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 3/2/2026, to claims 1-2, 4, 11, 15, 20 acknowledged by Examiner. Additionally, applicant cancelled claims 8 and 19.
Claims 1-7, 9-19, and 20 are now pending.
Previous drawing objections related to claims 9 and 19 withdrawn as they are cancelled.
Previous claim objections withdrawn.
Previous 101 rejections withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the present primary reference of Andrews does not teach an arch support component at the arch and is disposed only underneath an arch of the foot. Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes that the present disclosure completely fails to provide any explicit metes or bounds or explicit definition for what counts and what doesn’t count as an “arch of the foot”. Examiner thus provides an evidentiary reference “The Arches of the Foot” (attached as pdf herein) for providing what is known in the art as being an arch of the foot, wherein as shown on the Fig. 1 on page 2 and Fig. 3 on page 3 of the evidentiary reference, the arch of the foot extends from the heel of the user to the metatarsals of the foot; as such as seen in Fig. 1 and 3 of Andrews the arch plate 10 is disposed only underneath an arch of the foot of the user as the arch support plate 10 is shown to extend from a heel of the user to the metatarsals of the user when worn. Thus, Andrews is completely found to map to the amended claim language herein relating to the arch of the foot. In addition, Andrews directly calls the structure 10 an “arch support plate 10” (Col. 2 lines 55-65), thus directly relating to the arch of the foot, wherein Applicant calling a Andrews a “full-sole component” is improper as Andrews doesn’t even use the word sole when discussing the invention but always the term “arch”.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that there is no motivation to combine in the present 103 rejections, Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, each of the 103 rejections in the previous and below rejection are provided with motivation statements. Applicant’s assertion that Andrews teaches away by holding the user in a fixed position is incorrect as Andrews recites “The arch support plate 10 is so arranged that it permits flexibility of the foremost portion of the foot with respect thereto as necessary in walking and at the same time the spring strip 11 conforms to the shape of the heel and permits the flexibility of the ankle joint necessary in walking while simultaneously resiliently resisting any tendency of the ankle to be misplaced” (Col. 2 lines 55-65) as such the foot is enabled to move and not rigidly held in a fixed position, thus the foot is able to deform and do walking motions and is clearly not teaching away from the present invention.
Examiner’s Notes
All references relied up on and not cited in the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/2/2026. These drawings are unacceptable.
The new drawings are objected to because of the following:
The amended Figures 1C, 1D, and 2C should not use words on a line drawing as such when pointing to the “shape-memory polymer cushion” and the “supporting layer”.
Regarding the shape-memory polymer cushion, Applicant has amended Fig. 2C to point to the shape-memory polymer; however, there is no disclosure stating that Fig. 2C has a shape-memory polymer cushion therein, nor is it clear at all that what is being pointed to is a cushion or something else, thus the amended Fig. 2C appears to contain new matter. As such the previous drawing objection regarding claims 7 and 18 is maintained below.
Regarding the previous objection relating to the arch support component comprising a supporting layer, based on the amended Figures 1C and 1D, the support layer appears to literally be the component 130, as such there appears to thus be two arrows pointing to one object, Examiner recommends not using the amended “support layer” arrow and Examiner is willing to drop the previous drawing objection relating to the supporting layer in light of the clarity that the arch support component 130 is literally the supporting layer.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “arch plate is disposed on top of a shape- memory polymer cushion” (claim 7),
“wherein the arch plate is disposed on top of a shape- memory polymer cushion” (claim 18),
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 as amended now recites “an arch support component (130) disposed underneath only an arch of the foot”, Claim 11 as amended now recites “an arch support component (130) disposed within the sleeve component (110) underneath only the arch of the foot”, and Claim 15 as amended now recites “an arch support component (130) disposed within the sleeve component (110) underneath only the arch of the foot”, wherein in the Remarks Applicant points to Fig. 2A for support for this claim. However, firstly Fig. 2A does not show a foot of the user thus cannot support any limitation that is claiming something relative to the foot nor does it give any indication that the arch support component 130 explicit is “only” underneath the arch of the foot. Applicant’s specification further fails to have any antecedent basis for support of this usage of “only”, as such claims 1, 11, and 15 are rejected under 112a for containing new matter. Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20 rejected as being dependent on these claims.
See MPEP 2173.05(i): “Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ("[the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining."). See also Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In describing alternative features, the applicant need not articulate advantages or disadvantages of each feature in order to later exclude the alternative features. See Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356-57, 116 USPQ2d 2006, 2010-11 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. However, a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). "Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.' ... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure." Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 2022 USPQ2d 569 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 589 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172). Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. See MPEP § 2163 - § 2163.07(b) for a discussion of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.”
As discussed in the new matter issues above, new negative limitations (anything regarding saying “not”, “no”, “single”, “only”) are being used with the preamble “comprising” wherein the invention may include any other structures not claimed. The negative limitations herein will be given little patentable weight considering there are new matter issues therein, as Applicant cannot simply be excluding elements to get around prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrews (US 2847991 A) (with evidence from attached pdf “The Arches of the Foot”).
Regarding claim 1, Andrews discloses a dynamic foot brace device (Fig. 1-3) for providing arch support to a foot of a user through energy storage at an ankle of the user during a step (Col. 2 lines 55-71, arch support plate 10 provides arch support such that the spring strip 11 stores energy as a “spring” implicitly, wherein during a step the spring strip deforms but resiliently restores the foot back to a neutral position),
the device (Fig. 1-3) comprising a tension member 11 (Fig. 1-3, Col. 2 lines 8-11, “spring strip 11” is a tension member by being a spring that inherently stores tension) comprising a first end 11-10 configured to be coupled to an arch support component 10 disposed underneath only an arch of the foot (Fig. 1-3, spring strip 11 extends below the arch plate 10 which couples to an arch of a foot, first end of Andrews henceforth labelled 11-10) (see attached evidentiary reference “The Arches of the Foot”, wherein as shown on the Fig. 1 on page 2 and Fig. 3 on page 3, the arch of the foot extends from the heel of the user to the metatarsals of the foot; as such as seen in Fig. 1 and 3 of Andrews the arch plate 10 is disposed only underneath an arch of the foot of the user) and
a second end 12 configured to be coupled to the ankle (Fig. 1-3), configured to store energy from tension applied to the first end during a first phase of the step and release the energy to the foot as a propulsion force when the tension applied to the first end is released during a second phase of the step (Col. 2 lines 55-71, arch support plate 10 provides arch support such that the spring strip 11 stores energy as a “spring” implicitly, wherein during a step the spring strip deforms but resiliently restores the foot back to a neutral position, wherein returning the foot back to the neutral position during releasing of foot off the ground of a step is a releasing of propulsion force vertically when foot is pointed downwardly).
Regarding claim 2, Andrews discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Andrews further discloses a sleeve component 16 (Fig. 3 and Col. 2 lines 12-25, leather material sleeve fitting over all components of the invention) configured to fit the arch of the foot and the ankle (Fig. 3 sleeve 16 shown to fit to the arch of the foot and the ankle), wherein the first end 11-10 of the tension member 11 is coupled to the sleeve component 16 at the arch of the foot (Fig. 1-3 and Col. 2 lines 12-25), wherein the second end 12 of the tension member 11 is coupled to the sleeve component 16 at the ankle, when the dynamic foot brace is worn by the user (Fig. 1-3 and Col. 2 lines 12-25).
Regarding claim 3, Andrews discloses the invention of claim 2 above.
Andrews further discloses a tension member guide component 16-11 coupled to the sleeve component 16 (Fig. 1-3, the sleeve material 16 further directly surrounds the spring 11, wherein this portion of the material 16 is connected/coupled to sleeve 16 portions attached at the arch and ankle, portion 16 surrounding 11 henceforth being labelled 16-11) such that the tension member 11 is disposed through the tension member guide component 16-11 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Andrews discloses the invention of claim 2 above.
Andrews further discloses an arch support component 10 (Fig. 1-3, arch support plate –Col. 2 line 12) disposed within the sleeve component 16 at the arch of the foot, when the dynamic foot brace is worn by the user (Fig. 3), configured to support the arch of the foot during the first phase of the step (Col. 2 line 12, supports the arch, thus will support the arch of the foot during any phase of a step).
Regarding claim 5, Andrews discloses the invention of claim 4 above.
Andrews further discloses the arch support component 10 comprises an arch plate (Fig. 1-3, arch support plate –Col. 2 line 12).
Regarding claim 6, Andrews discloses the invention of claim 5 above.
Andrews further discloses wherein the arch plate comprises a rigid material (claim 1 of Andrews, “rigid arch support plate”).
Regarding claim 9, Andrews discloses the invention of claim 4 above.
Andrews further discloses wherein the arch support component 10 comprises a supporting layer 10 coupled to the sleeve component 16 at the arch of the foot, when the dynamic foot brace is worn by the user (Fig. 3, arch plate 10 is a supporting layer 10, coupled to the sleeve 16 at the arch of the foot of the user).
Regarding claim 15, Andrews discloses a dynamic foot brace device (Fig. 1-3) for providing arch support to a foot of a user through energy storage at an ankle of the user during a step (Col. 2 lines 55-71, arch support plate 10 provides arch support such that the spring strip 11 stores energy as a “spring” implicitly, wherein during a step the spring strip deforms but resiliently restores the foot back to a neutral position),
a. a sleeve component 16 (Fig. 3 and Col. 2 lines 12-25, leather material sleeve fitting over all components of the invention) configured to fit the arch of the foot and the ankle (Fig. 3 sleeve 16 shown to fit to the arch of the foot and the ankle);
b. an arch support component 10 (Fig. 1-3, arch support plate 19, Col. 2 line 12) disposed within the sleeve component 16 underneath only the arch of the foot, when the dynamic foot brace is worn by the user (Fig. 3) (see attached evidentiary reference “The Arches of the Foot”, wherein as shown on the Fig. 1 on page 2 and Fig. 3 on page 3, the arch of the foot extends from the heel of the user to the metatarsals of the foot; as such as seen in Fig. 1 and 3 of Andrews the arch plate 10 is disposed only underneath an arch of the foot of the user), configured to support the arch of the foot during the first phase of the step (Col. 2 line 12, supports the arch, thus will support the arch of the foot during any phase of a step);
c. a tension member 11 (Fig. 1-3, Col. 2 lines 8-11, “spring strip 11” is a tension member by being a spring that inherently stores tension) comprising a first end 11-10 coupled to the arch support component 10 (Fig. 1-3, spring strip 11 attaches to the arch plate 10, first end of Andrews henceforth labelled 11-10) and a second end 12 coupled to the sleeve component 16 at the ankle, when the dynamic foot brace is worn by the user (Fig. 1-3), configured to store energy from tension applied to the first end during a first phase of the step and release the energy to the foot as a propulsion force when the tension applied to the first end is released during a second phase of the step (Col. 2 lines 55-71, arch support plate 10 provides arch support such that the spring strip 11 stores energy as a “spring” implicitly, wherein during a step the spring strip deforms but resiliently restores the foot back to a neutral position, wherein returning the foot back to the neutral position during releasing of foot off the ground of a step is a releasing of propulsion force vertically when foot is pointed downwardly); and
d. a tension member guide component 16-11 coupled to the sleeve component 16 (Fig. 1-3, the sleeve material 16 further directly surrounds the spring 11, wherein this portion of the material 16 is connected/coupled to sleeve 16 portions attached at the arch and ankle, portion 16 surrounding 11 henceforth being labelled 16-11) such that the tension member 11 is disposed through the tension member guide component 16-11 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Andrews discloses the invention of claim 15 above.
Andrews further discloses the arch support component 10 comprises an arch plate (Fig. 1-3, arch support plate –Col. 2 line 12).
Regarding claim 17, Andrews discloses the invention of claim 16 above.
Andrews further discloses wherein the arch plate comprises a rigid material (claim 1 of Andrews, “rigid arch support plate”).
Regarding claim 20, Andrews discloses the invention of claim 15 above.
Andrews further discloses wherein the arch support component 10 comprises a supporting layer 10 coupled to the sleeve component 16 at the arch of the foot, when the dynamic foot brace is worn by the user (Fig. 3, arch plate 10 is a supporting layer 10, coupled to the sleeve 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (US 2847991 A) in view of Weaver (US 20150335460 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Andrews discloses the invention of claim 5 above.
Andrews does not disclose wherein the arch plate is disposed on top of a shape- memory polymer cushion.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, Weaver teaches an analogous arch plate 120 (Fig. 1-10) is disposed on top of a shape-memory polymer cushion (Weaver [0053] the arch plate 120 may have an outer layer/lining, wherein if inside of a lining the arch plate would be disposed on top of the lining depending on the orientation, the outer lining being a shape memory polymer, being implicitly a cushion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the arch plate 10 of Andrews to be disposed on top of a shape-memory polymer cushion as taught by Weaver in order to provide a more comfortable padding for the foot.
Regarding claim 18, Andrews discloses the invention of claim 16 above.
Andrews does not disclose wherein the arch plate is disposed on top of a shape- memory polymer cushion.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, Weaver teaches an analogous arch plate 120 (Fig. 1-10) is disposed on top of a shape-memory polymer cushion (Weaver [0053] the arch plate 120 may have an outer layer/lining, wherein if inside of a lining the arch plate would be disposed on top of the lining depending on the orientation, the outer lining being a shape memory polymer, being implicitly a cushion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the arch plate 10 of Andrews to be disposed on top of a shape-memory polymer cushion as taught by Weaver in order to provide a more comfortable padding for the foot.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (US 2847991 A) in view of Devreese (US 20060276736 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Andrews discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Andrews discloses wherein the tension member 11 comprises an elastic strap comprising carbon fiber, nylon, rubber, or a combination thereof, or a spring comprising a metal material, an elastomeric material, or a combination thereof (Andrew discloses the tension member 11 being a spring, Col. 2 lines 8-11).
Andrews does not disclose the spring comprising a metal material, an elastomeric material, or a combination thereof.
However, Devreese, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an analogous dynamic foot brace (Fig. 1) having an analogous tension member 3 for assisting in returning a foot to a neutral position (see [0022]) being an analogous spring 3 comprising a metal material (see Devreese [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the spring 11 of Andrews comprise metal as taught by Devreese in order to provide increased durability to the invention.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (US 2847991 A) in view of Guenther (US 20040186401 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Andrews discloses a method for providing arch support to a foot of a user through energy storage at an ankle of the user during a step (Col. 2, Fig. 1-3, support spring is energy story), the method comprising:
a. applying a dynamic foot brace device to the foot of the user (Fig. 1-3, foot brace applied to a foot), the device comprising:
i. a sleeve component 16 (Fig. 3 and Col. 2 lines 12-25, leather material sleeve fitting over all components of the invention) configured to fit the arch of the foot and the ankle (Fig. 3 sleeve 16 shown to fit to the arch of the foot and the ankle); and
iii. an arch support component 10 (Fig. 1-3) disposed within the sleeve component 16 underneath only the arch of the foot, when the dynamic foot brace is worn by the user (see attached evidentiary reference “The Arches of the Foot”, wherein as shown on the Fig. 1 on page 2 and Fig. 3 on page 3, the arch of the foot extends from the heel of the user to the metatarsals of the foot; as such as seen in Fig. 1 and 3 of Andrews the arch plate 10 is disposed underneath only an arch of the foot of the user);
iii. a tension member 11 comprising a first end 11-10 coupled to the arch support component 10 (Fig. 1-3, spring strip 11 extends below the arch plate 10 which couples to an arch of a foot, first end of Andrews henceforth labelled 11-10) and a second end 12 coupled to the ankle (Fig. 1-3);
b. storing, by the tension member 11, energy from tension applied to the first end 12 of the tension member 11 during a first phase of the step, the first phase of the step comprising placing the foot on a surface and shifting weight of the user onto the foot (Col. 2 lines 55-71, the spring strip 11 stores energy as a “spring” implicitly, wherein during a step of placing a foot on a ground with weight shifting onto the front a foot, the spring strip deforms when plantarflexion motion of the step is being performed, as spring deforms energy builds); and
c. releasing, by the tension member 11, the energy to the foot as a propulsion force when the tension applied to the first end is released during a second phase of the step, the second phase of the step comprising lifting the foot off of the surface (Col. 2 lines 55-71, wherein returning the foot back to the neutral position during releasing of foot off the ground of a step is a releasing of propulsion force vertically when foot is pointed downwardly).
Andrews does not explicitly recite the method steps of:
b. storing, by the tension member, energy from tension applied to the first end of the tension member during a first phase of the step, the first phase of the step comprising placing the foot on a surface and shifting weight of the user onto the foot; and
c. releasing, by the tension member, the energy to the foot as a propulsion force when the tension applied to the first end is released during a second phase of the step, the second phase of the step comprising lifting the foot off of the surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Guenther teaches an analogous dynamic brace (Fig. 1) having an analogous spring 22 with a first end 6 and second end 2, wherein the Guenther explicitly teaches the method steps of:
b. storing, by the tension member 22, energy from tension applied to the first end of the tension member during a first phase of the step, the first phase of the step comprising placing the foot on a surface and shifting weight of the user onto the foot (see [0009, 0006, 0012-0013], energy is stored in the support spring 22 during angular flexure upon initiation of step); and
c. releasing, by the tension member, the energy to the foot as a propulsion force when the tension applied to the first end is released during a second phase of the step, the second phase of the step comprising lifting the foot off of the surface (see [0009, 0006, 0012-0013], energy is released from the spring and the dorsi-flexion of the foot is enabled, when foot is no longer on ground).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to understand that the invention of Andrews would perform the claimed method stops of storing and releasing energy in the tension member 11 (spring 11) of Andrews as Guenther provides known in the art function for drop-foot devices relying on a spring for returning a foot to a neutral position of taking a step.
Regarding claim 12, Andrews in view of Guenther discloses the invention of claim 11 above.
Andrews further discloses an arch support component 10 (Fig. 1-3, arch support plate –Col. 2 line 12) disposed within the sleeve component 16 at the arch of the foot (Fig. 3), configured to support the arch of the foot during the first phase of the step (Col. 2 line 12, supports the arch, thus will support the arch of the foot during any phase of a step).
Regarding claim 13, Andrews in view of Guenther discloses the invention of claim 11 above.
Andrews further discloses a tension member guide component 16-11 coupled to the sleeve component 16 (Fig. 1-3, the sleeve material 16 further directly surrounds the spring 11, wherein this portion of the material 16 is connected/coupled to sleeve 16 portions attached at the arch and ankle, portion 16 surrounding 11 henceforth being labelled 16-11) such that the tension member 11 is disposed through the tension member guide component 16-11 (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (US 2847991 A) in view of Guenther (US 20040186401 A1), in view of Devreese (US 20060276736 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Andrews in view of Guenther discloses the invention of claim 11 above.
Andrews discloses wherein the tension member 11 comprises an elastic strap comprising carbon fiber, nylon, rubber, or a combination thereof, or a spring comprising a metal material, an elastomeric material, or a combination thereof (Andrew discloses the tension member 11 being a spring, Col. 2 lines 8-11).
Andrews does not disclose the spring comprising a metal material, an elastomeric material, or a combination thereof,
However, Devreese, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an analogous dynamic foot brace (Fig. 1) having an analogous tension member 3 for assisting in returning a foot to a neutral position (see [0022]) being an analogous spring 3 comprising a metal material (see Devreese [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the spring 11 of Andrews comprise metal as taught by Devreese in order to provide increased durability to the invention.
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 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