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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim 6 has been cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 remain pending.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weizaato et al. (JP 2012143365), in view of Lucas et al. (US 20080155861 A1), hereafter Lucas.
Regarding claim 1, Weizaato discloses a gait assistive device (see translation paragraph 2) comprising: a foot supporting part (fig. 1, sole 3; see paragraph 15); a rear connecting part coupled to a heel portion of the foot supporting part (fig. 1, gear 24 is coupled to a heel portion) and including a joint (fig. 1, joint 26; see paragraph 16); and a rearfoot plate coupled to the rear connecting part (Fig. 1, rearfoot plate 22; see paragraph 15), wherein the joint is configured to permit movement of the rearfoot plate such that the rearfoot plate makes planar contact with the ground at a moment of a heel strike during a gait cycle (see figs. 1 and 2 showing that the joint allows the plate to make planar contact at the back part of the plate), the movement including movement in a sagittal plane, (see figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph 19, the plate is configured to move in the sagittal plane via the joint 26), wherein an angle maintaining part is disposed between the foot supporting part and the rearfoot plate (FIG. 2, spring 28), the angle maintaining part being configured to cause forward tilting of the rearfoot plate during a second half of a stance phase or a swing phase (see paragraph 19 and figs. 1-5, the spring causes the plate to tilt to such forward (toward the front of the shoe) at an angle when the user lifts the foot in the second half of the as shown in fig. 5 and indicated by arrow B); wherein a lower surface of the rearfoot plate is configured to make planar contact with the ground at a moment of the heel strike (see paragraph 19 and figs. 2-3, the spring causes the plate to tilt to such an angle as shown in fig. 3 that allows the lower surface of the back part of the plate to make plane contact with the ground).
Weizaato does not disclose the movement including movement in a sagittal plane.
Lucas teaches a gait assistive device (abstract, Fig. 6-8) comprising a joint (see arrangement in Fig. 8) configured to permit movement of the rearfoot plate in a sagittal plane (springs 30’ attached to angled levers 20 allow for movement in a coronal plane; par. 0052) for the purpose of addressing mis-orientations such a pronation and supination (par. 0052 ln 9-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Weizaato to additionally move in a sagittal plane as taught by Lucas for the purpose of addressing mis-orientations such a pronation and supination (see Lucas: par. 0052 ln 9-12).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Weizaato further teaches wherein the foot supporting part is coupled to a front supporting part at a front side of the foot (Weizaato fig. 1, stopper 4; see paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Weizaato further teaches wherein the foot supporting part is coupled to a front connecting part at a front side of the foot supporting part (Weizaato Fig. 1, gear 14 connects at the front, the front being the portion closer to element 4), and a forefoot plate coupled to the front connecting part (Weizaato Fig. 1, forefoot plate 12).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weizaato, in view of Lucas, as applied to claim 1-3 above, and further in view of Bar-Haim et al. (US PGPub 20080134541).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Weizaato discloses the gait assistive device of claim 1 (shown above).
The modified Weizaato does not teach wherein a coronal adjusting part that transversely adjusts the rearfoot plate is installed between the rearfoot plate and the foot supporting part.
Bar-Haim teaches an analogous gait assistive device (abstract and fig. 1) comprising a coronal adjusting part (fig. 4; thrusting element 284a; see paragraph 70) that transversely adjusts the rearfoot plate is installed between the rearfoot plate and the foot supporting part (see figs. 6(d)-(e) and paragraphs 83-84; the thrusting element 284 is used to transversely adjust the angle between the plate 270 and foot supporting part 254).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the gait assistive device of Weizaato to have a coronal adjusting part that transversely adjusts the rearfoot plate that is installed between the rearfoot plate and the foot supporting part, as taught by Bar-Haim, for the purpose of improving locomotion and motor function of a user, by randomly changing an inclination or height of a stance surface of a device (see paragraph 29 of Bar-Haim). The coronal adjusting part will also allow the foot plate to still make plane contact with the ground if the user tilts their foot transversely.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Weizaato discloses the gait assistive device of claim 3 (shown above).
The modified Weizaato does not teach wherein a coronal adjusting part that transversely adjusts the forefoot plate is disposed between the forefoot plate and the foot supporting part.
Bar-Haim teaches an analogous gait assistive device (abstract and fig. 1) comprising a coronal adjusting part (fig. 4; thrusting element 284b; see paragraph 70) that transversely adjusts the rearfoot plate is installed between the rearfoot plate and the foot supporting part (see figs. 6(d)-(e) and paragraphs 83-84; the thrusting element 284 is used to transversely adjust the angle between the plate 270 and foot supporting part 254).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the gait assistive device of Weizaato to have a coronal adjusting part that transversely adjusts the rearfoot plate that is installed between the rearfoot plate and the foot supporting part, as taught by Bar-Haim, for the purpose of improving locomotion and motor function of a user, by randomly changing an inclination or height of a stance surface of a device (see paragraph 29 of Bar-Haim). The coronal adjusting part will also allow the foot plate to still make plane contact with the ground if the user tilts their foot transversely.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weizaato, in view of Lucas, in view of Bar-Haim, as applied to claims 4-5 above, and further in view of Meschter (US PGPub 20140250726).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Weizaato discloses the gait assistive device of claim 4 (shown above).
The modified Weizaato does not teach wherein the coronal adjusting part is made of at least one of an elastic member, a torsion spring, and a chamber provided with a space accommodating a fluid, and the chamber is connected to a flow adjusting valve that adjusts an amount of the fluid of the chamber.
Meschter teaches an analogous footwear with coronal adjusting parts (abstract and fig. 11) wherein the coronal adjusting part (fig. 1, 122) is made of a chamber provided with a space accommodating a fluid (Fig. 3, chamber 160; see paragraph 36), and the chamber is connected to a flow adjusting valve that adjusts an amount of the fluid of the chamber (see paragraph 53 “Still other embodiments of an adaptive support assembly could include additional provisions for controlling the flow of second fluid 190. For example, other embodiments could include additional valves or other fluid controlling provisions to facilitate fluid flow in the desired direction and at the desired rate in response to various compressive forces.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the coronal adjusting part of the modified Weizaato to be a chamber provided with a space accommodating a fluid, and the chamber is connected to a flow adjusting valve that adjusts an amount of the fluid of the chamber, as taught by Meschter because Meschter teaches this is a known method of providing adaptive support for footwear. This chamber-type mechanism is softer and may be more comfortable for the user.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Weizaato teaches the gait assistive device of claim 5 (shown above).
The modified Weizaato does not teach wherein the coronal adjusting part is made of at least one of an elastic member, a torsion spring, or a chamber provided with a space accommodating a fluid, and the chamber is connected to a flow adjusting valve that adjusts an amount of the fluid of the chamber.
However, Meschter teaches an analogous footwear with coronal adjusting parts (abstract and fig. 11) wherein the coronal adjusting part (fig. 1, 122) is made of a chamber provided with a space accommodating a fluid (Fig. 3, chamber 160; see paragraph 36), and the chamber is connected to a flow adjusting valve that adjusts an amount of the fluid of the chamber (see paragraph 53 “Still other embodiments of an adaptive support assembly could include additional provisions for controlling the flow of second fluid 190. For example, other embodiments could include additional valves or other fluid controlling provisions to facilitate fluid flow in the desired direction and at the desired rate in response to various compressive forces.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the coronal adjusting part of the modified Weizaato to be a chamber provided with a space accommodating a fluid, and the chamber is connected to a flow adjusting valve that adjusts an amount of the fluid of the chamber, as taught by Meschter because Meschter teaches this is a known method of providing adaptive support for footwear. This chamber-type mechanism is softer and may be more comfortable for the user.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weizaato, in view of Lucas, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grygorowicz (US PGPub 20170014297).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Weizaato discloses the gait assistive device according to claim 1 (shown above).
The modified Weizaato does not teach a walking robot comprising the gait assistive device according to claim 1.
Grygorowicz teaches an analogous adjustable footwear (abstract and fig. 2B) wherein the gait assistive device (fig. 2B) is comprised within a walking robot (see fig. 4 and paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the gait assistive device of claim 1 to be used in a walking robot for the purpose of further assisting the user in rehabilitating their gait by placing it in a larger system that aims to recover the natural gait or achieve faster speed (see paragraph 4 of Grygorowicz).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fallon (US 20070084081 A1) discloses a rearfoot plate moving in both a coronal and sagittal plane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY RHEE whose telephone number is (703)756-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, BRANDY LEE can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/K.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785