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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/15/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 regarding drawing objections Applicant argues amendments overcome the objections of record.
The Examiner respectfully agrees and withdraws drawing objections.
On pages 10-11 regarding claim and specification objections Applicant argues amendments overcome the objections of record.
The Examiner respectfully agrees and withdraws claim and specification objections.
On page 11 regarding 112 rejections Applicant argues the scope of the claim is clear, since the application describes a main spring can be made of three leaf springs (one proximal, one medial, and one distal). Applicant argues the person of ordinary skill would understand how each of the proximal, medial, and distal springs can be composed of more than one spring as well, and states the Examiner’s understanding that 100 proximal springs and 1,000,000 medial springs would not be what the person of ordinary skill understands the invention to cover.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that it isn’t clear to a person of ordinary skill how a single spring comprises three springs, and it is further more unclear how each of those three springs could also be formed of, for example, three springs. A single element (e.g. a spring) is not understood logically to be made of multiples of itself. Similarly, there is no discussion in the specification, nor limit in the claims, to understand how many springs can make up each of the proximal, medial, and distal springs. The phrase is both unclear, and appears to have a scope much broader than perhaps is intended. This rejection is accordingly maintained.
On pages 12-19, Applicant summarizes the prior art and the rejection of record.
On pages 19-20 Applicant argues the Examiner’s suggestion to modify proximal/medial springs being in a biconcave shape to form an elliptical free space would change the principle of operation of Christensen. Applicant argues that adding a spring below the forefoot spring 42e of Christensen as the Examiner suggests would “disrupt the spring’s ability to contact the ground and bending the spring in the complete opposite direction would, at a minimum, change the principles of operation of the spring and/or render the spring unsatisfactory for its intended purpose”. Applicant concludes a person of ordinary skill would not add a spring between springs 42e and 54e of Christensen, and would not change the shape of spring 42e.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that changing the shape of the free space would change the principle of operation of Christensen, since the foot would still operate with the springs absorbing and releasing energy when deflected. Additionally this change is not understood to render the foot unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (being a prosthetic foot) since it can still be a foot with the shape change.
On pages 20-21 Applicant argues rearranging the springs of Christensen would also “disrupt the ability of at least one of the forefoot stop 82 and the tab 74 of the heel spring 54 to contact the forefoot spring 42e” which either renders Christensen unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or changes the principle of operation of Christensen.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting the forefoot stop 82 and tab 74 are still contacting the main spring even with a change in shape, making this argument unclear. The Combination would still function as a foot, meaning it is still satisfactory for its intended purpose, and the spring elements would still function to absorb and release energy upon deflection, which is its principle of operation.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-2 are objected to for claiming the main spring comprises “at least one proximal spring and at least one medial spring”, and (clm 2) “at least one distal spring” when the specification fails to make it clear how there are multiple proximal springs, multiple distal springs, and multiple medial springs. Notably, the scope of the claim would include the use of, for example, 4 proximal springs, 62 distal springs, and 15 medial springs; or 100 proximal springs, 3 distal springs, and 1,000,000 medial springs. The disclosure of the invention does not appear to be commensurate in scope of the language of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (US 20110320012 A1) hereinafter known as Christensen in view of Mosler et al. (US 6099572 A ) hereinafter known as Mosler, further in view of Christensen et al. (US 20090265019 A1) hereinafter known as Christensen ‘019.
Regarding claims 1-2 Christensen discloses a prosthetic foot insert (Figure 6a (see Figure 1b on how the foot comprises an “insert”) comprising:
a proximal fastening device (Figure 6a item 18) for securing the foot to a proximal component or a patient ([0024]),
a holder (Figure 6a item 82e) which is arranged distally with respect to the proximal fastening device (Figure 6a), and is connected to the proximal fastening device (Figure 6a), and
a main spring (Figure 1a items 42e/54e) which extends into a forefoot region (Figure 6a item 50) and is coupled to the holder (Figure 6a; coupled via guide element 34e), wherein the main spring comprises a proximal spring (Figure 6a item 42e), wherein the proximal spring is coupled to the holder (Figure 6a shows proximal spring 42e coupled to the holder 82e via guide element 34e);
wherein the holder is mounted on the main spring (Figure 6a shows proximal spring 42e coupled to the holder 82e via guide element 34e) so as to be tiltable in a sagittal plane (Figures 2a-c show how the holder tilts relative to the main spring via the guide element. See also [0029]-[0031]),
and the main spring further comprises a distal spring (clm 2) (Figure 6a item 54e),
wherein a posterior limiting element is arranged between the main spring and holder (Figure 6a item 132) which limits a displacement of the holder away from the main spring ([0042]; a cable is understood to limit displacement between the elements),
but is silent with regards to the main spring being comprised of a proximal, distal, and medial spring, the medial and proximal springs being arranged relative to one another in a biconcave shape to form an elliptical free space therebetween in an unloaded state.
However, regarding claims 1-2 Mosler teaches a prosthetic foot insert which includes a main spring (Figure 3 items 3/9/10/2’ together) comprising proximal (Figure 3 item 9), medial (Figure 3 item 10), and distal (Figure 3 item 2’). While Mosler teaches the springs follow the same shape/path (Figure 3), Christensen ‘019 teaches that proximal (Figure 2 item 60) and medial (Figure 2 item 40) leaf springs can equally be arranged relative to one another in a biconcave shape to form an elliptical space therebetween in an unloaded state (Figure 2 items 40/60 in dashed lines ([0027])). Christensen, Mosler and Christensen ‘019 are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic feet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the insert of Christensen to have a main spring include both a proximal/medial spring as is taught by Mosler in order to increase structural strength of the foot insert (Mosler Abstract). It would have further been obvious to have the proximal/medial springs being shaped in a biconcave shape as is taught by Christensen ‘019 since the courts have held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(E). In this case, since Christensen ‘019 teaches the equivalence of the two shapes, it would have been obvious to try.
Regarding claim 3 the Christensen Mosler Christensen ‘019 Combination teaches the insert of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Mosler (and Christensen ‘019) further teach the proximal and distal spring are secured to each other at points spaced from one another to form a free space (see Mosler Figure 3 where springs 8/9 are secured at A and A’; see Christensen ‘019 Figure 2 where springs 60/40 are secured at 68/70; each form the free space).
Regarding claim 5 the Christensen Mosler Christensen ‘019 Combination teaches the insert of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Christensen further discloses a guide element fastened to the main spring in an anterior or posterior region (Figure 6a item 34e),
and wherein the holder is tiltable via the guide element (Figures 2a-c show how the holder tilts relative to the main spring via the guide element. See also [0029]-[0031]),
wherein if the guide element is fastened to the main spring in the anterior region, the guide element extends in the posterior region, and if the guide element is fastened to the main spring in the posterior region, the guide element extends in the anterior region (Figure 6a).
Regarding claim 6 the Christensen Mosler Christensen ‘019 Combination teaches the insert of claim 5 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Christensen further discloses an anterior limiting element is arranged between the guide element and holder/main spring (Figure 6a item 136),
and wherein the anterior limiting element is capable of limiting a displacement of an anterior end of the holder or displacement of the main spring away from the guide element in the case of a heel load (Figure 6a; as the holder 82e displaces downwardly, the anterior limiting element 136 will inherently limit its displacement to a specific distance above the spring 42e.).
Regarding claim 8 the Christensen Mosler Christensen ‘019 Combination teaches the insert of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Christensen further discloses the posterior limiting element is tensionably rigid and flexible ([0042] a cable is understood to be tensionally rigid, yet flexible).
Regarding claim 10 the Christensen Mosler Christensen ‘019 Combination teaches the insert of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Christensen further discloses the holder is mounted on the main spring via a spring tongue, hinge, or spacer element (Figure 6a item 34e).
Regarding claim 11 the Christensen Mosler Christensen ‘019 Combination teaches the insert of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Christensen further discloses the holder is capable of introducing forces into the main spring via an anterior force introduction region anterior to the proximal fastening device (see Figure 6a where the holder 82e connects to the main (proximal) spring 82e via the guide element 34e anterior to the proximal fastening device 18) and a posterior force introduction region posterior to the proximal fastening device (see Figure 6a where the holder 82e connects to the main (proximal) spring 82e via the guide element 34e posterior to the proximal fastening device 18).
Regarding claim 12 the Christensen Mosler Christensen ‘019 Combination teaches the insert of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Christensen further discloses at least one of the force introduction regions is mounted displaceably/exchangeably on the holder/main spring (Figure 6a shows how the elements of the foot are connected via item 132. If disconnected, these elements (and any “regions” located thereon or nearby could be “exchanged” or “displaced”)).
Regarding claim 13 the Christensen Mosler Christensen ‘019 Combination teaches the insert of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Christensen further discloses at least one damper device is arranged between the holder and main spring (100, 136).
Regarding claim 15 the Christensen Mosler Christensen ‘019 Combination teaches the insert of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Christensen further discloses in an unloaded state, the main spring is elastically pretensioned with respect to a guide element by the posterior limiting element (Figure 6a shows the posterior limiting element 132 which tensions the guide element 34e and main spring 42e together in the center).
Regarding claim 21 the Christensen Mosler Christensen ‘019 Combination teaches the foot insert of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein the Combination further teaches a free space is defined in a posterior region of the insert between an underside of the medial spring and a top of the distal spring (Christensen shows a free space Figure 6a item 104 between the underside of the proximal spring 42e and top of distal spring 54e. This free space would be considered to be located between the underside of the medial spring as well, in the Combination which teaches the addition of a similarly-shaped medial spring by Mosler Figure 3 item 10).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights