DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Rejection for Application 18/958,154 filed 11/25/2024. This Application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/607,813, filed on December 8, 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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
The amendments to claims 1-20 are acknowledged.
Some of the claim objections indicated in the office action filed December 23, 2025 have been overcome by the amendments however, some of the claim objections were not corrected. The remaining claim objections are repeated below.
The 112(b) claim rejections indicated in the office action filed December 23, 2025 have been overcome by amendment and are hereby withdrawn. A new 112(b) rejection is presented below.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended to require a serrated disk which was not previously required. Therefore, the scope of the claims has been changed and new grounds of rejection are presented in response to the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
A serrated disk was not taught in the previously presented prior art because it was listed as an alternative to a friction washer in claims 4 and 14.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant should amend the recitation “a second curved link pair” in line 16 to “the second curved link pair” since the line before already recites a second curved link pair.
Applicant should amend the recitation “the upper curved link and the lower curved link” in line 20 to “the upper curved link of the second curved link pair and the lower curved link of the second curved link pair”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant should amend the recitation “the first curved link” in line 10 to “the first curved link pair”.
Applicant should amend the recitation “the two curved links” in line 20 to “the upper curved link of the second curved link pair and the lower curved link of the second curved link pair”.
Applicant should amend the recitation “the two curved links” in line 30 to “the upper curved link of the third curved link pair and the lower curved link of the third curved link pair”.
Applicant should amend the recitation “the proximal cylindrical joints, the elongated bodies, and the distal cylindrical joints” in lines 31-32 to “the proximal cylindrical joints of the third curved link pair, the elongated bodies of the third curved link pair, and the distal cylindrical joints of the third curved link pair”.
Applicant should amend the recitation “the two curved links” in line 39 to “the upper curved link of the fourth curved link pair and the lower curved link of the fourth curved link pair”.
Applicant should amend the recitation “the proximal cylindrical joints, the elongated bodies, and the distal cylindrical joints” in lines 40-41 to “the proximal cylindrical joints of the fourth curved link pair, the elongated bodies of the fourth curved link pair, and the distal cylindrical joints of the fourth curved link pair”.
Applicant should amend the recitation “distal joints of the fourth curved link” in line 45 to “the distal joints of the fourth curved link pair”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 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 15 is rejected because the limitation “a tension knob having a throughbolt configured to secure the distal joints of the second curved link pair to the pivot post” makes it unclear where the pivot post is located. The pivot post is secured to the distal joints of the fourth curved link pair in claim 11, however claim 15 claims the pivot post is configured to be secured to the distal joints of the second curved link pair by the tension knob and throughbolt. It is unclear whether the pivot post is secured to the fourth curved link pair or the second curved link pair. Claim 15 will be interpreted as comprising a tension knob having a throughbolt configured to secure to the distal joints of the fourth curved link pair to the pivot post. In the embodiment with a third and fourth curved link pair, the pivot post is connected to the distal joint of the fourth curved link pair according to [0051] of Applicant’s specification.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 9-11, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0250151 (Kaminsky et al.) in view of US 2018/0361565 (Angold et al.) and US 5,538,499 (Schwenn et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Kaminsky discloses a linkage system for connecting an arm support to a waist plate of a shoulder brace (Kaminsky discloses a dynamic arm brace with a torso connection member and a forearm support member connected by a mechanical linkage. See Figs. 1A-1F and the abstract. The forearm support member is an arm support, the torso connection member is a waist plate and the mechanical linkage is a linkage system. All three work together to form a shoulder brace.), the linkage system comprising:
(a) a first link pair comprising an upper link and a lower link that each comprise a proximal cylindrical joint and a distal cylindrical joint connected by an elongated body (The mechanical linkage 111 comprises an upper armature 112 and a lower armature 114 that each comprise a proximal cylindrical joint, and a distal cylindrical joint connected by an elongated body. See the annotated figure below.), wherein:
(i) the two links are positioned in parallel so the proximal cylindrical joints, the elongated bodies, and the distal cylindrical joints are each aligned with each other (The upper armature 112 and the lower armature 114 are positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints, the elongated bodies, and the distal cylindrical joints are each aligned with each other. See Fig. 1D.),
(ii) the first link is configured to connect to a support lug protruding from the waist plate through the proximal cylindrical joints (The mechanical linkage 111 is configured to connect to a support lug protruding from the torso connection member 102. See Fig. 1D.), and
a pivot post protruding from a bottom surface of the arm support (The are brace 104 comprises a pivoting member 116 protruding from a bottom surface thereof. See Fig. 1D and [0041].).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaminsky does not disclose wherein the linkage system is curved, wherein the upper link and the lower link of the first link pair are curved and (iii) the distal cylindrical joints of the first curved link pair are configured to connect to proximal cylindrical joints of a second curved link pair; and (iv) the proximal cylindrical joint of the upper curved link comprises a serrated disk; and (b) a second curved link pair comprising an upper curved link and a lower curved link that each comprise a proximal cylindrical joint and a distal cylindrical joint connected by an elongated body, wherein: (i) the upper curved link and the lower curved link are positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair, the elongated bodies of the second curved link pair, and the distal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair are each aligned with each other, (ii) the proximal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the first curved link pair when connected, and (iii) distal joints of the second curved link pair are configured to connect to the pivot post protruding from the bottom surface of the arm support.
However, Angold discloses multiple linkages 215, 220 attached in series. By combining the teachings of Kaminsky and Angold, adding a second mechanical linkage to the already existing mechanical linkage would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Angold. Additionally, Angold shows that the multiple links 215, 220 are both curved. See Fig. 2 and [0051].
Additionally, Schwenn discloses a disk of teeth disposed on the supporting hinge 139. The disk of teeth are interpreted as a serrated disk since the teeth form a serration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to add a second mechanical linkage to the first mechanical linkage 111 of Kaminsky and to modify the elongated bodies of the armatures to be curved as taught by Angold. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Angold teaches that the multiple curved links design provides support for the wearer's arms and additional degrees of arm motion, resulting in ample freedom of movement for the wearer ([0051]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics with linking assemblies.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the proximal joint of Kaminsky to include a disk of teeth as taught by Schwenn. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Schwenn teaches that the teeth may fix the joint to prevent rotation (Col. 6, Lns. 15-34). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics with linking assemblies.
As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn teaches wherein the linkage system is curved (Modifying the armatures to be curved makes the linkage system curved as a whole.),
wherein the upper link and the lower link of the first link pair are curved (The armatures are all modified to be curved in view of Angold.) and
(iii) the distal cylindrical joints of the first curved link pair are configured to connect to proximal cylindrical joints of a second curved link pair (By adding a second mechanical linkage, the distal cylindrical joints of the first mechanical linkage would be configured to connect to proximal cylindrical joints of a second mechanical linkage.); and
(iv) the proximal cylindrical joint of the upper curved link comprises a serrated disk (The proximal cylindrical joint of the upper curved link comprises the toothed disk of Schwenn.); and
(b) a second curved link pair comprising an upper curved link and a lower curved link that each comprise a proximal cylindrical joint and a distal cylindrical joint connected by an elongated body (By adding a second mechanical linkage, the second mechanical linkage would include all of the structure of the first mechanical linkage including an upper armature and a lower armature each comprising a proximal cylindrical joint, distal cylindrical joints and elongated bodies.), wherein:
(i) the upper curved link and the lower curved link are positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair, the elongated bodies of the second curved link pair, and the distal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair are each aligned with each other (By adding a second mechanical linkage, the second mechanical linkage would include all of the structure of the first mechanical linkage which includes the upper curved link and the lower curved link positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints, the elongated bodies, and the distal cylindrical joints are each aligned with each other.),
(ii) the proximal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the first curved link pair when connected (When the second mechanical linkage is added, the proximal cylindrical joints of the second mechanical linkage can either fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the first mechanical linkage, fit outside the distal cylindrical joints of the first mechanical linkage, or a combination thereof. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for the proximal cylindrical joints of the second mechanical linkage to fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the first mechanical linkage, since such a modification would have involved a mere rearrangement of parts and there are a limited number of possible configurations. The court has held that the particular placement of a component is an obvious matter of design choice absent criticality of the placement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).), and
(iii) distal joints of the second curved link pair are configured to connect to the pivot post protruding from the bottom surface of the arm support (By adding a second mechanical linkage, the distal cylindrical joints of the second mechanical linkage will connect to the pivoting member 116 instead.).
Regarding claim 6, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 1, wherein each of the first curved link pair and the second curved link pair provides for an about 12 inch radius of movement (The term “the radius of movement” is interpreted as movement along a circular path that is centered around the shoulder joint. The radius of movement is entirely dependent on the length of the wearer’s arm and if the wearer has a 12 inch upper arm length from shoulder to elbow, then the mechanical linkages of Kaminsky provides for movement of an about 12 inch radius of movement.).
