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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues the combination of Prince in view of Lincoln would render Prince’s device inoperable as the piston would seize whenever the valve is closed. This argument is unpersuasive without evidence on the record such as an affidavit or declaration (see MPEP 716.01).
Claim Status
The claim objection has been overcome.
Claims 13-32 are examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the volumetric equalization element must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a volumetric equalization element in claims 13 and 32.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13 and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Dependent claims 14-31 are likewise rejected.
The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is “a volumetric equalization element whose closure causes energy to be stored by compression of an operating medium within the cylinder chambers” found in amended claims 13 and 32. Neither the specification nor the drawings point to a volumetric equalization element.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “a volumetric equalization element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The element is not discussed in the specification or drawings to clearly convey what the elements’ structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 14-31 are likewise rejected.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Prior Art
Due to the 112 rejections above no prior art can be applied since the Examiner is unclear on what the volumetric equalization element is (see above rejections).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13-20, 25-27 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prince (US 2020/0237531 A1) in view of Brun (US 2017/0261448 A1) and Lincoln (US 2018/0036148 A1).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood Prince teaches
an orthopedic device (100, prosthetic knee, fig. 1A) with an energy storage device (500, hydraulic assembly, fig. 5A-5C) that comprises at least one cylinder (520, cylinder, fig. 5A) in which a first cylinder chamber (524, second chamber, fig. 5A), a second cylinder chamber (522, first chamber, fig. 5A), which is fluidically connected to the first cylinder chamber by at least one fluid line (530, fluid circuit, fig. 5A), and a piston (510, piston, fig. 5A), are located,
wherein the piston is arranged relative to the cylinder such that displacing the piston causes an operating medium to be conveyed through the at least one fluid line from one of the first or second cylinder chamber into the other of the first or second cylinder chamber (¶ [0064]), and
the energy storage device has at least one compensation volume (550, fluid sump, fig. 5A) comprising a volumetric equalization element whose closure causes energy to be stored by compression of the operating medium within the cylinder chambers (as best understood, 556, sump port, fig. 5A), which is fluidically connected to the fluid line via a fluid connection (531, fluid channel, fig. 5A). The phrase “a volumetric equalization element whose closure causes energy to be stored by compression of the operating medium within the cylinder chambers” is a functional recitation (see MPEP 2114.II). The prior art is not required to explicitly disclose the recited function, but merely have the capability of performing [or being manipulated to] the recited function in order to meet the claim requirements. In this case, the sump port is considered to be capable of causing energy to be stored by compression of the operating medium within the cylinder chambers when closed off.
Prince fails to teach a fluid operating medium with a compression modulus of less than 1.5 GPa. However, Brun teaches a hydraulic system with an operating medium having a compression modulus of less than 1.5 GPa. (¶ [0022], silicone oil), which is a fluid (silicone oil). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating medium of Prince to include a fluid with a compression modulus of less than 1.5 GPa as taught by Brun since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143) and it is held within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material based on the basis of suitability for the intended use.
Prince fails to teach a controllable valve wherein no exchange of fluid occurs between the compensation volume and the first or second cylinder chambers when the valve is closed. However, Lincoln discloses prosthetic joint with a hydraulic system for energy storage that includes a first controllable valve (108, valve, fig. 1) configured to open and close the fluid connection (¶ [0064), wherein no exchange of fluid occurs between the compensation volume and the first or second cylinder chamber when the first controllable valve is closed (There is only one line leading into the compensation volume, when the valve is closed no fluid exchange can occur in either direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluid connection of Prince to include a controllable valve as taught by Lincoln in order to allow the energy-harvesting system to have passive impedance control (¶ [0068], Lincoln) and since it is combining prior art element according to known method to yield predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143). For clarity the valve of Lincoln is placed between 592 and 556 in fig. 5A of Prince.
Regarding claims 14-16, Prince fails to teach the operating medium is a compressible fluid, preferably an oil, especially preferably a silicone oil. However, Brun further teaches the operating medium is a compressible fluid, preferably an oil, especially preferably a silicone oil (¶ [0022]). Brun teaches the use of an incompressible fluid, however, by there being a bulk modulus greater than zero, it is understood there is some compression to the fluid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating medium of Prince to include silicone oil as taught by Brun since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143) and it is held within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material based on the basis of suitability for the intended use.
Regarding claim 17, Prince further discloses at least one second controllable valve (540, channel valve, fig. 5A) in the fluid line configured to adjust a flow resistance of the fluid connection (¶ [0064]).
Regarding claim 18, Prince fails to teach the fluid connection is between the first and second controllable valves. However, Lincoln further discloses the controllable valve is on a singular fluid line connecting the compensation volume and the cylinder. The controllable valve would be on the fluid line between the fluid circuit (530, Prince) and the sump port (556, Prince) (see annotated fig. 5B, below). The fluid connection (531, Prince) is between the second valve (540, Prince) and the first valve (108, Lincoln). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the energy storage device of Prince to include the fluid connection is between he first and second controllable valves as taught by Lincoln in order to allow the energy-harvesting system to have passive impedance control (¶ [0068], Lincoln) and since it is combining prior art element according to known method to yield predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
PNG
media_image1.png
303
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Prince fails to teach an additional volume fluidically connected to a chamber of the cylinder. However, Lincoln further discloses at least one additional volume that is fluidically connected to at least one of the first cylinder chamber or the second cylinder chamber (114, reservoir, fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the energy storage device of Prince to include an additional volume fluidically connect to a chamber of the cylinder as taught by Lincoln in order to allow the energy-harvesting system to have passive impedance control (¶ [0068], Lincoln) and since it is combining prior art element according to known method to yield predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 20, Prince fails to teach a third controllable valve. However, Lincoln further discloses a third controllable valve (110, valve fig. 1) configured to open and close the connection between the at least one additional volume and the at least one of the first cylinder chamber or the second cylinder chamber (¶ [0064], fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the energy storage device of Prince to include a third controllable valve as taught by Lincoln in order to allow the energy-harvesting system to have passive impedance control (¶ [0068], Lincoln) and since it is combining prior art element according to known method to yield predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 25, Prince fails to teach an electric control unit to control the valves independently. However, Lincoln further discloses an electric control unit that is configured to control the controllable valves independently of each other (¶ [0064], it would be obvious to control the valves independently in order proportionate adjustments to the flow resistance to match the patient’s gait). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the energy storage device of Prince to include an electric control unit to control the valves independently as taught by Lincoln in order to allow the energy-harvesting system to have passive impedance control (¶ [0068], Lincoln) and since it is combining prior art element according to known method to yield predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 26, Prince further discloses the piston is configured to rotate (116, rotation, fig1A-1B, ¶ [0038]).
Regarding claim 27, Prince further discloses the device is a knee prosthesis or a knee orthosis (100, prosthetic knee, fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 32, as best understood Price discloses
an energy storage device (500, hydraulic assembly, figs. 5A-5C) for an orthopedic device (100, prosthetic knee, fig. 1A), the energy storing device comprising:
at least one cylinder (520, cylinder, fig. 5A),
a first cylinder chamber located in the at least one cylinder (524, second chamber, fig. 5A),
a second cylinder chamber located in the at least one cylinder (522, first chamber, fig. 5A), wherein the second cylinder chamber is fluidically connected to the first cylinder chamber by at least one fluid line (530, fluid circuit, fig. 5A),
a piston located in the at least one cylinder (510, piston, fig. 5A),
at least one compensation volume (550, fluid sump, fig. 5A), which is fluidically connected to the fluid line via a fluid connection (531, fluid channel, fig. 5A), and
at least one compensation volume (550, fluid sump, fig. 5A) comprising a volumetric equalization element whose closure causes energy to be stored by compression of an operating medium within the cylinder chambers (as best understood, 556, sump port, fig. 5A), which is fluidically connected to the fluid line via a fluid connection (531, fluid channel, fig. 5A). The phrase “a volumetric equalization element whose closure causes energy to be stored by compression of the operating medium within the cylinder chambers” is a functional recitation (see MPEP 2114.II). The prior art is not required to explicitly disclose the recited function, but merely have the capability of performing [or being manipulated to] the recited function in order to meet the claim requirements. In this case, the sump port is considered to be capable of causing energy to be stored by compression of the operating medium within the cylinder chambers when closed off.
wherein the piston is arranged relative to the cylinder such that displacing the piston causes the operating medium, which is a fluid (¶ [0064], hydraulic fluid), to be conveyed through the at least one fluid line from one of the first or second cylinder chamber into the other of the first or second cylinder chamber (¶ [0064]).
Prince fails to teach a fluid operating medium with a compression modulus of less than 1.5 GPa. However, Brun teaches a hydraulic system with an operating medium having a compression modulus of less than 1.5 GPa. (¶ [0022], silicone oil), which is a fluid (silicone oil). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating medium of Prince to include a fluid with a compression modulus of less than 1.5 GPa as taught by Brun since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143) and it is held within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material based on the basis of suitability for the intended us.
Prince fails to teach a controllable valve wherein no exchange of fluid occurs between the compensation volume and the first or second cylinder chambers when the valve is closed. However, Lincoln discloses prosthetic joint with a hydraulic system for energy storage that includes a first controllable valve (108, valve, fig. 1) configured to open and close the fluid connection (¶ [0064), wherein no exchange of fluid occurs between the compensation volume and the first or second cylinder chamber when the first controllable valve is closed (There is only one line leading into the compensation volume, when the valve is closed no fluid exchange can occur in either direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluid connection of Prince to include a controllable valve as taught by Lincoln in order to allow the energy-harvesting system to have passive impedance control (¶ [0068], Lincoln) and since it is combining prior art element according to known method to yield predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143). For clarity the valve of Lincoln is placed between 592 and 556 in fig. 5A of Prince.
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prince in view of Brun and Lincoln as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Dean (US 2002/0099450 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Prince in view of Brun and Lincoln fails to teach the energy storage device has multiple additional volumes and multiple third controllable valves configured to open and close the connection of the additional volumes. However, Dean teaches a fluid flow circuit for a leg prosthetic that includes an energy storage device that has multiple additional volumes (14, pressure bladders, fig. 3a) and multiple third controllable valves (32, flow control valves, fig. 3a) configured to open and close the connections of the additional volumes to at least one of the first cylinder chamber or the second cylinder chamber (reasonable to try as the entire circuit is connected to the chambers through fluid lines, it would not make sense for the additional volumes and valves to be unattached to the circuit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Prince, Brun and Lincoln to include the energy storage device has multiple additional volumes and multiple third controllable valves configured to open and close the connection of the additional volumes as taught by Dean in order to manage fluid volume and control pressure (¶ [0050], Dean).
Regarding claim 22, Prince in view of Brun and Lincoln fails to teach the multiple third controllable valves are capable of opening and closing independently of each other. However, Dean further teaches the multiple third controllable valves are capable of opening and closing independently of each other (reasonable to try as the valves either function independently or in unison). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Prince, Brun and Lincoln to include the multiple third controllable valves are capable of opening and closing independently of each other as taught by Dean in order to manage fluid volume and control pressure (¶ [0050], Dean).
Regarding claim 23, Prince in view of Brun and Lincoln fails to teach the multiple additional volumes are fluidically connected to each other in series. However, Dean further discloses the multiple additional volumes are fluidically connected to each other in series (fig. 3a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Prince, Brun and Lincoln to include the multiple additional volumes are fluidically connected to each other in series as taught by Dean in order to manage fluid volume and control pressure (¶ [0050], Dean).
Regarding claim 24, Prince in view of Brun and Lincoln fails to teach the multiple additional volumes are fluidically connected to each other in parallel. However, Dean further discloses the multiple additional volumes are fluidically connected to each other in parallel (fig. 3b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Prince, Brun and Lincoln to include the multiple additional volumes are fluidically connected to each other in parallel as taught by Dean in order to manage fluid volume and control pressure (¶ [0050], Dean).
Claim(s) 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prince in view of Brun and Lincoln as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Brito (Mechanical Analysis of the Prosthetic Knee in Flexion).
Regarding claim 28, Prince in view of Brun and Lincoln fails to teach a spring constant of at most 750 N/mm. However, Brito teaches that tendons in the knee have spring constants between 90 and 120 (page 2694, col 2, lines 1-11), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the mechanics of the prosthesis of Prince, Brun and Lincoln to have a spring constant similar to that range in order to achieve motion similar to that of a natural knee.
Regarding claim 29, Prince in view of Brun and Lincoln fails to teach a spring constant is less than 600 N/mm. However, Brito teaches that tendons in the knee have spring constants between 90 and 120 (page 2694, col 2, lines 1-11), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the mechanics of the prosthesis of Prince, Brun and Lincoln to have a spring constant similar to that range in order to achieve motion similar to that of a natural knee.
Regarding claim 30, Prince in view of Brun and Lincoln fails to teach a spring constant is less than 400 N/mm. However, Brito teaches that tendons in the knee have spring constants between 90 and 120 (page 2694, col 2, lines 1-11), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the mechanics of the prosthesis of Prince, Brun and Lincoln to have a spring constant similar to that range in order to achieve motion similar to that of a natural knee.
Regarding claim 31, Prince in view of Brun and Lincoln fails to teach a spring constant is greater than 100 N/mm. However, Brito teaches that tendons in the knee have spring constants between 90 and 120 (page 2694, col 2, lines 1-11), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the mechanics of the prosthesis of Prince, Brun and Lincoln to have a spring constant similar to that range in order to achieve motion similar to that of a natural knee.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TERESA M DUDDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm 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 at (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.
/T.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights