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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/25/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-18 are pending and examined below
Response to Arguments
The remarks of 9/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose all of the elements of amended claim 1, specifically the following claim language:
“wherein the control module is configured to control the driving of the flow path controlling member to open the flow path between the plurality of chambers and the driving of the electric motor to stop the electric motor in the passive mode, and
wherein the control module is configured to control the driving of the flow path controlling member to block the flow path between the plurality of chambers and the driving of the electric motor to activate the electric motor in the active mode”
This argument is moot in light of the new 103 rejection below.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 1 – the claim recites “and pivotally rotating the knee joint module”. This is grammatically incorrect. Please correct this to read “and configured to pivotally rotate the knee joint module”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 7-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0168118 (Ono) in view of US 2013/0261766 (Langlois) in view of US 2009/0030530 (Martin) in view of US 2016/0302946 (Iverson)
Regarding claim 1, Ono discloses a hybrid-type knee prosthesis apparatus (Fig. 1, 1) having a multifunctional rotary hydraulic cylinder (Fig. 1, 32, ¶0054, wherein 32 provides hydraulic resistance) which is mounted on the knee portion of a patient with femoral amputation to assist in walking (Fig. 1, wherein 32 is configured for this intended use), comprising:
a knee joint module (Fig. 1, 3) connected to a lower leg prosthesis (Fig. 1, wherein 3 is connected to 1) of the patient with femoral amputation;
a rotary hydraulic cylinder (Fig. 1, 32, ¶0054, wherein 32 provides hydraulic resistance) operatively coupled to the knee joint module (¶0054, wherein 32 is coupled to knee joint mechanism 3) and pivotally rotating the knee joint module by pivot rotation of a rotation shaft (¶0054, wherein 3 rotates about pivot shaft 31);
an electric motor (Fig. 1, 124, ¶0059, wherein 124 can be a DC motor) for providing active power to the rotary hydraulic cylinder (Fig. 1, wherein 124 provides power to 32 via 2);
a control module (Fig. 1, 17) configured to operate the hybrid type knee prosthesis apparatus in any one mode of a passive mode (¶0081, wherein 124 is stopped – corresponding to a passive mode) in which the rotary shaft provided in the rotary hydraulic cylinder is pivotally rotated by a hydraulic pressure formed inside the rotary hydraulic cylinder (¶0054, wherein 32 is rotated by hydraulic pressure) or an active mode in which the rotating shaft is pivotally rotated by the active power (¶0078, wherein 17 controls 124 to power rotation of shaft 31)
wherein the rotary hydraulic cylinder comprises:
a cylinder body formed in a cylindrical shape (Fig. 1, wherein 32 is in a cylindrical shape) and having a space formed to accommodate a fluid therein (¶0082, wherein hydraulic resistance corresponds to having a space formed to accommodate a fluid therein);
the rotation shaft (Fig. 1, 31) passing through the inside of the cylinder body (Fig. 1, wherein 31 passes through body of 32); and
wherein the control module (Fig. 1, 17) selectively operates the knee prosthesis apparatus in any one of the passive mode (¶0081, wherein 17 turns off 124 – corresponding to a passive mode) and active mode by controlling the driving of the electric motor (¶0078, wherein 17 controls rotational power of 124 – corresponding to an active mode)
Ono doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a first pulley and a driving cable.
Langlois discloses a driving cable (Fig. 10, 804’) for operatively connecting a hydraulic transmission unit (Fig. 10, 806, ¶0025, wherein 806 can be a hydraulic transmission system) and an electric motor (Fig. 10, 807) to each other and wherein a first pulley (Fig. 8, 505) to which the driving cable is fastened (Fig. 8, wherein 804 is connected to 805) is formed along the outer peripheral surface of the cylinder body (Fig. 8, wherein 805 is arranged along an outer peripheral surface of 806).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operatively connect the rotary hydraulic cylinder and electric motor Ono with a driving cable, as taught by Langlois, in order to provide smooth power transition and low maintenance costs.
Ono doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a blade or a flow path control member. Langlois doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a blade or a flow path control member.
Martin discloses a flow path control member (see annotated Fig. 18 below) for controlling the movement of fluid between the plurality of chambers (see Fig. 18, wherein the labeled flow path control member is configured for this intended use) and a blade (see annotated Fig. 18 below) extending from the rotation shaft in a radial direction of the cylinder body to partition a space formed inside the cylinder body into a plurality of chambers (see annotated Fig. 18 below – wherein the blades extend from the rotation shaft and partition the cylinder in chambers)
PNG
media_image1.png
972
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotation shaft of Ono in view of Langlois with a flow path control member and a blade, as taught by Martin, in order to selectively apply hydraulic resistance to the rotation of the shaft.
Ono discloses a control unit (Fig. 1, 17) which is configured to control the driving of the electric motor to stop the electric motor in the passive mode (¶0084, wherein 17 stops motor 124 – corresponding to a passive mode) and control the driving of the electric motor to activate the electric motor in the active mode (¶0078, wherein 17 causes 124 to generative a rotational power – corresponding to an active mode) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose controlling the driving of the flow path member to the flow between the plurality of chambers in the passive mode and block the flow path between the plurality of chambers in the active mode. Langlois doesn't explicitly teach or disclose controlling the driving of the flow path member to the flow between the plurality of chambers in the passive mode and block the flow path between the plurality of chambers in the active mode. Martin doesn't explicitly teach or disclose controlling the driving of the flow path member to the flow between the plurality of chambers in the passive mode and block the flow path between the plurality of chambers in the active mode.
Iverson discloses an above knee prosthesis (Fig. 1) comprising: a control member (¶0015, “microprocessor”) configured to control the driving of the flow path member (¶0015, “the hydraulic valves may be controlled by a microprocessor”) to open the flow between the plurality of chambers in the passive mode (¶0024 wherein allowing flow the two chambers corresponds to opening the flow path in the passive mode) and block the flow path between the plurality of chamber in the active mode (¶0024, wherein limiting flow between the two chambers corresponds to blocking the flow path in the active mode)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control unit of Ono in view of Langlois in view of Martin to control the driving of the flow path controlling member to open and the close the flow path in the passive and active mode respectively, as taught by Iverson, in order to reduce the energy used by a patient to walk and make the prosthetic more comfortable (Iverson, ¶0011)
Regarding claim 4, Ono doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a blade or a flow path control member. Langlois doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a blade or a flow path control member.
Martin discloses wherein the blade (see annotated Fig. 18 below) is formed to be in close contact with the inner peripheral surface and the inner surface of the cylinder body (see annotated Fig. 18 provided below) such that the movement of fluid between the plurality of chambers is made only through the flow path control member (see annotated Fig. 18 provided below).
PNG
media_image2.png
531
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary hydraulic cylinder of Ono in view of Langlois with blades in close contact with the inner surface of the cylinder body, as taught by Martin, in order to selectively control movement of the hydraulic fluid to alter the torque profiles of the prosthetic knee
Regarding claim 5, Ono doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a rubber material. Langlois doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a rubber material.
Martin discloses wherein the blade comprises a contact surface that contacts the inner peripheral surface of the cylinder body and the contact surface is formed of rubber (¶0197, wherein the fluid filled damper may be fabricated out of rubber)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the hydraulic damper of Ono in view of Langlois with a rubber material, as taught by Martin, to provide a flexible or semi-flexible component (Martin, ¶0197).
Regarding claim 7, Ono doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a flow path control member. Langlois doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a flow path control member.
Martin discloses a flow path control member (see annotated Fig. 18) comprising: a housing (see annotated Fig. 18) disposed in a space formed inside the cylinder body and formed with a flow path (see annotated Fig. 18) through which the fluid can move and a flow rate control valve (¶0191, hydraulic adjustable valve) formed inside the housing, which is capable of controlling the degree of the movement of fluid moving in a direction from one chamber to the other chamber among the plurality of chambers (¶0191, wherein hydraulic adjustable valve is configured for this intended use)
PNG
media_image3.png
556
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ono in view of Langlois with a housing and a flow rate control valve, as taught by Martin, in order to selectively control the flow of hydraulic fluid.
Regarding claim 8, Ono doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a flow rate control valve. Langlois doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a flow rate control valve.
Martin discloses wherein the flow rate control valve comprises: a first opening (520, Fig. 47) formed in a part of a nozzle insertion space formed inside the housing (Fig. 47, wherein 520 is formed in a separate space within the housing), through which the fluid can move (see Fig. 47, wherein arrows indicate the direction of fluid flow); and an inner nozzle (Fig. 26) inserted into the nozzle insertion space and having a second opening corresponding to the first opening formed on an outer peripheral surface so as to adjust the degree of opening and closing of the first opening according to rotation (Fig. 26, ¶0293, wherein a hole or opening to provide varied resistance of fluid passing through corresponds to adjusting the degree of opening according to rotation), wherein the inner nozzle and the valve motor (¶0189, motor mechanism 135) are connected through a bevel gear (see Fig. 49, wherein bevel gear connects motor to inner nozzle)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic cylinder of Ono in view of Langlois with a flow rate control valve, as taught by Martin, in order to provide varied resistance of fluid passing through (Martin, ¶0293)
Regarding claim 9, Ono doesn’t explicitly teach or discloses a valve motor. Langlois doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a valve motor.
Martin discloses a valve motor (135, Fig. 9) connected to the inner nozzle (521, Fig. 47) to rotate the inner nozzle (Fig. 49, ¶0246 wherein power can be used to rotate inner nozzle)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ono in view of Langlois with a valve motor, as taught by Martin, to electronically adjust the fluid flow through the damper.
Regarding claim 10, Ono doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a bevel gear connection. Langlois doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a bevel gear.
Martin discloses wherein the inner nozzle (521, Fig. 47) and valve motor (¶0189, wherein fluid restriction system 133 may include motor mechanism 135) are connected through a bevel gear (Fig. 49, wherein a bevel gear connects to motor)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the nozzle of Ono in view of Langlois to the bevel gear and motor, as taught by Martin, in order to capture, store or release pressure during appropriate times during the gait cycle (¶0246).
Regarding claim 11, Ono discloses a knee module and a rotation shaft configured for flexion and extension (see rejection of claim 1) doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a first or second flow rate control valve. Langlois doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a first or second flow rate control vale.
Martin discloses wherein the flow rate control valve (Fig. 47) comprises: a first flow rate control valve for controlling the degree of the movement of fluid moving in a direction from a first chamber to a second chamber among the plurality of chambers (see annotated Fig. 47 below); and a second flow rate control valve for controlling the degree of the movement of fluid moving in a direction from the second chamber to the first chamber (see Fig. 47 below)
PNG
media_image4.png
816
751
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the knee joint module of Ono in view of Langlois with first and second flow rate control valves, as taught by Martin, in order to selectively control movement of hydraulic fluid and control the torque profile of the knee prosthesis.
Regarding claim 12, Ono discloses a knee prosthesis apparatus (see rejection of claim 1) a cylinder body (see rejection of claim 1) and a rotation shaft (31, Fig. 1, wherein 31 is configured to be actively rotated – corresponding to an active mode) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a driving cable.
Langlois discloses a driving cable (804, Fig. 10) configured to rotate a rotation shaft (see Fig. 10, wherein 804 rotates 802).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylinder body and rotation shaft of Ono with a driving cable, as taught by Langlois, in order to provide smooth power transition and low maintenance costs.
Ono doesn’t explicitly teach or discloses a flow rate control valve. Langlois doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a flow rate control valve.
Martin discloses wherein when the movement of fluid between the plurality of chambers is blocked by the flow rate control valve (see Fig. 18, ¶0199, wherein the valve system restricts flow), the pivot rotation of the blade is limited (¶0165, wherein shaft is free to without moving the blades)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic cylinder and driving cable of Ono in view of Langlois with a flow rate control valve and blades as, as taught by Martin, in order to actuate the knee prosthesis without hydraulic resistance.
Regarding claim 13, Ono doesn’t explicitly teach or discloses a flow rate control valve. Langlois doesn’t explicitly teach or discloses a flow rate control valve.
Martin discloses wherein when the movement of fluid between the plurality of chambers is allowed by the flow rate control valve (¶0199, wherein the valve restricts flow between the chambers), as the blade is pivotally rotated by the hydraulic pressure (see Fig. 18, wherein blade is configured to rotate in response to increased hydraulic pressure), the rotation shaft is pivotally rotated at the same time to operate the passive mode (see Fig. 18, wherein blade is attached to rotation shaft and therefore rotates with the blade)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary hydraulic cylinder of Ono in view of Langlois with a flow rate control valve, as taught by Martin, to in order to absorb energy during as the knee accepts weight during stance phase.
Regarding claim 14, Ono discloses a control unit (see rejection of claim 1) and a knee joint module (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose that the control unit is configured to control a flow rate control valve based on walking information from sensors. Langlois doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a control unit is configured to control a flow rate control valve based on walking information from sensors
Martin discloses a control module (¶0234, “microprocessor”) which controls the degree of opening of the flow rate control valve by determining a walking environment in real time (¶0228, wherein 172 controls dampening system 18), based on walking information obtained through a sensor (¶0228, sensor system 22) mounted on the hybrid- type knee prosthesis apparatus (¶0228, wherein 172 communicates with sensors system 22)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control module of Ono in view of Langlois with to control the flow rate control valve, as taught by Martin, in order to selectively dampen movement of the prosthesis in coordination with the gait cycle.
Regarding claim 15, Ono doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a check valve. Langlois doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a check valve.
Martin discloses wherein the flow path control member is provided with a check valve (¶0293, “check valve”) for limiting the movement direction of the fluid into one direction inside the housing (¶0293, wherein a check valve limits flow of hydraulic fluid through the orifice).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ono in view of Langlois with a check valve, as taught by Martin, to selectively dampening the movement of the prosthesis.
Regarding claim 16, Ono discloses an electric motor (see rejection of claim 1) and a rotor (124, Fig. 1, ¶0059, wherein a DC motor inherently contains a rotor) but doesn’t explicitly teach or a second pulley.
Langlois discloses a second pulley (805, Fig. 10) to which the driving cable is fastened (Fig. 10, wherein 804 is fastened to 805) is formed along an outer peripheral surface of the rotor (see Fig. 8, wherein 804 is formed along outer peripheral surface of electric motor 807 – which inherently contains a rotor).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor and rotor of Ono with second pulley, as taught by Langlois, in order to provide smooth power transition and low maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 17, Ono discloses an electric motor (see rejection of claim 1) and a rotor (124, Fig. 1, ¶0059, wherein a DC motor inherently contains a rotor) but doesn’t explicitly teach or a second pulley
Langlois discloses wherein a rotor is disposed inside the electric motor (807, Fig. 10, ¶0098 wherein a rotor is inherently part of an electric motor) and a second pulley (805, Fig. 10) to which the driving cable is fastened (Fig. 10, wherein 804 is fastened to 805) is formed along an outer peripheral surface of a driving shaft (802, Fig. 10) connected to the rotor (807, Fig. 10, ¶0098 wherein a rotor is inherently part of an electric motor).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ono with second pulley attached to a drive shaft, as taught by Langlois, in order to provide smooth power transition and low maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 18, Ono discloses a knee prosthesis apparatus (Fig. 1, 10) is configured to be controlled in a passive mode (¶0081, wherein “124 stops or is inhibited from generating an unnecessary rotation power” corresponds to a passive mode), such that the driving of the electric motor is stopped by a brake installed therein (control unit 17, Fig. 1, ¶0081 wherein 17 is configured to stop 124 – corresponding to a brake).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0168118 (Ono) in view of US 2013/0261766 (Langlois) in view of US 2009/0030530 (Martin) in view of US 2016/0302946 (Iverson), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2006/0069449 (Bisbee)
Regarding claim 2, Ono discloses wherein the knee joint module (3, Fig. 1) comprises a fastening portion (21, Fig. 1) coupled to the lower leg prosthesis of the patient with femoral amputation (See Fig. 1, wherein 21 is connecting to prosthesis) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a coupling portion. Langlois doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a coupling portion coupled to both ends of the rotation shaft. Martin doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a coupling portion coupled to both ends of the rotation shaft. Iverson doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a coupling portion coupled to both ends of the rotation shaft.
Bisbee discloses a knee joint module (Fig. 6) comprising a coupling portion (136/138, Fig. 6) coupled to both ends of the rotation shaft (Fig. 6, wherein 136/138 are coupled to either end of 113).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the knee joint module of Ono in view of Langlois in view of Martin in view of Iverson with a coupling portion coupled to both ends of the rotation shaft, as taught by Bisbee, in order to form an outer shell of the knee module and protect the rotating shaft from normal wear and tear.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER whose telephone number is (571)272-8382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774