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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wood (20190298547).
With regards to claim 1, Wood discloses a prosthetic system (FIG 4) comprising: an inner socket (1) configured to receive a residual limb (FIG 4), the socket (1) comprising at least one socket window (105); and an outer frame (2a, 2b) configured to receive the socket (FIG 4), the frame (2a, 2b) comprising at least one frame window (FIG 4), wherein the socket window is configured to align with the frame window when the socket is received within the frame (FIG 4), and wherein the frame window and the socket window are together configured to releasably receive a sensor for the residual limb ([0067]).
With regards to claim 7, Wood discloses a prosthetic system according to claim 1, wherein the socket comprises a proximal end (FIG 4) and a distal end (FIG 4), the proximal end including an open portion configured to allow the residual limb to be inserted into the socket or removed from the socket (FIG 4).
With regards to claim 12, Wood discloses a prosthetic system according to claim 1, wherein the frame (2a, 2b) comprises a frame proximal end (FIG 4) and a frame distal end (FIG 4), the frame proximal end including a frame open portion configured to allow a residual limb to be inserted into the socket or removed from the socket (FIG 4).
With regards to claim 15, Wood discloses a prosthetic system according to claim 1, wherein the socket is configured to receive a residual arm limb (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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (20190298547) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marrs (5590567).
With regards to claim 2, Wood discloses a prosthetic system according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the socket window comprises at least one window tooth configured to engage a corresponding sensor tooth when the sensor is placed into the socket window. Marrs discloses a snap retainer system (FIG 5) comprising a receiving window (56). Marrs teaches the receiving window (56) comprises at least one window tooth (58) configured to engage a corresponding insert tooth (54) when the insert (52) is placed in the receiving window (56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood’s socket window to include at least one window tooth configured to engage a corresponding sensor tooth when the sensor is placed into the socket window, as taught by Marrs, in order to have low insertion force and strong resistance to unwanted removal (col 1 line 32).
With regards to claim 3, Wood discloses prosthetic system according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the frame window (FIG 4) comprises at least one window tooth configured to engage a corresponding sensor tooth when the sensor is placed into the frame window.
Marrs discloses a snap retainer system (FIG 5) comprising a receiving window (56). Marrs teaches the receiving window (56) comprises at least one window tooth (58) configured to engage a corresponding insert tooth (54) when the insert (52) is placed in the receiving window (56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood’s frame window to include at least one window tooth configured to engage a corresponding sensor tooth when the sensor is placed into the frame window, as taught by Marrs, in order to have low insertion force and strong resistance to unwanted removal (col 1 line 32).
With regards to claim 4, Wood as modified by Marrs discloses a prosthetic system according to claim 2, wherein the socket window (105) and/or frame window (FIG 4) comprise a plurality of window teeth (Marrs 58), the space between adjacent window teeth being configured to provide a snap-fit (Marrs FIG 5) for a sensor tooth (Marrs 54), such that the sensor tooth is configured to move in sequential snap-fits between adjacent window teeth when a user exerts a force on the sensor (Marrs FIG 5).
With regards to claim 5, Wood as modified by Marrs discloses a prosthetic system according to claim 2, wherein the prosthetic system further comprises the sensor ([0067]), wherein the sensor comprises at least one tooth (Marrs 54) for engaging the window tooth (Marrs 58).
With regards to claim 6, Wood as modified by Marrs discloses a prosthetic system according to claim 2, wherein the sensor is an electromyography sensor ([0067]).
Claim(s) 8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (20190298547) as applied to claims 7 and 12 above, and further in view of Hurley (20130123940).
With regards to claim 8, Wood discloses a prosthetic system according to claim 7, but fails to disclose that the socket comprises a socket slit, the socket slit extending from an edge of the open portion and substantially towards the distal end of the socket, and wherein the width of the socket slit at the edge of the open portion is configured to change relative to the width of the socket slit at the end of the socket slit that substantially approaches the distal end of the socket.
Hurley discloses a prosthetic system (FIG 1) comprising an inner socket (FIG 1) with a proximal end (upper end of FIG 1) and a distal end (lower end of FIG 1), the proximal end including an open portion configured to allow the residual limb to be inserted into the socket or removed from the socket (FIG 1). Hurley teaches that the socket (FIG 1) comprises a socket slit (between two of struts 7 in FIG 1), the socket slit (between two of struts 7 in FIG 1) extending from an edge of the open portion and substantially towards the distal end of the socket (FIG 1), and wherein the width of the socket slit at the edge of the open portion is configured to change relative to the width of the socket slit at the end of the socket slit that substantially approaches the distal end of the socket (when band 4 is tightened the width of the socket slit at the proximal end will change while the width of the socket slit at the distal end will remain substantially the same). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood’s prosthetic system to include that the socket comprises a socket slit, the socket slit extending from an edge of the open portion and substantially towards the distal end of the socket, and wherein the width of the socket slit at the edge of the open portion is configured to change relative to the width of the socket slit at the end of the socket slit that substantially approaches the distal end of the socket, as taught by Hurley, in order to be able to tighten and loosen the prosthetic ([0185]).
With regards to claim 13, Wood discloses a prosthetic system according to claim 12, wherein the socket comprises a proximal end (FIG 4) and a distal end (FIG 4), the proximal end including an open portion configured to allow the residual limb to be inserted into the socket or removed from the socket (FIG 4), but fails to disclose the socket comprises a socket slit, the socket slit extending from an edge of the open portion and substantially towards the distal end of the socket, and wherein the width of the socket slit at the edge of the open portion is configured to change relative to the width of the socket slit at the end of the socket slit that substantially approaches the distal end of the socket, and wherein the frame comprises a frame slit, the frame slit extending from an edge of the frame open portion and substantially towards the frame distal end, the frame slit being configured to be disposed adjacent to the socket slit when the socket is received within the frame.
Hurley discloses a prosthetic system (FIG 1) comprising an inner socket (FIG 1) with a proximal end (upper end of FIG 1) and a distal end (lower end of FIG 1), the proximal end including an open portion configured to allow the residual limb to be inserted into the socket or removed from the socket (FIG 1). Hurley teaches that the socket (FIG 1) comprises a socket slit (between two of struts 7 in FIG 1), the socket slit (between two of struts 7 in FIG 1) extending from an edge of the open portion and substantially towards the distal end of the socket (FIG 1), and wherein the width of the socket slit at the edge of the open portion is configured to change relative to the width of the socket slit at the end of the socket slit that substantially approaches the distal end of the socket (when band 4 is tightened the width of the socket slit at the proximal end will change while the width of the socket slit at the distal end will remain substantially the same), and wherein the frame comprises a frame slit (between two of struts 7 in FIG 1, where the frame may correspond with the structure of the socket ([0143]), the frame slit extending from an edge of the frame open portion and substantially towards the frame distal end (FIG 1, where the frame may correspond with the structure of the socket ([0143]), the frame slit being configured to be disposed adjacent to the socket slit when the socket is received within the frame ([0143]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood’s prosthetic system to include that the socket comprises a socket slit, the socket slit extending from an edge of the open portion and substantially towards the distal end of the socket, and wherein the width of the socket slit at the edge of the open portion is configured to change relative to the width of the socket slit at the end of the socket slit that substantially approaches the distal end of the socket and wherein the frame comprises a frame slit, the frame slit extending from an edge of the frame open portion and substantially towards the frame distal end, the frame slit being configured to be disposed adjacent to the socket slit when the socket is received within the frame, as taught by Hurley, in order to be able to tighten and loosen the prosthetic ([0185]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (20190298547) in view of Hurley (20130123940) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Dillingham (20200352748).
With regards to claim 9, Wood as modified by Hurley discloses a prosthetic system according to claim 8, but fails to disclose that the socket comprises a tongue extending along the length of the socket slit, and wherein the tongue is configured to be disposed adjacent to the residual limb.
Dillingham discloses a prosthetic system (FIG 20b) comprising an inner socket (178) with a proximal end (upper end of FIG 20b) and a distal end (lower end of FIG 20b), the proximal end including an open portion configured to allow the residual limb to be inserted into the socket or removed from the socket (FIG 20b), and a socket slit (portion covered by 176 in FIG 20b). Dillingham teaches that the socket (178) comprises a tongue (176) extending along the length of the socket slit (FIG 20b), and wherein the tongue is configured to be disposed adjacent to the residual limb (socket 178 with tongue 176 in FIG 20b is configured to directly receive the residual limb). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood’s prosthetic system to include that the socket comprises a tongue extending along the length of the socket slit, and wherein the tongue is configured to be disposed adjacent to the residual limb, as taught by Dillingham, in order to more comfortable receive the limb ([0204]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (20190298547) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller (20230100239).
With regards to claim 10, Wood discloses a prosthetic system according to claim 1, wherein the frame (2a, 2b) comprises one or more channels (202) configured to receive a cable ([0065]), but fails to disclose that the frame (2a, 2b) further comprises an engagement means configured to receive a cable tensioning device (201).
Miller discloses an adjustable tensioning device (FIG 25) configured for placement in a prosthetic frame (231). Miller teaches that the frame (231) further comprises an engagement means configured to receive a cable tensioning device (251; this element is interpreted under 112(f) as being a hole, see [0018] of the instant application, and equivalents thereof). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood’s prosthetic system to include that the frame further comprises an engagement means configured to receive a cable tensioning device, as taught by Miller, in order to ensure that the device is properly centered ([0144]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (20190298547) and Miller (20230100239) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Forester (20140243996).
With regards to claim 11, Wood in view of Miller discloses a prosthetic system according to claim 10, wherein the prosthetic system comprises the cable (tensioning cable located within 202, [0065]) and the cable tensioning device (201), the cable being coupled to the cable tensioning device (tensioning dial 201 configured to actuate tensioning cable, so they must be coupled [0065]), but fails to disclose that operating the cable tensioning device in a first direction urges the frame to tighten about the socket and operating the cable tensioning device in a second direction urges the frame to loosen about the socket.
Forester discloses a prosthetic system (1) with a slit (14), a cable ([0034]), and a cable tensioning device (30). Forester teaches that operating the cable tensioning device in a first direction urges the frame to tighten about the socket ([0034]) and operating the cable tensioning device in a second direction urges the frame to loosen about the socket ([0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prosthetic system of Wood in view of Miller to include operating the cable tensioning device in a first direction urges the frame to tighten about the socket and operating the cable tensioning device in a second direction urges the frame to loosen about the socket, as taught by Forester, in order to adapt the prosthetic to the user ([0036]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (20190298547) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Miller (20230100239), Forester (20140243996), and Hurley (20130123940).
With regards to claim 14, Wood discloses a prosthetic system according to claim 12, wherein the frame comprises one or more channels (202) configured to receive a cable ([0065]), wherein the prosthetic system (FIG 4) comprises the cable ([0065]) and the cable tensioning device (201), the cable being coupled to the cable tensioning device (tensioning dial 201 configured to actuate tensioning cable, so they must be coupled [0065]), but fails to disclose that the frame further comprising an engagement means configured to receive a cable tensioning device, that operating the cable tensioning device in a first direction urges the frame to tighten about the socket and operating the cable tensioning device in a second direction urges the frame to loosen about the socket, and that the frame proximal end comprises a gap, the gap being configured to narrow when the cable tensioning device is operated in the first direction, the gap being configured to widen when the cable tensioning device is operated in the second direction.
Miller discloses an adjustable tensioning device (FIG 25) configured for placement in a prosthetic frame (231). Miller teaches that the frame (231) further comprises an engagement means configured to receive a cable tensioning device (251; this element is interpreted under 112(f) as being a hole, see [0018] of the instant application, and equivalents thereof). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood’s prosthetic system to include that the frame further comprises an engagement means configured to receive a cable tensioning device, as taught by Miller, in order to ensure that the device is properly centered ([0144]).
Wood as modified by Miller fails to disclose that operating the cable tensioning device in a first direction urges the frame to tighten about the socket and operating the cable tensioning device in a second direction urges the frame to loosen about the socket. Forester discloses a prosthetic system (1) with a slit (14), a cable ([0034]), and a cable tensioning device (30). Forester teaches that operating the cable tensioning device in a first direction urges the frame to tighten about the socket ([0034]) and operating the cable tensioning device in a second direction urges the frame to loosen about the socket ([0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood’s prosthetic system to include that operating the cable tensioning device in a first direction urges the frame to tighten about the socket and operating the cable tensioning device in a second direction urges the frame to loosen about the socket, as taught by Forester, in order to adapt the prosthetic to the user ([0036]).
Wood as modified by Miller and Forester fails to disclose that the frame proximal end comprises a gap, the gap being configured to narrow when the cable tensioning device is operated in the first direction, the gap being configured to widen when the cable tensioning device is operated in the second direction. Hurley discloses a prosthetic system (FIG 1) comprising an inner socket (FIG 1) and a support frame ([0143]) with a proximal end (upper end of FIG 1) and a distal end (lower end of FIG 1), the proximal end including an open portion configured to allow the residual limb to be inserted into the socket or removed from the socket (FIG 1). Hurley teaches that the frame proximal end comprises a gap (between two of struts 7 in FIG 1, where the frame may correspond with the structure of the socket ([0143]), the gap being configured to narrow when the cable tensioning device is operated in the first direction (when band 4 is tightened the width of the socket and frame slits will narrow), the gap being configured to widen when the cable tensioning device is operated in the second direction (when band 4 is tightened the width of the socket and frame slits will widen). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood’s prosthetic system to include that the frame proximal end comprises a gap, the gap being configured to narrow when the cable tensioning device is operated in the first direction, the gap being configured to widen when the cable tensioning device is operated in the second direction, as taught by Hurley, in order to be able to tighten and loosen the prosthetic ([0185]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE FLORENCIA NERENBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-9599. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at (571) 272-9062. 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.
/R.F.N./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/MELANIE R TYSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights