DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, regarding prior art rejections, Applicant argues Jonsson does not “classify the gait and then modify a command based on the gait classification”, which the instant invention does. Applicant argues that the instant invention modifies an instruction based on the perceived mode whereas the prior art adjusts a device based on gait.
The Examiner respectfully notes it is unclear how this argument relates to the language of the claims, since it does not appear to follow any required language of the claims.
Priority
Claims 38, 9, 21, 35-36 have a priority date of 04/13/2009, since it includes subject matter not disclosed in parent applications 60/899834, 60/963638, and 12/027116.
At least claims 5, 11, 23-24 have a priority date of 02/16/10 because they contain subject matter not disclosed in the parent application 12/027116.
At least claims 7-8 have a priority date of 09/30/09 because they contain subject matter not disclosed in the parent applications 60/899834, 60/963638, 12/027116, and 61/168832.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 5, 7-11, 14, 21, 23-24, 35-36, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “receiving a first signal corresponding to a user input; receiving a second signal corresponding to an acceleration of the prosthetic; selecting a control mode based on the second signal from: a bulk mode and a finesse mode; and generating a command based on the first signal according to the control mode”. The “receiving” steps are additional elements that include extra-solution activity (data gathering). The step of “selecting” is an evaluation or judgement which is a mental process or abstract idea. The “generating” step is another element that would be extra-solution activity (sending data). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements (e.g. a “processor”) does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 38, 5, 7-9, 14, 21, 23-24, 35, 39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Jonsson et al. (US 20060135883 A1) hereinafter known as Jonsson.
Regarding claim 38 Jonsson discloses a control system for a prosthetic device comprising a processor ([0014]) configured for:
receiving a first signal corresponding to a user input ([0034]),
receiving a second signal corresponding to an acceleration of the prosthetic ([0009]),
selecting a bulk or finesse control mode based on the second signal ([0014], [0032] the gait event (bulk mode) and gait categories (finesse mode) are chosen based on the accelerometer input),
and generating, based on the first signal according to the control mode, a command configured for instructing an actuator that controls a movement of the prosthetic ([0034] the control system incorporates information from both the user input (first signal) and second signal (bulk (gait event) or finesse (gait category)) to communicate with the control drive module to control operation of the actuator and command the prosthetic).
Regarding claim 5 Jonsson discloses the control system of claim 38 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Jonsson further discloses the acceleration comprises accelerations in three perpendicular axes (Abstract).
Regarding claim 7 Jonsson discloses the control system of claim 38 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Jonsson further discloses the processor is configured for detecting walking based on the user input ([0044] the gait phase can include walking).
Regarding claim 8 Jonsson discloses the control system of claim 38 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Jonsson further discloses the processor is configured for sending the command and terminating the sending when walking with the prosthetic is detected ([0034], [0082], [0085]; the command the processor sends is to check for a security threshold (Figure 3 item 335). When walking is detected, the processor stops sending that command to check the security threshold, and sends a different command to trigger the actuator (Figure 3 item 345).).
Regarding claim 9 Jonsson discloses the control system of claim 38 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Jonsson further discloses the processor is configured to enter the bulk mode ([0044]) wherein an end point of the device is limited within a movement envelope (the end point of the device is considered to inherently be limited to its movement envelope as this is the envelope it operates in when attached to a user).
Regarding claim 14 Jonsson discloses the control system of claim 39 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Jonsson further discloses the command according to the finesse mode is configured for obtaining a grip ([0031] indicates the finesse mode allows for example, heel strike, which is considered to be a grip onto the ground).
Regarding claim 21 Jonsson discloses the control system of claim 38 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Jonsson further discloses the first, second, or command signal are wirelessly transmittable ([0034]).
Regarding claim 24 Jonsson discloses the control system of claim 38 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Jonsson further discloses the processor is configured for receiving a status signal from a feedback sensor ([0053] the control drive module can provide feedback to the processor; the module providing feedback relating to position or movement inherently denotes the presence of a feedback sensor), and the generating of the command is based on the status signal (Figure 1 shows how the method both provides/receives information to/from the processor based on the sensor input 102 and the feedback information from the control drive module 110.).
Regarding claim 23 Jonsson discloses the control system of claim 24 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Jonsson further discloses the feedback sensor disposed on the prosthetic device (the prosthetic device is not positively claimed) and configured for communicating with the processor ([0053]).
Regarding claim 35 Jonsson discloses the control system of claim 38 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Jonsson further discloses the user input “corresponds” to a foot of the user (“corresponds” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “to be in conformity of agreement; to compare closely: match; to be equivalent or parallel”. The input of the user is understood to be in agreement with the foot of the user, as the input is in agreement with every other part of the user’s body.).
Regarding claim 39 Jonsson discloses the control system of claim 38 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Jonsson further discloses the instructing comprises a first actuating for the bulk mode and a second actuating for the finesse mode ([0042]-[0044]; the processor detects both the modes, and actuates accordingly ([0014]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jonsson as is applied above in view of Singer et al. (US 5252102 A) hereinafter known as Singer.
Regarding claim 11 Jonsson discloses the control system of claim 38 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to movement being along a boundary of the movement envelope when the acceleration signal would require movement outside the movement envelope.
However, regarding claim 11 Singer teaches a prosthesis control system that includes movement only up to the boundary of the defined movement limitations even when a signal would require movement outside the movement envelope (Column 6 line 61- Column 7 line 8). Jonsson and Singer are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely control systems for prostheses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the control system of Jonsson by ensuring the device does not move beyond its established boundaries as is taught by Singer in order to maintain a properly functioning prosthesis that functions only in the intended manner, and so extraneous movement signals will not affect the user.
Claim 36 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jonsson as is applied above in view of Lanier et al. (WO 2008098059 A2) hereinafter known as Lanier.
Regarding claim 36 Jonsson discloses the control system of claim 38 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the input corresponding to a desired directional movement.
However, regarding claim 36 Lanier teaches that input to a control system for a prosthetic can include a desired directional movement (page 4 lines 8-12; page 3 line 32-page 4 line 3; sensors on the user can receive input information from the user to control the prosthesis) that comprises x, y, z direction components (All movement is understood to occur in 3-dimensional space, and thus would inherently have x, y, and z components to the movement). Jonsson and Lanier are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic control systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify to control system of Jonsson so that the user can provide an intended directional movement as is taught by Lanier in order to allow the user to command the prosthesis to move in a specific direction, thus increasing the user’s control overall.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Jacqueline Woznicki whose telephone number is (571)270-5603. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm EST.
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached on 408-918-7557. 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.
/Jacqueline Woznicki/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 05/15/26
Prosecution Insights