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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “widths” of the slits in the first plane recited in Claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites that “each of the slits has a width, in the first plane.” There is no mention of the term “width” in the specification, nor is there any discussion of the relative sizes of the slits and extension members, nor are the widths noted in the Figures. The new limitation of Claim 1 is therefore considered new matter.
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, 2, 4-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2962591 (Gallay).
Regarding Claim 1, Gallay teaches a tip for an ambulatory stability pole (1) having an anterior side (toward 3a) and a posterior side (toward 3e), comprising: a single base member (5) extending for a first dimension along a first direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis (X-X’) of the ambulatory stability pole; and a plurality of extension members (3a-3e) extending from the single base member along the first direction, wherein the plurality of extension members terminate in contact regions (the bottom surfaces thereof), wherein the contact regions of the plurality of extension members define a first plane (P-P) that is inclined relative to a second plane (T-T) that is orthogonal to the first direction, wherein the plurality of extension members are separated from each other by slits (the spaces between adjacent extensions), wherein at least one of the slits (such as between 3a and 3b) is a different depth than another one (such as between 3d and 3e) of the slits, and wherein the plurality of extension members comprise: one or more first extension members (3a) that are located proximate to the rear side of the tip, the one or more first extension members having a second dimension along the first direction; and one or more second extension members (3e) that are located proximate to the front side of the tip, the one or more second extension members having a third dimension along the first direction, wherein the second dimension is greater than the third dimension (see Fig. 7), wherein each of the slits has a width (such as B, see below) that is less than widths of the one or more first extension members and one of the one or more second extension members (as best understood).
PNG
media_image1.png
331
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Gallay teaches that the one or more first extension members have a fourth dimension along a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction and the one or more second extension members have a fifth dimension along the second direction, and the fourth dimension is greater than the fifth dimension (See fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 4, Gallay teaches (See Fig. 1) that when attached to the ambulatory stability pole and the ambulatory stability pole being in a slanted position relative to a vertical line extending from a surface, each of the one or more first extension members and the one or more second extension members contact the surface.
Regarding Claim 5, Gallay teaches that the plurality of extension members further comprises: one or more third extension members (3c) that are located between the one or more first extension members and the one or more second extension members along a second direction from the anterior side to the posterior side.
Regarding Claim 6, Gallay teaches that the one or more third extension members have a sixth dimension along the first direction, and wherein the sixth dimension is less than the second dimension and greater than the third dimension (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 7, Gallay teaches that the single base member has a seventh dimension (the width seen in Fig. 10) along a second direction (along P-P’ in Fig. 10) that is orthogonal to the first direction, and the plurality of extension members have an eighth dimension along the second direction at the contact regions, and wherein the eighth dimension is greater than the seventh dimension (See Fig. 10).
Regarding Clam 8, Gallay teaches that the plurality of extension members lack radial symmetry (see Fig. 5 – some members extend radially and some extend at an angle to a radial line).
Regarding Claim 9, Gallay teaches that the plurality of extension members lack dihedral symmetry (See Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 10, Gallay teaches that the plurality of extension members are formed from a compliant material (see Paragraph 0038 – “caoutchouc”).
Regarding Claim 11, Gallay teaches that the plurality of extension members are formed from an elastomeric material (“caoutchouch” is rubber).
Regarding Claim 12, Gallay teaches that the single base member comprises a cavity (6) configured to receive a pole tip of the ambulatory stability pole.
Regarding Claim 14, Gallay teaches a tip for an ambulatory stability pole (1), comprising: a single base member (5) extending for a first dimension along a first direction (X-X’) that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the ambulatory stability pole; and a plurality of extension members (3a-3e) extending from the single base member along the first direction and being separated from each other by slits (the spaces between adjacent extensions), the plurality of extension members terminating in contact regions (the bottom surfaces thereof), wherein the tip comprises a cavity (such as A, see above, the cavity within the center of the bottom of the foot - see Fig. 5 – extends upward from the contact surface further than the depth of the slits) between the plurality of extension members that extends to a depth that is deeper than each of the slits separating the plurality of extension members.
Regarding Claim 15, Gallay teaches that the single base member comprises a cavity (6) configured to receive a pole tip of the ambulatory stability pole.
Regarding Claim 16, Gallay teaches that at least one of the slits (between 3a and 3b) is a different depth than another one of the slits (between 3d and 3e).
Regarding Claim 18, Gallay teaches that the plurality of extension members lack radial symmetry (see Fig. 5 – some members extend radially and some extend at an angle to a radial line).
Regarding Claim 19, Gallay teaches that the plurality of extension members lack dihedral symmetry (See Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 20, Gallay teaches that the plurality of extension members are formed from a compliant material (see Paragraph 0038 – “caoutchouc”).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by EP 2962591 (Gallay) as applied to Claim 14 above in view of Edwards in US Patent 4708154. Gallay is silent on the use of convex contact regions. Edwards teaches a tip with extension members (56) having a convex shaped contact region (the rounded lower surface, see Figs. 3 and 4). 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 Gallay by using convex-shaped contact regions as taught by Edwards in order to provide a strong grip.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 1 and the amendments made thereto: there is no support for the added limitations in the disclosure of the application. As best understood, Gallay anticipates the features added to Claim 1 (see rejections set forth above).
With respect to the applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 14: the cavity referred to in the rejection is not the cavity into which the rod of the walking stick is inserted. Please see annotated Figure 5 above: the cavity on Gallay noted as element A (see above) is the cavity on the underside of the foot within the ring and in the center of the foot. As there is no material 3 within the ring, the cavity extends further than the sits between the extension members.
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