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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below
Response to Arguments
The remarks of 10/14/205 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art doesn't explicitly teach or disclose all of the elements of amended claims 1 and 10. In particular, applicant’s arguments are drawn to the following claim language:
“a plurality of different force introduction elements each of which are fastenable to the at least one sole element at at least one fastening region selected from a fastening region in a first area and a fastening region in a second area, wherein the first area and the second area are longitudinally separated from one another, wherein the plurality of different force introduction elements comprises a first set of force introduction elements configured for attachment to the fastening region in the first area and a second set of force introduction elements configured for attachment to the fastening region in the second area, wherein each of the plurality of different force introduction elements have different distal sole contours and/or different force introduction regions which are dependent on whether the force introduction element of the plurality of force introduction elements is secured to the fastening region in the first area or the fastening region in the second area”
This argument is moot in light of the new 103 rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Claim 4 doesn’t further limit claim 1 because claim 1 already requires both (a) the fastening regions in the first area and the fastening region in the second area are a part of the sole element and (b) that the first area and second area are spaced longitudinally apart. For the same reason – claim 15 fails to limit claim 10. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0289996 (Smith) in view of US 2002/0143406 (Townsend) in view of US 2017/0105474 (Morrison)
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a system (Fig. 11), comprising:
a prosthetic-foot insert (Fig. 11, 100);
a proximal attachment device (Fig. 11, 114) for securing the prosthetic-foot insert on a stump or a prosthetic component (¶0006, wherein 114 is configured for this intended use because it “connects the foot prosthesis to a lower limb prosthetic component”)
at least one sole element (Fig. 12, 130) connected to the proximal attachment device (Fig. 12, wherein 130 is connected to 114); and
a plurality of different force introduction elements (Fig. 15, 120,160)
each of which are fastenable to the at least one sole element at at least one fastening region selected from a fastening region in a first area (Fig. 15, wherein 120 is fastenable to 130 at the forefoot – corresponding to a first area) and a fastening region in a second area (Fig. 15, wherein 160 is fastenable to 130 at the hindfoot – corresponding to a second area), wherein the first area and the second area are longitudinally separated from one another (see Fig. 15, wherein the forefoot and hindfoot are longitudinally separated)
Smith doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein the plurality of different force introduction elements comprises a first set of force introduction elements configured for attachment to the fastening region in the first area and a second set of force introduction elements configured for attachment to the fastening region in the second area, wherein each of the plurality of different force introduction elements have different distal sole contours and/or different force introduction regions which are dependent on whether the force introduction element of the plurality of force introduction elements is secured to the fastening region in the first area or the fastening region in the second area. Townsend discloses a plurality of different force introduction elements (Fig. 1, 53, 54, ¶0045) that have different distal sole contours and/or different force introduction regions (see Fig 1, wherein foam pads 53 and 54 have different distal sole contours) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a first set of force introduction elements for the first area and a second set of force introduction elements for the second area which each have different distal sole contours and/or different force introduction regions.
Morrison discloses a system (Fig. 11, 500) comprising a plurality of different force introduction elements (Fig. 11, 518a-518e) comprising a first set of force introduction elements (Fig. 11, 518c and 518d) configured for attachment to the fastening region in the first area (¶0093, wherein the “heel” corresponds to the second area) and a second set of force introduction elements (Fig. 11, 518a, 518b, and 518c) configured for attachment to the fastening region in the second area (¶0093, wherein the forefoot corresponds to the second area), wherein each of the plurality of different force introduction elements have different distal sole contours and/or different force introduction regions (Fig. 11, wherein the first set of force elements and the second set of force introduction elements each have differing compressibility and therefore have different force introduction regions according the definition provided on Page 6, Lines 6-10 in the instant specification) which are dependent on whether the force introduction element of the plurality of force introduction elements is secured to the fastening region in the first area or the fastening region in the second area (Fig. 11, wherein the first set of force elements and the second set of force introduction elements each have different sole contours and therefore have different force introduction regions according the definition provided on Page 6, Lines 6-10 in the instant specification)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the force transmission elements of Smith in view of Townsend to have a first set of force introduction elements configured for attachment to the fastening region in the first area and a second set of force introduction elements configured for attachment to the fastening region in the second area, as taught by Morrison, in order to better match the preferences and/or needs of an individual wearer.
Regarding claims 2, Smith further discloses wherein the at least one sole element (Fig. 12, 130) is configured as a leaf spring (Fig. 12, wherein 130 is configured as a leafspring because it is configured to flex vertically in response to ground reaction forces) or leaf spring section.
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses a sole element (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose that it extends over an entire length of the foot insert.
Townsend discloses a prosthetic foot insert (Fig. 3, 1) comprising a sole element (Fig. 3, 2) that extends over an entire length of the foot insert (See Fig. 3, wherein 2 extends over the entire length of the foot insert).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sole element of Smith to extend over an entire length of the foot insert, as taught by Townsend, in order to fine tune the mechanics of the prosthetic foot (Townsend, ¶0004).
Regarding claim 4, Smith further discloses wherein the fastening region in the first area and the fastening region in the second area at least two fastening regions are each formed on or fastened to the at least one sole element (Fig 15, wherein the forefoot and heel of 130 corresponds to the first area and second area respectively) or wherein the fastening region in the first area and the fastening region in the second area are arranged spaced apart from one another longitudinally on the prosthetic-foot insert (see rejection of claim 1)
Regarding claim 5, Smith further discloses wherein the at least one sole element (Fig. 12, 130) is arranged exchangeably on the prosthetic foot-insert (Fig. 13, wherein 112 is arranged exchangeably because first and second fasteners 92,94 can be loosened and removed)
Regarding claim 6, Smith further discloses wherein the at least one sole element (Fig. 12, 130) is coupled to the proximal attachment device (Fig. 12, 114) via at least one forefoot spring at least one heel spring and/or at least one heel pad (Fig. 13, wherein 170 corresponds to at least one heel spring)
Regarding claim 7, Smith further discloses at least one receiving device (Fig. 13, 190) for form-fitting receiving of a system component (¶0111, wherein 190 receiving 134 corresponds to a form-fit connection), wherein the at least one receiving device is arranged or formed on the at least one sole element (Fig. 12, wherein 190 is arranged on 130 because the two components are in contact with each other)
Regarding claim 8, Smith further discloses wherein at least some of the plurality of different force introduction elements (Fig. 12, 160) are fastened exchangeably (Fig. 12, wherein a threaded connection corresponds to “fastened exchangeably”) to the at least one sole element (Fig. 13, wherein 160 is fastened exchangeably to 130).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Smith discloses force introduction elements (see rejection of claim 1 above) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein the force introduction elements differ in shape and/or position of a sole-side force introduction region
Townsend discloses a prosthetic foot insert (Fig. 3, 1) wherein the force introduction elements (Fig. 3, 53, 54) differ in shape and/or position of a sole-side force introduction region (see annotated Fig. 3, wherein 53 and 54 have different positions for their respective sole side force introduction regions).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the force introduction elements of Smith to differ in the location of the force introduction region, as taught by Townsend, in order to fine tune the mechanics of the prosthetic foot (Townsend, ¶0004).
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses a prosthetic-foot insert (Fig. 11, 100), comprising:
a proximal attachment device (Fig. 11, 114) for securing the prosthetic-foot insert on a stump or a prosthetic component (¶0006, wherein 114 is configured for this intended use because it “connects the foot prosthesis to a lower limb prosthetic component”); and
at least one sole element (Fig. 12, 130) connected to the proximal attachment device (Fig. 12, wherein 130 is connected to 114); and
a plurality of different force introduction elements each of which are fastenable to the at least one sole element at at least one fastening region selected from a fastening region in a first area (Fig. 15, wherein the forefoot corresponds to a first area) and a fastening region in a second area (Fig. 15, wherein the heel corresponds to a first area), wherein the first area and the second area are longitudinally separated from one another (Fig. 15, wherein the forefoot and heel are spaced apart longitudinally)
Smith doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein the plurality of different force introduction elements comprises a first set of force introduction elements configured for attachment to the fastening region in the first area and a second set of force introduction elements configured for attachment to the fastening region in the second area, wherein each of the plurality of different force introduction elements have different distal sole contours and/or different force introduction regions which are dependent on whether the force introduction element of the plurality of force introduction elements is secured to the fastening region in the first area or the fastening region in the second area. Townsend doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein the plurality of different force introduction elements comprises a first set of force introduction elements configured for attachment to the fastening region in the first area and a second set of force introduction elements configured for attachment to the fastening region in the second area, wherein each of the plurality of different force introduction elements have different distal sole contours and/or different force introduction regions which are dependent on whether the force introduction element of the plurality of force introduction elements is secured to the fastening region in the first area or the fastening region in the second area.
Morrison discloses a system (Fig. 11, 500) comprising a plurality of different force introduction elements (Fig. 11, 518a-518e) comprising a first set of force introduction elements (Fig. 11, 518c and 518d) configured for attachment to the fastening region in the first area (¶0093, wherein the “heel” corresponds to the second area) and a second set of force introduction elements (Fig. 11, 518a, 518b, and 518c) configured for attachment to the fastening region in the second area (¶0093, wherein the forefoot corresponds to the second area), wherein each of the plurality of different force introduction elements have different distal sole contours and/or different force introduction regions (Fig. 11, wherein the first set of force elements and the second set of force introduction elements each have differing compressibility and therefore have different force introduction regions according the definition provided on Page 6, Lines 6-10 in the instant specification) which are dependent on whether the force introduction element of the plurality of force introduction elements is secured to the fastening region in the first area or the fastening region in the second area (Fig. 11, wherein the first set of force elements and the second set of force introduction elements each have different sole contours and therefore have different force introduction regions according the definition provided on Page 6, Lines 6-10 in the instant specification)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the force transmission elements of Smith in view of Townsend to have a first set of force introduction elements configured for attachment to the fastening region in the first area and a second set of force introduction elements configured for attachment to the fastening region in the second area, as taught by Morrison, in order to better match the preferences and/or needs of an individual wearer.
Regarding claim 11, Smith further discloses wherein the at least one sole element (Fig. 11, 130) is configured as a leaf spring (Fig. 11, wherein 130 is configured as a leafspring because it is configured to flex vertically in response to ground reaction forces) or leaf spring section.
Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses a method of using a prosthetic foot insert as claim in claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above) comprising:
fastening a plurality of different force introduction elements (Fig. 11, wherein 120 and 160 are fastened to 130 to at least one fastening region of the prosthetic foot insert (see annotated Fig. 12 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
512
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Smith further discloses a force introduction element (Fig. 15, 120) configured for use on a prosthetic foot insert as claimed in claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above, wherein 120 is configured for this intended use)
Regarding claim 14, Smith discloses a sole element (see rejection of claim 10) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose that it extends over an entire length of the prosthetic-foot insert.
Townsend discloses a prosthetic foot insert (Fig. 3, 1) comprising a sole element (Fig. 3, 2) that extends over an entire length of the foot insert (See Fig. 3, wherein 2 extends over the entire length of the foot insert).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sole element of Smith to extend over an entire length of the foot insert, as taught by Townsend, in order to fine tune the mechanics of the prosthetic foot (Townsend, ¶0004)
Regarding claim 15, Smith further discloses wherein the fastening region in the first area and the fastening region in the second area at least two fastening regions are each formed on or fastened to the at least one sole element (Fig 15, wherein the forefoot and heel of 130 corresponds to the first area and second area respectively) or wherein the fastening region in the first area and the fastening region in the second area are arranged spaced apart from one another longitudinally on the prosthetic-foot insert (see rejection of claim 1)
Regarding claim 16, Smith discloses wherein the at least one sole element (Fig. 13, 130) is arranged exchangeably on the prosthetic foot-insert (Fig. 13, wherein 130 is arranged exchangeably on 100 because first and second fasteners 92,94 can be loosened and removed)
Regarding claim 17, Smith further discloses wherein the at least one sole element (Fig. 130) is coupled to the attachment device (Fig. 12, 114) via at least one forefoot spring at least one heel spring and/or at least one heel pad (Fig. 13, wherein 170 corresponds to at least one heel spring)
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Smith discloses force introduction elements (see rejection of claim 1 above) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein the force introduction elements differ in shape and/or position of a sole-side force introduction region
Townsend discloses a prosthetic foot insert (Fig. 3, 1) wherein the force introduction elements (Fig. 3, 53, 54) differ in shape and/or position of a sole-side force introduction region (see annotated Fig. 3, wherein 53 and 54 have different positions for their respective sole side force introduction regions).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the force introduction elements of Smith to differ in the location of the force introduction region, as taught by Townsend, in order to fine tune the mechanics of the prosthetic foot (Townsend, ¶0004).
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses a plurality of force introduction elements (see rejection of claim 10) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of force introduction elements is multipart. Townsend doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of force introduction elements is multipart.
Morrsion discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of force introduction elements is multipart (Fig. 11, wherein 518c and 518d together form a multipart force introduction element)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the force transmission element of Smith in view of Townsend to be multipart, as taught by Morrison, in order to better match the preferences and/or needs of an individual wearer.
Regarding claim 20, Smith discloses a plurality of force introduction elements (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of force introduction elements is multipart. Townsend doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of force introduction elements is multipart.
Morrsion discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of force introduction elements is multipart (Fig. 11, wherein 518c and 518d together form a multipart force introduction element)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the force transmission element of Smith in view of Townsend to be multipart, as taught by Morrison, in order to better match the preferences and/or needs of an individual wearer.
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 MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER whose telephone number is (571)272-8382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774