Regarding claim 9, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 1, wherein the first curved link pair is made from a polymer comprising polyethylene, polystyrene, nylon, polypropylene, polyvinylchloride, neoprene, cellulose, rubber, silicone, tetrafluoroethylene, polyamide, polybutadiene, and copolymers thereof ([0103], “Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can include, whether partially and/or fully, a solid, including a metal, a mineral, a ceramic, an amorphous solid, such as glass, a glass ceramic, an organic solid, such as wood and/or a polymer, such as rubber, a composite material, a semiconductor, a nano-material, a biomaterial and/or any combinations thereof.” Rubber is a listed material.).
Regarding claim 10, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 1, wherein the second curved link pair is made from a polymer comprising polyethylene, polystyrene, nylon, polypropylene, polyvinylchloride, neoprene, cellulose, rubber, silicone, tetrafluoroethylene, polyamide, polybutadiene, and copolymers thereof ([0103], “Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can include, whether partially and/or fully, a solid, including a metal, a mineral, a ceramic, an amorphous solid, such as glass, a glass ceramic, an organic solid, such as wood and/or a polymer, such as rubber, a composite material, a semiconductor, a nano-material, a biomaterial and/or any combinations thereof.” Rubber is a listed material. The added second mechanical linkage is made of the same material as the first.).
Regarding claim 11, Kaminsky discloses a linkage system for connecting an arm support to a waist plate of a shoulder brace (Kaminsky discloses a dynamic arm brace with a torso connection member and a forearm support member connected by a mechanical linkage. See Figs. 1A-1F and the abstract. The forearm support member is an arm support, the torso connection member is a waist plate and the mechanical linkage is a linkage system. All three work together to form a shoulder brace.), the linkage system comprising:
(a) a first link pair comprising an upper link and a lower link that each comprise a proximal cylindrical joint and a distal cylindrical joint connected by an elongated body (The mechanical linkage 111 comprises an upper armature 112 and a lower armature 114 that each comprise a proximal cylindrical joint, and a distal cylindrical joint connected by an elongated body. See the annotated figure below.), wherein:
(i) the upper curved link and the lower curved link are positioned in parallel so the proximal cylindrical joints, the elongated bodies, and the distal cylindrical joints are each aligned with each other (The upper armature 112 and the lower armature 114 are positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints, the elongated bodies, and the distal cylindrical joints are each aligned with each other. See Fig. 1D.),
(ii) the first link is configured to connect to a support lug protruding from the waist plate through the proximal cylindrical joints (The mechanical linkage 111 is configured to connect to a support lug protruding from the torso connection member 102. See Fig. 1D.), and
a pivot post protruding from a bottom surface of the arm support (The are brace 104 comprises a pivoting member 116 protruding from a bottom surface thereof. See Fig. 1D and [0041].).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaminsky does not disclose wherein the linkage system is curved, wherein the upper link and the lower link of the first link pair are curved and (iii) the distal cylindrical joints of the first curved link pair are configured to connect to proximal cylindrical joints of a second curved link pair; and (iv) the proximal cylindrical joint of the upper curved link comprises a serrated disk; and (b) the second curved link pair comprising an upper curved link and a lower curved link that each comprise a proximal cylindrical joint and a distal cylindrical joint connected by an elongated body, wherein: (i) the upper curved link and the lower curved link are positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair, the elongated bodies of the second curved link pair, and the distal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair are each aligned with each other, (ii) the proximal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the first curved link pair when connected, and (c) a third curved link pair comprising an upper curved link and a lower curved link that each comprise a proximal cylindrical joint and a distal cylindrical joint connected by an elongated body, wherein: (i) the upper curved link and the lower curved link are positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints of the second curved pair, the elongated bodies of the second curved pair, and the distal cylindrical joints of the second curved pair are each aligned with each other, (ii) the proximal cylindrical joints of the third curved link pair fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair when connected, and (d) a fourth curved link pair comprising an upper curved link and a lower curved link that each comprise a proximal cylindrical joint and a distal cylindrical joint connected by an elongated body, wherein: (i) the upper curved link and the lower curved link are positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints, the elongated bodies, and the distal cylindrical joints are each aligned with each other, (ii) the proximal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the third curved link pair when connected, and (iii) distal joints of the fourth curved link are configured to connect to a pivot post protruding from a bottom surface of the arm support.
However, Angold discloses multiple linkages 215, 220 attached in series. By combining the teachings of Kaminsky and Angold, adding a second mechanical linkage to the already existing mechanical linkage would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Angold. Additionally, Angold shows that the multiple links 215, 220 are both curved. See Fig. 2 and [0051].
Additionally, Schwenn discloses a disk of teeth disposed on the supporting hinge 139. The disk of teeth are interpreted as a serrated disk since the teeth form a serration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to add a second mechanical linkage to the first mechanical linkage 111 of Kaminsky and to modify the elongated bodies of the armatures to be curved as taught by Angold. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because more links allow for a further range of motion while keeping the length of each individual link shorter, which makes the links less intrusive. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics with links.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the proximal joint of Kaminsky to include a disk of teeth as taught by Schwenn. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Schwenn teaches that the teeth may fix the joint to prevent rotation (Col. 6, Lns. 15-34). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics with linking assemblies.
As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn teaches wherein the linkage system is curved (Modifying the armatures to be curved makes the linkage system curved as a whole.),
wherein the upper link and the lower link of the first link pair are curved (The armatures are all modified to be curved in view of Angold.) and
(iii) the distal cylindrical joints of the first curved link pair are configured to connect to proximal cylindrical joints of a second curved link pair (By adding a second mechanical linkage, the distal cylindrical joints of the first mechanical linkage would be configured to connect to proximal cylindrical joints of a second mechanical linkage.); and
(iv) the proximal cylindrical joint of the upper curved link comprises a serrated disk (The proximal cylindrical joint of the upper curved link comprises the toothed disk of Schwenn.); and
(b) the second curved link pair comprising an upper curved link and a lower curved link that each comprise a proximal cylindrical joint and a distal cylindrical joint connected by an elongated body (By adding a second mechanical linkage, the second mechanical linkage would include all of the structure of the first mechanical linkage including an upper armature and a lower armature each comprising a proximal cylindrical joint, distal cylindrical joints and elongated bodies.), wherein:
(i) the upper curved link and the lower curved link are positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair, the elongated bodies of the second curved link pair, and the distal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair are each aligned with each other (By adding a second mechanical linkage, the second mechanical linkage would include all of the structure of the first mechanical linkage which includes the upper curved link and the lower curved link positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints, the elongated bodies, and the distal cylindrical joints are each aligned with each other.), and
(ii) the proximal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the first curved link pair when connected (When the second mechanical linkage is added, the proximal cylindrical joints of the second mechanical linkage can either fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the first mechanical linkage, fit outside the distal cylindrical joints of the first mechanical linkage, or a combination thereof. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for the proximal cylindrical joints of the second mechanical linkage to fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the first mechanical linkage, since such a modification would have involved a mere rearrangement of parts and there are a limited number of possible configurations. The court has held that the particular placement of a component is an obvious matter of design choice absent criticality of the placement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Angold teaches that the multiple curved links design provides support for the wearer's arms and additional degrees of arm motion, resulting in ample freedom of movement for the wearer ([0051]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics with linking assemblies.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to add a third mechanical linkage and a fourth mechanical linkage, since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of a component. A duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to add a third mechanical linkage and a fourth mechanical linkage to the first and second mechanical linkages of Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn. As a result, it would be obvious for Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn to teach (c) a third curved link pair comprising an upper curved link and a lower curved link that each comprise a proximal cylindrical joint and a distal cylindrical joint connected by an elongated body (The third mechanical linkage would include all of the structure of the first mechanical linkage including an upper armature and a lower armature each comprising a proximal cylindrical joint, distal cylindrical joints and elongated bodies.), wherein:
(i) the upper curved link and the lower curved link are positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints, the elongated bodies, and the distal cylindrical joints are each aligned with each other (The third mechanical linkage would include all of the structure of the first mechanical linkage which includes the upper curved link and the lower curved link positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints, the elongated bodies, and the distal cylindrical joints are each aligned with each other.),
(ii) the proximal cylindrical joints of the third curved link pair fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the second curved link pair when connected (When the third mechanical linkage is added, the proximal cylindrical joints of the third mechanical linkage can either fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the second mechanical linkage, fit outside the distal cylindrical joints of the second mechanical linkage, or a combination thereof. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for the proximal cylindrical joints of the third mechanical linkage to fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the second mechanical linkage, since such a modification would have involved a mere rearrangement of parts and there are a limited number of possible configurations. The court has held that the particular placement of a component is an obvious matter of design choice absent criticality of the placement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).), and
(d) a fourth curved link pair comprising an upper curved link and a lower curved link that each comprise a proximal cylindrical joint and a distal cylindrical joint connected by an elongated body (The fourth mechanical linkage would include all of the structure of the first mechanical linkage including an upper armature and a lower armature each comprising a proximal cylindrical joint, distal cylindrical joints and elongated bodies.), wherein:
(i) the upper curved link and the lower curved link are positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints of the fourth curved link pair, the elongated bodies of the fourth curved link pair, and the distal cylindrical joints of the fourth curved link pair are each aligned with each other (The fourth mechanical linkage would include all of the structure of the first mechanical linkage which includes the upper curved link and the lower curved link positioned in parallel so that the proximal cylindrical joints, the elongated bodies, and the distal cylindrical joints are each aligned with each other.),
(ii) the proximal cylindrical joints of the fourth curved link pair fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the third curved link pair when connected (When the fourth mechanical linkage is added, the proximal cylindrical joints of the fourth mechanical linkage can either fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the third mechanical linkage, fit outside the distal cylindrical joints of the third mechanical linkage, or a combination thereof. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for the proximal cylindrical joints of the fourth mechanical linkage to fit inside the distal cylindrical joints of the third mechanical linkage, since such a modification would have involved a mere rearrangement of parts and there are a limited number of possible configurations. The court has held that the particular placement of a component is an obvious matter of design choice absent criticality of the placement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).), and
(iii) distal joints of the fourth curved link are configured to connect to a pivot post protruding from a bottom surface of the arm support (The distal cylindrical joints of the fourth mechanical linkage will connect to the pivoting member 116 instead of the first.).
Regarding claim 16, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 11, wherein each of the first curved link pair, the second curved link pair, the third curved link pair, and the fourth curved link pair provides for an about 12 inch radius of movement (The term “the radius of movement” is interpreted as movement along a circular path that is centered around the shoulder joint. The radius of movement is entirely dependent on the length of the wearer’s arm and if the wearer has a 12 inch upper arm length from shoulder to elbow, then the mechanical linkages of Kaminsky provides for movement of an about 12 inch radius of movement.).
Regarding claim 19, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 11, wherein at least one of the first curved link pair and the second curved link pair is made from a polymer comprising polyethylene, polystyrene, nylon, polypropylene, polyvinylchloride, neoprene, cellulose, rubber, silicone, tetrafluoroethylene, polyamide, polybutadiene, and copolymers thereof ([0103], “Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can include, whether partially and/or fully, a solid, including a metal, a mineral, a ceramic, an amorphous solid, such as glass, a glass ceramic, an organic solid, such as wood and/or a polymer, such as rubber, a composite material, a semiconductor, a nano-material, a biomaterial and/or any combinations thereof.” Rubber is a listed material.).
Regarding claim 20, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 11, wherein at least one of the third curved link pair and the fourth curved link pair is made from a polymer comprising polyethylene, polystyrene, nylon, polypropylene, polyvinylchloride, neoprene, cellulose, rubber, silicone, tetrafluoroethylene, polyamide, polybutadiene, and copolymers thereof ([0103], “Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can include, whether partially and/or fully, a solid, including a metal, a mineral, a ceramic, an amorphous solid, such as glass, a glass ceramic, an organic solid, such as wood and/or a polymer, such as rubber, a composite material, a semiconductor, a nano-material, a biomaterial and/or any combinations thereof.” Rubber is a listed material.).
Claims 2, 5, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0250151 (Kaminsky et al.) in view of US 2018/0361565 (Angold et al.) and US 5,538,499 (Schwenn et al.), and further in view of US 2018/0193180 (Bejarano).
Regarding claim 2, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 1.
Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn does not disclose a knob having a throughbolt that inserts and threadably screws into the pivot post, the knob configured to adjust a level of incremental rotational adjustment of the arm support with respect to the curved linkage system.
However, Bejarano discloses a locking torque knob 8a having a lock down screw 10a that inserts and threadably screws into internal/external rotation pivot hub 1. See Fig. 7 and [0045]. The locking torque knob 8a is configured to adjust a level of incremental rotational adjustment of an upper arm support 20 with respect to a panel 5. The knob is capable of adjusting the level of incremental rotational adjustment by loosening the system to allow for rotation of the upper arm support 20 about the pivot hub 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to add a knob having a throughbolt that inserts and threadably screws into the pivoting member 116 of Kaminsky as taught by Bejarano. As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold, Schwenn and Bejarano teaches a knob having a throughbolt that inserts and threadably screws into the pivot post (A knob and throughbolt are added to the linkage of Kaminsky which allows for the rotation of Kaminsky to be locked.), the knob configured to adjust a level of incremental rotational adjustment of the arm support with respect to the curved linkage system (The knob allows the rotation of the arm support to be locked and unlocked allowing for incremental rotational adjustment of the arm support.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Bejarano teaches that the knob and screw allow the pivot hub to be lockable at any of a plurality of predetermined points ([0045]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics.
Regarding claim 5, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 1.
Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn does not disclose a tension knob having a throughbolt configured to secure the distal joints of the second curved link pair to the pivot post.
However, Bejarano discloses a locking torque knob 8a having a lock down screw 10a that inserts and threadably screws into internal/external rotation pivot hub 1. See Fig. 7 and [0045]. The locking torque knob 8a is configured to adjust a level of incremental rotational adjustment of an upper arm support 20 with respect to a panel 5. The knob is capable of adjusting the level of incremental rotational adjustment by loosening the system to allow for rotation of the upper arm support 20 about the pivot hub 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to add a knob having a throughbolt that inserts and threadably screws into the pivoting member 116 of Kaminsky as taught by Bejarano. As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold, Schwenn and Bejarano teaches a tension knob having a throughbolt configured to secure the distal joints of the second curved link pair to the pivot post (A knob and throughbolt are added to the linkage of Kaminsky which allows for the rotation of Kaminsky to be locked and is positioned to secure the distal cylindrical joint of the second mechanical linkage.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Bejarano teaches that the knob and screw allow the pivot hub to be lockable at any of a plurality of predetermined points ([0045]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics.
Regarding claim 12, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 11.
Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn does not disclose a knob having a throughbolt that inserts and threadably screws into the pivot post, the knob configured to adjust a level of incremental rotational adjustment of the arm support with respect to the curved linkage system.
However, Bejarano discloses a locking torque knob 8a having a lock down screw 10a that inserts and threadably screws into internal/external rotation pivot hub 1. See Fig. 7 and [0045]. The locking torque knob 8a is configured to adjust a level of incremental rotational adjustment of an upper arm support 20 with respect to a panel 5. The knob is capable of adjusting the level of incremental rotational adjustment by loosening the system to allow for rotation of the upper arm support 20 about the pivot hub 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to add a knob having a throughbolt that inserts and threadably screws into the pivoting member 116 of Kaminsky as taught by Bejarano. As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold, Schwenn and Bejarano teaches a knob having a throughbolt that inserts and threadably screws into the pivot post (A knob and throughbolt are added to the linkage of Kaminsky which allows for the rotation of Kaminsky to be locked.), the knob configured to adjust a level of incremental rotational adjustment of the arm support with respect to the curved linkage system (The knob allows the rotation of the arm support to be locked and unlocked allowing for incremental rotational adjustment of the arm support.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Bejarano teaches that the knob and screw allow the pivot hub to be lockable at any of a plurality of predetermined points ([0045]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics.
Regarding claim 15, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 11.
Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn does not disclose a tension knob having a throughbolt configured to secure the distal joints of the second curved link pair to the pivot post.
However, Bejarano discloses a locking torque knob 8a having a lock down screw 10a that inserts and threadably screws into internal/external rotation pivot hub 1. See Fig. 7 and [0045]. The locking torque knob 8a is configured to adjust a level of incremental rotational adjustment of an upper arm support 20 with respect to a panel 5. The knob is capable of adjusting the level of incremental rotational adjustment by loosening the system to allow for rotation of the upper arm support 20 about the pivot hub 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to add a knob having a throughbolt that inserts and threadably screws into the pivoting member 116 of Kaminsky as taught by Bejarano. As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold, Schwenn and Bejarano teaches a tension knob having a throughbolt configured to secure the distal joints of the second curved link pair to the pivot post (A knob and throughbolt are added to the linkage of Kaminsky which allows for the rotation of Kaminsky to be locked and is positioned to secure the distal cylindrical joint of the second mechanical linkage.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Bejarano teaches that the knob and screw allow the pivot hub to be lockable at any of a plurality of predetermined points ([0045]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0250151 (Kaminsky et al.) in view of US 2018/0361565 (Angold et al.) and US 5,538,499 (Schwenn et al.), and further in view of US 2013/0085433 (Grant et al.).
Regarding claim 3, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 1.
Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn does not disclose wherein the curved linkage system further comprises: a throughbolt that passes through part of the first curved link pair and a vertical axial hole of the support lug; and a nut fastened to an end of the throughbolt to secure the first curved link pair to the support lug.
However, Grant discloses an adjusting bolt 55 that has a mating nut for loosening and tightening the hinge portions 53 and 54. See [09052] and Fig. 3. Additionally, Kaminsky is silent with regards to how the first mechanical linkage is connected to the support lug.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to use a throughbolt and nut to fasten the first mechanical linkage of Kaminsky to the support lug protruding from the arm support as taught by Grant. As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold, Schwenn and Grant discloses wherein the curved linkage system further comprises: a throughbolt that passes through part of the first curved link pair and a vertical axial hole of the support lug (In view of Grant, a through bolt passes through part of the first mechanical linkage and the support lug, which has a vertical hole when oriented vertically as shown in Fig. 1D.); and
a nut fastened to an end of the throughbolt to secure the first curved link pair to the support lug (In view of Grant, the throughbolt comprises a nut fastened to the end to secure the first mechanical linkage and the support lug by tightening or loosening their connection.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Grant teaches that the bolt and nut allow for the user to tighten and loosen the joint ([0052]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics.
Regarding claim 13, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 11.
Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn does not disclose wherein the curved linkage system further comprises: a throughbolt that passes through part of the first curved link pair and a vertical axial hole of the support lug; and a nut fastened to an end of the throughbolt to secure the first curved link pair to the support lug.
However, Grant discloses an adjusting bolt 55 that has a mating nut for loosening and tightening the hinge portions 53 and 54. See [09052] and Fig. 3. Additionally, Kaminsky is silent with regards to how the first mechanical linkage is connected to the support lug.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to use a throughbolt and nut to fasten the first mechanical linkage of Kaminsky to the support lug protruding from the arm support as taught by Grant. As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold, Schwenn and Grant discloses wherein the curved linkage system further comprises: a throughbolt that passes through part of the first curved link pair and a vertical axial hole of the support lug (In view of Grant, a through bolt passes through part of the first mechanical linkage and the support lug, which has a vertical hole when oriented vertically as shown in Fig. 1D.); and
a nut fastened to an end of the throughbolt to secure the first curved link pair to the support lug (In view of Grant, the throughbolt comprises a nut fastened to the end to secure the first mechanical linkage and the support lug by tightening or loosening their connection.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Grant teaches that the bolt and nut allow for the user to tighten and loosen the joint ([0052]). A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics.
Claims 4, 7-8, 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0250151 (Kaminsky et al.) in view of US 2018/0361565 (Angold et al.) and US 5,538,499 (Schwenn et al.), and further in view of US 6,533,741 (Lee et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 1.
Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn does not disclose a friction washer fitted in between the support lug and the first curved link pair.
However, Lee discloses the use of a washer fitted between a disk 54 and a ring 57. See Figs. 4 and 7 and Col. 6, Lns. 23-44. The disk 54 and ring 57 form a joint of the upper extremity splint of Lee.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to use a washer between the support lug and the first mechanical linkage of Kaminsky as taught by Lee. As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold, Schwenn and Lee teaches a friction washer fitted in between the support lug and the first curved link pair (A washer is added between the support lug and the first mechanical linkage of Kaminsky). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because washers are well known devices used in fastening to distribute load to prevent damage, reduce friction, lock fastener against loosening from vibration, and provide spacing. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to arm orthotics with pivots.
Regarding claim 7, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 1.
Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn does not disclose wherein the first curved link pair is made from a metal comprising steel, iron, aluminum, titanium, zinc, bronze, chromium, tin, tungsten, zinc, and alloys thereof.
However, Lee discloses the use of steel to make rods 20 and 25, which are analogous to the armatures 112 and 114. Additionally, Kaminsky states in [0103], “Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can include, whether partially and/or fully, a solid, including a metal, a mineral, a ceramic, an amorphous solid, such as glass, a glass ceramic, an organic solid, such as wood and/or a polymer, such as rubber, a composite material, a semiconductor, a nano-material, a biomaterial and/or any combinations thereof.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to make the armatures of Kaminsky out of steel as taught by Lee. As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold, Schwenn and Lee teaches wherein the first curved link pair is made from a metal comprising steel, iron, aluminum, titanium, zinc, bronze, chromium, tin, tungsten, zinc, and alloys thereof (The armatures of Kaminsky are made of steel.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because steel is a known metal used in the art and provides strength to the armature. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics.
Regarding claim 8, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 1.
Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn does not disclose wherein the second curved link pair is made from a metal comprising steel, iron, aluminum, titanium, zinc, bronze, chromium, tin, tungsten, zinc, and alloys thereof.
However, Lee discloses the use of steel to make rods 20 and 25, which are analogous to the armatures 112 and 114. Additionally, Kaminsky states in [0103], “Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can include, whether partially and/or fully, a solid, including a metal, a mineral, a ceramic, an amorphous solid, such as glass, a glass ceramic, an organic solid, such as wood and/or a polymer, such as rubber, a composite material, a semiconductor, a nano-material, a biomaterial and/or any combinations thereof.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to make the armatures of Kaminsky out of steel as taught by Lee. As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold, Schwenn and Lee teaches wherein the second curved link pair is made from a metal comprising steel, iron, aluminum, titanium, zinc, bronze, chromium, tin, tungsten, zinc, and alloys thereof (The armatures of Kaminsky are made of steel.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because steel is a known metal used in the art and provides strength to the armature. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics.
Regarding claim 14, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 11.
Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn does not disclose a friction washer fitted in between the support lug and the first curved link pair.
However, Lee discloses the use of a washer fitted between a disk 54 and a ring 57. See Figs. 4 and 7 and Col. 6, Lns. 23-44. The disk 54 and ring 57 form a joint of the upper extremity splint of Lee.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to use a washer between the support lug and the first mechanical linkage of Kaminsky as taught by Lee. As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold, Schwenn and Lee teaches a friction washer fitted in between the support lug and the first curved link pair (A washer is added between the support lug and the first mechanical linkage of Kaminsky). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because washers are well known devices used in fastening to distribute load to prevent damage, reduce friction, lock fastener against loosening from vibration, and provide spacing. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to arm orthotics with pivots.
Regarding claim 17, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 11.
Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn does not disclose wherein at least one of the first curved link pair and the second curved link pair is made from a metal comprising steel, iron, aluminum, titanium, zinc, bronze, chromium, tin, tungsten, zinc, and alloys thereof.
However, Lee discloses the use of steel to make rods 20 and 25, which are analogous to the armatures 112 and 114. Additionally, Kaminsky states in [0103], “Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can include, whether partially and/or fully, a solid, including a metal, a mineral, a ceramic, an amorphous solid, such as glass, a glass ceramic, an organic solid, such as wood and/or a polymer, such as rubber, a composite material, a semiconductor, a nano-material, a biomaterial and/or any combinations thereof.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to make the armatures of Kaminsky out of steel as taught by Lee. As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold, Schwenn and Lee teaches wherein at least one of the first curved link pair and the second curved link pair is made from a metal comprising steel, iron, aluminum, titanium, zinc, bronze, chromium, tin, tungsten, zinc, and alloys thereof (The armatures of Kaminsky are made of steel.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because steel is a known metal used in the art and provides strength to the armature. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics.
Regarding claim 18, Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn discloses the curved linkage system according to claim 11.
Kaminsky in view of Angold and Schwenn does not disclose wherein at least one of the third curved link pair and the fourth curved link pair is made from a metal comprising steel, iron, aluminum, titanium, zinc, bronze, chromium, tin, tungsten, zinc, and alloys thereof.
However, Lee discloses the use of steel to make rods 20 and 25, which are analogous to the armatures 112 and 114. Additionally, Kaminsky states in [0103], “Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can include, whether partially and/or fully, a solid, including a metal, a mineral, a ceramic, an amorphous solid, such as glass, a glass ceramic, an organic solid, such as wood and/or a polymer, such as rubber, a composite material, a semiconductor, a nano-material, a biomaterial and/or any combinations thereof.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to make the armatures of Kaminsky out of steel as taught by Lee. As a result, Kaminsky in view of Angold, Schwenn and Lee teaches wherein at least one of the third curved link pair and the fourth curved link pair is made from a metal comprising steel, iron, aluminum, titanium, zinc, bronze, chromium, tin, tungsten, zinc, and alloys thereof (The armatures of Kaminsky are made of steel.). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because steel is a known metal used in the art and provides strength to the armature. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success given that all references are analogous and drawn to shoulder orthotics.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seth Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM – 11:00 AM or 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM ET.
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.
/SETH R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights