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 with traverse of invention I (claims 1-4), and species 4 (the contribution to the resistive torque set-point for the actuator asymptotically increases towards a predefined resistive torque contribution over an entire actuation motion range) in the reply filed on 04/08/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that applicant amended the claims. Applicant then suggests how the Examiner could perform searches for the distinctly claimed species. This is not found persuasive because distinct searches proves a search burden.
Claims 6-8 and 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/08/26.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 12, 16, 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to for claiming the sensors are embedded/attached “to the prosthetic device” but it is unclear to the Examiner what/how this works if the system is for controlling an orthotic device as opposed to the prosthetic, and whether or not the sensors are actually required if an orthotic is being controlled.
Claim 3 is objected to for having improper antecedent basis for “a user’s weight”.
Claim 12 is objected to for claiming the prosthetic device or orthotic device comprises a prosthetic knee when it is unclear how an orthotic device can comprise a prosthetic knee.
Claims 16 and 20 are objected to for referring to “a user’s weight” with improper antecedent basis.
Claim 21 is objected to for being a duplicate of the claim from which it depends, and thus does not further limit the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
It is possible that Figure 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 § 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.
Claims 4, 16-17, 19-21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 17, and 21 are “indefinite for referring to “a swing flexion subphase” and “a swing extension subphase” when these have apparently nothing to do with the claims from which they depend.
Claims 16 and 20 are indefinite for referring to “the reactive layer” when it is unclear what this is, as it does not appear to be related to anything in the claims from which this claim depends. It is unclear what this represents.
Claims 17 and 21 are further indefinite for referring to “the actuator velocity estimate” when this is not an element that was present in the claims from which these depend, and they have apparently nothing to do with the claims from which they depend.
Remaining claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 18, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langlois et al. (US 20130261766 A1) hereinafter known as Langlois in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 20160367385 A1), hereinafter known as Hashimoto.
Regarding claim 18 Langlois discloses a system for controlling a prosthetic device or orthotic device (Abstract) comprising:
an actuator (Figure 15 item 1501), and
circuitry configured to implement control system architecture ([0189]-[0190], with reference to at least US 20120283844 [0008] and Figure 2a, which is incorporated by reference) configured to control a resistive torque of the actuator ([0125]-[0126]), the architecture comprising a Luenberger observer ([0189]-[0190], with reference to at least US 20120283844 [0008] and Figure 2a, which is incorporated by reference),
but is silent with regards to the angular velocity being estimated.
However, regarding claim 18 Hashimoto teaches a system for controlling a prosthetic or orthotic device (Abstract) which utilizes an estimation of the angular velocity (Abstract). Langlois and Hashimoto are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic and orthotic systems of control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Langlois by having their control system estimate angular velocity as is taught by Hashimoto since this is a variable known within the prosthetic system which can aid in characterization and control of the prosthetic/orthotic and the courts have held that the use of a known technique or method to improve a known device results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(C). The use of any known control mechanism to promote control of a prosthetic or orthotic would have been obvious to try.
Regarding claim 14 the Langlois Hashimoto Combination teaches the system of claim 18 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Langlois further discloses the actuator further comprises a MR fluid ([0125]-[0126]) and a coil ([0126] with reference to US 20060136072 [0163], which is incorporated by reference) operable to apply a magnetic field to the MR fluid to vary a resistive torque of the actuator ([0125]),
a sensor ([0029]),
and wherein the architecture is configured to control the actuator based on data collected from the sensor ([0029], [0078]).
Claims 1-2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langlois and Hashimoto as is applied above, further in view of Weinberg et al. (US 20080097269 A1) hereinafter known as Weinberg.
Regarding claim 1 the Langlois Hashimoto Combination teaches the system of claim 14 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Langlois further discloses the actuator is configured to rotate in an anterior-posterior direction about a medial-lateral axis ([0126] with reference to US 20060136072 Figures 4-5 and 2, which shows the actuator rotating with arrow 142 around the axis 124, which is incorporated by reference),
wherein the magnetic field is able to vary the MR fluid’s viscosity ([0125]) which vary the torque about the medial-lateral axis ([0126] with reference to US 20060136072 Figure 4 and [0170], which shows the actuator rotating with arrow 142 around the axis 124 so the torque is varied due to blades 130, 120, which is incorporated by reference),
wherein the sensor is embedded in or attached to the prosthetic ([0083], [0100]-[0101]-[0102]),
and wherein the circuitry’s architecture is able to control an amplitude of a current applied to the coil to regular the resistance torque generated by the MR actuator ([0010] the actuator is controlled by the computer circuitry; and see also [0126] with reference to US 20060136072 [0163] which explains how the resistive magnetic field is varied with the varying of the current through the coil, which is incorporated by reference),
but is silent with regards to the actuator velocity estimate being used in a closed-loop velocity control.
However, regarding claim 1 Weinberg teaches that a prosthetic system can be used in a closed-loop control system ([0013]). Langlois and Weinberg are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic and orthotic systems of control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of the Langlois Hashimoto Combination so that the actuator velocity estimate is used in a closed-loop velocity control as is taught by Weinberg since the courts have held that the use of a known technique or method to improve a known device results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(C). In this case, the use of closed loop control allows real-time sensory feedback to be used within the control, thus improving user experience.
Regarding claim 2 the Langlois Hashimoto Weinberg Combination teaches the system of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Langlois further discloses the architecture includes an inference layer ([0189]) and a reactive layer ([0193]-[0194]). See also [0190] which incorporates US 20110125290 by reference, which shows in Figure 1 how the architecture includes both an inference layer and a reactive layer.
Regarding claim 12 the Langlois Hashimoto Weinberg Combination teaches the system of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Langlois further discloses the prosthetic or orthotic is a prosthetic knee ([0126]).
Claims 4, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langlois and Hashimoto as is applied above, further in view of Jacobson et al. (US 20080216593 A1) hereinafter known as Jacobson.
Regarding claim 20 the Langlois Hashimoto Combination teaches the system of claim 18 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Langlois further discloses the reactive layer implements a state machine (see [0189] which references US 7147667, Abstract, and incorporates by reference),
but is silent with regards to the specific subphases associated with swing and stance.
However, regarding claim 20 Jacobson teaches that a swing phase comprises at least two subphases ([0015]), and the stance phase comprises at least three subphases ([0011]), wherein the swing phase defines a state where the prosthetic or orthotic is not carrying a user’s weight or in contact with a ground surface ([0010]) and the stance phase defines a state where the prosthetic or orthotic is carrying a user’s weight or in contact with the ground surface ([0010]). Langlois and Jacobson are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely systems for prosthetic or orthotic control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of the Langlois Hashimoto Combination so that the subphases of swing and stance are recognized by the controller as is taught by Jacobson, since the control of the leg within each phase is distinct from each other, and its differentiation can improve the overall control of the limb when the computer recognizes the state the limb expects to be in.
Regarding claim 16 the Langlois Hashimoto Jacobson Combination teaches the system of claim 14 substantially as is claimed (see the rejection to claim 20 above).
Regarding claim 4 the Langlois Hashimoto Weinberg Combination teaches the system of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Hashimoto further teaches the actuator velocity estimate is used to control the prosthetic or orthotic (see the Abstract; see also the explanation and rejection to claim 18 above),
but is silent with regards to using that estimate to distinguish between swing flexion and swing extension subphases.
However, regarding claim 4 Jacobson teaches that sensor information ([0022]) can be used to distinguish between a swing flexion subphase and a swing extension subphase ([0015] swing flexion initial swing, and swing extension terminal swing). Langlois and Jacobson are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely systems for prosthetic or orthotic control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of the Langlois Hashimoto Combination so that the sensor information of the Combination (e.g. the sensor information which estimates the angular velocity) is able to distinguish the subphases as is taught by Jacobson since the control of the leg within each phase is distinct from each other, and its differentiation can improve the overall control of the limb when the computer recognizes the state the limb expects to be in. Any information from any sensor in any location of the leg is understood obvious to try to obtain information from to distinguish this information regarding the phases of the gait.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langlois, Hashimoto, and Weinberg, further in view of Jacobson as is applied above.
Regarding claim 3 the Langlois Hashimoto Weinberg Combination teaches the system of claim 2 substantially as is claimed (see the rejection to claim 20 above).
Claims 5, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langlois, Hashimoto, and Weinberg as is applied above, further in view of Sankai (US 20190328553 A1).
Regarding claim 5 the Langlois Hashimoto Weinberg Combination teaches the system of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent whether the architecture defines a relationship between a position of the actuator and a portion of the resistive torque set point.
However, regarding claim 5 Sankai teaches a control architecture that includes an Angle Dependent Component setpoint generation configured to define a relationship between a position of the actuator and at least a portion of a resistive torque set-point ([0095]-[0096], [0109], [0111], [0124], [0126]). Langlois and Sankai are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely systems for prosthetic or orthotic control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the Langlois Hashimoto Weinberg Combination to modify the system of the Combination so that the control architecture understands the relationship between the angular position of the actuator and the amount of torque that should be supplied to the user since it is well-understood in the art that the amount of torque or resistive torque that should be applied to the joint throughout the gait cycle changes based on the power consumption of each phase of the gait cycle. Accounting for where the user is in the gait cycle in order to understand those torque requirements is obvious to ensure a good level of control over the joint.
Regarding claim 13 the Langlois Hashimoto Weinberg Sankai Combination teaches the system of claim 5 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Sankai further teaches the setpoint generation is defined such that a contribution to the resistive torque set-point for the actuator increases linearly over a portion of an actuator motion range (Figure 11b).
Regarding claim 15 the Langlois Hashimoto Weinberg Sankai Combination teaches the system of claim 13 substantially as is claimed (see the rejection to claim 2 above).
Claims 17, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langlois, Hashimoto, Weinberg, and Sankai, further in view of Jacobson as is applied above.
Regarding claims 17 and 21 the Langlois Hashimoto Weinberg Sankai Combination teaches the system of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Hashimoto further teaches the actuator velocity estimate is used to control the prosthetic or orthotic (see the Abstract; see also the explanation and rejection to claim 18 above),
and Sankai further teaches distinguishing between phases to control the prosthetic ([0096]),
but is silent with regards to using that estimate to distinguish between swing flexion and swing extension subphases.
However, regarding claims 17 and 21 Jacobson teaches that sensor information ([0022]) can be used to distinguish between a swing flexion subphase and a swing extension subphase ([0015] swing flexion initial swing, and swing extension terminal swing). Langlois and Jacobson are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely systems for prosthetic or orthotic control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of the Langlois Hashimoto Weinberg Sankai Combination so that the sensor information of the Combination (e.g. the sensor information which estimates the angular velocity) is able to distinguish the subphases as is taught by Jacobson since the control of the leg within each phase is distinct from each other, and its differentiation can improve the overall control of the limb when the computer recognizes the state the limb expects to be in. Any information from any sensor in any location of the leg is understood obvious to try to obtain information from to distinguish this information regarding the phases of the gait.
Regarding claim 19 the Langlois Hashimoto Weinberg Sankai Jacobson Combination teaches the system of claim 17 substantially as is claimed (see the rejection to claim 2 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
While the Langlois Hashimoto Weinberg Sankai Combination teaches the system of claim 5 substantially as is claimed, the prior art fails to teach there being a setpoint generation defined such that a contribution to the resistive torque set-point for the actuator asymptotically increases towards a predefined resistive torque contribution over an entire actuator motion range. Asymptotic increases over part of the range are known (see for example Sankai figure 11b), but having an asymptotic increase over an entire range of the actuator is not known in the art. It is further not considered obvious since there is no reason to do this.
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 05/28/26
Prosecution Insights