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 1-11 and 13 are pending and examined below
Response to Arguments
The remarks of 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record doesn't explicitly teach or disclose all of the elements of amended claim 1, in particular the following claim elements
“identifying the cyclical movement from the relative movement of the upper part and the lower part and from the absolute movements of the upper part and/or the lower part (20) in space; and further characterized in that a phase space of two angle parameters and/or their derivatives is used to determine the cyclical movement, in particular the direction of rotation in the phase space is determined and used.
This argument is moot in light of the new 103 rejection below.
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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0221120 (Seyr) in view of US 2013/0268090 (Goldfarb)
Regarding claim 1, Seyr discloses a method for controlling a prosthesis or orthosis of the lower extremity (¶0001, “method and appliance for controlling an artificial orthotic or prosthetic joint”), the prosthesis or orthosis having an upper part (Fig. 1, 10) and a lower part (Fig .1, 2) which is connected to the upper part via a knee joint (Fig. 1, 4) and is mounted so as to be pivotable relative to the upper part about a joint axis (¶0028, wherein 10 and 12 pivots relative about the axis of knee joint 4), wherein an adjustable resistance device (¶0028, “resistance devices”) is arranged between the upper part and the lower part (¶0028, “so as to be able to adjust the pivoting movement between 1 and 2”), by means of which resistance device a resistance (¶0028, “resistance”) is modified on the basis of sensor data (¶0001, “depending on sensor data”), wherein state information is detected via sensors (¶0015, “status information”), a cyclical movement different than walking is determined (¶0015), and the resistance is adjusted to a low level during the cyclical movement (¶0015, “resistance is reduced for the duration of the cyclical movement”), characterized in that the determination of the cyclical movement comprises the following steps:
detecting the flexion angle (¶0016, “joint angle”) and at least one absolute angle of the lower part and/or of the upper part (¶0016, “inertial angle of a joint part”) over at least one movement cycle (¶0016, wherein the evaluation occurs over at least one pedal stroke)
identifying the cyclical movement from the relative movement of the upper part and the lower part (¶0016, wherein “knee angle velocity” corresponds to relative movement of the upper part and the lower part) and from the absolute movements of the upper part and/or the lower part in space (¶0016, wherein “inertial angular velocity” corresponds to absolute movements of the lower part in space);
Seyr doesn't explicitly teach or disclose that a phase space of two angle parameters and/or their derivatives is used to determine the cyclical movement, in particular the direction of rotation in the phase space is determined and used.
Goldfarb discloses a running controller for a lower limb device wherein a phase space (see Fig. 19 which corresponds to a phase space) of two angle parameters and/or their derivatives (See Fig. 19, wherein “angular velocity and angular position correspond to two angle parameters) is used to determine the cyclical movement, in particular the direction of rotation in the phase space is determined and used (see annotated Fig. 19 below, wherein the direction of rotation is marked along the path)
PNG
media_image1.png
716
1028
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 method of Seyr to determine the cyclical movement by plotting the phase space of two angle parameters and/or their derivatives and noting the direction of rotation, as taught by Goldfarb, in order to recognize and analyze patterns in cyclical biomechanical motions such as a walking or running gait.
Regarding claim 7, Seyr discloses the cyclical movement is interrupted (¶0021, “device is switched backed to a normal mode if the conditions for reducing the resistance are no longer present”) while the lower part is simultaneously subjected to:
an axial force (¶0019, “axial force”), then as a result
an extension of the knee joint (1) below a specified flexion angle (ax) is prevented (¶0021, “uncontrolled buckling of the joint is prevented”)
and the flexion resistance increased (¶0021, “flexion resistance is always increased” and, after an end stop is reached, followed by flexion and renewed extension, the resistance is set anew for the cyclical movement (¶0021, “device is switched backed to a normal mode if the conditions for reducing the resistance are no longer present”)
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0221120 (Seyr) in view of US 2013/0268090 (Goldfarb), as applied to claims above, and further in view of non-patent literature titled “The Biomechanics of Cycling with a Transtibial Prosthesis: A Case Study of a Profession Cyclist (Koutny)
Regarding claim 2, Seyr further discloses that the reduction of the resistance (¶0018, wherein flexion resistance is reduced) takes place only when a flexion angle, in particular the amount of the flexion angle change, added up over an interval in which certain conditions are met, is greater than a specified limit value (¶0017, wherein cyclic movement can be determined based on interval between maxima and minima of the joint angle, see Fig. 2, wherein the knee angle profile changes sinusoidally from a max value to a minimum value at least five times). Seyr doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose that the amount of flexion angle change, added up over an interval in which certain conditions are met, is greater than a specified limit value, in particular greater than 240 degrees. Goldfarb doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose that the amount of flexion angle change, added up over an interval in which certain conditions are met, is greater than a specified limit value, in particular greater than 240 degrees.
Koutny discloses a flexion angle (Table 1, “knee angle”), wherein the amount of the flexion angle change, added up over an interval in which certain conditions are met, is greater than a specified limit value, in particular greater than 240 degrees (see Table 1 below, wherein for an amputated limb the change in flexion angle is 76 degrees (I.e. 99° - 23° = 76°; 76° x 5 = 380° - which corresponds to at least 240°)
PNG
media_image2.png
147
413
media_image2.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 decrease the resistance of Seyr in view of Goldfarb after a flexion angle change of great than 240 degrees, as taught by Koutney, in order to enable the user to safely and efficiently ride a bicycle
Regarding claim 3, Seyr discloses that a cyclical movement is ascertained only if the flexion angle is greater than a limit value (¶0017, wherein minima joint angle corresponds to the limit value, see Fig. 2, “knee angle minimum, see also ¶0020 wherein a minimal joint angle must be present for resistance to be reduced) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose in particular greater than 10°, in particular greater than 15°. Goldfarb doesn't explicitly teach or disclose in particular greater than 10°, in particular greater than 15°.
Koutney discloses the flexion angle is greater than a limit value, in particular greater than 10°, in particular greater than 15° (see Table 1, wherein the knee angle minimum is 23° – corresponding to a flexion angle limit greater than 15°)
PNG
media_image2.png
147
413
media_image2.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 flexion angle limit value of Seyr to be greater than 15°, as taught by Koutny, to in order to enable the user to safely and efficiently ride a bicycle.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0221120 (Seyr) in view of US 2013/0268090 (Goldfarb), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2020/0237531 (Prince)
Regarding claim 4, Seyr discloses ascertaining a cyclical movement (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose the absolute angle of the lower part and/or the flexion angle does not exceed and/or fall below certain limit values as a prerequisite step. Goldfarb doesn't explicitly teach or disclose the absolute angle of the lower part and/or the flexion angle does not exceed and/or fall below certain limit values as a prerequisite step.
Prince discloses a method for controlling a prosthesis (¶0141) characterized in that a cyclical movement (¶0051, cycling) is ascertained only if the absolute angle (¶0051, “absolute tilt”) of the lower part (Fig. 1, 100) and/or the flexion angle (ax) does not exceed and/or fall below certain limit values (¶0051, wherein using absolute tilt to set a cycling mode corresponds to an angle of inclination not exceeding and/or falling below certain limit values)
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 method of Seyr in view of Goldfarb to ascertain a cyclical movement based on the absolute angle, as taught by Prince, in order to make it more convenient for users to switch between modes without the need for an additional fob or buttons.
Regarding claim 5, Seyr discloses ascertaining a cyclical movement (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose the absolute angle of the lower part forward relative to the vertical is less than a limit value, in particular less than 5° as a prerequisite step. Goldfarb doesn't explicitly teach or disclose doesn't explicitly teach or disclose the angle of inclination of the lower part forward relative to the vertical is less than a limit value, in particular less than 5° as a prerequisite step.
Prince discloses the absolute angle of the lower part forward relative to the vertical is less than a limit value, in particular less than 5° (¶0051, wherein using absolute tilt to set a cycling mode corresponds to inclination of the lower part exceeds a limit value less than 5 degrees)
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 determination step of Seyr in view of Goldfarb to require an absolute angle of the lower part to be less than 5 degrees, as taught by Prince, in order to more reliable classify the cyclical movement.
Regarding claim 6, Seyr discloses the end of the cyclical movement (¶0021, wherein “device is switched back to a normal mode” – corresponds to the end of the cyclical movement) is identified from the fact that the lower part is relieved of an axial force for a predetermined period of time and the axial force (FA) falls below a predetermined limit value (¶0019, wherein “axial load reach or is below a threshold value” corresponds to relieved of an axial force and axial force falls below a limit value)
Seyr doesn't explicitly teach or disclose the flexion angle falls below a limit value or the inclination of the lower part to the vertical exceeds a limit value. Goldfarb doesn't explicitly teach or disclose the flexion angle falls below a limit value or the inclination of the lower part to the vertical exceeds a limit value.
Prince discloses the flexion angle falls below a limit value or the absolute angle of the lower part to the vertical exceeds a limit value (¶0051, wherein using absolute tilt to set a cycling mode corresponds to absolute angle of the lower part exceeds a limit value)
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 method of Seyr in view of Goldfarb to include the inclination of the lower part exceeding a limit value, as taught by Prince, in order to provide a redundant exit condition in order to better identify the end of the cyclical movement.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0221120 (Seyr) in view of US 2013/0268090 (Goldfarb), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2018/0125681 (‘681)
Regarding claim 8, Seyr discloses determining a cyclical movement (see rejection of claim 1) and determining the but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose the angular velocities of the flexion angle and of the absolute angle are calculated, and the quotient of the angular velocities is determined in specified time segments. Goldfarb doesn't explicitly teach or disclose the angular velocities of the flexion angle and of the angle of inclination are calculated, and the quotient of the angular velocities is determined in specified time segments.
‘681 discloses a method for controlling resistance in a lower extremity prosthesis wherein the angular velocities of the flexion angle (¶0019, “thigh angle”) and of the angle of inclination (¶0019, “lower leg angle”) are calculated, and the quotient of the angular velocities is determined in specified time segments (¶0019, wherein a gradient in the phase diagram corresponds to determining a quotient in specified time segments)
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 method of Seyr in view of Goldfarb to take the quotient of the angular velocity of the flexion angle and the angle of inclination, as taught by Seifert, in order to characterize the walking situation (¶0019)
Regarding claim 9, Seyr doesn't explicitly teach or disclose changes in the quotient of the angular velocities are determined as tangent slopes in specified time segments. Goldfarb doesn't explicitly teach or disclose changes in the quotient of the angular velocities are determined as tangent slopes in specified time segments.
Seifert discloses that changes in the quotient of the angular velocities are determined as tangent slopes in specified time segments (¶0019, wherein “present tangent over a longer time period” corresponds to tangent slopes in a specified time segment”)
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 method of Seyr in view of Goldfarb with a determination of tangent slopes in a specified time period, as taught by Seifert, in order to characterize the walking situation (¶0019)
Regarding claim 10, Seyr discloses ascertaining a cyclical movement (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose when the time profile of the tangent slopes is increasing monotonically. Goldfarb doesn't explicitly teach or disclose when the time profile of the tangent slopes is increasing monotonically.
‘681 discloses when the time profile of the tangent slopes is increasing monotonically (¶0019, wherein “present tangent over a longer time period” corresponds to tangent slopes in a specified time segment”)
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 method of Seyr in view of Goldfarb with a condition that the time profile of the tangent slopes is increasing monotonically, as taught by ‘681, in order to characterize the walking situation (¶0019).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0221120 (Seyr) in view of US 2013/0268090 (Goldfarb) in view of US 2018/0125681 (‘681), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0304831 (‘831)
Regarding claim 11, Seyr doesn't explicitly teach or disclose that an evaluation of the angular velocities takes place only when a limit value of the flexion angle velocity is exceeded. Goldfarb doesn't explicitly teach or disclose that an evaluation of the angular velocities takes place only when a limit value of the flexion angle velocity is exceeded.
‘681 discloses an evaluation of the angular velocities (¶0019, “differential quotient of two angles”)
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 method Seyr in view of Goldfard with an evaluation of angular velocities, as taught by ‘681, in order to characterize movement of the prosthesis.
Seyr doesn't explicitly teach or disclose when a limit value of the flexion angle velocity is exceeded. Goldfarb doesn't explicitly teach or disclose when a limit value of the flexion angle velocity is exceeded. ‘681 doesn't explicitly teach or disclose when a limit value of the flexion angle velocity is exceeded as a prerequisite
‘831 discloses a limit value of the flexion angle velocity is exceeded (¶0027, “a high flexion speed can be used as indicators”)
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 method of Seyr in view of Goldfarb in view of ‘681 with a limit value of the flexion angle velocity is exceeded as a prerequisite step, as taught by ‘831, in order to characterize movement of the prosthesis.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0221120 (Seyr) in view of US 2013/0268090 (Goldfarb), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0304831 (‘831)
Regarding claim 13, Seyr discloses a determination of the cyclical movement (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose that the trajectory of the foot part and/or its derivatives relative to a determined hip rotation point is determined from the knee angle (KA) and/or absolute angles of upper part (10) and lower part (20) and is used as a criterion. Goldfarb doesn't explicitly teach or disclose that the trajectory of the foot part and/or its derivatives relative to a determined hip rotation point is determined from the knee angle (KA) and/or absolute angles of upper part (10) and lower part (20) and is used as a criterion.
‘831 discloses the trajectory of the foot part (¶0017, wherein the height difference that the ipsilateral foot overcomes corresponds to “trajectory of the foot part) and/or its derivatives relative to a determined hip rotation point is determined from the knee angle (¶0021, wherein the “angle between the lower part and the upper part” corresponds to knee angle) and/or absolute angles of upper part and lower part
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 determination step of Seyr in view of Goldfarb to include determining the trajectory of the foot part based on the knee angle, as taught by ‘831, in order to reliably classify the cyclical motion.
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
/YASHITA SHARMA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774