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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/23/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 regarding drawing objections and 112 rejections Applicant argues amendments overcome the objection and rejection of record.
The Examiner respectfully agrees and withdraws drawing objections and 112 rejections.
On page 6 regarding prior art rejections Applicant argues amendments overcome the rejections of record.
The Examiner respectfully refers to the rejection of record below regarding amended claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to for referring to “the adapter” with improper antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 15-16, 18-19, 22, 25, 27, 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecomte et al. (US 20050267603 A1) hereinafter known as Lecomte in view of Clausen et al. (US 20100004757 A1) hereinafter known as Clausen, further in view of Phillips (US 6811571 B1), further in view of Clausen et al. (US 20060015192 A1) hereinafter known as Clausen ‘192.
Regarding claim 13 Lecomte discloses a prosthetic foot comprising:
a lower elongate foot element extending from a heel or a toe end (Figure 29), the lower foot comprising a generally U-shaped cut-out portion at the toe end (116) that is positioned toward a medial side of a longitudinal axis of the lower foot (Figure 29), the cut-out dividing the toe end into a medial and lateral toe portions (Figure 29),
an elongate upper foot element which extends from a proximal end to a distal end, coupled to the lower foot (Figure 4 item 56),
an adapter (Figures 4, 21-26 item 214),
but is silent with regards to the medial toe being angled towards the U-shaped cut-out, and
a cosmesis cover with the elongate upper foot element and adapter extending above the cosmesis cover.
However, regarding claim 13 Clausen teaches a prosthetic foot with a lower elongate foot element (Figure 13 item 20’) and an elongate upper foot element coupled to the lower foot (Figure 13 item 10’), the upper elongate foot member extending from a proximal end (16’) to a distal end (14’), and
a cosmesis cover comprising a body with an outer surface and an inner surface surrounding an inner cavity (Figure 13 item 300) configured to removably receive the lower foot therein (Figure 13; [0043], [0063]), wherein the body comprises a sole portion and a sidewall extending upward from the sole (see Figure 13 which shows a sole and sides of the cover body),
wherein (an adapter) and at least a portion of the upper foot element extend above the cosmesis cover (Figure 13. The Examiner notes that while the adapter is not shown in figure 13, it is considered to be present, since Clausen teaches foot members include adapters (Figures 1-3 item 30; [0033]) for attaching the foot to an amputee via a socket, and since [0061] indicates the foot of the embodiment of Figure 13 also attaches to an amputee via a socket). Alternatively, since Lecomte already teaches their foot desirably includes an adapter for the same purpose (Lecomte Figure 4 item 214), it would have been obvious for the adapter (which couples to another part of a prosthetic limb for attachment to the user), to likewise be positioned on top of the upper elongate foot member and extend above the cover just as the upper elongate member extends thereabove.),
Lecomte and Clausen 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 foot of Lecomte so that the upper elongate element extends vertically above the cover to an adapter which connects to a socket of a prosthetic limb as is taught by Clausen in order to change the type of amputee that can utilize the foot of Lecomte. Clausen recognizes that feet can be both for amputees with more of their natural leg (e.g. Clausen Figures 1-4, which is similar to Lecomte), as well as for amputees that are missing more of their natural leg and require an upper elongate member to elongate the attachment to the foot (e.g. Clausen Figure 13).
Further, regarding claim 13 Phillips teaches a prosthetic foot with a lower elongate foot element (20) with a U-shaped cutout portion (54a) at a toe region to divide the feet into a medial toe (52a) and a lateral toe portion (which includes toes 52b-c), wherein the medial toe is angled toward the cut-out (Figure 4; Column 6 lines 30-31),
wherein a cosmesis cover (14) comprises a body with an outer surface and inner surface (see Figure 1 which shows an outer and inner surface) and surrounding an inner cavity (40), the inner cavity being configured to removably receive the lower foot therein (Figures 1-2), wherein the cover is monolithic (Column 24 lines 1-19 injection molding then cutting off excess),
wherein the body comprises a sole portion and a sidewall extending upward from the sole (see Figures 1-2 which shows a sole and sides of the cover body),
wherein the cover comprises a toe region with a slot (42) dividing the toe region into a medial (Figure 16 item 166) and lateral toe portion (Figure 16 item 158) and being configured to be disposed in the cut-out of the lower foot when the lower foot is disposed within the cosmesis cover (Figures 2 and 16), wherein the lower foot, when disposed in the cover, the angled medial toe of the lower foot is capable of forcing the medial toe of the cover toward the lateral toe portion of the cover to at least partially close the slot (see Figure 2 along with Column 6 lines 30-31, Column 22 lines 6-14; Column 22 lines 62-66. The rigid prosthetic foot which has a medial toe which is angled inward towards the longitudinal axis of the foot, when inserted into a flexible cosmesis cover which is made to conform to the shape of the foot, and includes an originally V-shaped slot, is understood to be capable of being forced to conform to the medial toe which would in effect, at least partially close the slot in the cover. Alternatively, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found this obvious based on the above recited disclosures along with the Abstract, who teaches the desirability to utilize the prosthesis with a thong sandal and would require slight pressure thereupon to keep it in place). Lecomte and Phillips 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 foot of the Lecomte Clausen Combination so that it’s cover included a slot to fit the slotted foot of the prosthesis as is taught by Phillips in order to utilize the prosthesis with a thong sandal and would require slight pressure thereupon to keep it in place, and allowing the cover to look more like a natural foot. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have the cover be monolithic as is taught by Phillips, since monolithic manufacture is a routine and common manufacture method that is cost-effective, simple, and known in the art.
Further, regarding claim 13 Clausen ‘192 teaches a cosmesis cover which has an inner surface of an inner sole portion, so only the inner surface of the sole portion comprises a plurality of downwardly extending dimples or perforations spaced apart from one another (Figure 2b shows how the inner sole portion only has dimples/perforations near metatarsal region 240 and the perforations extending across a width). Lecomte and Clausen ‘192 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 foot of the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Combination by having the cosmesis have an area with channels and dimples/perforations such as is taught by Clausen ‘192 in order to allow the prosthetic foot the flexibility and resiliency it needs to achieve proper rollover and conserve the greatest amount of energy during ambulation (e.g. the energy achieved from foot rollover is conserved within the foot as opposed to being used for bending a stiff cosmetic cover).
Regarding claim 15 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Phillips further teaches the lateral toe portion of the cosmesis cover defines a plurality of toes disposed adjacent each other without intervening slots therebetween (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 16 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Clausen ‘192 further teaches the body of the cover includes a region of increased flexibility at a transition between a forefoot region and a toe region (Figures 2a-3 show the body having (Figures 2a-b).
Regarding claim 18 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 16 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Clausen ‘192 further teaches the region of increased flexibility is thinner or made of a different material than the remainder of the body (see Figures 2b-3 the area of flexibility includes cutouts which is less thick than the remainder of the cosmesis).
Regarding claim 19 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 16 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Clausen ‘192 further teaches the region of increased flexibility is located at a metatarsal joint region of the cover (Figures 2a-3).
Regarding claim 22 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Phillips further teaches a forefoot region of the cover is wider than a remainder thereof (Figure 2; Column 21 lines 62-66), and Clausen further teaches the forefoot region is wider than a remainder thereof (Figure 14a).
Regarding claim 25 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
wherein the Combination further teaches the cover comprises a sidewall extending upward to a level below the level of an ankle (Clausen Figure 13; Phillips Figure 1; the Examiner notes that since every natural human foot is different and the height of the ankle is different for every person, it is considered that there is a natural human foot which would extend above that of the cosmesis cover as is required).
Regarding claim 27 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Phillips further teaches the cavity of the body comprises an inner sole portion, and the foot element is configured to be positioned on the inner sole portion with a perimeter of the foot substantially coinciding with a perimeter of the inner sole portion (Figures 1-2; Column 22 lines 6-14).
Regarding claim 33 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Phillips further teaches when the foot element is disposed in the cosmesis cover (Figure 2), a distal end of the medial toe of the foot (52a) is adjacent a distalmost inner surface of the medial toe of the cover (Figure 16 item 166), and a distal end of the lateral toe portion of the foot (52b-c) is adjacent a distalmost inner surface of the lateral toe portion of the cover (Figure 16 item 158) with minimized gaps (see Figure 1 which shows foot element 20 inside the cosmesis cover 14 in a side view where the distalmost region of the foot 46 and toe end 60 is adjacent the toe cover with minimized gaps. The Examiner notes that while the cross-section of Figure 1 doesn’t make it precisely clear which toe (medial or lateral) this cross-section is taken of, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious, in light of the cross-section of Figure 1, to have both toes fit with minimized gaps into the cover in order to approximate what is shown by Figure 1. The Examiner also refers to Column 22 lines 6-14 which states the inner cavity 40 of the cover receives the foot and conforms to the general size and configuration of the lower foot plate, further giving the person of ordinary skill reason to ensure both toes are adjacent the inner surface of the cover at the distalmost ends.).
Regarding claim 34 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Phillips further teaches when the foot is disposed in the cover (Figure 2), the distal end of the medial toe of the foot touches the distalmost inner surface of the medial toe of the cover, and the distal end of the lateral toe of the foot touches the distalmost inner surface of the lateral toe portion of the cover (see Figure 1 which shows foot element 20 inside the cosmesis cover 14 in a side view where the distalmost region of the foot 46 and toe end 60 is touching the distalmost region of the inner cover. The Examiner notes that while the cross-section of Figure 1 doesn’t make it precisely clear which toe (medial or lateral) this cross-section is taken of, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious, in light of the cross-section of Figure 1, to have both toes fit into the cover while touching in order to approximate what is shown by Figure 1. The Examiner also refers to Column 22 lines 6-14 which states the inner cavity 40 of the cover receives the foot and conforms to the general size and configuration of the lower foot plate, further giving the person of ordinary skill reason to ensure both toes are touching the inner surface of the cover at the distalmost ends).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecomte in view of Clausen, Phillips, and Clausen ‘192, as is applied above, further in view of Harris (US 20020013628 A1).
Regarding claim 14 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to a portion of the medial toe of the cover adjacent the slot having a thickness greater than the surrounding areas of the body of the cover.
However, regarding claim 14 Harris teaches a cosmesis cover should have reinforced slots ([0031]). Lecomte and Harris 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 foot of the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination so that the slots of the Combination are reinforced as is taught by Harris in order to ensure the cover does not wear and tear too quickly when used as Lecomte intends, with a sandal (Lecomte Abstract). As regards the reinforcement comprising increased thickness, see at least Phillips Figures 17-19 who teaches that additional reinforcement material increases would increase a total thickness by virtue of its addition.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecomte in view of Clausen, Phillips, and Clausen ‘192, as is applied above, further in view of Agathos et al. (US 20040261155 A1) hereinafter known as Agathos.
Regarding claim 20 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 16 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the body having other regions of increased flexibility at the toe region of the cover.
However, regarding claim 20 Agathos teaches covers for the extremities that include multiple areas of increased flexibility which correspond to bones in the natural extremity (Figure 1). Lecomte (and Clausen, Phillips, Clausen ‘192) and Agathos are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely covers for extremities (see Lecomte [0078]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the foot of the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination so that there are other areas of flexibility within the cover, such as taught by Agathos in order to allow the cover to enable the foot to move and act in a biomimetic manner, which results in a more comfortable prosthesis for the user.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecomte in view of Clausen, Phillips, and Clausen ‘192, as is applied above, further in view of Jonsson et al. (US 20110213471 A1) hereinafter known as Jonsson.
Regarding claim 28 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Lecomte further discloses the foot includes a lengthwise split, where a first portion of the split runs substantially straight in an anterior-posterior direction and a second portion which deviates in a medial direction and extends to a base of the cut-out (see Figure 29 where the slit which intersects the cut-out has both a straight and a bent portion),
but is silent with regards to the second portion being curved as it deviates.
However, regarding claim 28 Jonsson teaches that foot plates having splits can have those splits be curved (e.g. as opposed to the angular deviation shown by Lecomte) (Figure 1b). Lecomte and Jonsson 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 foot of the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination so the split was curved in the medially deviating portion as is taught by Jonsson 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, a curved vs angular split would have both been obvious to try.
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecomte in view of Clausen, Phillips, and Clausen ‘192, as is applied above, further in view of Townsend et al. (US 20070213840 A1) hereinafter known as Townsend.
Regarding claim 29 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Lecomte further discloses the upper elongate foot element (Figure 4 item 56) is coupled to the foot element via fasteners (Figure 4 items 230) inserted through one or more attachment holes (Figure 4 items 170),
but is silent with regards to the holes being in the elongate foot element.
However, regarding claim 29 Townsend teaches a prosthetic foot with an upper elongate foot element (Figure 3 item 6) is coupled to an elongate foot element (Figure 3 item 2) via fasteners (Figure 3 item 8; [0065]) inserted through one or more attachment holes in the elongate foot element (Figure 3 and Figure 7 item 9; [0066]). Lecomte and Townsend 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 foot of the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination so the attachment holes are in the foot element as is taught by Townsend 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, having the elements of the foot being attached via fasteners and holes are considered obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to try for connecting various parts of the foot.
Regarding claim 30 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Townsend Combination teaches the foot of claim 29 substantially as is claimed,
wherein the Combination further teaches a widest part of a forefoot portion of the foot is distal to the attachment holes (Clausen Figure 13 shows the relative orientation of the attachment location of the elongate element 20’ and upper elongate element 10’ being located at a midfoot; the forefoot of the Combination is positioned proximal to this location).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecomte in view of Clausen, Phillips, and Clausen ‘192, as is applied above, further in view of Phillips (US 4822363 A), hereinafter known as Phillips ‘363.
Regarding claim 31 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to including a forefoot piece coupled to the bottom surface of a portion of a forefoot portion and toe region of the foot.
However, regarding claim 31 Phillips ‘363 teaches a prosthetic foot element which includes a forefoot piece at the toe end (Figure 7 item 130). Lecomte and Phillips ‘363 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 foot of the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination by having the foot element include a forefoot piece such as is taught by Phillips ‘363 in order to cushion the foot element against force/shock normally experienced during ambulation, which would increase the life expectancy of the prosthetic foot as a whole.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecomte in view of Clausen, Phillips, and Clausen ‘192, as is applied above, further in view of Doddroe et al. (US 20050038525 A1) hereinafter known as Doddroe.
Regarding claim 32 the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination teaches the foot of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the medial toe being longer than the lateral toe.
However, regarding claim 32 Doddroe teaches a prosthetic foot where a medial toe is longer and extends further distally than a lateral toe (Figure 6a). Lecomte and Doddroe 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 foot of the Lecomte Clausen Phillips Clausen ‘192 Combination by having the medial toe extend longer such as is taught by Doddroe since this mimics the natural form of a human foot and would improve the user’s experience in achieving a natural-feeling gait.
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 04/02/26
Prosecution Insights