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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/26/2026 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (2018/0153716A1) in view of Bache (8795385B2) and further in view of Mueller (WO2014/032802A1) and further in view of Hurley (2013/0123940A1).
In regard to claim 1, Martin teaches a transfemoral prosthetic interface [0147] configured to have a circumference for a residual limb of a user, said residual limb having a circumference and a distal end, said transfemoral prosthetic interface comprising:
a socket 100 having a first side vertical supporting member (interpreted under 112f as a strut) 102B and a second side vertical supporting member 102 (interpreted under 112f as a strut),
wherein the first vertical supporting member 102B is adapted to be positioned on the posterior lateral aspect of the circumference of the residual limb [0190: 102b is lateral stabilizing unit] and the second vertical 102 supporting member is adapted to be positioned on the posterior medial aspect of the circumference of the residual limb [0190: medial stabilizing unit; sue to the diagonal swing in figure 1C at least a portion also will be on the posterior medial aspect];
a floating strut 208 between said first side of said socket vertical supporting member and said second side vertical supporting member (between 102 and 102B; see figure 1C) wherein said floating strut 208 does not touch said first side vertical member or said second side of said socket vertical member (figure 1, connected via straps and does not directly touch);
a lacing system (straps connected to 208 in figure 1C) connected to said first side vertical supporting member 102B and said second side vertical supporting member 102 of said socket 100 (Figure 1C) and adapted to hold said floating strut 208 between said first side vertical supporting member 102B and said second side vertical supporting member 102;
and wherein said socket 100, said floating strut 208, and said lacing system (straps) form a circumference and are adapted to support said residual limb around said circumference of said residual limb (figure 1C) without putting pressure on said distal end of said limb by suspending said limb within said socket (If the limb is larger than the socket, than the socket is capable of performing this action. The examiner suggests claiming whatever structural differences cause this phenomenon. Also, see figure 14 for another variation where pressure from the socket is not on the distal end).
While Martin does teach the use of conventional suspension mechanisms with the socket [0220], Martin does not teach the use of a plurality of self-leveling laces or a locking mechanism or receptacle.
Bache teaches said lacing system (24, 40) comprises a plurality (defined as two or more) of self-leveling laces 24 wherein said plurality of self-levelling laces self-level in tightness between the plurality of laces (as shown in figures 1, 3, the laces 24, 40 extend through holes 36 and within 26 and are interconnected; accordingly, the laces will self-level by moving through the hole when tightened or when the limb is placed within to contour to the limb shape and therefore self-level; Col 6, lines 35-45: automatically tighten; straps may be tensioned by a single tensioner; Col 6, lines 50-56: network of straps; remainder of straps may form part of a network adjusted by a single tensioner);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the self-leveling lacing system (and holes) of Bache in place of the strap system of Martin because both fastening systems are equivalent systems that secure a floating strut in place. MPEP 2144.06II and because the self leveling laces allow accommodation for minor volume fluctuations (Col 5, lines 40-43)
Mueller teaches the socket comprises a lock mechanism 30 adapted to move with movement of the residual limb within the socket (figure 3, 30 attached to the liner and limb and therefore will follow any movements of the residual limb, especially before the vacuum is activated), and wherein the lock mechanism 30 comprises a vacuum suspension system (figure 5 description);
wherein the socket comprises a receptacle 23 (fig 11);
Wherein the lock mechanism 30 is connected to the receptacle 23 (fig 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the lock mechanism (suction cup) and receptacle of Mueller in the socket of Martin because this allows for additional suspension and easy of donning (no pin to line up).
Hurley teaches the use of an adjuster mechanism configured to autonomously tighten said socket to a preset tightness (any tightness can be considered a preset tightness under the broadest reasonable interpretation) wherein preset tightness is correlated via a number of steps [0188: change its pressure profile to match the user’s preferences for activities such as sitting or running; going from sitting to running is correlated with the user taking no steps to taking steps. Further, from the current claim language it is unclear if steps refers to user’s steps, steps of the dial, steps in the tightening process, etc. In the interest of prosecution, the interpretation of user steps from the instant disclosure was used. However, the ratcheting mechanism of Hurley could also be considered a preset number of steps based on tightness.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the autonomous adjustment mechanism of Hurley in the socket of Martin in view of Bache to adjust automatically as the limb changes through the day for a better fit [0012] and to avoid excess pressures [0124].
It is suggested to explain the steps limitation (number of steps of the user, etc.) with further detail in the claims.
In regard to claim 2, Martin meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach said plurality of self-leveling laces.
Bache further teaches said plurality of self-leveling laces 24 are placed through guides (see holes within 35), wherein said guides (holes) are placed on said first side vertical supporting member and said second side of said vertical supporting member (holes go through the members, therefore on both the first and second sides; see fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the guides and self leveling laces of Bache in place of the strap system of Martin because both fastening systems are equivalent systems that secure a floating strut in place. MPEP 2144.06II and because the self leveling laces allow accommodation for minor volume fluctuations (Col 5, lines 40-43)
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (2018/0153716A1) in view of Bache (8795385B2) and further in view of Mueller (WO2014/032802A1) and further in view of Hurley (2013/0123940A1) and further in view of Bache2 (2018/0221179A1).
In regard to claim 3, Martin meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach said mechanism (interpreted as best understood to refer to the adjuster mechanism).
While Hurley teaches an adjuster mechanism 12, the combination of Martin in view of Hurley remains silent to the type of adjuster mechanism used.
Bache2 teaches said adjuster mechanism (a dial tensioner) comprises a non-backable gear mechanism. (interpreted as a non-backdriveable gear mechanism) [0064: worm gear unit; by nature a worm gear is not backdrivable, see extrinsic evidence Robson].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the worm mechanism of Bache2 in place of the gears in the adjuster mechanism of Martin in view of Hurley because the worm gear is a functionally equivalent rotary tensioning mechanism and it appears a spool or a worm gear would work equally well MPEP 2144.06II.
In regard to claim 4, Martin meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. While Martin in view of Hurley teaches said mechanism, the combination does not teach said mechanism comprises a worm gear (interpreted as best understood to refer to the adjuster mechanism).
Bache2 teaches said adjuster mechanism (a dial tensioner) comprises a worm gear mechanism. [0064]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the worm mechanism of Bache2 in place of the gears in the adjuster mechanism of Martin in view of Hurley because the worm gear is a functionally equivalent rotary tensioning mechanism and it appears a spool or a worm gear would work equally well MPEP 2144.06II.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (2018/0153716A1) in view of Bache (8795385B2) and further in view of Mueller (WO2014/032802A1) and further in view of Hurley (2013/0123940A1) and Laszczak (WO2019/048877A1).
In regard to claim 5, Martin meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach said adjuster.
Hurley further teaches said automatic adjuster mechanism comprises a sensor [0188: sensors joined with the tensioning mechanism], a microprocessor [0188: microprocessor 52 joined with the tensioning mechanism].
While Martin in view of Hurley remains silent to the use of a battery, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a battery must be present to power the motorized system, sensors and microprocessor, and further the combination of Martin in view of Hurley does not teach the adjuster mechanism comprises gears or a motor.
Laszczak teaches said adjuster mechanism comprises gears (linear actuator, contains gears: pg 30, p 1), a motor (claim 16: the means for drawing a cord comprises a motor; pg 12, p. 3), a sensor (21; claim 17: a plurality of sensors), a microprocessor 23 and a battery (pg 49, p 2: charge a battery which is used as a power source for the electronic system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the gears, motor and battery of the automatic adjustment system of Laszczak in the system of Martin in view of Hurley because the motors and gears allow the automatic adjustment system to work as intended (a manual tightening system would not truly be automatic as disclosed by Hurley) and the battery allows the system to operate without being plugged into a wall which would be impractical for a prosthetic leg.
In regard to claim 6, Martin meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 5, but does not teach the adjuster mechanism as claimed. Hurley further teaches said sensor comprises an accelerometer [0055; 0138: sensors may include an accelerometer] and wherein said adjuster mechanism is further configured to:
automatically tighten in response to the accelerometer indicating that the user is beginning to run; [0188: running mode; 0158: if the patient starts running, the socket may tighten]
and automatically loosen in response to the accelerometer indicating that the user is at rest [0188: sitting mode; if the patient is sitting the socket can loosen].
Response to Arguments
In regard to the objection to claims 3-4, the amendment overcomes the objection.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (2018/0153716A1) in view of Bache (8795385B2) and further in view of Mueller (WO2014/032802A1) and further in view of Hurley (2013/0123940A1), but the arguments are directed towards new claim limitations which have been addressed above.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (2018/0153716A1) in view of Bache (8795385B2) and further in view of Mueller (WO2014/032802A1) and further in view of Hurley (2013/0123940A1) and further in view of Bache2 (2018/0221179A1), no further arguments have been submitted.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (2018/0153716A1) in view of Bache (8795385B2) and further in view of Mueller (WO2014/032802A1) and further in view of Hurley (2013/0123940A1) and Laszczak (WO2019/048877A1), no further arguments have been submitted.
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