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
The applicant’s election of species 4 directed towards Figure 16 and claims 1-20 in the reply dated 12/8/2025, without traverse is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 110B, 112B, 416B, 424B, 426B, 416B, 428B, 114B, 116B, 414B, 410B, 1402B
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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, 5, 7, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (2014/0088730A1) in view of Iverson (2006/0235544A1).
In regard to claim 1, Hansen teaches a prosthetic ankle (AFP, fig 1), the prosthetic ankle (AFP fig 1) comprising:
a hydraulic cylinder 18, the hydraulic cylinder 18 comprising a first chamber, a second chamber, and a piston (see piston within 18 in figure 11) separating the first chamber and the second chamber, (Cylinder 18 has a chamber on each side of the piston labeled as extension and compression in figure 9)
the first chamber and the second chamber (extension and compression chambers) filled with a hydraulic fluid; (claim 1: hydraulic damper; by definition a hydraulic is filled with a fluid),
a first valve 42 disposed along a first passage (right half of fluid control circuit, fig 11), the first passage (right half of fluid control circuit) and the first valve 42 allowing dampened fluid flow between the first chamber and the second chamber during plantarflexion; (see arrows for extension in fig 9, ankle extension corresponds to plantarflexion),
a second valve (42 in left half of fluid circuit in fig 9) disposed along a second passage (left half of fluid circuit, fig 11), the second passage and the second valve allowing dampened fluid flow between the first chamber and the second chamber during dorsiflexion; (see compression which corresponds to dorsiflexion, fig 9),
wherein the second valve (left valve 42 in fig 9) is configured to open to allow free fluid flow through the second passage and between the second chamber and the first chamber based on a system status [0029: toe off must be sensed using one or more sensors of force, acceleration or other properties] during dorsiflexion in a swing phase of gait. [0015; 0029: switches damper to low setting at toe-off; toe-off is the start of swing phase; 0030: compression damping is low so the ankle can react to the neutralizing spring; ankle returns to a dorsiflexed position]
While Hansen teaches the valves are controlled by a microprocessor [0029] and are therefore automatic and not manual, Hansen remains silent to the valves using motors or the type of valves used.
Iverson teaches a hydraulic prosthetic ankle using a first motor 226 operably coupled to the first valve 224 (servo valve), the first motor 226 operable to adjust an opening of the first valve to adjust a flow resistance in the first passage [0054: microprocessor controlled to adjust fluid resistance];
and a second motor 226 (servo valve) operably coupled to the second valve 224, the second motor operable to adjust an opening of the second valve to adjust a flow resistance in the second passage [0054: microprocessor controlled to adjust fluid resistance; see figure 6, multiple microprocessor-controlled valves].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the motor-controlled valve of Iverson in place of each of the valves of Hansen because this allows automatic variably controlled fluid [0054] for adjustability and because servo valves provide precise control with high speed response.
In regard to claims 5 and 11, Hansen meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 7, and further teaches wherein the system status comprises an indication of toe off. [0029: toe off must be sensed using one or more sensors of force, acceleration or other properties]
In regard to claim 7, Hansen teaches a prosthetic device (fig 1) comprising:
a foot portion 34;
and an ankle portion (AFP, fig 1) coupled to the foot portion 34, the ankle portion (AFP, fig 1) comprising:
a hydraulic cylinder 18, the hydraulic cylinder comprising a first chamber, a second chamber, (Cylinder 18 has a chamber on each side of the piston labeled as extension and compression in figure 11)
and a piston (see piston within 18 in figure 9) separating the first chamber and the second chamber (fig 9; extension and compression chambers fig 9), the first chamber and the second chamber filled with a hydraulic fluid (claim 1: hydraulic damper; by definition a hydraulic is filled with a fluid),
a first valve 42 disposed along a first passage (right half of fluid control circuit, fig 9), the first passage (right half) and the first valve (42, on right half) allowing dampened fluid flow between the first chamber and the second chamber during plantarflexion (see arrows for extension, ankle extension corresponds to plantarflexion),
a second valve (42 in left half of circuit for compression, fig 9) disposed along a second passage (left passage, fig 11), the second passage and the second valve 42 (left half of circuit, fig 9) allowing dampened fluid flow between the first chamber and the second chamber during dorsiflexion (see compression which corresponds to dorsiflexion, fig 9),
wherein the second valve (42 left half) is configured to open to allow free fluid flow through the second passage and between the second chamber and the first chamber based on a system status [0029: toe off must be sensed using one or more sensors of force, acceleration or other properties] during dorsiflexion in a swing phase of gait [0015; 0029: switches damper to low setting at toe-off; toe-off is the start of swing phase; 0030: compression damping is low so the ankle can react to the neutralizing spring; ankle returns to a dorsiflexed position];
and wherein an orientation of a top portion of the ankle portion is configured to change based at least in part on a position of the piston within the hydraulic cylinder (see figure 1; when the hydraulic cylinder 18 is shortened the top of the ankle at 10 will change in angle based on the position and pivots).
While Hansen teaches the valves are controlled by a microprocessor [0029] and are therefore automatic and not manual, Hansen remains silent to motors being operatively coupled to the valves.
Iverson teaches a hydraulic prosthetic ankle using a first motor 226 operably coupled to the first valve 224 (servo valve), the first motor operable to adjust an opening of the first valve to adjust a flow resistance in the first passage [0054: microprocessor controlled to adjust fluid resistance];
and a second motor 226 (servo valve) operably coupled to the second valve 224, the second motor operable to adjust an opening of the second valve to adjust a flow resistance in the second passage [0054: microprocessor controlled to adjust fluid resistance; see figure 6, multiple microprocessor-controlled valves].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the motor-controlled valve of Iverson in place of each of the variable restriction valves of Hansen because this allows automatic variably controlled fluid [0054] for adjustability and because servo valves provide precise control with high speed response.
In regard to claim 13, Hansen meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 7, but does not teach the first and second motors to control the first and second valves as claimed.
Iverson further teaches the first motor 226 may independently control the first valve and the second motor 226 may independently control the second valve. [0055: two or more servo-driven valves; 0061: valves independently control dorsiflexion and plantarflexion]
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (2014/0088730A1) in view of Iverson (2006/0235544A1) and further in view of Shorter (EP0503775A1).
In regard to claims 2 and 8, Hansen meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 7, and further teaches a spring 20 disposed on the hydraulic cylinder 18 and operatively coupled to the piston (fig 1), the spring 20 configured to impart a force on the piston (within 18) during swing phase to dorsiflex the foot portion to lift a toe of the foot portion. [0030: compression damping is slow low so the ankle reactions primarily to the neutralizing spring; neutralizing spring brings the ankle back to a slightly dorsiflexed position]
However, Hansen teaches the spring is on the hydraulic cylinder rather than in the hydraulic cylinder.
Shorter teaches a spring 44 disposed in a hydraulic cylinder (see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to move the spring of Hansen from outside the hydraulic cylinder to inside as taught by Shorter because this protects the spring from getting caught on clothing.
Claim(s) 3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (2014/0088730A1) in view of Iverson (2006/0235544A1) and further in view of Herr (WO2015/164706A1).
In regard to claims 3 and 9, Hansen meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 7, and further teaches the system status may comprise force sensors or other properties [0029] but does not teach the system status comprises a pressure threshold amount. However, pressure is force/unit area which is related to the force sensor.
Herr teaches a prosthetic ankle which detects toe off using a pressure threshold amount. [0007: can be determined using pressure; 0085: toe off may be detected based on pressure measurements].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the pressure threshold of Herr to indicate toe off in place of the system status indicator of Hansen through functional equivalents since it appears either indication of the system status to indicate toe off would work equally well. Absent a teaching of criticality (new or unexpected results), this arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed. MPEP 2144.06II
Claim(s) 4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (2014/0088730A1) in view of Iverson (2006/0235544A1) and further in view of Nishikawa (2016/0030202A1).
In regard to claims 4 and 10, Hansen meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 7, but does not teach the system status comprises a degree of dorsiflexion.
Nishikawa teaches the system status comprises a degree of dorsiflexion (degree of dorsiflexion is the ankle angle). [0156: ankle angle to determine what state the device is in such as early swing; early swing corresponds to toe-off]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the ankle angle of Nishikawa to indicate toe off in place of the system status indicator of Hansen through functional equivalents since it appears either indication of the system status to indicate toe off would work equally well. Absent a teaching of criticality (new or unexpected results), this arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed. MPEP 2144.06II
Claim(s) 6, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (2014/0088730A1) in view of Iverson (2006/0235544A1) and further in view of Geiger (2015/0134081A1).
In regard to claim 6, Hansen meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach an accumulator in fluid communication with the hydraulic cylinder.
Geiger teaches an accumulator [anterior and posterior accumulators 0133] in fluid communication with the hydraulic cylinder [0133], wherein hydraulic fluid is pressurized in the accumulator during plantarflexion [0134: accumulator stores hydraulic fluid; 0205: accumulator receives fluid depending on the pressure; by adding more fluid the fluid is pressurized]
and the pressurized hydraulic fluid in the accumulator applies a biasing force on the piston toward dorsiflexion [0133: fluid is forced out of the posterior accumulator and into posterior cylinder 218a which provides a toe up bias on swing phase].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the accumulator system of Geiger in the hydraulic ankle system of Hansen because this allows dorsiflexion bias during swing [0207] to prevent tripping and because this allows energy storage during gait [0134].
In regard to claim 12, Hansen meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 7, but does not teach the use of an accumulator in fluid communication with the hydraulic cylinder.
Geiger teaches an accumulator [anterior and posterior accumulators 0133] in fluid communication with the hydraulic cylinder [0133], wherein hydraulic fluid is pressurized in the accumulator during plantarflexion [0134: accumulator stores hydraulic fluid; 0205: accumulator receives fluid depending on the pressure; by adding more fluid the fluid is pressurized]
and the pressurized hydraulic fluid in the accumulator applies a biasing force on the piston toward dorsiflexion [0133: fluid is forced out of the posterior accumulator and into posterior cylinder 218a which provides a toe up bias on swing phase].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the accumulator system of Geiger in the hydraulic ankle system of Hansen because this allows dorsiflexion bias during swing [0207] to prevent tripping and because this allows energy storage during gait [0134].
Claim(s) 14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (2014/0088730A1) in view of Iverson (2006/0235544A1) and in view of Geiger (2015/0134081A1).
In regard to claim 14, Hansen teaches a prosthetic ankle (AFP, fig 1), the prosthetic ankle (AFP, fig 1) comprising:
a hydraulic cylinder 18, the hydraulic cylinder 18 comprising a first chamber, a second chamber (extension and compression chambers, fig 1), and a piston (see piston within 18 in figure 9) separating the first chamber and the second chamber, (Cylinder 18 has a chamber on each side of the piston labeled as extension and compression in figure 11)
the first chamber and the second chamber (extension and compression chambers) filled with a hydraulic fluid; (claim 1: hydraulic damper; by definition a hydraulic is filled with a fluid),
a first valve 42 disposed along a first passage (right half of fluid control circuit, fig 9), the first passage (right half of fluid control circuit) and the first valve 42 allowing dampened fluid flow between the first chamber and the second chamber during plantarflexion; (see arrows for extension in fig 9, ankle extension corresponds to plantarflexion),
a second valve (40 in left half of fluid circuit in fig 9) disposed along a second passage (left half of fluid circuit, fig 9), the second passage and the second valve 42 allowing dampened fluid flow between the first chamber and the second chamber during dorsiflexion; (see compression which corresponds to dorsiflexion, fig 9),
[0029: toe off must be sensed using one or more sensors of force, acceleration or other properties] during dorsiflexion in a swing phase of gait. [0015; 0029: switches damper to low setting at toe-off; toe-off is the start of swing phase; 0030: compression damping is low so the ankle can react to the neutralizing spring; ankle returns to a dorsiflexed position]
While Hansen teaches the valves are controlled by a microprocessor [0029] and are therefore automatic and not manual, Hansen remains silent to the valves using motors, the type of valves used, or the use of an accumulator.
Iverson teaches a hydraulic prosthetic ankle using a first motor 226 operably coupled to the first valve 224, the first motor operable to adjust an opening of the first valve to adjust a flow resistance in the first passage [0054: microprocessor controlled to adjust fluid resistance];
and a second motor 226 operably coupled to the second valve 224, the second motor operable to adjust an opening of the second valve to adjust a flow resistance in the second passage [0054: microprocessor controlled to adjust fluid resistance; see figure 6, multiple microprocessor-controlled valves].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the motor-controlled valve of Iverson in place of each of the variable restriction valves of Hansen because this allows automatic variably controlled fluid [0054] for adjustability and because servo valves provide precise control with high speed response.
Geiger teaches an accumulator (fig 6) in fluid communication with the hydraulic cylinder [0133];
a spring 245 disposed in the accumulator (figure 6; figures 6 is an accumulator);
causing the spring to compress and dorsiflex the prosthetic ankle based on a system status (indication of toe off or the start of swing phase) during dorsiflexion in a swing phase of gait. [0133]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the accumulator system of Geiger in the hydraulic ankle system of Hansen because this allows dorsiflexion bias during swing [0207] to prevent tripping and because this allows energy storage during gait [0134].
In regard to claim 18, Hansen meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 14, and further teaches the system status comprises an indication of toe off. [0029: toe off must be sensed using one or more sensors of force, acceleration or other properties]
In regard to claim 19, Hansen meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 14, but does not teach the accumulator.
Geiger teaches an accumulator [anterior and posterior accumulators 0133] wherein hydraulic fluid is pressurized in the accumulator during plantarflexion [0134: accumulator stores hydraulic fluid; 0205: accumulator receives fluid depending on the pressure; by adding more fluid the fluid is pressurized]
and the pressurized hydraulic fluid in the accumulator applies a biasing force on the piston toward dorsiflexion [0133: fluid is forced out of the posterior accumulator and into posterior cylinder 218a which provides a toe up bias on swing phase].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the accumulator system of Geiger in the hydraulic ankle system of Hansen because this allows dorsiflexion bias during swing [0207] to prevent tripping and because this allows energy storage during gait [0134].
In regard to claim 20, Hansen meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 14, but does not teach the accumulator.
Geiger further teaches the accumulator is in fluid communication with the first chamber of the hydraulic cylinder. [0133: fluid is forced out of the accumulator into the piston; since both halves of the piston affect each other the accumulator is at least indirectly in communication with both halves]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the accumulator system of Geiger in the hydraulic ankle system of Hansen because this allows dorsiflexion bias during swing [0207] to prevent tripping and because this allows energy storage during gait [0134].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (2014/0088730A1) in view of Iverson (2006/0235544A1) and in view of Geiger (2015/0134081A1) and further in view of Shorter (EP0503775A1).
In regard to claim 15, Hansen meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 14, further teaches a spring 20 disposed on the hydraulic cylinder 18 and operatively coupled to the piston (fig 1), the spring 20 configured to impart a force on the piston (within 18) during swing phase to dorsiflex the foot portion to lift a toe of the foot portion. [0030: compression damping is slow low so the ankle reactions primarily to the neutralizing spring; neutralizing spring brings the ankle back to a slightly dorsiflexed position]
However, Hansen teaches the spring is on the hydraulic cylinder rather than in the hydraulic cylinder.
Shorter teaches a spring 44 disposed in a hydraulic cylinder (see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to move the spring of Hansen from outside the hydraulic cylinder to inside as taught by Shorter because this protects the spring from getting caught on clothing.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (2014/0088730A1) in view of Iverson (2006/0235544A1) and in view of Geiger (2015/0134081A1) and further in view of Herr (WO2015/164706A1).
In regard to claim 16, Hansen meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 14 and further teaches the system status may comprise force sensors or other properties [0029] but does not teach the system status comprises a pressure threshold amount specifically. However, pressure is force/unit area which is related to the force sensor.
Herr teaches a prosthetic ankle which detects toe off using a pressure threshold amount. [0007: can be determined using pressure; 0085: toe off may be detected based on pressure measurements].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the pressure threshold of Herr to indicate toe off in place of the system status indicator of Hansen through functional equivalents since it appears either indication of the system status to indicate toe off would work equally well. Absent a teaching of criticality (new or unexpected results), this arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed. MPEP 2144.06II
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (2014/0088730A1) in view of Iverson (2006/0235544A1) and in view of Geiger (2015/0134081A1) and further in view of Nishikawa (2016/0030202A1).
In regard to claim 17, Hansen meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 14, but does not teach the system status comprises a degree of dorsiflexion.
Nishikawa teaches the system status comprises a degree of dorsiflexion (degree of dorsiflexion is the ankle angle). [0156: ankle angle to determine what state the device is in such as early swing; early swing corresponds to toe-off]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the ankle angle of Nishikawa to indicate toe off in place of the system status indicator of Hansen through functional equivalents since it appears either indication of the system status to indicate toe off would work equally well. Absent a teaching of criticality (new or unexpected results), this arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed. MPEP 2144.06II
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, 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