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 6/26/2026, to claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 16-17 acknowledged by Examiner. Additionally, applicant cancelled claim 2.
Claims 1, 3-19 are now pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species C in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Rossi does not provide for the special technical features of amended claim 1. Applicant’s arguments and in consideration of finding claim 1 free from art are persuasive to withdraw the previously mailed restriction.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites “at least one first actuating means” wherein the present specification page 5 provides for the “first actuating means” being:
either “at least one head and one actuating cylinder which are connected to each other, preferably via a collar, with the result that a component with a longitudinal axis is formed, wherein the actuating cylinder has a circular cross section and is connected to the head of the first actuating means eccentrically with respect to the longitudinal axis. The first control slide can then advantageously comprise at least one cutout which is configured to receive the actuating cylinder and to interact with it” or
“at least one head and one actuating cylinder which are connected to each other, preferably via a collar, with the result that a component with a longitudinal axis is formed, wherein, on its side which faces away from the head, the actuating cylinder has a channel which is preferably substantially C-shaped. The first control slide can then accordingly comprise a connecting pin which engages into the channel of the actuating cylinder during use of the orthosis joint, wherein the connecting pin is preferably arranged within a cutout of the first control slide, which is configured to receive the actuating cylinder. In the case of a rotation of such a designed first actuating means, force can be advantageously exerted on the first control slide via the connecting pin, which engages in the substantially C-shaped channel of the actuating cylinder, by interaction with the walls of the channel. Depending on the direction of rotation, the first control slide can thus be advantageously moved in the direction of the pivot lever or in the opposite direction”.
The “first actuating means” structure may be further seen in Fig. 4a-4d. Thus equivalents of such “first actuating means” appears to be structures that take rotational movement and interact with the structure of the first control slide to turn such rotational movement into axial movement to move the first control slide forward and backwards.
Claim 13 recites “a second actuating means” wherein the present specification page 24 provides for the “second actuating means” being: “The second actuating means 2167 can be designed, for example, as a type of screw, which can be rotated clockwise and counter- clockwise via a groove 2168”. Thus the second actuating means may be a screw or equivalents thereof.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 5 recites “the hand” should be -the patient’s hand-
Claim 1 line 7 recites “the hand” should be -the patient’s hand-
Claim 1 line 24 recites “the hand” should be -the patient’s hand-
Claim 1 line 24 recites “for ulnar and radial deviation” should be -for the ulnar and radial deviation-
Claims 3-14, 16-19 line 1 each recite “The orthosis joint (2)” should be -The adjustable orthosis joint (2)-
Claim 6 line 4 recites “the orthosis joint (2)” should be -the adjustable orthosis joint (2)-
Claim 7 line 5 recites “at at least one” should be -at least one-
Claim 13 line 13-14 recites “the orthosis joint (2)” should be -the adjustable orthosis joint (2)-
Claim 15 lines 2-3 recites “an adjustable orthosis joint (2) as claimed in claim 1” should be -the adjustable orthosis joint (2) as claimed in claim 1-
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.
Claims 1, 3-19 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 1 recites the limitation "the controlled movement" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “which can be moved” in line 21, wherein the usage of “can” here makes it unclear if this is a positive functional recitation of the invention or merely a preferable capability. Examiner recommends amending to “which is configured to be moved” or something similar.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the range of movement" in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the interaction” in line 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 line 12 recites “the base element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should be “the at least one base element”.
Claim 1 lines 14-15 and 27 and 32 and 33 recites “the control element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should be “the at least one control element”.
Claim 1 line 27 recites “its rotational movement” wherein it unclear when using the term “its” of which claim structure is being discussed in regards to the “rotational movement”.
Claim 3 line 4 recites “the result”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “the first actuating means”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should be “the at least one first actuating means”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “at least one cutout” in line 2, wherein as claim 1 already recites “the first cutout” it is unclear how these cutouts may or may not be related to each other, thus making the claim unclear. Examiner recommends amending this to be “at least one first control slide cutout” at the least to differentiate, or chose more preferred adjectives as desired.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “and to interact with it”, wherein this is unclear as to which structure the “it” is referring to herein.
Claim 5 line 4 recites “the result”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 line 4 recites “wherein the actuating cylinder, on its side facing away from the head, has a channel”, wherein usage of its provides for lack of clarity and poor claim writing for the “side” therein. Examiner recommends amending to “the actuating cylinder, having a side facing away from head, has a channel on the side of the actuating cylinder”.
Claim 5 recites “the first actuating means”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should be “the at least one first actuating means”.
Claim 6 rejected as being dependent on claims 1 and 5.
Claim 7 line 4 recites “its displacement movement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Usage of “its” makes this unclear if this is a new claim term or not and further increases lack of claim clarity on whose displacement movement is being discussed.
Claim 7 recites “the first actuating means”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should be “the at least one first actuating means”.
Claim 8 lines 4-5 recites “the direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 line 5 recites “the result”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 line 6 and line 8 and line 12-11 each recites “the region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 line 9 recites “as a result of which” which is unclear with previous recitations of the “the result” and is of idiomatic language for describing the device making it unclear if this is a positive recitation or not.
Claim 8 line 9 recites “the area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 line 11 recites “of which two lie” wherein it is unclear to which this “two” is referring. Examiner assumes this is meant to be “of which two of the at least four side edges”.
Claim 8 lines 11-12 recites “a spacing dn wherein n = 1, 2… and form a side edge pair SPn where n = 1, 2,…” is an unclear claim limitation. Firstly the bounds of this “n = 1, 2, …” is unclear, can there be infinity n? The ellipses here makes this denotation largely indefinite. Also such denotation makes it confusing for providing antecedent basis for what spacings exist or not and it’s not clear if this “n” is always provided for each numerical or if only one n in the potential list of n from 1 to infinity is recited at once. Also the claim language of “a side edge pair” herein as written is confusing on if the side edge pair is its own structure or is merely a recitation of relationship between the previous “at least four side edges”.
Claim 8 line 13 recites “a spacing dn” however this limitation is already previously recited thus making the claim language indefinite/unclear if this is new structure or not.
Claim 8 line 13 recites “two side edges” wherein “at least four side edges” is already previously recited thus making the claim language indefinite/unclear if this is new structure or not.
The term “closer” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus the distance of the spacings and the rotary cylinder and the edge in comparison are unclear, because it is not stated to what they are closer in comparison to nor is it provided what “closer” as a degree is providing.
Claim 8 line 14 recites “lie opposite one another” wherein the limitation is indefinite to which “one another” is distinctly meant to confer.
Claim 8 lines 14-15 recites “a side edge pair SPn” however this limitation is already previously recited thus making the claim language indefinite/unclear if this is new structure or not.
Claim 8 line 15 recites “a spacing dn+1” wherein this claim is unclear as the claim has already previously recited “a spacing dn where n = 1, 2, …” which also contains the “spacing dn+1”, writing the claim limitations using such denotation introduces claim confusion and antecedence issues.
Claim 8 line 15 recites “two side edges” wherein “at least four side edges” and even “two side edges” is already previously recited thus making the claim language indefinite/unclear if this is new structure or not.
Claim 8 line 16-17 recites “lie opposite one another” wherein the limitation is indefinite to which “one another” is distinctly meant to confer.
Claim 8 line 17 recites “a side edge pair SPn+1” wherein this claim is unclear as the claim has already previously recited “a side edge pair SPn where n = 1, 2, …” which also contains the “a side edge pair SPn+1”, writing the claim limitations using such denotation introduces claim confusion and antecedence issues.
The usage of mathematic limit style denotation in claim 8 makes the entire claim truly confusing to parse out what structure is actually being claimed.
Claim 9 line 2 recites “a multiplicity of side edges”, wherein claim 8 already recites “at least four side edges” thus this claim limitation is unclear if referring to those “at least four side edges” or some new set of side edges.
Claim 9 line 3 recites “of which two each lie substantially opposite each other” wherein this limitation is confusing. Firstly, the limitation “of which two” is not clear to which two this could be referring. Secondly, “each other” is not proper claim antecedence and lacks clarity to what are opposite to each other.
Claim 9 lines 3-4 recites “a side edge pair SPn where n = 1, 2, …”, wherein claim 8 already recites “a side edge pair SPn”, thus making claim 9 unclear if this is new structure or the same as the previously recited structure.
Claim 10 lines 4-5 recites “the second control slide is of substantially cuboid-shaped configuration” wherein it is unclear to what shapes this limitation encompasses.
Claim 10 line 5 recites “a height”, wherein the claim term “height” has already been introduced and used in claim 8 to which this depends. This introduces lack of clarity to the claim terms and introduces potential readings of these heights being the same. Examiner recommends using adjectives for each height to differentiate them.
Claim 10 line 6 recites “the width corresponds to the spacing d1” wherein claim 8 recites “a spacing dn where n = 1, 2, …” wherein it is unclear as written if spacing d1 was actually introduced as a positive limitation with such denotation.
Claim 10 line 7 recites “the first side edge pair SP1”, wherein this lacks antecedent basis in the claims. The term “the firs side edge pair” has not been previously introduced, and only “SPn where n = 1, 2, …” was introduced which does not positively recite the limitation SP1.
The term “closest” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus the distance of the spacings and the rotary cylinder are unclear, because it is not stated to what they are closest in comparison to nor is it provided what “closest” as a degree is providing.
Claim 10 line 7 recites “the opposite side edges”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 line 9 and 10 recites “it” to which the usage is not distinct in what this structure could be.
Claim 10 line 9-10 recites “it can be inserted”, wherein this is unclear if this is simply a preferable outcome of the invention or a positively recited functional limitation. Furthermore, again the usage of “it” here lacks proper antecedence to what structure is being referred.
Claim 10 line 10-11 recites “can be removed from it and can interact”, wherein this is unclear if this is simply a preferable outcome of the invention or a positively recited functional limitation. Furthermore, the usage of “it” here is unclear to what structure is being referred.
Claim 10 line 11 recites “the side edges”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 line 2 recites “two second control slides”, wherein claim 1 already recites “a second control slide”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, in particular the introduction of this phrase is confusing if these are two new second control slides or related to that previous recitation in claim 1 or not.
Claim 11 line 4 recites “the second control slides”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 line 4-5 recites “are each of substantially cuboid-shaped configuration”, wherein it is unclear to what shapes this limitation encompasses.
Claim 11 line 5 recites “a height”, wherein the claim term “height” has already been introduced and used in claim 8 to which this depends. This introduces lack of clarity to the claim terms and introduces potential readings of these heights being the same. Examiner recommends using adjectives for each height to differentiate them.
Claim 11 line 6 recites “the sum of the widths”, wherein there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the sum” and also recitation of “the widths” has lack of clarity if referring to the widths of each of the second control slides.
Claim 11 line 6 recites “the spacing d1” wherein claim 8 recites “a spacing dn where n = 1, 2, …” wherein it is unclear as written if spacing d1 was actually introduced as a positive limitation with such denotation.
Claim 11 line 6-7 recites “the opposite side edges”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 line 7 recites “the first pair of side edges SP1”, wherein this lacks antecedent basis in the claims. The term “the first pair of side edges” has not been previously introduced, and only “SPn where n = 1, 2, …” was introduced which does not positively recite the limitation “SP1”.
The term “closest” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus the distance of the spacings and the rotary cylinder are unclear, because it is not stated to what they are closest in comparison to nor is it provided what “closest” as a degree is providing.
Claim 11 line 9 recites “each second control slide”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is not proper antecedence to the previously recite “the second control slide” or the other plural “two second control slides” or “the second control slides”.
Claim 11 line 9 and 10 recites “it” to which the usage is not distinct in what this structure could be.
Claim 11 line 9-10 recites “it can be inserted”, wherein this is unclear if this is simply a preferable outcome of the invention or a positively recited functional limitation. Furthermore, again the usage of “it” here lacks proper antecedence to what structure is being referred.
Claim 11 line 10-11 recites “can be removed from it and can interact”, wherein this is unclear if this is simply a preferable outcome of the invention or a positively recited functional limitation. Furthermore, the usage of “it” here is unclear to what structure is being referred.
Claim 11 line 11 recites “the side edges”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 line 2 recites “each second control slide”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is not proper antecedence to the previously recited “the second control slide” of claim 1 and 10.
Claim 13 line 2 recites “two second control slides” (and further recitations of “the second control slides” and “the two control slides” throughout the claim 13), wherein claim 1 already recites “a second control slide”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, in particular the introduction of this phrase is confusing if these are two new second control slides or related to that previous recitation in claim 1 or not.
Claim 13 recites “at least one fourth cutout” in line 4, wherein claim 1 recites “a first cutout”, but there does not appear to be any recitation of second or third “cutouts”, so it is unclear how there is a fourth cutout and if there are supposed to be four cutouts total in the structure or just the two now as recited.
Claim 13 recites “to be removed from it” in line 8, wherein the usage of “it” herein lacks definite recitation of what structure is being referred to.
Claim 13 line 9 recites “the side edges”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “a head region” and “a body region” for both the one and other of the control slides, wherein as such there are two separate structures now with the same limitation term. This makes claim 13 indefinite as two different structures cannot have the same claim limitation which will provide further antecedent basis issues.
Claim 13 line 17 recites “the fourth cutout”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should be “the at least one fourth cutout”.
Claim 13 lines 19-20 recites “the body region has a guide track for the control pin of the second actuating means”, wherein lines 12-14 already recites “a body region which has a guide track for a control pin of a second actuating means”. Firstly, it is entirely unclear if these “guide track”(s) of these body regions are supposed to be the same limitation or not especially considering the usage of the antecedence of the control pin and second actuating means.
Claim 14 line 4 recites “the outer edges”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 line 4-5 recites “a spacing (A)… which spacing corresponds to the spacing d1”, wherein usage of “a spacing” here is confusing as “spacing” has already been used previously and it is unclear if this should just be directly the “spacing d1” or if these are new spacings. Also “which spacing” fails to have proper antecedence to the recitation of either “spacing” making the claim further confusing.
Claim 14 line 6 recites “the opposite side edges”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 line 6 recites “the first side pair edge SP1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “closest” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus the distance of the spacings and the rotary cylinder are unclear, because it is not stated to what they are closest in comparison to nor is it provided what “closest” as a degree is providing.
Claim 14 line 9 recites “the fourth cutout”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should be “the at least one fourth cutout”.
Claim 15 line 1-2 recites “the controlled movement and/or fixation of a hand or a hand and a forearm of a patient”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the phrase “a head or a hand and a forearm” is unclear as “a hand” is being introduced two to the claim and generally lacks punctuation making clear how this “or” and “and” is breaking up the phrase.
Claim 16 line 2 recites “are each of substantially cuboid-shaped configuration”, wherein it is unclear to what shapes this limitation encompasses.
Claim 16 line 3 recites “its end”, wherein it is not clear as written whose “end” this is.
Claim 16 line 3 recites “fork-shaped configuration” in conjunction with the previously recited “substantially cuboid-shaped configuration” makes it unclear if the first control slide is considered to be two different shapes at once, or if this is narrowing in the same claim that the cuboid shape encompasses being fork shaped.
Claim 17 recites “the first actuating means”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should be “the at least one first actuating means”.
Claim 18 recites “substantially C-shaped” wherein this is unclear then at which point something may be considered substantially yet not fully C-shaped to be encompassed by this limitation.
Claim 19 line 2 recites “a cutout” wherein claim 1 already recites “first cutout” wherein this language is unclear if this is meant to be referring to that cutout or is meant to be a new “cutout” at which point there is a lack of clarity between the claim terms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Klimmer (WO 2021093919 A2) discloses for at least providing a hand orthosis joint that controls and provides movement/fixation in both the wrist flexion/extension and the ulnar/radial deviation of the hand using the module 11 (Fig. 6)
Jeon (US 20140213381 A1) also further provides for a wrist guard having a lateral pivot adjustment 50 for controlling ulnar/radial deviation motion and an extension/flexion pivot adjustment 41/42/31 (Fig. 1-5).
However, Klimmer and Jeon lacks the claimed pivot lever and being characterized in that - the movement module (21) comprises - at least one base element (213) and - at least one control element (212) with a top side (2126) and a bottom side (2127) facing the base element (213) and lying opposite the top side (2126),- wherein a rotary cylinder (2121), by way of which the control element (212) is mounted rotatably relative to the base element (213) with respect to a deviation axis (DA), is arranged on the bottom side (2127), wherein a first cutout (2122) for deviation control is arranged on the bottom side (2127);- wherein the control element (212) comprises at least one first control slide (214), which can be moved by means of at least one first actuating means (216) with respect to the pivot lever (22) which is operatively connected to the movement module (21), and wherein the control element (212) is designed to restrict the range of movement of the pivot lever (22) in a controlled manner by means of the first control slide (214); - and that the orthosis joint (2) comprises at least one second control slide (215) for ulnar and radial deviation (urD) of the hand, which interacts with the control element (212),- wherein the control element (212) is configured to be restrictable in its rotational movement with respect to the deviation axis (DA) by means of the interaction of the first cutout for deviation control (2122) and the at least one second control slide (215).
Connoly (US 4846842 A) and Brown (US 2812961 A) each loosely teach an orthosis joint having a movement module having a base element and a control element having a top/bottom wherein the bottom of the control element receives a rotary cylinder (being a pivot pin essentially) and has a first cutout for controlling the motion of an axis of motion. Each of these can further provide then for there being a control slide (second control slide) to interact with the first cutout outs in the joint to restrict the rotational movement of the joint which could be combined to be the ulnar/radial deviation.
These two references though still then fail to provide for “wherein the control element (212) comprises at least one first control slide (214), which can be moved by means of at least one first actuating means (216) with respect to the pivot lever (22) which is operatively connected to the movement module (21), and wherein the control element (212) is designed to restrict the range of movement of the pivot lever (22) in a controlled manner by means of the first control slide (214)”. The usage of 112f language of “first actuating means” brings in from the specification claim interpretation that the “first control slide” is being controlled by a rotary actuating means that can be turned by a user to then alter such rotary motion into a longitudinal/axial motion to move the first control slide. The first actuating means has a lower extending protrusion that mates into a groove of the control element to provide such translational movement (Fig. 4a-4d) (Page 5).
Hawkins (US 3970305 A) provides for a pivot lever that is restrictable in its motion through the actuation of a slide 55/57, but lacks the sufficient structure to read as an equivalent of the “first actuating means”.
Rossi (US 20050234376 A1) which provides for a pivot lever adjustment (Fig. 3) using loosely equivalent first actuating means 35B/35A to spin and then move the longitudinal slide 32 which is able to provide then restriction to the pivot lever 24B/45 through then mating with cutouts in the joint (Fig. 3).
However, the language of the claim here requires both the bottom of the control element to comprise the “first cutout” which interacts with the “second control slide” to control the ulnar/radial axis of movement and the control element is also then further comprising the “at least one first control slide (214)” to control the other axis of flexion/extension movement.
There is a lack of art or proper combination of references that would provide for the same control element comprising both the first cutout arranged on the bottom of the control element as well as comprising the first control slide for controlling the pivot lever which provides structural relation between them for controlling then both axis of movement.
Also, there is a lack of motivation for providing specifically the “first actuating means” and “first control slider” to control the “extension/flexion movement” and the “second control slider” and “first cutout” to be controlling the “ulnar/radial deviation”, nor with these references is there a combination that would provide for the current claim language holistically.
Thus, claim 1 and its dependents is indicated as being free of art and potentially allowable if the 112 issues are resolved.
Conclusion
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
