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
The amendments filed to claim 1 and the addition of new claims 2-17 in the preliminary amendment filed 7/7/25 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-17 are now pending in the application and are examined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the first set of at least three actuation points” in claim 1, line 15 should be amended to recite --the at least the first set of three actuation points--
“at least three actuation points” in claims 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12, line 2 should be amended to recite --three actuation points--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “displacement element” in claims 11 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (please see p. 9 of specification, displacement elements 25, which is shown in fig. 6 as slots).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 16 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.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “the functional element” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As “functional” does not give any insight into what this element was intended to be, the functional element is interpreted to be any element with any function (in this case, pin F taught by De Camp) for purposes of compact prosecution and examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor US 4,130,115.
Regarding claim 1, Taylor discloses an orthosis joint 20 (figs. 2 and 10-13 and col. 3, lines 12-16, hinge 20 for use in a knee brace), comprising:
a first joint arm 24a (fig. 10 and col. 3, lines 19-22, housing 24a being interpreted as the first joint arm, since it is an elongated arm connected to one side of fingers 26a/b, which form the bending/hinging mechanism);
a second joint arm 24b, wherein the first joint arm 24a and the second joint arm 24b are pivotable relative to one another to deflect from a basic position (fig. 10 and col. 3, lines 19-22, housing 24b being interpreted as the second joint arm opposite the first joint arm 24a; as can be seen in figs. 10 and 11, the first and second arms 24a/b pivot relative to each other in both directions from a basic, straight position shown in fig. 13);
at least one leaf spring 26a/b which is configured to generate (i) a first restoring force in a first direction to restore one or more of the first joint arm 24a and the second joint arm 24b to the basic position from a first deflected position, and ii) a second restoring force in a second direction to restore one or more of the first joint arm 24a and the second joint arm 24b to the basic position from a second deflected position, wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction (fig. 10 shows the first deflected position and fig. 11 shows the second deflected position, which are opposite from each other, and these deflected positions can be returned to the basic/unflexed position shown in fig. 13; col. 3, line 66-col. 4, line 60 describes how the ribs 26a/b slide within their respective housings and flex to form the hinge; further col. 4, lines 45-60 describe how the force required to flex the ribs 26a/b in the hinge 20 can be adjusted by modifying the distance between the first and second arms 24a/b by sliding the ribs 26a/b in the arms 24a/b; this, in combination with the ribs 26a/b being described as flexible in col. 4, lines 34-36 indicate that they function as leaf springs, despite not being explicitly referred to as such; they are flexible yet provide an innate restoring force to the basic/straight position, requiring a force to flex outwards); and
at least a first set of three actuation points triangularly arranged along the at least one rib 26a/b, wherein at least one actuation point of the first set of at least three actuation points is adjustably arranged on one of the first joint arm 24a and the second joint arm 24b for changing the first or second returning force (annotated fig. A, where the three actuation points (locations of force that causes the ribs 26a/b to flex) form a triangle; col. 4, lines 49-60, the amount of force required to flex the ribs 26a/b may be modified by adjusting the distance between arms 24a/b via sliding the ribs 26a/b (see fig. 9), which would change the locations of the first and third actuation points, as these outer actuation points are formed at the interface between the housings 24a/b and the ribs 26a/b).
PNG
media_image1.png
617
909
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Taylor discloses the at least one leaf spring 26a/b comprises a plurality of leaf springs (fig. 10, plurality of ribs 26a/b functioning as leaf springs).
Regarding claim 3, Taylor discloses the plurality of leaf springs 26a/b being parallel to one another in a stacking arrangement (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 4, Taylor discloses wherein one or more of the first joint arm 24a and the second joint arm 24b being decouplable for a free wheel (col. 4, lines 44-49, the ribs 26a/b can slide within the housings 24a/b and are thus unfixed; therefore, they would be capable of removal from the housings 24a/b to allow the joint to move freely).
Regarding claim 5, Taylor discloses at least one of the three actuation points being eccentrically positionable relative to the at least one leaf spring 26a/b to permit decoupling (since the ribs 26a/b are capable of sliding relative to the housings 24a/b as previously discussed, one end (for example, the end near the 1st actuation point) would be capable of being slid further out of its housing 24a more than the other end, such that the 1st actuation point is more eccentrically positioned and offset than the 3rd actuation point).
Regarding claim 6, Taylor discloses at least one actuation point of the at least three actuation points being movable (col. 4, lines 44-49, the ribs 26a/b can slide within the housings 24a/b and are thus unfixed; therefore, the 1st and 3rd actuation points are movable relative to the ribs 26a/b).
Regarding claim 7, Taylor discloses the first joint arm 24a and the second joint arm 24b being in frictional connection with each other (as the intervening ribs 26a/b slide relative to their housings 24a/b, there must be at least some kind of contact/friction between the ribs 26a/b and their housings 24a/b).
Regarding claim 8, Taylor discloses the at least one leaf spring 26a/b, and the at least three actuation points being positioned along a longitudinal axis of the first joint arm 24a or the second joint arm 24b (annotated fig. A, the ribs 26a/b and the actuation points being formed between the housings 24a/b, which form a longitudinal length and axis as shown in fig. 9 when straight).
Regarding claim 9, Taylor discloses at least a second set of three actuation points triangularly arranged along the at least one leaf spring 26a/b, wherein the first set of three actuation points and second set of three actuation points oppose one another (annotated fig. A, the second set of actuation points being formed upon the hinge 20 flexing in the opposite direction to the first direction in the 1st set; the actuation points in the 2nd set have all the qualities of the 1st set as discussed above, except in the opposing direction).
Regarding claim 10, Taylor discloses at least one actuation point of the second set of at least three actuation points being adjustably arranged on one of the first joint arm 24a and the second joint arm 24b for changing the first or second restoring force (col. 4, lines 49-60, the amount of force required to flex the ribs 26a/b may be modified by adjusting the distance between arms 24a/b via sliding the ribs 26a/b (see fig. 9), which would change the locations of the first and third actuation points, as these outer actuation points are formed at the interface between the housings 24a/b and the ribs 26a/b).
Regarding claim 11, Taylor discloses the at least one actuation point of the second set of at least three actuation points being moveable along a displacement element arranged along a longitudinal axis of the first joint arm 24a or the second joint arm 24b (annotated fig. A, the 1st and 3rd actuation points being moveable along the hollow (the displacement element) of each arm 24a/b, where the hollow extends along the longitudinal length of each arm 24a/b).
Regarding claim 12, Taylor discloses the at least one actuation point of the first set of at least three actuation points being moveable along a displacement element arranged along a longitudinal axis of the first joint arm 24a or the second joint arm 24b (annotated fig. A, the 1st and 3rd actuation points being moveable along the hollow (the displacement element) of each arm 24a/b, where the hollow extends along the longitudinal length of each arm 24a/b).
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.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor US 4,130,115 in view of De Camp US 401,933.
Regarding claim 13, Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Taylor is silent on an articulated arm connected to the second joint arm in an adjustable and lockable manner for setting a functional angle between the first joint arm and the second joint arm.
However, De Camp teaches an analogous joint with a first joint arm A and a second joint arm A’ (fig. 1 and p. 1, lines 12-16 and 37-38) comprising an articulated arm D’ connected to the second joint arm A’ in an adjustable and lockable manner for setting a functional angle between the first joint arm A and the second joint arm A’ (fig. 1 and p. 1, lines 71-79, pin F can extend through strips D’ and A’ as well as disk C to lock the arm A’ in place; upper strips D and A can be locked likewise to set a desired functional angle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the orthosis joint of Taylor with an articulated arm connected to the second joint arm in an adjustable and lockable manner for setting a functional angle between the first joint arm and the second joint arm, as taught by De Camp, to allow locking of the hinge at a desired angle for therapeutic purposes.
Regarding claim 14, Taylor in view of De Camp discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
De Camp further teaches the second joint arm A’ being continuously lockable with the articulated arm D’ via common clamping surfaces (fig. 2 shows strips D’ and A’ interfacing to form a common surface when pin F locks them together), to allow locking of the hinge at a desired angle for therapeutic purposes.
Regarding claim 15, Taylor in view of De Camp discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
De Camp further teaches the articulation arm D’ comprising at least one groove for locking at the functional angle relative to the second joint arm A’ (figs. 1 and 2 show pin F extending through strips A’ and D’, such that there must be a groove/opening), to allow locking of the hinge at a desired angle for therapeutic purposes.
Regarding claim 16, Taylor in view of De Camp discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
De Camp further teaches force transmission from the functional element to the second joint arm A’ taking place only via the articulated arm D’ (as discussed above in 112(b) rejections, the functional element is interpreted to be pin F; D’ intervenes between the head of pin F and the strip A’, thus being the only manner of force transmission between the two), to distribute force imparted onto the lower half of the hinge mechanism.
Regarding claim 17, Taylor in view of De Camp discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
De Camp further teaches the articulated arm D’ having a common pivot point B with the first joint arm A and the second joint arm A’ (fig. 1 and p. 1, lines 72-73, all parts rotate about rivet B), to allow locking of the hinge at a common angle for therapeutic purposes.
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 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,336,925 B2 in view of Taylor US 4,130,115.
Regarding claim 1, the patent claims an orthosis joint, comprising: a first joint arm; a second joint arm, wherein the first joint arm and the second joint arm are pivotable relative to one another to deflect from a basic position; at least one leaf spring which is configured to generate (i) a first restoring force in a first direction to restore one or more of the first joint arm and the second joint arm to the basic position from a first deflected position, and (ii) a second restoring force in a second direction to restore one or more of the first joint arm and the second joint arm to the basic position from a second deflected position, wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction (claim 1).
The patent is silent on at least a first set of three actuation points triangularly arranged along the at least one leaf spring, wherein at least one actuation point of the first set of at least three actuation points is adjustably arranged on one of the first joint arm and the second joint arm for changing the first or second restoring force.
However, Taylor teaches an orthosis joint 20 (figs. 2 and 10-13 and col. 3, lines 12-16, hinge 20 for use in a knee brace), comprising: at least a first set of three actuation points triangularly arranged along the at least one rib 26a/b, wherein at least one actuation point of the first set of at least three actuation points is adjustably arranged on one of the first joint arm 24a and the second joint arm 24b for changing the first or second returning force (annotated fig. A, where the three actuation points (locations of force that causes the ribs 26a/b to flex) form a triangle; col. 4, lines 49-60, the amount of force required to flex the ribs 26a/b may be modified by adjusting the distance between arms 24a/b via sliding the ribs 26a/b (see fig. 9), which would change the locations of the first and third actuation points, as these outer actuation points are formed at the interface between the housings 24a/b and the ribs 26a/b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the orthosis joint of the patent with at least a first set of three actuation points triangularly arranged along the at least one leaf spring, wherein at least one actuation point of the first set of at least three actuation points is adjustably arranged on one of the first joint arm and the second joint arm for changing the first or second restoring force, as taught by Taylor, to customize the device to each wearer’s ability and strength.
Regarding claim 2, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Taylor further teaches the at least one leaf spring 26a/b comprises a plurality of leaf springs (fig. 10, plurality of ribs 26a/b functioning as leaf springs), to increase the strength of the leaf spring assembly.
Regarding claim 3, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Taylor further teaches the plurality of leaf springs 26a/b being parallel to one another in a stacking arrangement (fig. 10), to allow smooth sliding relative to one another during flexion.
Regarding claim 4, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 5).
Regarding claim 5, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Taylor further teaches at least one of the three actuation points being eccentrically positionable relative to the at least one leaf spring 26a/b to permit decoupling (since the ribs 26a/b are capable of sliding relative to the housings 24a/b as previously discussed, one end (for example, the end near the 1st actuation point) would be capable of being slid further out of its housing 24a more than the other end, such that the 1st actuation point is more eccentrically positioned and offset than the 3rd actuation point), to allow the orthosis to be used without resistance when desired.
Regarding claim 6, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Taylor further teaches at least one actuation point of the at least three actuation points being movable (col. 4, lines 44-49, the ribs 26a/b can slide within the housings 24a/b and are thus unfixed; therefore, the 1st and 3rd actuation points are movable relative to the ribs 26a/b), to adjust the force required to flex the orthosis.
Regarding claim 7, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Taylor further teaches the first joint arm 24a and the second joint arm 24b being in frictional connection with each other (as the intervening ribs 26a/b slide relative to their housings 24a/b, there must be at least some kind of contact/friction between the ribs 26a/b and their housings 24a/b), to provide controlled sliding and adjustment.
Regarding claim 8, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Taylor further teaches the at least one leaf spring 26a/b, and the at least three actuation points being positioned along a longitudinal axis of the first joint arm 24a or the second joint arm 24b (annotated fig. A, the ribs 26a/b and the actuation points being formed between the housings 24a/b, which form a longitudinal length and axis as shown in fig. 9 when straight), to allow smooth sliding when flexing.
Regarding claim 9, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Taylor further teaches at least a second set of three actuation points triangularly arranged along the at least one leaf spring 26a/b, wherein the first set of three actuation points and second set of three actuation points oppose one another (annotated fig. A, the second set of actuation points being formed upon the hinge 20 flexing in the opposite direction to the first direction in the 1st set; the actuation points in the 2nd set have all the qualities of the 1st set as discussed above, except in the opposing direction), to provide additional flexing directions.
Regarding claim 10, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Taylor further teaches at least one actuation point of the second set of at least three actuation points being adjustably arranged on one of the first joint arm 24a and the second joint arm 24b for changing the first or second restoring force (col. 4, lines 49-60, the amount of force required to flex the ribs 26a/b may be modified by adjusting the distance between arms 24a/b via sliding the ribs 26a/b (see fig. 9), which would change the locations of the first and third actuation points, as these outer actuation points are formed at the interface between the housings 24a/b and the ribs 26a/b), to allow adjustment of the force needed to flex the joint.
Regarding claim 11, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Taylor further teaches the at least one actuation point of the second set of at least three actuation points being moveable along a displacement element arranged along a longitudinal axis of the first joint arm 24a or the second joint arm 24b (annotated fig. A, the 1st and 3rd actuation points being moveable along the hollow (the displacement element) of each arm 24a/b, where the hollow extends along the longitudinal length of each arm 24a/b), to allow adjustment of the force needed to flex the joint.
Regarding claim 12, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Taylor further teaches the at least one actuation point of the first set of at least three actuation points being moveable along a displacement element arranged along a longitudinal axis of the first joint arm 24a or the second joint arm 24b (annotated fig. A, the 1st and 3rd actuation points being moveable along the hollow (the displacement element) of each arm 24a/b, where the hollow extends along the longitudinal length of each arm 24a/b), to allow adjustment of the force needed to flex the joint.
Regarding claim 13, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 6).
Regarding claim 15, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 7).
Regarding claim 16, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, the patent in view of Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE J LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7303. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 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, ALIREZA NIA can be reached at (571)270-3076. 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.
/MICHELLE J LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights