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S Patent 9,532,913 B1 to Jacks (Jacks hereafter).
As per claim 1, Jacks teaches:
A support assembly (10—Fig.1; Col 6 lines 7—10 ) comprising: a proximate body having a first end opposite a second end (1—Fig.1; Col 6 lines 7—10), wherein the second end is rotatably coupled to a coupling end of a distal body (2 & 3—Fig.1; Col 6 lines 7—10); a locking mechanism removably engaged with a portion of the proximate body (4—Fig.1; Col 6 lines 7—10) and a portion of the distal body such that an angle between the proximate body and the distal body remains relatively fixed when the lock mechanism is in a locked position (4 & 5—Fig.1; Col 6 lines 7—10) wherein the distal body includes a support element (2—Fig.10; Col 6 Lines 7—10) disposed along at least a portion of an edge of the distal body substantially parallel to an axis of rotation (8—Fig.10), wherein the support element comprises a protrusion protruding outwardly from a topside of the distal body along the at least a portion of the edge(2 & 7—Fig.10; Col 6 Lines 7—10: protrusion 7 protruding outwardly from a topside of the distal body).
As per claim 2, Jacks teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
421
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The support assembly of claim 1, wherein the second end is rotatably coupled to the coupling end at least in part through: a plurality of knuckles (9—Fig.11) protruding from the second end that interleave with a corresponding one or more knuckles protruding from the coupling end of the distal body (9—Fig.11; Col 6 lines 18—20); a hinge pin inserted into a center hole of each of the plurality of knuckles and a center hole of each of the one or more knuckles (annotated 9—Fig.1 Col 6 lines 18—20).
As per claim 9, Jacks teaches:
The support assembly of claim 1, wherein the angle is selected from the group consisting of: about 35°, about 45°, about 55°, about 65°, about 75°, about 85°, about 95°, about 105°, about 115°, about 125°, about 135°, about 145°, about 155°, about 165°, and about 175° (2 & 3—Fig.3: angle produce between about 35 and 180 degrees).
As per claim 10, Jacks teaches:
The support assembly of claim 1, wherein the proximate body includes a padding disposed on a top side of the proximate body opposite a bottom side (Col 7 Lines 10—14).
As per claim 12, Jacks teaches:
The support assembly of claim 1, wherein the proximate body is a planar body and the distal body is a planar body (1, 2 & 3—Fig.1 planar distal and proximate body).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 4—8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent 9,532,913 B1 to Jacks in view of U.S Patent Application 2003/0224912 A1 to Zagone (Zagone hereafter).
As per claim 4, Jacks teaches: The support assembly of claim 2.
Jack does not teach, wherein the locking mechanism comprises: a spring coil having a spring bore and a front end opposite a back end; a rod disposed within the spring bore, the rod having a first end opposite a second end; a flange circumferential disposed near the second end of the rod, wherein the front end of the spring abuts a face of the flange; a grip element having a body and an opening, wherein the first end of the rod is disposed within the opening of the body.
Zagone teaches, wherein the locking mechanism comprises: a spring coil (30—Fig.2; para [0014]) having a spring bore and a front end opposite a back end (30—Fig.2; para [0014]); a rod disposed within the spring bore (24—Fig.2; para [0014]), the rod having a first end opposite a second end (30—Fig.2; para [0014]); a flange circumferential disposed near the second end of the rod (24—Fig.2 generally shown), wherein the front end of the spring abuts a face of the flange (30—Fig.2; para [0014]); a grip element having a body and an opening, wherein the first end of the rod is disposed within the opening of the body (28—Fig.2; para [0014]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jacks (directed to a support assembly provided with a distal and proximal body configured to support the leg of a user including knuckles provided to secure a proximal and distal end in a fixed angle relative to one another) and Zagone (directed to a locking hinge and clamping device provided with spring rod and locking arrangement where the spring abut flange ) and arrived at a support assembly provided with a distal and proximal body configured to support the leg of a user including knuckles provided to secure a proximal and distal end in a fixed angle relative to one another including a locking hinge and clamping device provided with spring rod and locking arrangement where the spring abut flange. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce biasing resistance between the proximal and distal support as taught in Zagone (para [0014]).
As per claim 5, Jacks teaches: The support assembly of claim 4.
Jacks does not teach, wherein the back end of the spring coil abuts an engagement face of the one or more knuckles or the plurality of knuckles.
Zagone teaches: wherein the back end of the spring coil abuts an engagement face of the one or more knuckles or the plurality of knuckles (29 & 30—Fig.2; spring abut knuckle 29).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jacks (directed to a support assembly provided with a distal and proximal body configured to support the leg of a user including knuckles provided to secure a proximal and distal end in a fixed angle relative to one another) and Zagone (directed to a spring coil that abuts an engagement face of one or more knuckles) and arrived at a support assembly provided with a distal and proximal body configured to support the leg of a user including knuckles provided to secure a proximal and distal end in a fixed angle relative to one another including a spring coil that abuts an engagement face of one or more knuckles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce biasing resistance between the proximal and distal support as taught in Zagone (para [0013-14]).
As per claim 6, Jacks teaches: The support assembly of claim 5.
Jacks does not teach, further comprising: a guide locking hole disposed within an interior wall of at least one knuckle of the plurality of knuckles.
Zagone teaches, further comprising: a guide locking hole (28—Fig.2; para [0014]) disposed within an interior wall of at least one knuckle of the plurality of knuckles (28 & 29 —Fig.2 para [0013]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jacks (directed to a support assembly provided with a distal and proximal body configured to support the leg of a user including knuckles provided to secure a proximal and distal end in a fixed angle relative to one another) and Zagone (directed to a spring coil that abuts an engagement face of one or more knuckles) and arrived at a support assembly provided with a distal and proximal body configured to support the leg of a user including knuckles provided to secure a proximal and distal end in a fixed angle relative to one another including a spring coil that abuts an engagement face of one or more knuckles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce biasing resistance between the proximal and distal support as taught in Zagone (para [0013-14]).
As per claim 7, Jacks teaches: The support assembly of claim 6.
Jacks does not teach, wherein the rod is coupled to a receiving element at least one knuckle of the plurality of knuckles.
Zagone teaches, wherein the rod is coupled to a receiving element at least one knuckle of the plurality of knuckles (24 & 29 —Fig.2 para [0013]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jacks (directed to a support assembly provided with a distal and proximal body configured to support the leg of a user including knuckles provided to secure a proximal and distal end in a fixed angle relative to one another) and Zagone (directed to an exercise device with a rod coupled to a receiving element at least one knuckle of the plurality of knuckle) and arrived at a support assembly provided with a distal and proximal body configured to support the leg of a user including knuckles provided to secure a proximal and distal end in a fixed angle relative to one another including a rod coupled to a receiving element at least one knuckle of the plurality of knuckle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce biasing resistance between the proximal and distal support as taught in Zagone (para [0013-14]).
As per claim 8, Jacks teaches: The support assembly of claim 7.
Jacks does not teach, wherein the second end of the rod is disposed through the guide locking hole to an opening on a locking hole of the one or more knuckles.
Zagone teaches: wherein the second end of the rod is disposed through the guide locking hole (24 & 28—Fig.2; para [0013]) to an opening on a locking hole of the one or more knuckles (28 & 29—Fig.2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jacks (directed to a support assembly provided with a distal and proximal body configured to support the leg of a user including knuckles provided to secure a proximal and distal end in a fixed angle relative to one another) and Zagone (directed to an exercise device with a rod coupled to a receiving element at least one knuckle of the plurality of knuckle) and arrived at a support assembly provided with a distal and proximal body configured to support the leg of a user including knuckles provided to secure a proximal and distal end in a fixed angle relative to one another including a rod coupled to a receiving element at least one knuckle of the plurality of knuckle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce biasing resistance between the proximal and distal support as taught in Zagone (para [0013-14]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent 9,532,913 B1 to Jacks in view of U.S Patent Application 2014/0259532 A1 to Millard (Millard hereafter).
As per claim 11, Jacks teaches:
The support assembly of claim 2, wherein the locking mechanism comprises a pawl (6 & 8—Fig.12).
Jack does not teach and a biasing element adapted to engage with at least one tooth of center knuckle of the one or more knuckles.
Millard teaches and a biasing element adapted to engage with at least one tooth of center knuckle of the one or more knuckles (136—Fig.4; para [0019]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jacks (directed to a support assembly provided with a distal and proximal body configured to support the leg of a user including knuckles provided to secure a proximal and distal end in a fixed angle relative to one another) and Millard (directed to a locking mechanism provided with a biasing element that engages one tooth of a center knuckle) and arrived at a support assembly provided with a distal and proximal body configured to support the leg of a user including knuckles provided to secure a proximal and distal end in a fixed angle relative to one another including a rod coupled to a receiving element at least one knuckle of the plurality of knuckle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce cause the angled teeth of first engagement structure to continue to ratchet along the grooves of second engagement structure until they can travel no farther or reach a mechanical stop as taught in Millard(para [0013-14]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim(s) 1—3, 9, 10 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S Patent 9,532,913 B1 to Jacks. Claim(s) 4—8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent 9,532,913 B1 to Jacks in view of U.S Patent Application 2003/0224912 A1 to Zagone. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent 9,532,913 B1 to Jacks in view of U.S Patent Application 2014/0259532 A1 to Millard (Millard hereafter).
Applicants Arguments:
Regarding independent claim 1, the applicant submits Jacks, on the other hand, teaches rounded edges, depicted as element 9 in Jacks, which are provided to avoid pinching during rotation and to eliminate sharp-angle edge structures. As such, Jacks teaches away from a support body having raised sidewalls or peripheral lips configured to laterally retain a user's leg or residual limb on the support surface.
Thus, and turning specifically to the claims, Jacks fails to teach or disclose "wherein the distal body includes a support element disposed along at least a portion of an edge of the distal body substantially parallel to an axis of rotation, wherein the support element comprises a protrusion protruding outwardly from a topside of the distal body along the at least a portion of the edge" as provided by amended by claim 1. As such, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of claim 1 and its dependent claims.
Examiners Response to Arguments:
PNG
media_image2.png
330
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, the examiner maintains U.S Patent 9,532,913 B1 to Jacks teaches a support body having raised sidewalls or peripheral lips configured to laterally retain a user's leg or residual limb on the support surface as shown in (annotated Fig.7 below).
The examiner further highlights that Jack teaches wherein the support element comprises a protrusion protruding outwardly from a topside of the distal body along the at least a portion of the edge (annotated Fig.7 below above).
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 Deborah T Gedeon whose telephone number is (571)272-8863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm EST.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/D.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3673 07/27/2026
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights