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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the presented arguments in the remarks dated 11/12/2025, It is stated that Christensen does not disclose or suggest a transverse shear constraint element that prevents relative sliding of at least two beam elements. Examiner disagrees. Examiner asserts that, as a sliding between the two elements is not present in figures 3a-3d or is disclosed in the specification, which depict the prosthetic foot during use as per [0063], a preventing of sliding is present in Christensen. While a variable viscosity fluid or material part 50 is present in [0054], with figures 2b-sj depicting a movement of part 50 in response to the change in viscosity, a sliding of beam elements (like parts 18 and 22 in figures 3a-3d) is not depicted with a change in viscosity of parts 50 and analogous parts in other figures. While a movement between members is present, a sliding motion is not disclosed in [0052]. Further clarification of a movement that is prevented would overcome Christensen.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen (US Pub No.: 2008/0183301).
Christensen (US Pub No.: 2008/0183301) discloses a compliant element for an ankle and foot prosthesis or orthosis ( a prosthetic device disclosed in the abstract with springs acting as compliant elements in [0047]) comprising: a mounting portion (being the adaptor 320 in [0072]); a spring component including two or more stacked beam elements (parts 18 and 22 in figures 3a-3d comprise two stacked springs in [0067]), each beam element having a first end and a second end opposite and spaced apart from the first end (being the leftmost and rightmost end of part 22 and the leftmost and the topmost part of part 18 in figures 3a-3b), and a transverse shear constraint element located between the first end and the second end of the beam elements (being parts 50 and 60 shown in figures 1 and 2a-2d, where the shear constraint is disclosed in [0054]), wherein the transverse shear constraint element prevents relative sliding of at least two beam elements in a region of the beam elements between the first end of the beam elements and the transverse shear constraint element (as a sliding between the two elements is not present in figures 3a-3d, which depict the prosthetic foot during use as per [0063], a preventing of sliding is present).
However, Christensen does not teach a mounting portion wherein the first end of each of the beam elements is fixedly attached to the mounting portion.
Instead, an alternate embodiment of Christensen does a mounting portion (figure 6d part 400, defined as an adaptor in [0074]) wherein the first end of each of the beam elements is fixedly attached to the mounting portion (the adaptor can be implemented onto the topmost portion of the two members 522 and 518 of figure 8a to attach to both members at a first portion). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the alternative arrangement of the beam elements of Christensen with the adaptor in order to provide another prosthetic foot device with different force transmission details in [0079]-[0080] such that less load is transferred to a primary foot member 518. The adaptor is beneficial toward the device of these figures as it allows for an attachment of the device of figure 8a to a stump of an amputee, as required by paragraph [0079].
Regarding claim 2, Christensen teaches that the compliant element of claim 1, wherein the transverse shear constraint element is movable between the first end and the second end of the beam elements (movement of the transverse shear constraint element shown in figures from 2b to 2n. said movement is contained within the space between the first and second end of both beam elements in figures 3a-3d).
Regarding claim 3, Christensen teaches the compliant element of claim 1, wherein the transverse shear constraint element prevents the relative sliding of all of the two or more stacked beam elements in the region of the beam elements between the first end of the beam elements and the transverse shear constraint element (as no sliding Is present in figures 3A-3D, a prevention of a sliding is present via the transverse shear constraint elements).
Regarding claim 4, Christensen teaches the compliant element of claim 1, wherein the transverse shear constraint element prevents the relative sliding of a subset of the beam elements between the first end and the second end of the beam elements (in alternate embodiments, like in figure 5 where multiple beam elements are present, the transverse shear constraint elements 232 and 228 will still resist a sliding movement as said transverse shear constraint elements are equivalent to the transverse shear elements in figures 3A-3D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the design in figure 5 of Christensen over the previously relied upon device to provide an alternative prosthetic foot arrangement that provides multiple energy storing foot members (219, 220, 222, and 224 in [0069])
Regarding claim 5, Christensen teaches the compliant element of claim 4, wherein the transverse shear constraint element is configured to selectively engage various subsets of beam elements (as multiple embodiments are shown with transverse shear constraint elements, like figure 2 with shear constraint elements 50, figure 4 with shear constraint element 144, figure 5 with shear constraint elements 228 and 232, as well as further figures with elements 652 and 662, Christensen does teach multiple engagements to various subsets of beam elements that can be selected depending on the need of the user of the device) .
Regarding claim 6, Christensen teaches the compliant element of claim 1, wherein the transverse shear constraint element includes a clamping mechanism (in an alternate embodiment shown in figures 20 and 21, the variable resistance cell 1432 will extend between the beam members 1424 and 1418, as per [0132]. As fluid passes between 1412 and 1414 will move part 1462 that is attached to 1464 (in figure 21), a means to change the distance between 1418 and 1424 is present in figure 21, allowing the mechanism of 1432 to act as a clamp).
Regarding claim 11, Christensen teaches the compliant element of claim 1, wherein the beam elements are curvilinear (shown in figures 3a-3c of Christensen).
Regarding claim 12, Christensen teaches a prosthetic foot comprising the compliant element of claim 1 (in the abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Christensen teaches the prosthetic foot of claim 12, wherein the prosthetic foot comprises a hindfoot component and a forefoot component (being the leftmost and rightmost parts of the prosthetic foot in figures 3a-3d and figure 5), wherein the compliant element comprises at least one of the hindfoot component or the forefoot component (in an alternate embodiment in figure 5, element 224 and 220 extend to the hindfoot with transverse shear constraint element part 232 while part 218 extends to the forefoot component with transverse shear constraint element in 228).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen (US Pub No.: 2008/0183301) in view of Rouse (US Pub No.: 2021/0307938).
Regarding claim 7, Christensen teaches that the compliant element of claim 6, wherein the transverse shear constraint element is a clamp (in an alternate embodiment shown in figures 20 and 21, the variable resistance cell 1432 will extend between the beam members 1424 and 1418, as per [0132]. As fluid passes between 1412 and 1414 will move part 1462 that is attached to 1464 (in figure 21), a means to change the distance between 1418 and 1424 is present in figure 21, allowing the mechanism of 1432 to act as a clamp).
However, Christensen does not disclose details with respect to an actuation by a cam mechanism.
Instead, Rouse (US Pub No.: 2021/0307938) teaches a cam mechanism (in the abstract). Said cam mechanism can actuate the clamp element of Christensen as said cam mechanism 252 is part of a mounting device 256 that will modify the arrangement of a spring member 210 in figure 2C of Rouse. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cam of Rouse into the device of Christensen for the purpose of providing a means attached to an adaptor in [0068]
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen (US Pub No.: 2008/0183301) in view of Anderson (US Pub No.: 2020/0179138).
Regarding claim 8, Christensen teaches the compliant element of claim 1. However, Christensen does not teach wherein at least one of the beam elements comprises a different material from at least one other beam element.
Instead, Anderson (US Pub No.: 2020/0179138) teaches wherein at least one of the beam elements comprises a different material from at least one other beam element (carbon fiber composite, thermoplastic matric, fiberglass, basalt, aramid fiber composites for use in a spring element on a prosthetic foot in [0067]. “Variety of different materials in different constructions” in [0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material details presented into Anderson into the beam elements of Christensen (being the spring members of Christensen) for the purpose of providing multiple materials known in the art that are known as being flexible (in [0067]-[0068]) where said materials will provide different specific properties that will provide different characteristics to the prosthetic device of Christensen.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen (US Pub No.: 2008/0183301) in view of Pusch (US Pub No.: 2022/0183863).
Regarding claim 9, Christensen teaches the compliant element of claim 1. However, Christensen does not teach wherein the beam elements have a constant thickness between the first end and the second end of the beam elements.
Instead, Pusch (US Pub No.: 2022/0183863) teaches wherein the beam elements have a constant thickness between the first end and the second end of the beam elements (shown in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement of the leaf springs (being the main spring 40 with the intermediate spring 60 defined in [0044]-[0046]) and the uniform thickness shown in figure 1 for the purpose of providing straight leaf springs that have “cost-effective production can be achieved and the material properties are optimally utilized” as per [0023]. The thickness is implied to be constant in [0048] as the thickness of the spring elements is referenced with no mention of the thickness of said parts being variable.
Regarding claim 10, Christensen teaches the compliant element of claim 9, wherein the beam elements are straight.
Instead, Pusch (US Pub No.: 2022/0183863) teaches wherein the beam elements are straight (being parts 60 and 40 in figure 3, which are depicted as being straight in the layered arrangement). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement of the leaf springs (being the main spring 40 with the intermediate spring 60 defined in [0044]-[0046]) and the straight configuration shown in figure 1 for the purpose of providing straight leaf springs that have “cost-effective production can be achieved and the material properties are optimally utilized” as per [0023].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen (US Pub No.: 2008/0183301) in view of Herr (US Pub No.: 2022/0160522).
Regarding claim 14, Christensen teaches an ankle foot orthosis comprising the compliant element of claim 1, wherein the ankle foot orthosis includes a foot component (being the prosthetic foot in the abstract),
However, Christensen does not teach a shank component wherein the compliant element is coupled to one of the shank component or the foot component at the mounting portion and to the other of the foot component or the shank component at the second end of at least one of the beam elements.
Instead, Herr (US Pub No.: 2022/0160522) teaches a shank component (in the abstract) wherein the compliant element is coupled to one of the shank component or the foot component at the mounting portion (being the shank connection to the leaf spring as per [0035]) and to the other of the foot component or the shank component at the second end of at least one of the beam elements (the shank 102 connects to an ankle-bearing block 103 that then attaches to a foot structure 104 in figure 35. Parts shown in figure 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the shank element of Herr into Christensen for the purpose of providing a shank element not disclosed in Christensen that allows for a connection to a socket element, with an additional shank shell (in the abstract) to cover up components of the prosthetic foot (as per [0035]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lecomte (US Patent No.: 10,980,648) disclosed for a prosthetic foot device with multiple spring members in figure 1A. Christensen (US Patent No.: 6,197,068) discloses a prosthetic foot in the abstract with a fiber member connecting the spring elements.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AREN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0144. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:30 M-Th.
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 C. Edwards can be reached 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 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.
/AREN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774