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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “release device” and “pivot direction” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6, 13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 6, “mountable mounted” should be “mountably mounted” for proper grammar.
In regard to claim 13, “the at least one friction element comprises a coating of bearing surface of a third component is selected from the group of a shaft and a form fitting component” should be “the at least one friction element comprises a coating of bearing surface of a third component; wherein the third component is selected from the group of a shaft and a form fitting component” so it is clear which element is selected from the group if the shaft and form fitting component.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are 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.
In regard to claim 12, the claim repeats limitations of claim 1 from which the claim depends. Accordingly, claim 12 does not further limit claim 1.
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 § 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) 1-3, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pusch (WO2015165981).
In regard to claims 1 and 12, Pusch discloses a prosthetic foot, comprising:
a foot part 18;
a lower leg part (male pyramid on top of 12);
a connection 12 between the lower leg part and that the foot part 18 (see fig 12),
wherein the lower leg part is connected to the foot part 18 such that it can be pivoted about a pivot axis (A), and wherein the lower leg part (male pyramid of 12) is lockable in various pivot angles relative to the foot part (abstract: locking position; last paragraph of the translation pg 7: the angular position in which the foot part is in zero position changes; thus the zero position can be set),
wherein the connection between the lower leg part (male pyramid of 12) and the foot part 18 has a clearance in a pivot direction between the foot part and the lower leg part (hollow part so 94 fits within, therefore a clearance as shown in figure 12) when the foot part is locked on the lower leg part (see fig 12);
and at least one friction element 108 arranged on and about the pivot axis (see fig 12; on 100 which contains the pivot axis A) between the foot part 18 and the lower leg part (male pyramid of 12) (see fig 1) which applies a frictional torque that counteracts a pivoting of the foot part relative to the lower leg part when the foot part is locked relative to the lower leg part (page 3 of translation, p 5: the release device is designed such that it opposes movement of the foot part relative to the lower leg connecting part in the locking position).
In regard to claim 2, Pusch meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and further discloses the at least one friction element 108 is configured to generate the frictional torque independently of whether the foot part is locked relative to the lower leg part, so that the lower leg part also has to be pivoted relative to the foot part against the frictional torque. (pg 7, last paragraph of the translation: the brake slows down plantarflexion motion less than dorsiflexion motion) Therefore the brake generations a frictional torque when the foot is not locked.
In regard to claim 3, Pusch discloses the prosthetic foot according to claim 1, and further discloses the lower leg part (male pyramid of 12) is lockable relative to the foot part 18 by a form-fitting connection 88. (inhibits movement of the piston rod; therefore locks the joint)
In regard to claim 10, Pusch discloses the prosthetic foot according to claim 1 and further discloses the at least one friction element 108 has no impact on a clearance in an axial direction between the lower leg part and the foot part. Because 108 is in a space within 100 and 102, there is no impact on a clearance between the lower leg part and foot part. The actual clearance has not been described. Further, this does not impact the medial-lateral direction at all. The axial direction has not been described.
In regard to claim 11, Pusch discloses the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and further discloses the at least one friction element 108 comprises a damping element 106. (a brake can be considered a damping element under the broadest reasonable interpretation; see claim 9; further the brake and check member 106 are interconnected; last paragraph of the translation)
Claim(s) 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pusch (WO2015165981) in view of Jonsson (2007/0156252A1).
In regard to claim 9, Pusch meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 but does not teach the friction element comprises a coating.
Jonsson teaches the at least one friction element comprises a coating of a bearing surface of the foot part and/or a bearing surface of the lower leg part and/or a bearing surface of a third component (piston rod; 0159; bears against the cylinder opening) [0159: oil coating].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the coating of Jonsson on the piston rod and cylinder opening of the friction element of Gehrmann because this minimizes friction [0159] for improved efficiency.
In regard to claim 13, Pusch meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 but does not teach the friction element comprises a coating.
Jonsson teaches the at least one friction element comprises a coating of bearing surface of a third component is selected from the group of a shaft and a form fitting component. (piston rod meets the definition of a shaft; 0159; bears against the cylinder opening) [0159: oil coating].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the coating of Jonsson on the piston rod and cylinder opening of the friction element of Gehrmann because this minimizes friction [0159] for improved efficiency.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pusch (WO2015165981).
In regard to claim 14, Pusch meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 11 but does not teach the damping element (interpreted as the brake) is a hydraulic damping element in the embodiment of figure 12.
In the embodiment of figure 7 the brake is a hydraulic damping element (the release device 16 is designed to switch from the locking position to a release position, see pg 2 of translation, paragraph 1 of the description: release device by means of the foot part into a locking position; in fig 7, 16 is a hydraulic damping element or brake; pg 3, paragraph 16 of the translation: preferably the release device comprises a hydraulic cylinder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the hydraulic damping element brake of the embodiment of figure 7 in place of the brake of the embodiment of figure 12 because this design is simple and quiet in operation (pg 3, paragraph 16 of the translation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 4, the closest prior art Pusch (WO2015165981) meets all of the claim limitations except “the lower leg part and the foot part each comprise form-fitting elements designed to correspond to each other” in combination with the other claim limitations. This limitation is interpreted as best understood to mean the form fitting elements fit within each other. Since the lower leg part and foot part of Pusch are separated by the ankle joint, form fitting elements on each would not be able to correspond to one another or fit within each other.
In regard to claims 5-6, the closest prior art Pusch (WO2015165981) in view of Christensen (2005/0085926A1) meets all of the claim limitations except “the at least one friction element is arranged on the form-fitting component and/or on at least one of the form-fitting elements” in combination with the other claim limitations. While both Pusch and Christensen have friction elements (108 in both), the friction element of Pusch is not on the form fitting element/component as claimed and the friction element of Christensen is not on the pivot axis.
Response to Arguments
In regard to the 112b rejection of claim 8, cancellation of the claim renders the rejection moot.
In regard to the 112d rejection of claim 13, the amendment to the claim dependency has overcome the rejection.
In regard to the 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-2, 8, 10-12 and 14 as being anticipated by Gehrmann (DE102014006228), the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are directed towards new claim limitations which have been addressed above.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claims 3-7 as being unpatentable over Gehrmann (DE102014006228) in view of Christensen (2005/0085926A1), no further arguments have been presented.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claims 9 and 13 as being unpatentable over Gehrmann (DE102014006228) in view of Jonsson (2007/0156252A1), no further arguments have been presented.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing 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 at 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