DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-12, 18, and 19 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.
Specifically regarding Claim 1, the structure of the orthotic device is unclear. The phrase “the hand strapping system including mounted hardware to support (i) a dorsal strapping arrangement for top-down donning and (ii) a thenar strapping arrangement for slide-through donning” is unclear. Claim 2 makes the presence of the dorsal strapping arrangement and the thenar strapping arrangement seem positively recited, but Claim 1 specifically says “mounted hardware to support”, which reads as intended use, with the strapping arrangements not present. As such, it is unclear whether the dorsal strapping arrangement and the thenar strapping arrangement are structurally present in Claim 1.
The remaining claims inherit the rejection by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peisner et al (20210298936).
Regarding Claim 1, Peisner teaches an orthotic device having a hand module configured for strapping a hand of a user, and for effectuating relative movement of a thumb of the hand and a set of fingers of the hand, the hand module comprising:
a hand shell (Figure 2, right side), configured to receive a palm of the hand;
a finger shell (Detail 37), coupled to the hand shell, and configured to receive the set of fingers;
a thumb shell (Detail 33), coupled to the hand shell, and configured to receive the thumb, wherein the finger shell and the thumb shell are configured to support relative motion of the thumb and the set of fingers;
a grasp actuator (Detail 10) coupled to the finger shell and the thumb shell, and configured to cause relative motion of the set of fingers and the thumb;
a hand strapping system (Detail 35) for securing a dorsal side of the user's hand and a base of the user's thumb, the hand strapping system including mounted hardware to support (i) a dorsal strapping arrangement for top-down donning and (ii) a thenar strapping arrangement for slide-through donning (intended use; capable of securing these straps as claimed).
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) 12 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peisner et al in view of Zhao et al (CN 120305092).
Regarding Claim 12, while Peisner essentially teaches the invention as detailed, including a wrist shell (at Detail 38), it fails to specifically teach the hand to wrist coupler is a swivel joint. Zhao, however, teaches that such swivel joints are well known in the art (Figure 1, between Details 6 and 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included such a swivel joint, so as to allow for a point of articulation. Dependent on the degree of movement desired, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been more than capable of determining whether to provide a swivel joint or not, with an expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-17 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art of record neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the recitations found therein, including the grasp actuator and its function as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record
Specifically, at least De Lange et al (12102550) Figure 1B, Wang (20220117824) Figure 1, and Kelly et al (10758394) Figure 1 teach elements similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
