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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/04/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 Applicant argues amendments overcome the 112 rejections of record.
The Examiner respectfully agrees and withdraws 112 rejections.
On page 8 regarding prior art rejections, Applicant argues Swift only discloses knocking or tapping on an exoskeleton, but does not discuss the specific tapping of a posterior portion of a heel of the device against a stair riser. Applicant argues further that Swift does not disclose that the tapping will change to a specific activity, but only indicates that a change is coming.
The Examiner respectfully points out no requirement in the claim language that requires tapping to indicate a specific activity is coming, only that the tapping indicates switching from one activity to another. This argument is accordingly unpersuasive.
On page 8 Applicant argues further argues that the exoskeleton of Swift does not extend down to the foot portion, but stops at a location above the ankle, meaning it isn’t clear how the posterior portion of a heel could be tapped in the exoskeleton of Swift.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting Swift explicitly mentions that an input method includes tapping the foot ([0026]), and also explicitly mentions that the inventive concept extends to worn devices that include footwear ([0027]).
On page 10 Applicant repeats above arguments with respect to claim 5.
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) 1, 3-7, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift et al. (US 20190060156 A1), hereinafter known as Swift in view of Goldfarb et al. (US 20160242936 A1) hereinafter known as Goldfarb.
Regarding claim 1 Swift discloses a method for detecting a user’s intent ([0019]) in an adaptive lower limb device (Figure 1; [0028]), the method comprising:
a device control unit ([0041]; Figure 5 item 100: the control unit is understood to include all the structures necessary to perform the method discussed throughout Swift) which includes an accelerometer ([0042]),
measuring acceleration via the accelerometer ([0091]), and
determining whether the measured acceleration corresponds to a tapping movement initiated by the user with the intent to switch from a first to a second of the activity ([0091], [0048] the accelerometer determines whether or not the different activity states are reached based on whether or not the user taps); and
if the measured acceleration corresponds to the tapping movement, switching the control unit from the first to the second activity controller ([0091]-[0092]),
wherein the tapping movement is tapping the foot ([0026] the tapping can be of a foot; [0091] the exterior of the exoskeleton can be tapped.),
but is silent with regards to the control unit including a plurality of activity controllers which the user can switch between,
and the tapping being of a posterior portion of the heel of the foot of the device against a stair riser.
However, regarding claim 1 Goldfarb teaches a method of operating a lower limb device which includes a plurality of activity controllers that the user can switch between ([0026], [0064], [0069]). Swift and Goldfarb are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely lower limb prosthetic control methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Swift so that the control unit included multiple activity controllers as is taught by Goldfarb in order to speed up the processing/thinking time the method will require to provide the needed power/torque for each different activity mode, thus speeding up the device and method in general, resulting in a more life-like response time from the prosthetic.
Additionally, Swift further discloses the adaptive lower limb device can be a prosthetic ([0046]), and Goldfarb further teaches that lower limb prosthetic devices can have a device foot (Abstract). It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prosthetic lower limb device of Swift so it includes a foot as is taught by Goldfarb (and so the tapping movement being on an exterior of the device foot) to help assist an amputee who is missing a leg.
Further, regarding claim 1, while Swift is silent with regards to the specific part of the foot that is tapped, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method of the Swift Goldfarb Combination so that the tapping occurs on any part of the device foot (including a posterior portion of the heel of the device) and against any object (including a stair riser) the user is next to, depending on what is convenient and nearby. 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, since Swift indicates the foot can be tapped, any identifiable part of a foot would be understood to be successfully tapped by the person of ordinary skill, against any nearby object.
Considering a person switching between walking and going down stairs, for example (Swift [0020], [0091]-[0093]) would find themselves at the top of a flight of stairs with the desire to descend, the person of ordinary skill understands the obviousness in utilizing the part of their body or prosthetic device that is closest to any nearby object (e.g. closest to the stair they are about to descend). The prosthetic’s heel is considered to be one such convenient structure, and the stair riser directly in front of the user as they are about to descend, is likewise considered to be a convenient structure. A person of ordinary skill understands that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B). In this case, the substitution of any body or prosthetic part to do the tapping, and tapping against any nearby objection, would have been found to be obvious by the person of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 3 the Swift Goldfarb Combination teaches the method of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Swift further discloses the first activity is walking ([0020], [0092]-[0093]) and the second activity is a stair descent ([0020], [0091]-[0093]),
wherein tapping the foot against something switches the control unit from the walking to the stair descent controller ([0091]-[0093]). Please see the obviousness rejection in the rejection to claim 2 above regarding the foot area being the posterior heel and the object being a stair riser, and the obviousness rejection in the rejection to claim 1 above regarding the obviousness of each activity being controlled by its own controller as is taught by Goldfarb.
Regarding claim 4 the Swift Goldfarb Combination teaches the method of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Swift further discloses the tapping movement is a single-tap movement or a plurality of tapping movements ([0091]).
Regarding claim 5 the Swift Goldfarb Combination teaches the method of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the tapping being of an anterior portion of the toe of the device against a stair riser (instead of tapping the posterior portion of the heel).
However, regarding claim 5, while Swift is silent with regards to the specific part of the foot that is tapped, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method of the Swift Goldfarb Combination so that the tapping occurs on any part of the device foot (including an anterior portion of the toe of the device) and against any object (including a stair riser) the user is next to, depending on what is convenient and nearby. 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, since Swift indicates the foot can be tapped, any identifiable part of a foot would be understood to be successfully tapped by the person of ordinary skill, against any nearby object.
Considering a person switching between walking and going up stairs, for example (Swift [0020], [0091]-[0093]) would find themselves at the bottom of a flight of stairs with the desire to ascend, the person of ordinary skill understands the obviousness in utilizing the part of their body or prosthetic device that is closest to any nearby object (e.g. closest to the stair they are about to ascend). The prosthetic’s toe is considered to be one such convenient structure, and the stair riser directly in front of the user as they are about to ascend, is likewise considered to be a convenient structure. A person of ordinary skill understands that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B). In this case, the substitution of any body or prosthetic part to do the tapping, and tapping against any nearby objection, would have been found to be obvious by the person of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 6 the Swift Goldfarb Combination teaches the method of claim 5 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Swift further discloses the first activity controller is walking ([0020], [0092]-[0093]) and the second activity is a stair ascent ([0020], [0091]-[0093]),
wherein tapping the anterior portion of the toe against the stair riser switches the control unit from the walking to the stair ascent (([0091]-[0093]). Please see the obviousness rejection in the rejection to claim 1 above regarding the foot area of the device being the anterior toe and the object being a stair riser, as well as each activity being controlled by its own controller (and accordingly switched thereto along with the activity switching) as is taught by Goldfarb.
Regarding claim 7 the Swift Goldfarb Combination teaches the method of claim 5 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Swift further discloses the tapping movement is a single-tap movement or a plurality of tapping movements ([0091]).
Regarding claims 13 and 20 the Swift Goldfarb Combination teaches the method of claim 1/5 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Swift further teaches the device includes a force sensor ([0042])
and wherein Goldfarb teaches a force sensor can be a load cell ([0046]).
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