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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 32, 33, 38 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Within claim 32, line 14: There should no be a comma before “respectively” (as the “respectively” clause thereafter is grammatically incomplete on it’s own.
Claim 33 is missing a period at the end of the claim.
Within claim 38, lien 2: “the contact plate” should be replaced with --the ground contact plate--(in order to maintain consistent claim terminology).
Within claim 38, line 2: There should no be a comma before “for receiving” (as the “for receiving” clause thereafter is grammatically incomplete on it’s own.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/ 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.
Within claim 21, line 9: Applicant claims, “an axis of the torsion bar”; it is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if this is the same as OR different from the longitudinal axis of the torsion bar (within claim 21, line 4)? It should be noted, within the specifications the longitudinal axis of the torsion bar and the axis of the torsion bar are the same. Claim(s) 22-40, which depend from claim 21, inherit all the problems associated with claim 21.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 26 recites the broad recitation non-collinear, and the claim also recites perpendicular which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim(s) 27-34, which depend from claim 26, inherit all the problems associated with claim 26.
Within claim 26, lines 4-5: Applicant claims, “the movement of the actuating member causing rotation of the input element relative to the output element”; it is unclear, and therefore indefinite, what Applicant considers to be the scope of the claim – the aforementioned claim requirement is a method of use step (as Applicant is positively reciting the movement); however, the scope of the claim (which is determined by the preamble) is to the assembly alone NOT the method of using the assembly. As such, it is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if Applicant is trying to claim the assembly OR the method of using the assembly. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is assuming the aforementioned claim requirement should be rewritten as --movement of the actuating member is configured to cause rotation of the input element relative to the output element--.
Within claim 29, line 2: Applicant claims, “a pivoting connection”; it is unclear, and therefore indefinite if a pivoting connection should refer back to a pivoting connections within claim 28, lien 2 OR if claim 29 should instead not depend from claim 28. Claim(s) 30-34, which depend from claim 29, inherit all the problems associated with claim 29.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the pivot axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Within claim 29, lines 3-4: Applicant claims, “the input element causes rotation of the linear actuator relative to the base about the second pivot axis”; it is unclear, and therefore indefinite, what Applicant considers to be the scope of the claim – the aforementioned claim requirement is a method of use step (as Applicant is positively reciting the rotation); however, the scope of the claim (which is determined by the preamble) is to the assembly alone NOT the method of using the assembly. As such, it is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if Applicant is trying to claim the assembly OR the method of using the assembly. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is assuming the aforementioned claim requirement should be rewritten as --the input element is configured to cause rotation of the linear actuator relative to the base about the second pivot axis--.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the second pivot axis" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Within claim 32, line 8-9: Applicant claims, “configured to be rotationally coupled with the first zone of the torsion bar about the axis of the torsion bar”; it is unclear, and therefore indefinite, what is configured to […] the first tubular section OR the first internal coupling surface. Claim(s) 33-34, which depend from claim 32, inherit all the problems associated with claim 32.
Within claim 32, line 11-12: Applicant claims, “configured to be rotationally coupled with the second zone of the torsion bar about the axis of the torsion bar”; it is unclear, and therefore indefinite, what is configured to […] the second tubular section OR the second internal coupling surface.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 34 recites the broad recitation the tubular body extending between the first and second ends entirely houses the torsion bar, and the claim also recites the torsion bar preferably being of the same length as the tubular body which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the output element" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim(s) 36-38, which depend from claim 35, inherit all the problems associated with claim 35.
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) 21-22, 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BYARS et al. (US 2018/0116826 A1).
With respect to claim 21:
BYARS et al. discloses an articulated assembly, as can be seen in fig. 6A, comprising:
- an input element (hypoid ring gear 644) (paragraph [0058]),
- an output element (foot member 608) (paragraph [0058]),
- a torsion bar (shaft 648) capable of deforming about a longitudinal axis of the torsion bar (joint axis 646) (paragraph [0058]),
- actuation means (actuator 612) (paragraph [0054]),
wherein the input element (hypoid ring gear 644) is rotationally coupled (coupled to/ integrally formed with) to a first zone of the torsion bar (the hypoid ring gear 644 is joined to the shaft 648 closer to the right side of the page in fig. 6A) (paragraph [0058]) and the output element (foot member 608) is rotationally coupled to a second zone of the torsion bar (the foot member 608 is connected to the foot coupler 106/606 which is rigidly attached to the shaft 116/ 648 closer to the left side of the page in fig. 6A) (paragraphs [0030, 0058]), the input element (hypoid ring gear 644) further being connected to (indirectly connected to) the actuation means (actuator 612) (paragraph [0054]), the input element (hypoid ring gear 644) and the output element (foot member 608) being guided in rotation relative to one another along an axis of the torsion bar (joint axis 646) (paragraphs [0058-0059]).
With respect to claim 22:
Wherein the input element (hypoid ring gear 644) and the output element (foot member 608) are respectively connected to the first zone (the hypoid ring gear 644 is joined to the shaft 648 closer to the right side of the page in fig. 6A) and to the second zone (the foot member 608 is connected to the foot coupler 106/606 which is rigidly attached to the shaft 116/ 648 closer to the left side of the page in fig. 6A) of the torsion bar via embedding connections. (Please note: Applicant has failed to define nor claim what makes an “embedded connection”; as such, a connection which does not allow rotation therebetween as created by BYARS et al. is considered to be an “embedded connection” as claimed.)
With respect to claim 39:
A large orthopedic device (lower limb prosthesis 600), as can be seen in fig. 6A, comprising at least one articulated assembly according to claim 21 (paragraph [0054]).
With respect to claim 40:
An articulated system comprising at least one articulated assembly according to claim 21, wherein the articulated system comprises at least a first section (portion above the shaft 648, in fig. 6A) and a second section (portion below the shaft 648 in fig. 6A) which are hinged relative to one another (will hinge/ pivot about each other thru axis 646) (paragraphs [0058-0059]), the first section (portion above the shaft 648, in fig. 6A) forming the input element (hypoid ring gear 644) of the articulated assembly, the second section (portion below the shaft 648 in fig. 6A)forming the output element (foot member 608) of the articulated assembly.
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(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BYARS et al. (US 2018/0116826 A1).
With respect to claim 23:
As discussed above. BYARS et al. discloses a torsion bar (shaft 648). BYARS et al. is silent regarding the stiffness thereof, specifically, having a stiffness value of between 100 and 10,000 Nm per radian. However, BYARS et al. discloses the two ends of the torsion bar (shaft 648) being fixedly connected at the end to the input element (hypoid ring gear 644) and the output element (foot member 608) with rotation along the torsion bar (joint axis 646) therebetween (paragraphs [0058-0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the stiffness of the torsion bar (shaft 648) to be between 100 and 10,000 Nm per radian since this is a result effective variable that will contribute to the strength and mobility of the ankle joint/ torsion bar (shaft 648) and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the stiffness of the ankle joint/ torsion bar (shaft 648), as taught and suggested by BYARS et al., would allow for stronger yarns that prevent breakage after implantation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 24-38 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner can find no references alone nor in combination which render obvious:
With respect to claim 24:
An articulated assembly (as required by claim 21) wherein the torsion bar is configured so that it can be removable (in relation to the input and output elements). (This is in direct conflict with the torsion bar (shaft 648), as disclosed by BYARS et al., which is integrally formed with at least the input element (hypoid ring gear 644).)
With respect to claim 25:
An articulated assembly (as required by claim 21) wherein the assembly additional includes a base (which will support the actuation means) and will be hinged in relation to the input element. (this is in direct conflict with the non-hinged/ non-pivoting relationship between the input element (hypoid ring gear 644) and the actuation means (actuator 612), as disclosed by BYARS et al., which are part of the same unitary structure.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA S PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5233. The examiner can normally be reached M, W: 9-5; T, Th, F: 9-1.
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached at (408)918-7557. 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.
REBECCA STRASZHEIM PRESTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3774
/REBECCA S PRESTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights