Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 4/16/26. Claims 1-13 and 15-19 are pending. Claim 14 has been canceled. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 13 and 15-17 are 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.
In claims 13 and, “the wrist support” lacks antecedent basis. The element is introduced as “a wrist support length” at line 4 of claim 13. Consistent language must be used though out.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2018/0021201 to Varghese et al.
Varghese et al. provides a mobility aid or “walking cane” comprising:
an upper portion comprising a handle and a brace or “wrist support” as shown in Figure 1 (the brace inherently provides wrist support at least indirectly as described in at least paragpgh [0006, 0038 and 0042]) and a lower portion wherein the handle and wrist support are spaced apart from one another and extend from the support leg at diverging wherein the wrist support has a support surface that is laterally offset from a vertical axis of the support leg and laterally offset from the handle as seen in Figures 1 and 2.
With respect to claims 2 and 15, see figure 1 and paragraphs [0029, 0045].
With respect to claims 3, 7 and 12, see paragraph [0044] recites the various parts may be coupled to together using fittings which implies they may be removably coupled which would inherently allow for interchanging parts and paragraph [0045] recites that the components may be separably coupled.
With respect to claim 4, no particular materials are claimed nor provided by Varghese but they must be both durable and lightweight to perform the intended functions. Further, materials such as aluminum, wood, plastics and composites are all well-known cane materials and are inherently lightweight and durable.
With respect to claims 8-9, see paragraphs [0031, 0046] and figure 1 which provides openings for a locking pin to adjust the length.
With respect to claim 10, see paragraph [0030] which provides a rubber tip
With respect to claim 13, figure 1 shows the claimed lateral offsets.
With respect to claims 16-17, see paragraphs [0006, 0038, 0042] which discuss ergonomic and inhibiting a user’s wrist stress.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2022/0015981 to Younger.
Younger provides a walking cane [0002] comprising: an upper portion comprising a handle 1014 and a wrist support 1012W having a support surface which is laterally offset from a vertical axis of the leg and laterally offset from the handle as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
700
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a lower portion comprising a support leg 1008, wherein the handle and wrist support are spaced apart from one another and extend from the support leg at diverging angles.
With respect to claim 2, see at least figure 10B which shows the handle and support as both branched and “Y” shaped.
With respect to claim 3, see paragraph [0042] which recites that section 1004/1106/108 are secured to one another using any means for example a quick-release pin. This inherently would allow for removable coupling and interchangeability.
With respect to claim 4, see paragraph [0051] which lists strong and lightweight materials.
With respect to claim 7, see paragraph [0054] which provides for interchangeability of the hand grip 1014.
With respect to claims 8-9, see paragpgh [0059] which recites “As is known to those of skill in the art, the height of the crutch 1000 or cane 1000′ can be adjusted based on the height of the user. In embodiments, both the first section 1008 and the third section 1004 section may be lengthened or shortened as desired. While any method of extending the length of any of the sections 1004, 1006, 1008 may be used, in embodiments, quick-release pins and corresponding holes in the respective sections 1004, 1006, 1008 may allow for easily adjust the length of the desired section 1004, 1006, and/or 1008”.
With respect to claim 12, at least paragraphs [0042, 0054, 0055] provide for one or more interchangeable components.
Claims 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2011/0240077 to Dougherty et al.
Dougherty provides a walking cane comprising a ground engaging length 66 supporting a handle 24 on an upper end of the length, wherein the handle extends outwardly from connection with the ground engaging length at an angle such that the handle extends along an axis that is neither parallel nor perpendicular to an axis of the ground engaging length. Figure 1B provides the angular relation of the axis of the ground engaging portion, the handle and the wrist support as well as showing the claimed lateral offsets.
With respect claim 14, the walking cane further comprises a wrist support length 18 extending outwardly from connection with the ground engaging length at an angle such that the wrist support extends along an axis that is neither parallel nor perpendicular to an axis of the ground engaging length.
With respect to claims 16-17, note paragraphs [0083-0089] which discuss the ergonomic design.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0015981 to Younger in view of U.S. Patent 6,561,206 to Wilkensen.
Younger provides each of the elements for claims except for magnetic clips configured to couple two walking canes.
Wilkens teaches using magnetic clips 10 and 20 to couple two canes (fig.3)
It would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the invention that the magnetic clips of Wilkensen could have been provided to the cane of Younger so as to allow for the cane to be statically coupled to its mate.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of magnetically coupling a pair of canes.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0015981 to Younger in view of U.S. Patent 6,561,206 to Wilkensen and U.S. D866,163 to Crown et al.
Younger as modified by Wilkensen above teaches the use for magnetic clips for attached two canes but fails to provide for two clips one positioned on an upper portion and one positioned on a lower portion.
Crown shows a crutch connector arrangement using two clips one positioned higher than the other.
It would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the invention that two of the magnetic clips of Wilkensen could have been provided to the cane of Younger as taught by Crown so as to allow for the cane to be statically coupled to its mate.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of magnetically coupling a pair of canes.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0015981 to Younger in view of U.S. H2138 to Pullman et al.
Younger provides each of the elements of the claims as noted above including any known foot 1010 to provide cushion and traction, the foot may be interchangeable [0055].
Younger fails to specify the foot is rubber.
Pullman teaches that a replaceable non-slip rubber foot 21 was known at the time of the effective filing date of the invention (col.3, lns 65+).
It would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a replaceable rubber foot for the foot of Younger as Younger suggests any known foot [ 0055] and Pullman provides an example that rubber was known at the time of the effective filing date of the invention. It would have been an obvious substitution of mechanical equivalents at the time of the effective filing date of the invention absent any expected or unpredictable results.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/21 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, applicant's argument that Younger fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,the wrist support being laterally offset) 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). Claim 1 only requires that the wrist support has a support surface which is laterally offset which is shown in the marked-up figure above.
The argument that Younger does not contemplate ergonomic improvement is note persuasive. See at least paragraphs [0041-0041].
In response to applicant's argument that the Dougherty fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reducing hand and wrist strain and promoting a proper and natural gait) 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). The claimed angular relations of the handle/wrist support? And leg in clearly shown in Fig.1B
Claims 18-19 are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly note:
U.S. Patent 3,757,807 to Manzo teaches a cane having have interchangeable cuffs 60/72 for supporting a forearm or as a wrist support. The cane formed of lightweight relatively strong materials such as aluminum, plastic or the like in desirable colors or with components in different colors. A rubber tip 84 is provided which may adjust in the overall length. A replaceable handle 40 is threadedly secured to the vertical support. When further adjustment is desired two telescoping channels may be used for the vertical support as discussed at the bottom of column 6.
U.S. Patent 5,711,334 to Roux teaches a cane that is adjustable in length having a handle 5 which is detachably connected so it may be used by a left or right hand. An upper portions 2 having a forearm support 4 is provided . The cane is made from lightweight materials such as aluminum or titanium and has a foot 8 at the lower ends thereof. The invention permits a more erect, i.e. better body posture, in contrast with several prior art crutches which require the user to lean forward. The arm rest is angled and balanced with the handle to provide a more rearward center of gravity. It provides increased safety, since the lower arm and wrist assume an optimized position which burdens the handicapped the least.
U.S. Patent 6,286,529 to Olivera.
In Figure 1b of US H2138 to Pullman shows the offset and Y-shape of the instant invention and teaches lightweight materials and a slip resistant rubber foot.
U.S. Patent 7,395,829 to Chapman.
U.S. 2010/0051077 to McGann et al. which provides for a cane which is adjustable in length (fig.4) and has interchangeable grips (figs. 6-8) at the upper end thereof and interchangeable feet (figs.9-11) at the lower end thereof to be customizable.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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 571-272-6670. 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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights