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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eryilmaz (WO2020022966A2) in view of Day (2019/0125552A1).
In regard to claim 1, Eryilmax teaches a prosthetic foot configured to allow a user to engage in different activity levels (foot is capable of being used for walking, running and transfers), the foot comprising:
a first foot member 10, the first foot member 10 including a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end configured to couple to an adapter 40, wherein the adapter is configured to couple the prosthetic foot to another prosthetic component (standard endoskeletal adapter so capable of connecting to another endoskeletal adapter),
wherein the first foot member 10 includes a proximal section extending from the proximal end to a curved portion, and a distal section extending between the curved portion and the proximal and distal end,
a second foot member 20 below the first foot member 10 when the prosthetic foot is resting on a flat surface, the second foot member 20 including a heel end and a toe end, the heel end defining a heel end of the prosthetic foot and the toe end defining a toe end of the prosthetic foot;
and wherein the proximal portion of the first foot member between the proximal end and the curved portion is bent downward toward the distal end of the first foot member (see proximal tip, fig 1).
However, Eryilmax does not teach the resilient member as claimed.
Day teaches a resilient member (6, 40) located between the first and second foot members (located between two foot members, fig 2; 0089)
The resilient member (6, 40) comprising an upper component 6 and a lower resilient component 40 [0089: 40 is a spring damper system is an elastomeric material]
the resilient member (6, 40) being rearward of a coupling location of the first and second foot members (see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the resilient member of Day between the first and second foot members of Erylimaz because the heel cushion provides improved rollover smoothness, enhanced energy feedback, stability and comfort [0147].
However, in the embodiment of figure 2 of Day, the lower resilient member does not have a cutout and Day remains silent to the upper resilient member material.
In the embodiment of figure 22 of Day the lower resilient member 1018 comprises a cutout portion near a proximal end of the component (fig 22) wherein the cut-out portion is oriented such that a height of the cut-out portion is highest toward the heel end of the prosthetic foot and decreases toward the toe end of the prosthetic foot. (fig 23, cut out portion tapers)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the shape of the resilient member of the embodiment of figure 22 in place of the shape of the resilient member 40 in the embodiment of figure 2 to allow for additional compression and decreased resistance.
Further, Day teaches the other form fit member 5 is made of a compressible, elastic material.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make both form fit members (including 6) out of resilient materials to bring out a soft introduction of force into the foot springs [0093].
Figure 1 of Erylimaz:
PNG
media_image1.png
420
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1A of Jonsson:
PNG
media_image2.png
448
824
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 4, Erylimaz meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach the resilient member.
Day further teaches the resilient member (6, 40) is configured to push the prosthetic foot into plantarflexion and to provide vertical shock absorption upon heel strike. Based on the rear location of (6, 40) in figure 2, the bumpers will push the foot into plantarflexion by increasing the stiffness at heel strike. Since 6, 40 is a heel cushion and shock absorbing [0147; 0159] upon heel strike, vertical shock absorption will be provided at heel strike.
In regard to claim 5, Erylimaz meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 4, but does not teach the resilient member.
Day further teaches wherein the resilient member 6, 40 is configured to push the prosthetic foot into plantarflexion. By its nature of being in the rear of the prosthetic foot, the member will encourage plantarflexion by stiffening dorsiflexion by reducing the amount the leaf spring can flex. (fig 2)
However, the combination of Erylimaz in view of Day remains silent to pushing the prosthetic into plantarflexion of at least 8 degrees.
It has been held that a mere optimization of a result effective variable, requires no more than routine skill in the art. The amount of plantarflexion of the foot effects gait with a greater plantarflexion resulting in a stiffer roll over and a lower plantarflexion resulting in an easier time getting over the toe. Absent a teaching of criticality (new or unexpected results). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the bumper of Phillips in view of Day to push the foot into at least 8 degrees of plantarflexion in order to mimic normal human gait with the prosthetic foot. MPEP 2144.05II
In regard to claim 7, Eryilmax meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and further teaches the first 10 and second members 20 are directly coupled to each other only at the coupling location (distal toe end, coupled by 60, 61 as shown in fig 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eryilmaz (WO2020022966A2) in view of Day (2019/0125552A1) and further in view of Jonsson (2013/0144403A1).
In regard to claim 6, Eryilmaz meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach the first foot member comprises a bend at or near a metatarsal region.
Jonsson further teaches the first foot member comprises a bend (see annotated figure) at or near a metatarsal region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the bend near a metatarsal region of Jonsson in the foot of Erylimaz because this configuration mimics the anatomical toes and promotes a smoother rollover of the foot during ambulation [0024; 0039; 0026]
Claim(s) 15, 17, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eryilmaz (WO2020022966A2) in view of Day (2019/0125552A1).
In regard to claim 15, Eryilmax teaches a prosthetic foot configured to allow a user to engage in different activity levels (the foot is capable of being used in walking, running and transfers), the foot comprising:
a first foot member 10, the first foot member 10 including a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end configured to couple to an adapter 40, wherein the adapter 40 is configured to couple the prosthetic foot to another prosthetic component; (the male pyramid is a standard endoskeletal component and therefore fully capable of connecting to other endoskeletal components)
a second foot member 20 below the first foot member 10 when the prosthetic foot is resting on a flat surface (fig 1), the second foot member 20 including a heel end and a toe end, the heel end defining a heel end of the prosthetic foot and the toe end defining a toe end of the prosthetic foot (fig 1).
However, Erylmax does not teach the resilient member as claimed.
Day teaches a resilient member (6, 40; [0089: 0100: 40 is spring damper system, elastomeric; spring is resilient]) located between the first and second foot members (between 2 foot members, fig 2), the resilient member (6, 40) being rearward of a coupling location (fig 2; coupling location is toward the toe end) of the first and second foot members (since the resilient member of Day is in the rear of the foot, between two foot members, the member will also be located in this location when combined with the foot of Phillips), wherein the resilient member (6, 40) comprises a first component 6 and a second resilient component 40 separated (defined as removed from a whole, separate pieces) from the first resilient component 6 (see figure 2, separate pieces)
an under surface of the first component 6 partially overlapping with and in contact with an upper surface of the second resilient component 40 (see fig 2),
the first and second component (6, 40) shaped to form pivot points to push the prosthetic foot into plantarflexion and to provide vertical shock absorption during heel strike (see fig 2, by stiffening impact at heel strike the foot is pushed into plantarflexion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the resilient members of Day in the foot of Erylmax between the first and second member because the heel cushion provides improved rollover smoothness, enhanced energy feedback, stability and comfort [0147].
However, Erylmax in view of Day remains silent to the material of resilient member (form fit member 6).
Day teaches the other form fit member 5 is made of a compressible, elastic material.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make both form fit members (including 6) out of resilient materials to bring out a soft introduction of force into the foot springs [0093].
In regard to claim 17, Eryilmax meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 15, and further teaches the first foot member 10 is generally C-shaped. (see fig 1)
In regard to claim 40, Erylimaz in view of Day meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 15.
However, in the embodiment of figure 2 of Day, the resilient member does not have a cutout.
In the embodiment of figure 22 of Day the resilient member 1018 comprises a cutout portion near a proximal end of the component (fig 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the shape of the resilient member of the embodiment of figure 22 of Day in place of the shape of the resilient member 40 in the embodiment of figure 2 to allow for additional compression and decreased resistance.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eryilmaz (WO2020022966A2) in view of Jonsson (2013/0144403A1) and in view of Day (2019/0125552A1).
In regard to claim 16, Eryilmax meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 15, but does not teach a toe region of the first foot member is vertically offset from a remainder of a distal section of the first foot member.
Jonsson teaches a toe region of the first foot member 17a is vertically offset from a remainder of a distal section of the first foot member. (vertically offset from 50; fig 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the vertically offset toe configuration of Jonsson in the distal foot of Erylimaz because this configuration mimics the anatomical toes and promotes a smoother rollover of the foot during ambulation [0024; 0039; 0026].
Annotated figure from Day:
PNG
media_image3.png
448
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
In regard to the drawings objection for failing to show the second curvature, the claim amendment overcomes the objection.
In regard to the claim objection of claim 6, the amendments overcome the objection.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7 as unpatentable over Eryilmaz (WO2020022966A2) in view of Jonsson (2013/0144403A1) and in view of Day (2019/012552A1), the applicant’s amendments have been fully considered. The applicant states that the lower resilient portion does not comprise a cut out portion near a proximal end of the lower resilient component. “Near” is defined as “a short distance away”. Further, these arguments are directed towards new claim limitations which have been addressed above.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claims 15, 17 as unpatentable over Eryilmaz (WO2020022966A2) in view of Day (2019/012552A1), the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are directed towards new claim limitations which have been addressed above.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over Eryilmaz (WO2020022966A2) in view of Jonsson (2013/0144403A1) and in view of Day (2019/012552A1), no further arguments have been presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIE BAHENA whose telephone number is (571)270-3206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/CHRISTIE BAHENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774