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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments, filed 4/28/2026, to claim 1 acknowledged by Examiner. Additionally, applicant cancelled claim 20, and added claim 21.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are now pending.
Previous 112b rejections withdrawn.
Previous drawing objections withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
In accordance with the Petition Decision on 3/26/2026, the previously withdrawn claims 8-9 and 12-18 are no longer withdrawn and examined herein.
Examiner notes the restriction requirement of Species A, B, and C is maintained as proper.
Response to Arguments
In regards to Applicant’s arguments towards finality due to the Petition Decision on claims 8-9 and 12-18 (Remarks Page 8), Examiner disagrees. The independent claim 1 has been amended with new scope, as neither in the previously examined claims and within the previously withdrawn claims was there the scope of a cable specifically going from the rotary tensioning mechanism and then from and through the Achilles anchor then from and through the dorsal anchor, then from and through the foot anchors to then the calf anchors. Examiner notes previously withdrawn claims 16-18 have similar scope but provided order of a first and second cable going from and to entry points on the anchors therein. The language herein can be seen to be different therein with thus different scope. As such, scope of claim 1 and all the dependent claims therein have been altered thus necessitating a new grounds of rejection. Examiner notes finality was consulted with the supervisor and two primaries in regards to the change of scope incurred by the amendment on claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New references of Moon and Hardt have been provided for rejecting the new claims below as necessitated by the amended language.
Examiner’s Notes
All references relied up on and not cited in the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “tensioning structure” (based on Fig. 4A-4C, the tensioning structure 122 is an area of material with the rotary knob 106 disposed thereon with a cable attached therein, Fig. 4A appears to be showing the tensioning structure 122 able to be a portion of the sock itself) and “rotary tensioning mechanism” (based on Fig. 4A-4C, may be the rotary knob 106, or according further to [0049] may be any structure that enables a cable to be routed therethrough) in claim 1.
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 § 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) 1 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (WO 2019160314 A1) in view of Hardt (US 20200315831 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moon discloses an ankle foot orthosis (AFO) (title, Fig. 1-4), comprising:
a sock that is configured to fit over a calf muscle on a leg of a user (Fig. 1-4, sock 100 fit over the calf muscle at end 130); and
a lifting cable system (Fig. 1-4, cable lifting system 200) that is at least partially integrated within the sock (Fig. 1-4, cable system 200 integrated into the sock 100) comprising:
a tensioning structure disposed on an upper region of the sock, the tensioning structure comprising a rotary tensioning mechanism disposed thereon (Fig. 1-4, tensioning dial 220 is a rotary tensioning mechanism being attached on an area of the sock 100 being thus tensioning structure area the dial is disposed on);
an Achilles anchor that is configured to be positioned below the tensioning structure on a posterior portion of the sock (Fig. 1-2, Achilles anchor 214 is below the tensioning structure 220 and on a posterior portion of the sock near the Achilles of a sock wearer);
a pair of foot anchors being positioned anterior to the dorsal area (Fig. 1-4, a pair of foot anchors 210 anterior the dorsal area of the foot);
and a cable (Fig. 1-4, cable WU) that is attached with the rotary tensioning mechanism (Fig. 1-4, cable WU attached via the dial/rotary tensioning mechanism 220), the cable being routed from the rotary tensioning mechanism (220) through the Achilles anchor (214), from the Achilles anchor (214) through the dorsal area (Fig. 1-4, wire goes through dorsal area), and from the dorsal area through the pair of foot anchors (Fig. 1-4, cable WU goes from the dorsal area though/into the pair of foot anchors).
Moon does not disclose a dorsal anchor that is configured to be positioned anterior to the Achilles anchor, the foot anchors anterior the dorsal anchor, the cable being routed from the rotary tensioning mechanism through the Achilles anchor, from the Achilles anchor through the dorsal anchor, and from the dorsal anchor through the pair of foot anchors.
However, Moon further discloses that the through pad/Achilles anchor is fixed to the sock 100 in order to both change the direction of force as well as make the wire/cable adhere more closely to the foot (see translated [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further provided a dorsal anchor for the cable WU portion already running through the dorsal area (as noted in Annotated Fig. 2 of Moon) for keeping the cable WU more closely aligned with the foot portions that is configured to run through (Moon [0055]).
Thus, as modified, Moon teaches a dorsal anchor that is configured to be positioned anterior to the Achilles anchor (Annotated Fig. 2, dorsal area and thus added dorsal anchor anterior of Achilles anchor),
the foot anchors anterior the dorsal anchor (Annotated Fig. 2, dorsal area and thus added dorsal anchor posterior of the foot anchors, thus the foot anchors anterior the dorsal anchor),
the cable being routed from the rotary tensioning mechanism through the Achilles anchor, from the Achilles anchor through the dorsal anchor, and from the dorsal anchor through the pair of foot anchors (See Annotated Fig. 2, the cable Wu would go from the rotary tensioning mechanism to and through the Achilles anchor 214, from the anchor 214 and then through the added dorsal anchor for the dorsal area, and from the dorsal anchor through/into the pair of foot anchors 210).
PNG
media_image1.png
728
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moon does not disclose a calf strap that is configured to be positioned above the calf muscle of the user when disposed on the leg of the user; a pair of calf anchors that are positioned on an upper posterior portion of the sock; and being secured to the pair of calf anchors after being routed through foot anchors.
However, Hardt teaches an analogous foot lifting/drop foot sock (Fig. 1-2), wherein Hardt provides teaching for improved foot lifting using a first tension element/force that leads to above the ankle ([0013, 0015] applying a tension force that reaches above the ankle to the leg acts as a counterforce) such a first tension element 2 may be viewed in Fig. 1 which teaches a first tension element 2 extending from the front of the foot through the dorsal area to the Achilles area and then up to a near calf area at the upper posterior portion of the analogous sock for attachment to a calf strap of the orthosis (Fig. 1-2 and [0037], calf strap 18 being configured to be positioned above the calf muscle of the user when disposed on the leg of the user because as seen in Fig. 1-2 and 5 the calf strap of the sock may lie over and thus above a lower portion of the calf muscle running down the leg of the user when worn) such that the calf strap functions as a calf anchor for the tension element (Fig. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further guided and extended the cable WU of Moon (being a tension element) further from the foot anchors 210 and through the foot area, dorsal area, Achilles area, and then secured to a calf strap there being a provided anchor structure therein as taught by Hardt for providing the leg as a counter weight to the tension forces being created in Moon (Hardt [0013-0015, 0037]), wherein Moon provides using the guide pad structures 214 for further guiding the cable WU through areas and keeping it close the to the foot (Moon [0055]), thus one of ordinary skill in the art when incorporating the teachings of Hardt into Moon would find it obvious to thus added anchors for the cable to guide through thus providing the foot anchors 210 with structure similar to 214 for the cable WU to extend through, and thus further dorsal and Achilles anchor/guides for the cables to extend through and thus a pair of calf anchors for each of the first and second cable WU of Moon to attach to at the calf strap 18 as taught by Hardt being at an upper posterior portion of the sock.
Thus, Moon as combined with Hardt now discloses the cable being routed from the rotary tensioning mechanism through the Achilles anchor, from the Achilles anchor through the dorsal anchor, and from the dorsal anchor through the pair of foot anchors and secured to the pair of calf anchors (See Example Annotated Fig. 3 of Moon as modified by Hardt for providing the routing of Hardt to the one side of the tensioning mechanism routing).
PNG
media_image2.png
728
833
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Moon in view of Hardt discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Moon in view of Hardt discloses wherein the cable that is attached with the rotary tensioning mechanism is further routed from the pair of foot anchors through the dorsal anchor, from the dorsal anchor through the achilles anchor, and from the achilles anchor to the pair of calf anchors (See Annotated Fig. 3 of Moon as modified by Hardt, wherein the teachings of Hardt into Moon as provided in claim 1 provide such routing of the cable from foot anchors back through a dorsal anchor, from the dorsal anchor through further additional achilles anchor, and from the additional achilles anchor up to the pair of calf anchors).
Claim(s) 2-3, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (WO 2019160314 A1) in view of Hardt (US 20200315831 A1), in further view of Johnson (US 20240000596 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Moon in view of Hardt discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Moon as combined does not disclose wherein the sock comprises a first outer layer of sock and a second inner layer of sock, wherein the Achilles anchor, the dorsal anchor, and the pair of foot anchors are positioned between the first outer layer of sock and the second inner layer of sock.
