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 § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 3-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al., US 2012/0259431 A1, which discloses a method for controlling an artificial knee joint of an upper thigh part and a lower shin part (abstract; Figures 5, 8A-8C; paragraphs 0008+, 0078+), the method utilizing sensors, control device, and actuator in order to adjustably achieve, during swing phase, a set knee angle based on a determination that a user is ascending a slope or climbing stairs [Figures 2 (upper left graph), 3B, 4A, 5-7, 8A-8C, 10-11B; paragraphs 0008, 0010, 0023, 0046, 0048 (“computed knee flexion angle… in accordance with terrain slope”), 0054-0056, 0066, 0074 (“position command”), 0078+, 0087] such that a foot part is increasing in height relative to a contralateral foot and relative to said foot part during its immediately preceding stance phase [Figures 10-11B; paragraphs 0023, 0046, 0079 (“instantaneous pose of the bottom of the foot 1008 can be computed, including location of the heel 1012 and toe 1016… to measure the terrain angle…”)]. Anterior and posterior faces of thigh and shin parts are evident from the drawings (Figures 5, 8A-8C, 9) and are inherent in various prosthetic, orthotic, and exoskeletal designs (abstract, last sentence; paragraph 0076), so determining knee angles between respective posterior faces would have been immediately obvious from the geometry in order to provide a consistent procedure for evaluating kinematics (Figures 4A-4B, 5, 9-11B; paragraphs 0015, 0022-0023, 0056, 0078+) and to help protect sensors “against physical abuse and… from water exposure” (paragraph 0079). An increasing foot height difference counter to the direction of gravity effects a reduction in the achievable knee angle [Figure 2; paragraph 0045 (“flexion angle just prior to foot-strike… increases with the slope of ascent”, and thus the achievable knee angle between the respective posterior faces is reduced)].
Regarding the language added to claims 1 and 19-20, a knee extension movement during a stance phase is determined based on a spatial orientation of the lower part, to which is coupled an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 510 for “measurement of angular rate and acceleration for all three axes of the lower leg member 1020” and “a six-degree-of-freedom estimate of the lower leg member 1020 pose, inertial (world frame referenced) orientation and ankle-joint 1000 (center of rotation of the ankle-foot) location” (Figure 5; paragraph 0078). As explained in paragraph 0079, “lower leg member 1020 pose” or spatial orientation “is used to compute the instantaneous location of the knee joint” and “instantaneous pose of the bottom of the foot 1008” to thereby “measure the terrain angle” and also facilitates “the computation of the thigh and torso pose”. Estimated gait speed “is a function of the instantaneous angular rate of the tibia and the femur at the time of entry [into] the late stance state 604” (paragraph 0063; emphasis added). Therefore, knee extension movement during the stance phase is determined based on the spatial orientation or pose of the lower shin part (or lower leg member), and since terrain angle and gait speed (both obtained from lower leg member kinematics) are used to adjust knee impedance or resistance (paragraphs 0010, 0023, 0048, 0068, 0072), knee extension resistance during the stance phase is based on determined knee extension movements (i.e., extension of the lower shin part relative to the knee joint, as determined from IMU 510).
Regarding claims 3-4, foot height differences over time are determined in part from trajectories of the hip joint and the knee axis and from foot part locations relative to the terrain and hence a vertical foot part path (Figures 4A-4B; paragraphs 0023, 0046, 0079, 0087). Regarding claims 5-6, 14, and 20, foot height differences are determined in part from spatial orientations and time profiles of the upper thigh part and the knee joint (Figures 4A-4B; paragraphs 0023, 0065, 0079, 0087). Regarding claim 7, estimating a foot height difference from the ratio of a trunk or pelvic horizontal movement to spatial orientation of the upper thigh part would have been obvious in order to determine vertical changes via the tangent function of the upper thigh part angle or orientation so as to provide a redundancy and reliability check on terrain angle measurements (Figures 10-11B; paragraphs 0045, 0078-0079). Regarding claims 8 and 11, height differences are determined in part from measured knee angles and hip angles and spatial positions of upper thigh and lower shin parts, additional parameters in the kinematic analysis (Figure 11B; paragraphs 0015, 0023, 0046, 0056, 0065-0067, 0078+, 0087). Regarding claim 9, the achievable knee angle is set via an adjustable mechanical or hydraulic extension stop or a change in the movement resistance against knee extension (Figures 5-7, 8A-8C; paragraphs 0010, 0022, 0056-0061, 0087). Regarding claim 10, the spatial orientation of the lower shin part is used as a parameter for the achievable knee angle (paragraphs 0023, 0065-0067, 0078-0079, 0087). Regarding claim 12, the achievable knee angle is set in the swing phase and maintained until a force application point into the foot part (i.e., heel strike) is reached (paragraphs 0049, 0062, 0087). Regarding claim 13, after reaching a minimum hip angle and a movement reversal, maintaining the lower shin part spatial orientation constant until heel strike would have been obvious in order to achieve and maintain the knee angle as adjusted based on the computed terrain slope and foot height difference (Figure 6; paragraphs 0048-0049, 0062). Regarding claim 15, after reversal of lower shin part movement direction, a flexion resistance in swing phase may be set to a level higher than when walking on level ground (paragraphs 0048-0049, 0062). Regarding claim 16, the maximum achievable knee angle reduced by values within the range of 10° to 25° in comparison to walking on level ground would have been obvious from Figure 2 and paragraph 0045 in order to provide sufficiently biomimetic responses (e.g., abstract) over at least a subset of terrain angles. Regarding claim 17, movement resistance against knee extension movement is reduced continuously in the swing phase (paragraph 0022). Regarding claim 18, foot height difference is used as a parameter for the achievable knee angle (paragraph 0079), and the actuator is activated or deactivated on the basis of this parameter (Figure 7; paragraph 0087). Regarding claims 21-23, the second and third instants or temporal locations represented in Figure 1 demonstrate an approximately constant lower shin part angle during the knee extension portion or interval of the stance phase, with the Han et al. device emulating a natural human gait, as explained in the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 in the Office action of June 25, 2025, and extension resistances can be adjusted almost immediately (Figures 5, 7, 8D-8E; paragraphs 0054-0056, 0072, 0074-0075).
Response to Arguments
Applicant cites Han et al. paragraph 0048, which at the end clearly states that the “instantaneous gait speed [is] inferred from the IMU-computed angular pitch rate of the femur and tibia” (emphasis added), the latter being a parameter of the knee extension movement and the spatial orientation of the lower (shin) part, as discussed in the above grounds of rejection and the cited Han et al. paragraphs, so knee extension resistance adjustments are based on gait speeds and terrain angles and thus indirectly based on knee extension movements and lower part spatial orientations. Specific attention is directed to Figure 5 and paragraphs 0078-0079 of Han et al.
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 (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 David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Melanie Tyson can be reached at telephone number 571-272-9062. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774