DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 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 13 recites the limitation “is arranged for the silicone material to extend through the second knit structure from the inner surface to the outer surface of the textile sleeve.” The limitation is indefinite, because it is not clear what is meant by the second knit structure being arranged for the silicone material to extend through the second knit structure specifically to the outer surface of the textile sleeve, where Claim 1, from which Claim 13 depends, specifically constrains silicone material to the inner surface of the textile sleeve and prohibits silicone material from the outer surface of the textile sleeve. Examiner considers the claim to improperly depend from Claim 1, since it does not include the constraints (which dependency required) from Claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 recites the limitation the second knit structure “is arranged for the silicone material to extend through the second knit structure from the inner surface to the outer surface of the textile sleeve.” Claim 1, from which Claim 13, does not permit the silicone to extend through the second knit structure from the inner surface to the outer surface of the textile sleeve, since it expressly constrains the silicone to the inner surface of the textile sleeve.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1,5-7, 9-10, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janusson et al. (US 2001/0039159) in view of Pickering et al. (US 2007/0043450) and Jackson et al. (US 2005/0282453).
Regarding Claim 1, Janusson et al. (US’159) teach a liner for prosthetic use, the liner having an exterior surface and an inner cavity forming an interior surface of the liner, the liner defining proximal and distal ends along a central longitudinal axis, the liner comprising: a textile sleeve 14 having a first knit structure with interstices (a feature of knitted yarns) between yarns of said first knit structure, the textile sleeve defining an inner surface and an outer surface on an opposite side of the inner surface (Figs. 1,6,7; [0022,0054]); a silicone material provided on the inner surface of the textile sleeve and impregnating the interstices of the first knit structure of the textile sleeve (a coated silicone elastomer layer 24, which partially penetrates, is embedded in the fabric layer and cured while embedded in textile which renders the knit textile and silicone layer 24 impermeable to air) [0054], wherein the silicone material impregnates only the inner surface of the textile sleeve (partially penetrates and is embedded [0021] while not completely penetrating the fabric layer [0037] (i.e. the outer surface is devoid of the silicone material) [0037].
US’159 fails to teach the textile sleeve having at least one region having thermofusible yarns arranged such as to fuse upon reaching a threshold temperature. Pickering et al. (US’450) is analogous prior art in the field of knitted prosthetic liners (socks) (Abstract; Fig. 1), and suggests a thermofusible yarn, capable of fusing to prevent fraying and unraveling where fused [0047]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the prosthetic liner of US’159 with thermofusible yarns, because US’450 suggests that thermofusible yarn can prevent fraying and unraveling.
US’159 teaches a silicone elastomer (Abstract). The combination of US’159 in view of US’450 fails to teach a silicone material (e.g. polysiloxane), curable to at least 90% crosslinking within a range of about 120 to 210 seconds. Quick curing silicone material (polysiloxane) was well-known in the prior art at the time of invention and could be cured (crosslinked) within seconds to minutes, whether by UV curing (e.g. 2-5 seconds) or by thermal curing within minutes (e.g. 2-5 minutes). For example, Jackson et al. (US’453) is analogous art in the field of silicone elastomer coatings for fabric, including knits [0199,0058-0061,0114], and teaches curing times of between 15 and 240 seconds (four minutes) [0206]. In addition, US’159 suggests that curing time and temperature are easily optimized based on composition and coating thickness including motivations to cure more slowly as desired (e.g. to allow more penetration) [0206]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the liner of the combination of US’159 in view of US’450 with a silicone material having the recited curing properties through routine optimization. Moreover, process limitations (e.g. curing or crosslinking) are not given patentable weight for the claimed product.
Regarding Claim 5, US’159 teaches that the silicone material forms an inner layer of the liner, the inner layer forms the interior surface of the liner and the outer surface of the textile sleeve forms the exterior surface of the liner, wherein a thickness of the liner from the interior surface of the liner to the inner surface of the textile sleeve consists of the silicone material of the inner layer (Fig. 1; [0021,0037,0054]).
Regarding Claims 6-7, US’159 teaches a jersey knit (Claim 16).
Regarding Claim 9, US’159 teaches that the textile sleeve includes at least one distal portion forming a closed end and a matrix portion (comprising knit fabric) extending from the at least one distal portion (Figs 1-2; [0010,0012]). US’159 fails to teach that the matrix portion comprises specifically thermofusible yarns. It is obvious to use thermofusible yarns to prevent fraying and unraveling of knit fabric (See rejection of Claim 1 above). It would have been obvious to include thermofusible yarns as desired in the knitted matrix portion, because US’450 suggests incorporating thermofusible yarns in knitted fabric to stop fraying and unraveling of knit fabric.
Regarding Claim 10, US’159 teaches optional reinforcement fibers 26, including in the form of matrix, which extends over a distal portion of the liner (Fig. 1; [0038,0040,0053]) and which is a portion of a larger structure 12, including a body portion which extends from the matrix to a proximal end forming an open end of the textile sleeve (Figure 1; [0034]). Except for the matrix 26, the body portion comprises a composite elastic material, comprising silicone elastomer [0039]. Thus, because the body portion is primarily silicone elastomer, it would have been obvious that it would be devoid of thermofusible yarn.
Regarding Claim 14, US’159 teaches that the textile sleeve defines at least one more knit structure connected to the first knit structure, the at least one more knit structure having a different knit structure than the first knit structure including different axial or radial elongation (circular knit textile) [0012,0038,0053].
Regarding Claim 15, US’159 teaches that the silicone 24 forms an entirety of the interior surface of the inner cavity of the liner (Fig. 1; [0054]).
Regarding Claim 16, US’159 teaches a liner for prosthetic use, the liner having an exterior surface and an inner cavity forming an interior surface of the liner, the liner defining proximal and distal ends along a central longitudinal axis, the liner comprising: a textile sleeve having a first knit structure with interstices (a feature of knitted yarns) between yarns of said first knit structure, the textile sleeve defining an inner surface and an outer surface on an opposite side of the inner surface (Figs. 1,6,7; [0022,0054]); a silicone material provided on the inner surface of the textile sleeve and impregnating the interstices of the first knit structure of the textile sleeve; wherein the silicone material impregnates the inner surface of the textile sleeve (a coated silicone elastomer layer 24, which partially penetrates, is embedded in the fabric layer and cured while embedded in textile which renders the knit textile and silicone layer 24 impermeable to air) [0054]; wherein the textile sleeve includes at least one distal portion forming a closed end and a matrix portion extending from the at least one distal portion (Figs 1-2; [0010,0012]).
US’159 fails to teach thermofusible yarns. Pickering et al. (US’450) is analogous prior art in the field of knitted prosthetic liners (socks) (Abstract; Fig. 1), and suggests a thermofusible yarn, capable of fusing to prevent fraying and unraveling where fused [0047]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the prosthetic liner of US’159 with thermofusible yarns in the knitted matrix and/ or distal portion, because US’450 suggests that thermofusible yarn can prevent fraying and unraveling.
Claim(s) 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janusson et al. (US 2001/0039159) in view of Pickering et al. (US 2007/0043450) and Jackson et al. (US 2005/0282453) as applied to Claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Richardson et al. (US 6,071,578).
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, US’450 teaches a thermofusible yarn, but fails to teach a specific temperature range for melting and fusing. Richardson et al. (US’578) is analogous art, pertinent to the inventor’s problem of using thermofusible yarn in knit fabric and suggests a thermofusible yarn capable of fusing at a temperature of about 85 C, the yarn’s melting temperature (col. 1, lines 43-50; col. 2, lines 11-19). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the prosthetic liner of the combination of US’159 in view of US’450 and US’453 with a thermofusible yarn, capable of fusing at 85 C, because US’578 suggests the availability of such yarns for knitting.
Claim(s) 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janusson et al. (US 2001/0039159) in view of Pickering et al. (US 2007/0043450) and Jackson et al. (US 2005/0282453) as applied to Claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Bazoud et al. (US 2017/0071794).
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, US’450 teaches a thermofusible yarn, but fails to teach a specific temperature range for melting and fusing. Bazoud et al. (US’794) is analogous art, pertinent to inventor’s problem of using thermofusible yarn in knit fabric (Abstract) and suggests a thermofusible yarn with a melting temperature of 125 C [0057]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the prosthetic liner of the combination of US’159 in view of US’450 and US’453 with a thermofusible yarn, capable of fusing at a temperature in the range of 110-150C, because US’578 suggests the availability of such yarns for knitting.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janusson et al. (US 2001/0039159) in view of Pickering et al. (US 2007/0043450) and Jackson et al. (US 2005/0282453) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Bache et al. (US 2017/0027719).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of US’159 in view of US’450 and US’453 fails to teach a seam. Seams were conventionally used to join sections of fabric, including knitted fabric at the time of invention, although US’450 also provides reasons not to use conventional seams [0005]; on the other hand, US’453 suggests seams [0227]. The combination of US’159 in view of US’450 and US’453 fails to teach a seam located specifically at a distal end of the textile sleeve. Bache et al. (US’719) is analogous art in the field of knitted prosthetic liners (Abstract; (Fig. 1A), and suggests a liner with a seam 3 at a distal end of the textile sleeve (Fig. 1; [0033]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a seam at a distal end of the textile sleeve, because US’719, analogous art, suggests a seam used to close or finish a knitted textile sleeve at a distal end of a prosthetic liner. US’450 teaches thermofusible yarn to stop fraying and unraveling. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the prosthetic liner of the combination of references by providing thermofusible yarn at the seam to stop fraying and unraveling, especially since one would expect a knitted fabric to be vulnerable to fraying and/ or unraveling specifically at a seam.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janusson et al. (US 2001/0039159) in view of Pickering et al. (US 2007/0043450) and Jackson et al. (US 2005/0282453) as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of Doddroe et al. (US 2011/0208321).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of US’159 in view of US’450 and US’453 fails to teach that the first knit structure includes a taslanized or air-textured yarn. Doddroe et al. (US’321) is analogous art in the field of knitted prosthetic liners (Abstract; Fig. 2) and suggest that a taslan nylon yarn is suitable as a yarn for the knitted liner [0044]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the prosthetic liner suggested by the combination of US’159 in view of US’450 and US’453 with a taslanized yarn, because US’321 suggests Taslan yarn is a suitable yarn for a knitted prosthetic liner.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janusson et al. (US 2001/0039159) in view of Pickering et al. (US 2007/0043450), and Jackson et al. (US 2005/0282453), as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Laghi et al. (US 2013/0331950).
Regarding Claim 11, US’159 teaches a second knit structure, including a knitted circular knit textile as a reinforcement matrix [0012]. The combination of US’159 in view of US’450, and US’453 fails to teach that the textile sleeve further comprises a second knit structure comprising a coarser knit than the first knit structure. Laghi et al. (US’950) is analogous art in the field of prosthetic liners (Abstract; Fig. 3) and teaches an intermediate portion (7) just above the distal portion of the liner [0017], and provides evidence that stitch count (i.e. “coarser” or “finer”) and yarn type are result effective variables, known in the art at the time of invention to affect stiffness of the knit fabric and the extent to which a fluid (e.g. melt from meltable fiber) can flow through the fabric [0017]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the second knit structure of the prosthetic liner of the combination of US’159 in view of US’450, and US’453 with a coarser knit than the first knit through routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of achieving a desired degree of impregnation of silicone material and/or a desired degree of stiffness of the reinforcing second knit structure of US’159.
Regarding Claim 12, US’159 teaches a second knit structure, including a knitted circular knit textile as a reinforcement matrix [0012]. US’159 fails to teach that the second knit structure defines a plurality of circumferential bands. However, a plurality of circumferential bands of the knitted circular knit matrix is a prima facie obvious duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04), and it would have been obvious to include as many circumferential bands as reinforcement matrices as need to provide the prosthetic liner with a desired degree of reinforcement and/ or stiffness.
Regarding 13, US’159 teaches that the second knit structure comprises an inelastic knit structure [0012] and is arranged so that the circular knit textile reinforcement matrix is embedded in the silicone elastomer. For the reasons provided in the rejection of Claim 1 above, it would have been obvious for the silicone material to extend through the second knit structure from the inner surface to the outer surface of the textile sleeve.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janusson et al. (US 2001/0039159) in view of Pickering et al. (US 2007/0043450) and Jackson et al. (US 2005/0282453) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Egilsson et al. (US 2007/0123998).
Regarding Claim 19, US’159 teaches that the silicone material forms an inner layer of the liner, the inner layer forms the interior surface of the liner and the outer surface of the textile sleeve forms the exterior surface of the liner, wherein a thickness of the liner from the interior surface of the liner to the inner surface of the textile sleeve consists of the silicone material of the inner layer (Fig. 1; [0021,0037,0054] and that the first knit structure is selected from the group consisting of jersey and pique (Claim 16). US’159 teaches that the second knit structure comprises an inelastic knit structure [0012] and is arranged so that the circular knit textile reinforcement matrix is embedded in the silicone elastomer. For the reasons provided in the rejection of Claim 1 above, it would have been obvious for the silicone material to extend through the second knit structure from the inner surface to the outer surface of the textile sleeve.
The combination of US’159 in view of US’450 and US’453 fails to teach that the silicone material bleeds through an entirety of a thickness of the textile sleeve and defines silicone seal-in bands along the exterior surface of the liner. Egilsson et al. (US 2007/0123998) is analogous art in the field of prosthetic liners and suggests that silicone seal elements that protrude from the liner sleeve and that provide a seal between a liner sleeve and a socket may be formed integrally with the silicone inner layer of the liner sleeve [0014,0018,0023,0059]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the combination of US’159 in view of US’450 and US’453 with silicone material which bleeds through an entirety of a thickness of the textile sleeve, including through the inelastic bands of reinforcement inelastic textile and defines silicone seal-in bands along the exterior surface of the liner, because US’998 suggests bands of seal elements formed integrally with silicone formed on an inner layer of the liner to form a seal between liner sleeve and socket.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janusson et al. (US 2001/0039159) in view of Pickering et al. (US 2007/0043450).
Regarding Claim 20, US’159 teaches a liner for prosthetic use, the liner having an exterior surface and an inner cavity forming an interior surface of the liner, the liner defining proximal and distal ends along a central longitudinal axis, the liner comprising: a textile sleeve having a first knit structure with interstices (a feature of knitted yarns) between yarns of said first knit structure, the textile sleeve defining an inner surface and an outer surface on an opposite side of the inner surface (Figs. 1,6,7; [0022,0054]); a silicone material provided on the inner surface of the textile sleeve and impregnating the interstices of the first knit structure of the textile sleeve; wherein the silicone material impregnates the inner surface of the textile sleeve (a coated silicone elastomer layer 24, which partially penetrates, is embedded in the fabric layer and cured while embedded in textile which renders the knit textile and silicone layer 24 impermeable to air) [0054],wherein the silicone material forms an inner layer of the liner, the inner layer forms the interior surface of the liner and the outer surface of the textile sleeve forms the exterior surface of the liner, wherein a thickness of the liner from the interior surface of the liner to the inner surface of the textile sleeve consists of the silicone material of the inner layer (Fig. 1; [0021,0037,0054]) and wherein the textile sleeve includes at least one distal portion forming a closed end and a matrix portion extending from the at least one distal portion (Figs 1-2; [0010,0012]).
US’159 fails to teach thermofusible yarns. Pickering et al. (US’450) is analogous prior art in the field of knitted prosthetic liners (socks) (Abstract; Fig. 1), and suggests a thermofusible yarn, capable of fusing to prevent fraying and unraveling where fused [0047]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the prosthetic liner of US’159 with thermofusible yarns in the knitted matrix and/ or distal portion, because US’450 suggests that thermofusible yarn can prevent fraying and unraveling.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,4-16, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,952. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1, 16, and 20 of the present application requires every feature of Claims 4 and 14 of US’952.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Claims 4 and 5 of US’952 suggest a seam between the distal portion and the body portion comprising thermofusible yarn.
Regarding Claim 5, see thickness limitations in US’952, Claims 1 and 10.
Claim 6: US’952, Claims 1, 2, 10
Claim 7: Id.
Claim 8: US’952, Claim 3
Claim 9: Claim 4
Claim 10: Claim 5
Claim 11: Claims 1, 16
Claim 12: Claims 1, 16
Claim 13: Claims 6, 10
Claim 14: Claim 7
Claim 15: Claim 9
Claim 19: Claims 10, 13
Claims 2 and 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,952 in view of Richardson et al. (US 6,071,578)
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Claims 4 and 14 of US’952 recite a thermofusible yarn, but fails to teach a specific temperature range for melting and fusing. Richardson et al. (US’578) is analogous art, pertinent to the inventor’s problem of using thermofusible yarn in knit fabric and suggests a thermofusible yarn capable of fusing at a temperature of about 85 C, the yarn’s melting temperature (col. 1, lines 43-50; col. 2, lines 11-19). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the prosthetic liner of Claims 2 and 17 with a thermofusible yarn, capable of fusing at 85 C, because US’578 suggests the availability of such yarns for knitting.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,952 in view of Bazoud et al. (US 2017/0071794).
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, Claims 4 and 14 of US’952 recite a thermofusible yarn, but fails to teach a specific temperature range for melting and fusing. Bazoud et al. (US’794) is analogous art, pertinent to inventor’s problem of using thermofusible yarn in knit fabric (Abstract) and suggests a thermofusible yarn with a melting temperature of 125 C [0057]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the prosthetic liner of Claims 3 and 18 with a thermofusible yarn, capable of fusing at a temperature in the range of 110-150C, because US’578 suggests the availability of such yarns for knitting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Caspers (US 5,258,037) (silicone in knit)
Yang et al. (US 2012/0330210) (crosslinking of silicone)
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712