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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (2012/0191017) in view of Petrofsky (6113642).
In regard to claim 1, Huang teaches a method for controlling an artificial knee joint [0094-0095], the method comprising:
a control unit 102 (stumble detection system, see fig 4) and which is connected to at least one sensor (acceleration sensor 114; fig 4, claim 1; abstract), stumble detection being carried out using sensor data from the at least one sensor [0007; fig 4]
the adjustment being carried out using sensor data from the at least one sensor [0007: acceleration sensor; fig 4; stumble detection];
capturing using the at least one sensor 114 during a swing phase (records during the full gait cycle, which includes swing phase, see figs 2-3b for example) , at least one characteristic comprising a knee angle, a knee angle velocity, a knee angle acceleration, a below-knee angle, a below-knee velocity, a below-knee acceleration [0060: foot deceleration during tripping; fig 3A, see minimum of acceleration reached just before CT or the stumble where the profile changes indicate a fall, the graph shoes the data is captured; further see claim 1; 0007: acceleration sensor], an ankle moment, or an axial load
and recording values of the at least one characteristic (foot acceleration) in the control unit (see fig 4, data is input to the control unit 102 and a decision is made so the value is necessarily recorded at least for a short period of time to make the decision), wherein the control unit has an expected profile (interpreted based on the instant disclosure as walking gait) of the at least one characteristic that represents usual values (interpreted based on the instant disclosure as walking gait) of the at least on characteristic throughout the swing phase (fig 1, 2, 7-8, the graphs are a curve through time of speed or acceleration; the expected profile is the smooth portion without spikes and since the results are graphed it is obvious to one of ordinary skill they are recorded in some manner using the controller);
identifying a stumble condition, using the control unit, if after the recorded values (see graphs, fig 1-3B) of the at least one characteristic (foot acceleration) reach a local maximum (see local max at 10ms in figure 2A), the recorded values of the at least one characteristic (acceleration) decrease and subsequently increase such that the recorded values of the at least one characteristic deviate from the expected profile of the at least one characteristic when the recorded values of the at least one characteristic subsequently increase (see spike decrease and then increase at CT at approximately 22ms in figure 2A; [0060; 0077-0079]);
Or if after the recorded values of the at least one characteristic reach a local minimum (minimum foot deceleration) the recorded values of the at least one characteristic increase and subsequently decrease such that the recorded values of the at least one characteristic deviate from the expected profile of the at least one characteristic when the recorded values of the at least one characteristic subsequently decrease (see figure 3A; acceleration has a local minimum at approximately 12ms, and then has an increase and decrease deviating from an expected profile around CT at approximately 22-24ms; [0077-0079; 0060]).
While Huang teaches the control scheme is designed for use with a prosthetic knee joint [0094-0095], Huang remains silent to the details of the knee joint, adjustment device or remedy after a stumble is detected.
Petrofsky teaches providing an upper part 6 and a lower part 5 which are pivotally connected to each other about a pivot axis (see pivot, fig 1),
a resistance unit 20 which is arranged between the upper part and the lower part (fig 5) and which has an adjustment device (valve 32) to vary the damping resistance (abstract) (safety recovery routine, fig 24B, high resistance Col 4, lines 60-65; col 5, lines 10-15) and coupled to a control unit (figure 15) the adjustment being carried out using data from the control unit (see arrows, fig 15, 24B, safety recovery routine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Petrofsky’s knee joint and stumble response (response after stumble is detected) with the invention of Huang because the knee joint is able to provide different resistance for different activities and walking speeds (Col 2, lines 41-48) and because using high resistance in response to a stumble gives the user time to recover and prevent a fall (Col 4, lines 58-63).
In regard to claim 11, Huang teaches a method for controlling an artificial knee joint, the method comprising:
the control unit 102 (stumble detection system) and at least one sensor (acceleration sensor 114; fig 4, claim 1, abstract); stumble detection being carried out suing sensor data from the at least one sensor [0007: acceleration sensor; fig 4]
capturing, using the at least one sensor, during a swing phase, at least one characteristic (foot deceleration) from at least one of a knee angle, a knee angle velocity, a knee angle acceleration, a below-knee angle, a below-knee velocity, a below-knee acceleration, an ankle moment, and an axial load; (foot is below knee); [0060: foot deceleration during tripping; fig 3A, see minimum of acceleration reached just before CT or the stumble where the profile changes indicate a fall, the graph shoes the data is captured; further see claim 1; 0007: acceleration sensor],
and recording values of the at least one characteristic (foot acceleration) in the control unit (see fig 4, data is input to the control unit 102 and a decision is made so the value is necessarily recorded at least for a short period of time to make the decision), wherein the control unit has an expected profile (interpreted based on the instant disclosure as walking gait) of the at least one characteristic that represents usual values (interpreted based on the instant disclosure as walking gait) of the at least on characteristic throughout the swing phase (fig 1, 2, 7-8, the graphs are a curve through time of speed or acceleration; the expected profile is the smooth portion without spikes and since the results are graphed it is obvious to one of ordinary skill they are recorded in some manner using the controller);
identifying a stumble condition, using the control unit, if after the recorded values (see graphs, fig 1-3B) of the at least one characteristic (foot acceleration) reach a local maximum (see local max at 10ms in figure 2A), the recorded values of the at least one characteristic (acceleration) decrease and subsequently increase such that the recorded values of the at least one characteristic deviate from the expected profile of the at least one characteristic when the recorded values of the at least one characteristic subsequently increase (see spike decrease and then increase at CT at approximately 22ms in figure 2A; [0060; 0077-0079]);
Or if after the recorded values of the at least one characteristic reach a local minimum (minimum foot deceleration) the recorded values of the at least one characteristic increase and subsequently decrease such that the recorded values of the at least one characteristic deviate from the expected profile of the at least one characteristic when the recorded values of the at least one characteristic subsequently decrease (see figure 3A; acceleration has a local minimum at approximately 12ms, and then has an increase and decrease deviating from an expected profile around CT at approximately 22-24ms; [0077-0079; 0060]).
Petrofsky teaches providing an upper part 6 and a lower part 5, a damping device (20 and surrounding hydraulic device 26), and an adjustment device (210, 32 valve) couple to a control unit 102 (stumble detection system) (fig 15), the upper 6 and lower parts 5 being pivotally connected to each other (see pivot, fig 1);
the resistance unit (interpreted as best understood to be the damping device) 20,26 having an adjustment device (valve 210, 32) to vary the damping resistance (abstract) in response to a stumble. (safety recovery routine, fig 24B; high resistance Col 4, lines 60-65; Col 5, lines 10-15)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Petrofky’s knee joint and stumble response (response after a stumble is detected) with the invention of Huang because the knee joint is able to provide different resistance for different activities and walking speeds (Col 2, lines 41-48) and because using high resistance in response to a stumble gives the user time to recover and prevent a fall (Col 4, lines 58-63).
In regard to claims 2-3 and 12-13, Huang meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, but does not teach the damping resistance as claimed.
Petrofsky further teaches the damping resistance is increased to a level of the stance phase damping or therebeyond. (Col 4, lines 60-63: high resistance during stumble recovery; Col 3, line 60-Col 4, line 5: stance phase, high resistance at heel strike; since both resistances are classified as high resistance they are at least equal)
In regard to claims 4 and 14, Huang meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and further teaches wherein a maximum is used as an extremum for the below-knee angle, the below-knee velocity, the below-knee acceleration, the knee angle, the knee angle velocity or the knee angle acceleration [see fig 2A-B; 3A; spike in acceleration before fall; 0055].
In regard to claims 6 and 16, Huang meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and further teaches a threshold is set for the characteristics and the threshold has to be exceeded so that the damping resistance is varied [0076].
Huang remains silent to the remedy for a stumble.
Petrofsky further teaches when a stumble is detected the damping resistance is varied (Col 4, lines 55-65 high resistance imposed).
In regard to claims 8 and 18, Huang meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and further teaches the extrema of the characteristics (maximum or minimum) are ascertained in real time. [0023: active stumble recovery; 0024: fast time response; 0026: required time response must be fast enough; fig 1-3B]
In regard to claims 9 and 19, Huang meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and further teaches variations of the damping resistance are registered and stored (see graphs fig 1-3B; graphing is registering the values).
However, Huang remains silent to how the graphs and data are stored.
Petrofsky further teaches storing graphs and data in a memory (Col 18, lines 47-57; within 200)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the memory of Petrofsky in the device of Huang in order to store the data and stumble recovery program as claimed for use (Col 18, lines 55-58)
In regard to claims 10 and 20, Huang meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and further teaches changes in the monotonic behavior that occur during the course of an unimpeded swing phase are not taken into account [0071: uses absolute magnitude of foot acceleration; 0076: thresholds; detection boundaries; fig 2A-2B; 3A-B; see spike when a fall occurs which is a deviation from normal)
Claims 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (2012/0191017) in view of Petrofsky (6113642) and further in view of Seyr (2012/0215323A1).
In regard to claims 5 and 15, Huang meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, but does not teach adjusting the resistance as claimed.
Seyr teaches the damping resistance in the swing phase is lowered to a level below a swing phase resistance [0015: resistance goes towards zero, it cannot be any lower than zero therefore must be lower than swing phase resistance] if an ankle moment or an axial force are zero or have dropped below a threshold [0016: ground reaction force below the fixed threshold value] and at least one of the knee angle [0015: knee angle greater than 80 degrees], the knee angle velocity, or the knee angle acceleration [knee angle acceleration is the second derivative of the knee angle, therefore knee angle and knee angle acceleration are functional equivalents] changes in the monotonic behavior after reaching the extremum (maximum or minimum) (when sitting depending on the height of the chair, 80 degrees+ will be the maximum], the knee angle acceleration relating to rotational acceleration of the lower part relative to the upper part about a knee axis of rotation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention to use the sitting mode of Seyr in the invention of Huang in view of Petrofsky in order to allow the user to be more easily maneuvered for sitting [0015].
Claims 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (2012/0191017) in view of Petrofsky (6113642) and further in view of Palmer (2011/0202144).
In regard to claims 7 and 17, Huang meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, but does not teach setting a time threshold to be exceeded for the damping resistance to be varied.
Palmer teaches setting a time threshold (minimum fire [0068]) that needs to be exceeded after reaching the extremum (maximum or minimum acceleration) in order for the damping resistance to be varied (after reaching a trigger to change states [0068; when combined with Huang, the change of states would be the stumble recovery after the extremum is reached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the time delay of Palmer with the stumble recover strategy of Huang to ensure stumble recovery is not inadvertently triggered when the states of gait are transitioning by allowing the sensor values to settle [0068].
Response to Arguments
In regard to the 101 rejection of claims 1 and 11, the amendments have overcome the rejection.
In regard to the 112b rejection of claims 1 and 11, the 112b rejection has been overcome by the amendments.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16 and 18-20 as unpatentable over Huang (2012/0191017) in view of Petrofsky (6113642), the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are all directed toward new claim limitations which have been addressed above.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claims 5 and 15 as unpatentable over Huang (2012/0191017) in view of Petrofsky (6113642) and further in view of Seyr (2012/0215323A1), no further arguments have been presented.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claims 7 and 17 as unpatentable over Huang (2012/0191017) in view of Petrofsky (6113642) and further in view of Palmer (2011/0202144) no further arguments have been presented.
Please note, similar claim rejections were already upheld by the board of appeals in the parent case. As previously discussed, the examiner suggests adding additional subject matter to the claims that was not already reviewed by the board rather than rewording the similar limitations.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached on 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 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