However, Johnson teaches an analogous an ankle foot orthosis (AFO) 21 (Fig. 5A), comprising: an analogous sock 6 that is configured to fit over a calf muscle on a leg of a user (Fig. 5A and [0088] sock 6 wherein sock 6 is capable of fitting a lower portion of calf muscle of a user), an analogous a tensioning structure 7 (Fig. 5A, cuff 7 [0088]) disposed on an upper region of the sock 6 (Fig. 5A, disposed at a top end of the sock 6), the tensioning structure 7 comprising a rotary tensioning mechanism 1 ([0095] rotary dial) disposed thereon (Fig. 5A); an Achilles anchor that is configured to be positioned below the tensioning structure 7 on posterior portion of the sock 6 (See Annotated Fig. 5A for indicated Achilles anchor on a posterior half of the sock); a dorsal anchor that is configured to be positioned anterior to the Achilles anchor (See Annotated Fig. 5A, wherein the dorsal anchor is indicated and positioned anterior to the Achilles anchor); a pair of foot anchors being positioned anterior to the dorsal anchor (See Annotated Fig. 5A, wherein a foot anchor is indicated, and see [0095] wherein the shown web 12 of Fig. 5A is on both lateral and medial sides thus there being at least two foot anchors being a pair therein); a cable 3 that is attached with the rotary tensioning mechanism 1 (see Fig. 5A, [0094] wherein the cable can be seen going from the dial 1 into the web 12), the cable 3 being routed through the Achilles anchor, the dorsal anchor, the pair of foot anchors (See Annotated Fig. 5A and [0094-0095]),
wherein Johnson provides wherein the sock 6 comprises a first outer layer of sock 6 (Fig. 5A, the first outer layer being the outer surface of the sock 6 therein) and a second inner layer of sock 6 (Fig. 5A, the second inner layer being the inner surface of the sock 6 therein),
wherein the Achilles anchor, the dorsal anchor, and the pair of foot anchors (Annotated Fig. 5A) are positioned between the first outer layer of sock and the second inner layer of sock (see [0095] wherein the web 12 being the various anchors runs through channels within the sock 6, thus being between the outer and inner surfaces and thus layers of the sock).
PNG
media_image3.png
658
848
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the anchors of Moon as combined with Hardt to be between the first outer layer of sock and the second inner layer of sock as taught by Johnson in order to provide an even further closely aligned cable system with the foot and joints therein (Johnson [0095]).
Regarding claim 3, Moon in view of Hardt and Johnson discloses the invention of claim 2 above.
Moon as combined with Hardt discloses a toe box (Moon Fig. 1-4, toe box 110) positioned anterior to the dorsal anchor on the sock (Moon Fig. 1-4, toe box 110 positioned anterior the dorsal area, thus as modified is anterior the dorsal anchors added thereon), the toe box being configured to receive toes of the user while wearing the AFO (Moon Fig. 1-4, toes extend through the box 110 when putting on the AFO).
Regarding claim 10, Moon in view of Hardt and Johnson discloses the invention of claim 2 above.
Moon as combined is silent on wherein an upper portion of the tensioning structure is attached to the upper region of the sock and a lower portion of the tensioning structure is not secured to the sock.
However, Johnson teaches an analogous an ankle foot orthosis (AFO) 21 (Fig. 5A), comprising: an analogous sock 6 that is configured to fit over a calf muscle on a leg of a user (Fig. 5A and [0088] sock 6 wherein sock 6 is capable of fitting a lower portion of calf muscle of a user), an analogous a tensioning structure 7 (Fig. 5A, cuff 7 [0088]) disposed on an upper region of the sock 6 (Fig. 5A, disposed at a top end of the sock 6), the tensioning structure 7 comprising a rotary tensioning mechanism 1 ([0095] rotary dial) disposed thereon (Fig. 5A),
wherein an upper portion of the tensioning structure 7 is attached to the upper region of the sock 6 and a lower portion of the tensioning structure is not secured to the sock (See Fig 8 and [0121] wherein the cuff 7 may be opened/unwrapped according to have hook and loop attachments for wrapping around the foot a user such that the inner portion of cuff 7 may be termed an “upper portion”, and the outer portion of the cuff 7 being a lower portion, such that as seen only the inner/upper portion is attached to the sock 6 with the outer/lower portion not being directly secured to the sock 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the tensioning structure/rotary 200 of Moon on a separate cuff 7 to be the tensioning structure for attachment onto the sock as taught by Johnson thus providing wherein an upper portion of the tensioning structure is attached to the upper region of the sock and a lower portion of the tensioning structure is not secured to the sock, wherein providing a separate cuff 7 from the sock for having the tensioning structure enables adjustment to wear the rotary mechanism lies on the leg (Johnson [0084]).
Regarding claim 11, Moon in view of Hardt and Johnson teaches the invention of claim 12 above.
Johnson further teaches wherein the analogous rotary tensioning mechanism 1 is secured to the lower portion (outer portion) of the tensioning structure 7 (Fig. 5A, dial 1 secured to the outer portion being a lower portion).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (WO 2019160314 A1) in view of Hardt (US 20200315831 A1), in further view of Johnson (US 20240000596 A1), in further view of Applegate (US 4166460 A).
Regarding claim 4, Moon in view of Hardt and Johnson discloses the invention of claim 3 above.
Moon in view of Hardt and Johnson silent on wherein the toe box possesses more elasticity in a circumferential direction around the sock as compared with elasticity in a longitudinal direction, the longitudinal direction generally running from a toe region of the sock toward the dorsal anchor, the circumferential direction being orthogonal with the longitudinal direction.
However, Applegate teaches an analogous foot sock 12 (Fig. 2) having an analogous toe box (Fig. 2, sock front opening able to receive toes of the user), wherein the toe box possesses more elasticity in a circumferential direction around the sock 12 as compared with elasticity in a longitudinal direction, the longitudinal direction generally running from a toe region of the sock toward the dorsal area, the circumferential direction being orthogonal with the longitudinal direction (Col. 2 lines 36-51 and Fig. 2, the sock is elastic and has stretchability only in the circumferential direction 18 as seen in Fig. 2, thus having more elasticity is a circumferential direction compared to a longitudinal direction being the direction from the toe to the back of the foot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the sock/toe box elasticity of Applegate to the sock of Moon as combined in order to provide more lateral support and comfort to the wearer (Applegate Col. 2 lines 36-51).
Regarding claim 5, Moon in view of Hardt and Johnson and Applegate teaches the invention of claim 4 above.
Moon as combined further discloses wherein the pair of foot anchors 210 wrap around a foot region of the sock such that portions of the pair of foot anchors reside on both a top region of the sock and a bottom region of the sock (Fig. 1-4, the pair of foot anchors 210 further comprise a loop structure connected into the sock 100 as best seen in Fig. 3 that wraps around the foot region of the sock such that portions of it reside on both a top and bottom regions of the sock) (Moon as modified by Johnson also further has the foot anchors and all other anchors between layers of the sock so will be wrapping “around” the sock therein).
Regarding claim 6, Moon in view of Hardt and Johnson and Applegate teaches the invention of claim 5 above.
Moon as combined with Johnson wherein the pair of foot anchors 210 are disposed between the first outer layer of sock 100 and the toe box 110 (Fig. 1-4, the foot anchors 210 are located at the toe box, as modified by Johnson above the anchors are between first outer layer and second inner layer of sock, thus as combined the foot anchors would be between a first outer layer and the toe box 110 therein).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (WO 2019160314 A1) in view of Hardt (US 20200315831 A1) and Johnson (US 20240000596 A1, in further view of Siller (DE 102013002466 B3) (see previously attached translation).
Regarding claim 7, Moon in view of Hardt and Johnson teaches the invention of claim 2 above.
Moon in view of Hardt and Johnson does not disclose wherein the calf strap comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the first end and the second end of the calf strap are each configured to be received within respective slots located on the tensioning structure.
Johnson teaches an analogous tensioning structure 7 (cuff 7) may be connected at the calf and being separate from an analogous integrated cable system in an analogous sock for carrying an analogous rotary mechanism 1 (see [0084] and Fig. 5A-5B).
However, Siller teaches an analogous ankle orthotic (Fig. 1-4), having an analogous tensioning structure 6 (plastic shell 6, [0045], having analogous tensioning elements 10, spring wires 10, [0045, 0035]), wherein there is an analogous calf strap 14 having first and second ends (Fig. 1-2) (as well as an ankle strap portion), wherein there are slots 13 in the tensioning structure 6, wherein the first end and the second end of the calf strap 14 are each configured to be received within respective slots 13 located on the tensioning structure 6 (Fig. 1-4, [0028, 0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the tensioning structure/rotary 200 of Moon in view of Hardt and Johnson to be a separate structure with slots 13 as taught by Siller to receive first and second ends of the calf strap in order to provide an alternate known construction of securing the tensioning structure to a human body (Siller [0028, 0046], Fig. 1-4).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (WO 2019160314 A1) in view of Hardt (US 20200315831 A1) and Johnson (US 20240000596 A1, in further view of Siller (DE 102013002466 B3) (see previously attached translation), in further view of Birmingham (US 6299587 B1).
Regarding claims 8-9, Moon in view of Hardt and Johnson teaches the invention of claim 7 above.
Moon/Hardt/Johnson/Siller is silent on wherein the first end of the calf strap is configured to be attached to a medial side of the sock, and the second end of the calf strap is configured to be attached to a lateral side of the sock,
and wherein the first end of the calf strap is configured to be attached to the calf strap on the medial side of the sock and the second end of the calf and the second end of the calf strap is configured to be attached to the calf strap on the lateral side of the sock.
However, Birmingham teaches an analogous calf strap 18a (Fig. 2) wherein the calf strap is analogously routed through slots therein at first and second ends (Fig. 2), wherein the first end of the calf strap is configured to be attached to the calf strap on the medial side of the sock and the second end of the calf and the second end of the calf strap is configured to be attached to the calf strap on the lateral side of the sock (Fig. 2 the calf strap 18a first and second ends after being placed through the slots is secured to itself on medial and lateral sides therein), and is thus capable of having the first and seconds ends configured to be attached to a medial side of the sock, and the second end of the calf strap is configured to be attached to a lateral side of the sock (Fig. 2, a sock worn on the leg therein would lie adjacent on its lateral/medial sides to the secured first and second ends of the calf strap on the lateral/medial sides and thus be “attached” via adjacent indirect attachment to the medial and lateral sides of the leg/foot therein).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the calf strap attachment of Birmingham to the combined invention and slots of Moon/Hardt/Johnson/Siller for providing a known securement method of fixing a calf strap into slot structure.
Claim(s) 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (WO 2019160314 A1) in view of Hardt (US 20200315831 A1), in further view of Sassi (US D514225 S).
Regarding claim 12, Moon in view of Hardt discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Moon in view of Hardt is silent on wherein each of the pair of calf anchors comprises a width and the cable is routed through the width of each of the pair of calf anchors before being secured to itself.
However, Sassi teaches a design for an analogous drop foot aid (title) (Fig. 1-8), wherein there is an analogous cable (See Annotated Fig. 5-6) extending from an analogous foot anchor to an analogous calf anchor (See Annotated Fig. 5-6), wherein where the cable ends terminally at the calf anchor, the cable extends/routed through a width of the calf anchor to thus be secured to itself (Annotated Fig. 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the two terminal ends of the cable attaching to a pair of calf anchors of Moon in view of Hardt as discussed in claim 1 above to each have the design of the calf anchor and width therein and cable end routing through the width for attaching to itself as taught by Sassi for providing how a cable for drop foot aid may be ideally structured and attached to a calf anchor for one of ordinary skill in the art looking to attach a cable to a calf strap/upper portion of an AFO (Sassi Annotated Fig. 5-6) (Examiner notes that there is no criticality to the calf anchor and cable attachment only being discussed in the instant paragraph [0019], thus this is further obvious as essentially design choice and shape, as changes in shape have been held to be a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. See MPEP 2144(IV)(B) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
PNG
media_image4.png
756
667
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Moon in view of Hardt and Sassi discloses the invention of claim 12 above.
Moon as combined with Hardt discloses wherein the achilles anchor comprises four cable entry points, with two of the four entry points being located on a medial side of the sock and the other two of the four entry points being located on a lateral side of the sock (See Annotated Fig 3 of Moon as modified by Hardt in claim 1 above, and Fig. 1-4 of Moon, wherein each medial and lateral side of the sock has the rotary cable system, wherein as seen in the example annotated fig. 3 of the modified invention there would be two entry points for the achilles anchors of Moon in view of Hardt on each side therein for a total of four).
Regarding claim 14, Moon in view of Hardt and Sassi discloses the invention of claim 13 above.
Moon as combined with Hardt discloses wherein the dorsal anchor comprises four cable entry points, with two of the four entry points being located on the medial side of the sock and the other two of the four entry points being located on the lateral side of the sock (See Annotated Fig 3 of Moon as modified by Hardt in claim 1 above, and Fig. 1-4 of Moon, wherein each medial and lateral side of the sock has the rotary cable system, wherein the added dorsal anchors would have two entry points therein on each medial and lateral side therein for a total of four entry points for guiding the cable system of Moon as modified by Hardt).
Regarding claim 15, Moon in view of Hardt and Sassi discloses the invention of claim 14 above.
Moon as combined with Hardt discloses wherein each of the pair of foot anchors comprises a single cable entry point (See Annotated Fig 3 of Moon as modified by Hardt in claim 1 above, and Fig. 1-4 of Moon, wherein each of the foot anchors would only have one entry point as modified by Hardt).
Regarding claim 16, Moon in view of Hardt and Sassi discloses the invention of claim 15 above.
Moon as combined with Hardt discloses wherein the cable comprises a first cable that is routed on the lateral side of the sock and a second cable that is routed on the medial side of the sock (See Moon Fig. 1-4, wherein there are first and second cables s1a and s2a on the medial and lateral sides of the sock therein).
Regarding claim 17, Moon in view of Hardt and Sassi discloses the invention of claim 16 above.
Moon as combined with Hardt discloses wherein the first cable is routed from the rotary tensioning mechanism to a first cable entry point on the achilles anchor, to a first cable entry point on the dorsal anchor, to the single cable entry point on one of the pair of foot anchors, back towards a second cable entry point on the dorsal anchor to a second cable entry point on the achilles anchor and finally to one of the pair of calf anchors
(See Annotated Fig 3 of Moon as modified by Hardt in claim 1 above, and Fig. 1-4 of Moon, wherein as modified one of the cables s1a/s2a being a first cable is modified to be routed from the rotary tensioning mechanism 200 through the route as claimed as Moon in view of Hardt extends each of the cable ends at the foot anchor of Moon further back towards calf anchors therein as discussed in claim 1,
Annotated Fig. 3 of Moon in view of Hardt provides the total interpretation of Moon combined with the teachings of Hardt for one of the sides therein with both sides being modified to have such routing and anchors;
Examiner notes that within the modification of Moon in view of Hardt in claim 1 the anchor structures are all be presumed to be adapted from the anchor 214 of Moon having a single entry point and a single exit point there for guiding and anchoring the various portions of the cable along the sock of Moon in view of Hardt).
Regarding claim 18, Moon in view of Hardt and Sassi discloses the invention of claim 17 above.
Moon as combined with Hardt discloses wherein the second cable is routed from the rotary tensioning mechanism to a third cable entry point on the achilles anchor, to a third cable entry point on the dorsal anchor, to the single cable entry point on a second of the pair of foot anchors, back towards a fourth cable entry point on the dorsal anchor to a fourth cable entry point on the achilles anchor and finally to a second of the pair of calf anchors
(See Annotated Fig 3 of Moon as modified by Hardt in claim 1 above, and Fig. 1-4 of Moon, wherein as modified one of the cables s1a/s2a being a second cable is modified to be routed from the rotary tensioning mechanism 200 as claimed as Moon in view of Hardt extends each of the cable ends at the foot anchor of Moon further back towards calf anchors therein as discussed in claim 1;
Annotated Fig. 3 of Moon in view of Hardt provides the total interpretation of Moon combined with the teachings of Hardt for one of the sides therein with both sides being modified to have such routing and anchors;
Examiner notes that within the modification of Moon in view of Hardt in claim 1 the anchor structures are all be presumed to be adapted from the anchor 214 of Moon having a single entry point and a single exit point there for guiding and anchoring the various portions of the cable along the sock of Moon in view of Hardt).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (WO 2019160314 A1) in view of Hardt (US 20200315831 A1), in further view of Johnson (US 20240000596 A1), in further view of Hunt (US 20240260680 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Moon in view of Hardt and Johnson discloses the invention of claim 2 above.
Moon in view of Hardt and Johnson is silent on further comprising pull tabs that are positioned posterior from the pair of foot anchors, the pull tabs being configured to assist with donning and/or doffing of the AFO.
However, Hunt teaches an analogous sock (title, Fig. 1-11) comprising pull tabs that are positioned posterior from the pair of foot anchors (Fig. 1, [0027] pull loops 112/114 are pull tabs that are positioned on a posterior back side of the sock, thus posterior to any structures on a foot portion of a sock), the pull tabs being configured to assist with donning and/or doffing of the AFO ([0002, 0022, 0039] pull tabs/loop 112/114 assist with doffing and donning the sock, being analogous to an AFO sock).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided pull tabs/loops as taught by Hunt to a posterior back side of the sock of Moon/Hardt/Johnson in order to enable a user to easily don/doff the sock (Hunt Fig. 1 and [0002, 0022, 0039]), thus as combined the pull tabs would be posterior to the foot anchors of Moon being on a posterior back side of the sock.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3738027 A – handle/dial on a lower overhanging portion of a structure
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 KEVIN S ALBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/KEVIN S ALBERS/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights