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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 23-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/27/2026. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1, line 6, recites “a controller the one or more sensors.” It is unclear which elements are intended to be claimed with this language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mendez et al. (“Indirect Volitional Swing Control Allows for Level-ground Walking and Crossing over Obstacles with a Powered Knee and Ankle Prosthesis.” Science Robotics. 2020 July 22; 5(44); cited by the Applicant in the NPL filed on 2 August 2024; hereinafter “Mendez”).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 1: a powered prosthesis configured to provide volitional control of knee flexion during swing, the prosthesis comprising: a knee joint (abstract; pg. 3); one or more sensors configuring for obtaining sensor data associated with a residual limb to which the powered prosthesis is attached (pgs. 2-3); and a controller the one or more sensors (interpreted as a controller interacting with sensors) (pgs. 2-3), the controller including one or more processors and one or more hardware storage devices storing computer-executable instructions that are executable by the one or more processors (pgs. 2-3) to configure the controller to: determine that a swing phase has initiated (pgs. 6-7); obtain a thigh angle based on the sensor data obtained by the one or more sensors (pgs. 5-7); based on a time elapsed since initiation of the swing phase, and based on the thigh angle, determine a desired maximum knee flexion angle (pgs. 3-5); during the swing phase, continuously update the desired maximum knee flexion angle using subsequent measurements of thigh angle and time elapsed since initiation of the swing phase (pgs. 11-13); and output a signal configured to cause actuation of the knee joint based on the desired maximum knee flexion angle (pgs. 11-13).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 2: the powered prosthesis of claim 1, wherein knee flexion of the knee joint during the swing phase is controlled without explicit classification of an environment (pg. 10).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 3: the powered prosthesis of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a first swing state and a second swing state within the swing phase, wherein the first swing state controls knee flexion and the second swing state controls knee extension and/or, if necessary, slows and ends knee flexion (pgs. 11-13); and transition from the first swing state to the second swing state upon determining that the thigh angle has passed a thigh angle threshold or upon determining that the time elapsed since initiation of the swing phase has exceeded a time threshold (pgs. 11-13).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 4: the powered prosthesis of claim 3, wherein the thigh angle threshold is variable (pgs. 3-4).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 5: the powered prosthesis of claim 4, wherein the thigh angle threshold varies as a function of the desired maximum knee flexion angle (pgs. 3-4).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 6: the powered prosthesis of claim 1, wherein the desired maximum knee flexion angle is determined using an integral of the thigh angle over a time period from the initiation of the swing phase to a present duration of the swing phase (pgs. 3-4, 11-13).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 7: the powered prosthesis of claim 6, wherein the desired maximum knee flexion angle is determined according to: the recited formula
wherein (t) is the time elapsed since initiation of the swing phase, θdesfinal (t) is the desired maximum knee flexion angle, θthigh (t) is the thigh angle at time (t), Tsw1 is a desired duration of a first swing state, and K1, K2, and K3 are optional constants (pgs. 11-12).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 8: the powered prosthesis of claim 7, wherein K1 is within a range of about 40 to about 70, or within a range of about 50 to about 60, or about 55 (pgs. 11).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 9: the powered prosthesis of claim 7, wherein K2 is within a range of about 1.1 to about 3, or within a range of about 1.5 to about 2.5, or about 2 (pg. 11).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 10: the powered prosthesis of claim 7, wherein K3 is within a range of about 5 to about 35, or within a range of about 10 to about 30, or within a range of about 15 to about 25 (pg. 11).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 11: the powered prosthesis of claim 7, wherein To is within a range of about 0.25 s to about 0.65 s, or within a range of about 0.35 s to about 0.45 s, or about 0.4 s (pgs. 12-13).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 12: the powered prosthesis of claim 3, wherein the thigh angle threshold is determined according to: the recited formula
wherein θthsthigh(t) is the thigh angle threshold, θdesfinal (t) is the desired maximum knee flexion angle K4 is a constant, and K5 is an optional constant (pgs. 12-13).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 13: the powered prosthesis of claim 12, wherein K4 is within a range of about 10 to about 25, or about 17.5 (pg. 12).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 14: the powered prosthesis of claim 12, wherein Ks is within a range of about 0.25 to about 0.75, or about 0.5 (pg. 12).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 15: the powered prosthesis of claim 1, further comprising a force sensor for measuring ground reaction force (GRF), and wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the swing phase has initiated upon determining a GRF that is lower than a stance-to-swing threshold, the stance-to-swing threshold being proportional to a body weight of a user (pgs. 11-13).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 16: the powered prosthesis of claim 15, wherein the stance-to-swing threshold is within a range of about 3% to about 10% of the body weight of the user, or about 5% of the body weight of the user (pg. 11).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 17: the powered prosthesis of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to determine a transition from the swing phase to a first stance state upon determining a GRF that is higher than a swing-to-stance threshold, the swing-to-stance threshold being proportional to a body weight of a user (pgs. 11-13).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 18: the powered prosthesis of claim 17, wherein the swing-to-stance threshold is within a range of about 3% to about 10% of the body weight of the user, or about 5% of the body weight of the user (pg. 11).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 19: the powered prosthesis of claim 1, further comprising an ankle joint, wherein the controller is configured to determine a transition between a first stance state and a second stance state by determining that the ankle joint exceeds a dorsiflexion threshold and has positive plantarflexion velocity (Fig. 6; pgs. 3-5, 11).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 20: the powered prosthesis of claim 19, wherein the second stance state is an energy-injection state (pg. 11).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 21: the powered prosthesis of The powered prosthesis of wherein the controller is further configured to determine a desired knee joint position, velocity, and acceleration using a minimum-jerk engine, wherein the minimum-jerk engine receives as inputs the desired maximum knee flexion angle, and a desired movement duration, and wherein the minimum-jerk engine outputs updated desired knee joint position, velocity, and acceleration (Fig. 6; pgs. 3-4, 11-13).
Mendez discloses the following regarding claim 22: the powered prosthesis of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine a first swing state and a second swing state within the swing phase, wherein the first swing state functions to control knee flexion and the second swing state functions to slow and end knee flexion, if necessary, and control knee extension, wherein the controller uses a minimum-jerk engine to control knee joint movement during the second swing state (pgs. 11-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ann Hu whose telephone number is (571) 272-6652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:00 am-5:30 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jerrah Edwards, at (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANN HU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights