DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Response to Election/Restriction filed 1/23/2026. Currently, claims 1-18 are pending in the application. Claims 16-18 are withdrawn and not examined at this point.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (Figures 1 and 2), corresponding to claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 1/23/2026 is acknowledged (see attached Interview Summary). The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination of all claims lacks a “serious burden” on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/23/2026.
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 elasticated portion of the lower leg attachment portion (see claim 15) 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes legal phraseology, which is not permitted. The terms “comprises” and “comprising” should be removed from the abstract to avoid this error. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds the permitted length of 150 words. Currently, the abstract is 165 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: in order to maintain consistency and clarity throughout the claim(s), all recitations of “the device” should be amended to recite ---the ankle-foot orthopaedic device---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-4, 7-11 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: in order to maintain consistency and clarity throughout the claim(s), all recitations of “the lower leg attachment portion” should be amended to recite ---the openable lower leg attachment portion---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “a user” in line 13 of the claim should be amended to recite ---the user---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “the channel” in line 18-19 of the claim should be amended to recite ---the respective open-ended channel---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to maintain consistency and clarity throughout the claim(s), “the outer surface” in line 4 of the claim should be amended to recite ---the opposed outer surface---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to maintain consistency and clarity throughout the claim(s), “the second opposed end” in line 7 of the claim should be amended to recite ---the second end---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to correct a typographical/spelling error, “wherin” in line 2 of the claim should be amended to recite ---wherein---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “wherein the device is free from contact with a foot of a user” should be amended to recite --- wherein the device is free from contact with a foot of a user in use---. Appropriate correction is required.
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: at least one attachment member in claims 1 and 3.
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. Applicant’s disclosure teaches the following structure(s) as performing the claimed function: buttons, toggles, studs, poppers, zips, or any combination thereof; and hook and loop fasteners.
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.
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: guide member(s) in claims 1 and 11.
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. Applicant’s disclosure teaches the following structure(s) as performing the claimed function: an open-ended channel.
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.
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: shoe attachment member in claims 1 and 7.
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. Applicant’s disclosure teaches the following structure(s) as performing the claimed function: a hook.
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.
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: cooperative attachment members in claim 4.
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. Applicant’s disclosure teaches the following structure(s) as performing the claimed function: buttons, toggles, studs, poppers, zips, or any combination thereof; and hook and loop fasteners.
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.
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: first attachment member in claim 4.
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. Applicant’s disclosure teaches the following structure(s) as performing the claimed function: buttons, toggles, studs, poppers, zips, or any combination thereof; and hook and loop fasteners.
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.
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: cooperative second attachment member in claim 4.
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. Applicant’s disclosure teaches the following structure(s) as performing the claimed function: buttons, toggles, studs, poppers, zips, or any combination thereof; and hook and loop fasteners.
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.
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: adjustment mechanism in claims 7 and 8.
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. Applicant’s disclosure teaches the following structure(s) as performing the claimed function: toggle.
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 § 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.
Claims 3-5 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. Claim 3 recites “an outer surface” in line 10 of the claim. It is unclear if this recited “outer surface” is the same as, or distinct from, the “opposed outer surface” that is previously recited in the claim. Claims 4 and 5 depend on claim 3 and therefore, include the same error.
Claims 4 and 5 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. Claim 4 recites “at least one pair of cooperative attachment members” in lines 2-3 of the claim. It is unclear if these recited “at least one pair of cooperative attachment members” are the same as, or distinct from, the “at least one attachment member” that is previously recited in claim 1 (upon which claim 4 depends). Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and therefore, includes the same error.
Claims 4 and 5 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. Claim 4 recites “a first attachment member” in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear if this recited “attachment member” is included in, or distinct from, the “at least one attachment member” that is previously recited in claim 1 (upon which claim 4 depends). Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and therefore, includes the same error.
Claims 4 and 5 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. Claim 4 recites “a cooperative second attachment member” in lines 4-5 of the claim. It is unclear if this recited “attachment member” is included in, or distinct from, the “at least one attachment member” that is previously recited in claim 1 (upon which claim 4 depends). Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and therefore, includes the same error.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one lower leg attachment member" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 recites “the elongate member.” It is unclear if this recited “elongate member” is intended to refer to the “elongate member” of the lower leg attachment portion that is previously recited in claim 2 (upon which claim 6 depends), or intended to refer to the “elongate member” of the second attachment portion that is previously recited in claim 1 (upon which claim 6 depends).
Claims 7 and 8 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. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the separation" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 depends on claim 7 and therefore, includes the same error.
Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the extension" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-15 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. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one guide member" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12-15 depend on claim 11 and therefore, include the same error.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenger (US 2017/0165096 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 8,740,829 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Wenger teaches in Figures 1-5D an openable ([0031] teaches “releasably engaging the second wing 114 and the third wing 116 to the first wing 112 such that the ankle brace 102 forms a generally cylindrical shape around a wearer's ankle 202”) lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) configured in use to be positioned against and to extend around a portion of a lower leg of a user ([0028] teaches “the ankle brace 102 is installed around the wearer's ankle”), in which a first end (second and third wings 114, 116) of ([0027] teaches “ankle brace 102 can include a first wing 112, a second wing 114, and a third wing 116” and “first wing 112 and second wing 114 can extend from opposite sides of ankle brace 102”) the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) is engageable to a portion of ([0031] teaches “the second and third wings 114, 116 are independently configurable to overlap and selectively couple to a portion of the first wing 112”) the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) at or adjacent a second end (first wing 112) thereof ([0027] teaches “ankle brace 102 can include a first wing 112, a second wing 114, and a third wing 116” and “first wing 112 and second wing 114 can extend from opposite sides of ankle brace 102”), and in which the first end (second and third wings 114, 116) of ([0027] teaches “ankle brace 102 can include a first wing 112, a second wing 114, and a third wing 116” and “first wing 112 and second wing 114 can extend from opposite sides of ankle brace 102”) the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) comprises at least one attachment member (first ankle brace fastener 118, second ankle brace fastener 120; [0031] teaches “ankle brace fasteners 118 and 120 can comprise, for example, hook and loop fasteners (e.g., VELCRO), elastic fasteners, and/or button fasteners”) for securing the first end (second and third wings 114, 116) in position relative to ([0031] teaches “second wing 114 and third wing 116 can include first ankle brace fastener 118 and second ankle brace fastener 120 for releasably engaging the second wing 114 and the third wing 116 to the first wing 112”) the second end (first wing 112); a second attachment portion (elastic strap 106) comprising an elongate member (Figures 1 and 2 teach the elastic strap 106 being an elongate member) having a first end (as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 5B provided below) located at or adjacent (the annotated copy of Figure 5B teaches the first end being positioned on the ankle brace 102) the openable lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102), and a second opposed (the annotated copy of Figure 5B teaches the second end 132 being positioned vertically opposite the first end) end (second end 132) comprising ([0037] teaches “one or more hook fasteners 134 disposed on at least one of the first and second ends 130, 132”) a shoe attachment member (one or more hook fasteners 134) configured in use for direct engagement with ([0042] teaches “hook fasteners 134 can engage at least one of the laces 204, eyelets 206, or any other looped structure commonly found on the wearer's shoes 200”) a fastener (at least one of the laces 204, eyelets 206, or any other looped structure commonly found on the wearer's shoes 200) of a shoe (wearer's shoes 200) of a user, in which the shoe attachment member (one or more hook fasteners 134) comprises a hooked portion (as shown in Figures 1 and 2; [0037] teaches “hook fasteners 134”), and in which the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) further comprises a pair of guide members (secondary strap loops 126 and 128) provided on opposing sides (left and right sides, as shown in Figure 2) of the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102), each guide member (secondary strap loops 126 and 128) defining an open-ended channel (as shown in Figure 2) configured in use to receive at least a portion of the second attachment portion (elastic strap 106) therein ([0035] teaches “elastic strap 106 can be routed through secondary strap loops 126 and 128”) and to enable movement of the second attachment portion (elastic strap 106) through the channel (inasmuch as there is no structure taught that would prevent sliding of the elastic strap 106 through the secondary strap loops 126 and 128; Figure 2 teaches the secondary strap loops 126 and 128 being wider than the elastic strap 106 such that the elastic strap 106 would be capable of sliding therethrough).
PNG
media_image1.png
649
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wenger does not teach that the second end provides an aperture configured to enable the first end to pass therethrough.
However, Lee et al. teaches in Figures 1 and 3 and column 7, lines 33-36 an analogous device wherein the second end (upper subshell 18) provides an aperture (slots 76, 78) configured to enable the first end (strap 28) to pass therethrough (column 7, lines 33-36 teaches “upper subshell 18 defines lateral and medial portions 62, 64, whereby each portion defines a slot 76, 78, respectively, for receiving a strap (as in strap 28 in FIG. 1)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the device of Wenger such that the second end provides an aperture configured to enable the first end to pass therethrough as taught by Lee et al. because this element is known to provide that the lower leg attachment portion can conveniently “bend upon tensioning” to facilitate securement about the user’s limb, as Lee et al. teaches in column 7, lines 40-41.
Regarding claim 2, Wenger and Lee et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Wenger teaches in Figures 1 and 2 and [0027] that the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) is an elongate member (Figures 1 and 2 teach the ankle brace 102 having an elongate length extending between first wing 112 and wings 114/116; [0027] teaches “ankle brace 102 can include a first wing 112, a second wing 114, and a third wing 116” and “first wing 112 and second wing 114 can extend from opposite sides of ankle brace 102”).
Regarding claim 3, Wenger and Lee et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Wenger teaches in Figures 1-5D and [0031] that the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) comprises an inner surface (interior face 110) configured in use to be positioned adjacent a lower leg of a user ([0038] teaches “the interior face 110 is positioned against the wearer's ankle 202”), and an opposed outer surface (exterior face 108), and in which the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) is moveable between (as shown in Figures 4A-4F; [0031] teaches “second wing 114 and third wing 116 can include first ankle brace fastener 118 and second ankle brace fastener 120 for releasably engaging the second wing 114 and the third wing 116 to the first wing 112 such that the ankle brace 102 forms a generally cylindrical shape around a wearer's ankle 202”): a first open position (shown in Figures 1-3) in which the first end (second and third wings 114, 116) of ([0027] teaches “ankle brace 102 can include a first wing 112, a second wing 114, and a third wing 116” and “first wing 112 and second wing 114 can extend from opposite sides of ankle brace 102”) the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) is disengaged from (as shown in Figures 1-3) the second opposed end (first wing 112) thereof ([0027] teaches “ankle brace 102 can include a first wing 112, a second wing 114, and a third wing 116” and “first wing 112 and second wing 114 can extend from opposite sides of ankle brace 102”); and a second closed position (shown in Figures 5A-5D), and the at least one attachment member (first ankle brace fastener 118, second ankle brace fastener 120; [0031] teaches “ankle brace fasteners 118 and 120 can comprise, for example, hook and loop fasteners (e.g., VELCRO), elastic fasteners, and/or button fasteners”) secures the first end (second and third wings 114, 116) adjacent ([0031] teaches “second wing 114 and third wing 116 can include first ankle brace fastener 118 and second ankle brace fastener 120 for releasably engaging the second wing 114 and the third wing 116 to the first wing 112;” Figure 1 teaches the first wing 112 being positioned on exterior face 108) an outer surface (exterior face 108) of the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102).
Wenger does note teach that the outer surface provides the at least one attachment member; and the second closed position in which a portion of the lower leg attachment portion adjacent the first end thereof extends through the aperture at the second end.
However, Lee et al. teaches in Figure 1 and column 7, lines 33-36 an analogous device with a second closed position (shown in Figure 1) in which a portion of the lower leg attachment portion (upper subshell 18 and strap 28) adjacent the first end (strap 28) thereof extends through (column 7, lines 33-36 teaches “upper subshell 18 defines lateral and medial portions 62, 64, whereby each portion defines a slot 76, 78, respectively, for receiving a strap (as in strap 28 in FIG. 1)”) the aperture (slots 76, 78) at the second end (upper subshell 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the second closed position of Wenger as modified by Lee et al. to provide that a portion of the lower leg attachment portion adjacent the first end thereof extends through the aperture at the second end as taught by Lee et al. because this element is known to provide that the lower leg attachment portion can conveniently “bend upon tensioning” to facilitate securement about the user’s limb, as Lee et al. teaches in column 7, lines 40-41.
Wenger and Lee et al. do not teach that the outer surface provides the at least one attachment member.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to provide that the outer surface provides the at least one attachment member, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention would find it obvious that the position of complementary components of hook and loop fastener can be reversed to achieve the same function and result.
Regarding claim 4, Wenger and Lee et al. teach the apparatus of claims 1 and 3. Wenger teaches in Figures 1-5D and [0031] that the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) comprises at least one pair of cooperative attachment members (ankle brace fasteners 118/120 and complementary fastener on first wing 112; [0031] teaches “ankle brace fasteners 118 and 120 can comprise, for example, hook and loop fasteners (e.g., VELCRO), elastic fasteners, and/or button fasteners” and “second wing 114 and third wing 116 can include first ankle brace fastener 118 and second ankle brace fastener 120 for releasably engaging the second wing 114 and the third wing 116 to the first wing 112 such that the ankle brace 102 forms a generally cylindrical shape around a wearer's ankle 202”), a first attachment member (ankle brace fasteners 118/120) being located on a surface of the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) at or adjacent ([0031] teaches “second wing 114 and third wing 116 can include first ankle brace fastener 118 and second ankle brace fastener 120”) the first end (second and third wings 114, 116) thereof ([0027] teaches “ankle brace 102 can include a first wing 112, a second wing 114, and a third wing 116” and “first wing 112 and second wing 114 can extend from opposite sides of ankle brace 102”) and a cooperative second attachment member (complementary fastener on first wing 112, taught in [0031]; [0031] teaches “second wing 114 and third wing 116 can include first ankle brace fastener 118 and second ankle brace fastener 120 for releasably engaging the second wing 114 and the third wing 116 to the first wing 112”) being located on the outer surface (exterior face 108) of (as shown in Figures 1-5D) the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) and spaced apart from (as shown in Figures 1 and 2) the first attachment member (ankle brace fasteners 118/120).
Wenger does not teach the first attachment member being located on the outer surface of the lower leg attachment portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to provide the first attachment member being located on the outer surface of the lower leg attachment portion, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention would find it obvious that the position of complementary components of hook and loop fastener can be reversed to achieve the same function and result.
Regarding claim 5, Wenger and Lee et al. teach the apparatus of claims 1, 3 and 4. Wenger teaches in [0031] that the at least one lower leg attachment member (first ankle brace fastener 118, second ankle brace fastener 120) comprises hook and loop fasteners ([0031] teaches “ankle brace fasteners 118 and 120 can comprise, for example, hook and loop fasteners (e.g., VELCRO), elastic fasteners, and/or button fasteners”).
Regarding claim 6, Wenger and Lee et al. teach the apparatus of claims 1 and 2. Wenger teaches in [0031] that the elongate member (ankle brace 102; Figures 1 and 2 teach the ankle brace 102 having an elongate length extending between first wing 112 and wings 114/116; [0027] teaches “ankle brace 102 can include a first wing 112, a second wing 114, and a third wing 116” and “first wing 112 and second wing 114 can extend from opposite sides of ankle brace 102”) is a tubular member ([0031] teaches “second wing 114 and third wing 116 can include first ankle brace fastener 118 and second ankle brace fastener 120 for releasably engaging the second wing 114 and the third wing 116 to the first wing 112 such that the ankle brace 102 forms a generally cylindrical shape around a wearer's ankle 202”).
Claim(s) 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenger (US 2017/0165096 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 8,740,829 B2) and further in view of Corrales (US 2006/0036204 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Wenger and Lee et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Wenger and Lee et al. do not teach an adjustment mechanism configured in use to adjust the separation of the shoe attachment member at the second opposed end of the second attachment portion from the lower leg attachment portion; and wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a toggle mechanism in communication with the elongate member to control the extension of the second opposed end of the elongate member from the lower leg attachment portion.
However, Corrales teaches in Figures 1-4 an analogous device with an adjustment mechanism (slidable locking connector 17) configured in use to adjust the separation of ([0018] teaches “locking connector 17 is then adjusted to increase or decrease tension on the wearer”) the shoe attachment member (loop end 16; [0018] teaches “the loop end 16 is affixed over the back cleats 20 of a pair of cleats”) at (as shown in Figure 3) the second opposed end (bottom end) of the second attachment portion (loop of cord 14) from the lower leg attachment portion (neoprene strap 12; [0017] teaches “a neoprene strap 12 which has a Velcro attachment 16, 18 to secure to the player just below the knee”); and wherein the adjustment mechanism (slidable locking connector 17) comprises a toggle mechanism (as shown in Figures 1 and 4) in communication with ([0017] teaches “the top of the cord is affixed to a slidable locking connector 17”) the elongate member (loop of cord 14) to control the extension of ([0018] teaches “locking connector 17 is then adjusted to increase or decrease tension on the wearer”) the shoe attachment member (loop end 16; [0018] teaches “the loop end 16 is affixed over the back cleats 20 of a pair of cleats”) the second opposed end (bottom end) of the elongate member (loop of cord 14) from the lower leg attachment portion (neoprene strap 12; [0017] teaches “a neoprene strap 12 which has a Velcro attachment 16, 18 to secure to the player just below the knee”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the device of Wenger as modified by Lee et al. to further include an adjustment mechanism configured in use to adjust the separation of the shoe attachment member at the second opposed end of the second attachment portion from the lower leg attachment portion; and wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a toggle mechanism in communication with the elongate member to control the extension of the second opposed end of the elongate member from the lower leg attachment portion as taught by Corrales because this element is known to enable convenient adjustments “to increase or decrease tension on the wearer” without having to move the second attachment portion, as Corrales teaches in [0018].
Regarding claim 9, Wenger, Lee et al. and Corrales teach the apparatus of claims 1 and 7. Wenger teaches in Figures 1, 2 and 5B that at least a portion of the second attachment portion (elastic strap 106) is configured in use to extend around at least a portion of (as shown in Figures 1, 2 and 5B) the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102).
Regarding claim 10, Wenger, Lee et al. and Corrales teach the apparatus of claims 1, 7 and 9. Wenger teaches in Figures 5B and 5C that the second attachment portion (elastic strap 106) is configured in use to extend entirely around (inasmuch as the elastic strap 106 is shown in Figures 5B and 5C to extend around the entire width of the ankle brace 102) the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102).
Regarding claim 11, Wenger, Lee et al. and Corrales teach the apparatus of claims 1, 7, 9 and 10. Wenger teaches in Figures 1, 2, 5B and 5C and [0035] that the at least one guide member (secondary strap loops 126 and 128) is provided on an outer surface (exterior face 108) of (as shown in Figures 1, 2, 5B and 5C; [0035] teaches “secondary strap loops 126 and 128 can also be disposed on the exterior face 108 of the ankle brace 102”) the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102).
Regarding claim 12, Wenger, Lee et al. and Corrales teach the apparatus of claims 1, 7 and 9-11. Wenger teaches in Figures 5A-5D that the device (ankle-foot orthotic 100) is free from contact with a foot of a user (Figures 5A-5D teach that the ankle-foot orthotic 100 does not directly contact a foot of the user).
Regarding claim 13, Wenger, Lee et al. and Corrales teach the apparatus of claims 1, 7 and 9-11. Wenger teaches in [0031] that the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) is composed of flexible material ([0031] teaches “ankle brace 102 can be constructed of an elastic material”).
Regarding claim 14, Wenger, Lee et al. and Corrales teach the apparatus of claims 1, 7, 9-11 and 13. Wenger and Lee et al. do not teach that the lower leg attachment portion is composed of neoprene.
However, Corrales teaches in [0017] and claim 2 an analogous device wherein the lower leg attachment portion (neoprene strap 12; [0017] teaches “a neoprene strap 12 which has a Velcro attachment 16, 18 to secure to the player just below the knee”) is composed of neoprene ([0017] teaches “neoprene strap 12;” claim 2 teaches “the strap is constructed from neoprene”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the lower leg attachment portion of Wenger as modified by Lee et al. and Corrales to be composed of neoprene as taught by Corrales because this element is known in the art to be a suitable and effective material from which the lower leg attachment portion can be made, as Corrales teaches in [0017] and claim 2.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 15, Wenger, Lee et al. and Corrales teach the apparatus of claims 1, 7, 9-11, 13 and 14. Wenger teaches in [0031] that the lower leg attachment portion (ankle brace 102) comprises an elasticated portion ([0031] teaches “ankle brace 102 can be constructed of an elastic material”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA H FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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.
/VICTORIA HICKS FISHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 2/19/2026