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 invention I (a prosthetic or orthotic) (claims 1-12), and species 4 (the controller structure/method shown in figure 8) in the reply filed on 02/11/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Numberings
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will understand the first numbered “claim 23” as being claim 23, the second numbered “claim 23” as being claim 24, “claim 24” as being claim 25, and “claim 25” as being claim 26.
The Examiner suggests Applicant correct the claim numbering in the response to this action.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 8, 21, 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 is objected to for having improper antecedent basis for “the error amplitude”.
Claim 8 is objected to for having improper antecedent basis for “the error amplitude” and “a PI controller”.
Claim 21 is objected to for referring to a “knee joint” velocity when it is unclear how, if at all, this relates to the previously claimed “prosthetic or orthotic device”. It is unconnected based on the claims, but it appears it might actually be a part of the device.
Claim 24 is objected to for referring to “the current set point” with improper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
-item 208 is used to represent both “blades of magnetic material” and “blade sets”
-figure 3 refers to “Mr Actuator” when it is believed this should read “MR Actuator”
-item 508 is used to represent both “gain km” and “angle-dependent torque gain”
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12, 21, 23, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisbee et al. (US 20060074493 A1) hereinafter known as Bisbee in view of Bedard (US 9649206 B2), further in view of Gain scheduling for semiactive MR dampers, by Fu et al., 2012 American Control Conference, June 27-29, 2012, pages 6114-6119, hereinafter known as Fu.
Regarding claim 1 Bisbee discloses a prosthetic or orthotic device comprising:
a frame (Figure 84) configured to house electronics ([0102]),
an actuator movably coupled to the frame (Figures 4-6 item 112) which is configured to rotate in an anterior-posterior direction about a medial-lateral axis (124), the actuator comprising a MR fluid (134) and a coil (115) operable to selectively apply a magnetic field to the MR fluid to vary its viscosity and thereby vary a torsional resistance of the actuator about the medial-lateral axis ([0006], [0164]), and
circuitry (802) configured to control an amplitude of a current applied to the coil ([0623]),
but is silent with regards to the type of controller used to control the amplitude of the current.
However, regarding claim 1 Bedard teaches a prosthetic or orthotic device can be controlled via a PID controller (Column 27 lines 59-64), which utilizes circuitry to accelerate a change in the component amplitude based on an error amplitude between a component set point and a measured component (Column 27 line 64- Column 28 line 15) to reduce a response time for varying the torsional resistance of the actuator, and Fu teaches utilizing a gains schedule to accelerate a change in component amplitude based on an error amplitude between a component set point and a measured component (page 6114 column 2 paragraph 2). Bisbee and Bedard are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetics, and Bisbee and Fu are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely MR dampers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control the current of the actuator of Bisbee via a PID controller in order to utilize a well-known type of controller to ensure the actual current applied to the actuator closely follows the desired current being applied to the actuator, thus ensuring appropriate actuator function. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the Combination so the PID controller follows a gain scheduler as is taught by Fu, in order to reduce vibration and positively influence performance (Fu page 6119 column 1). In the Combination, which relies upon an MR actuator whose viscosity is controlled by current (Bisbee [0164]), the circuitry would obviously employ the gains schedule to accelerate a change in the current.
Regarding claim 2 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Bisbee further discloses the actuator (112) is coupled to a proximal portion of the frame (Figure 3b).
Regarding claim 3 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Bisbee further discloses the device is a prosthetic knee ([0163], Figure 4).
Regarding claim 4 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein the Combination further teaches the schedule of gains in the PID controller includes a plurality of proportional gains and a plurality of integral gains (Bedard Column 27 line 65-Column 28 line 7. Since Bisbee teaches the controller must function throughout a gait cycle (see at least figure 1), there are considered to be a plurality of each as the controller works over a period of time).
Regarding claim 5 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 4 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Bedard further teaches the gains schedule includes a plurality of discrete gain values that are increasing/decreasing with a change in the error amplitude (column 27 line 65-column 28 line 15; a PID controller includes three discrete gains that change according to how far from the set point the measured component is).
Regarding claim 6 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Bedard further teaches the circuitry has a proportional-integral (PI) controller (Column 27 line 63).
Regarding claim 7 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 5 substantially as is claimed,
wherein the Combination further teaches the discrete gain values include a plurality of proportional gains and a plurality of integral gains (Bedard Column 27 line 65-Column 28 line 7. Since Bisbee teaches the controller must function throughout a gait cycle (see at least figure 1), there are considered to be a plurality of each as the controller works over a period of time).
Regarding claim 12 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 4 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Bedard further teaches the gain schedule is continuous and establishes a direct relationship between the amplitude of the current error and the proportional integral gains (Column 27 line 65-Column 28 line 7).
Regarding claim 21 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Bisbee further discloses the circuitry is configured to control the amplitude of the current applied to the coil ([0622]-[0623]) based in part on knee joint velocity feedback ([0580] the knee angle sensor determines velocity of the knee; [0576] the sensors transmit their information to the circuitry).
Regarding claim 23 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Bisbee further discloses the circuitry includes one or more of a velocity, impedance, position, or torque controller ([0607] torque is controlled).
Regarding claim 25 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Bisbee further discloses the error amplitude is iteratively calculated throughout a gait cycle (the claimed invention is directed towards a device not towards a method. The circuitry which utilizes the error amplitude is understood to be capable of calculating it throughout the gait cycle if desired. See also Bisbee figure 1 which relies upon the actuator in question throughout a gait cycle.).
Regarding claim 26 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Bisbee further discloses the actuator further comprises an MR brake (112; [0163]) which is configured to provide a controlled amount of resistance to motion based on a strength of the magnetic field going through the MR fluid ([0006], [0164], [0180]).
Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisbee, Bedard, and Fu as is applied above, further in view of Herr et al. (US 20150127118 A1) hereinafter known as Herr.
Regarding claim 9 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Bedard further teaches a PID controller uses discrete numbers of current error amplitude to determine a value of a proportional gain and a value of an integral gain to use (Column 27 line 65-Column 28 line 7),
but is silent with regards to the PID controller with gain schedule using discrete ranges of current error amplitude.
However, regarding claim 9 Herr teaches that within prosthetic analysis, values and ranges can be used alternatively ([0088]). Bisbee and Herr are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of the Combination so that ranges are used rather than values to determine values, as is taught by Herr in order to simplify calculations of the controller, thus speeding up the controller as a whole and allowing it to work more immediately.
Regarding claim 10 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Herr Combination teaches discloses the device of claim 9 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Bedard further teaches the current error values are uniformly distributed (discrete numbers are considered to be uniformly distributed). While the Combination fails to teach the ranges being uniformly distributed, the Examiner notes that the person of ordinary skill would understand that having the ranges uniformly distributed would have been obvious since this is already taught by Bedard, and there is no disclosed or obvious reason to have the ranges used to not be uniform. The courts have held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Claim 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisbee, Bedard, and Fu as is applied above, further in view of Langlois (US 20120283844 A1).
Regarding claim 22 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Bisbee further discloses the circuitry is configured to control the amplitude of the current applied to the coil ([0622]-[0623]),
but is silent with regards to the perturbation torque input being considered.
However, regarding claim 22 Langlois teaches considering a perturbation torque input for prosthetic control ([0184]). Bisbee and Langlois are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination so that the perturbation torque is considered in the control scheme of the device in order to ensure all external influences are accounted for within the control scheme, thus increasing its performance.
Regarding claim 24 the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Bisbee further discloses a current controller ([0622]),
and wherein Bedard further teaches the control system is configured to implement a control signal for the actuator based on the current set point (column 27 lines 63-column 28 lines 17),
but is silent with regards to the circuitry comprising an outer loop controller to calculate the current set point.
However, regarding claim 24 Langlois teaches control circuitry for a prosthetic device can comprise an outer loop controller (133) configured to calculate a control component set point (Figure 3; [0048]). Bisbee and Langlois are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of the Bisbee Bedard Fu Combination so that the set point is controlled by an outer loop controller as is taught by Langlois in order to ensure the set point changes and accommodates the system as a whole, throughout use, so that the controller of the Combination functions as a PID control system should.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 8, while Bisbee discloses a proportional gain of the PI controller, and an integral gain of the PI controller (Column 27 line 65-Column 28 line 7), Bisbee is silent with regards to the proportional gain decreasing when the error amplitude decreases, and the integral gain increases when the error amplitude decrease, and the prior art fails to teach this within a prosthetic or orthotic device.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to teach that ranges of current error values within a gain scheduling PID controller for a prosthetic or orthotic device would be reducing, when the error size reduces. Additionally, there does not appear to be a reason to have this reduction in current error range values when the error size reduces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacqueline Woznicki whose telephone number is (571)270-5603. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm EST.
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.
/Jacqueline Woznicki/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 03/19/26
Prosecution Insights