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 . Claims 1-10 are pending and examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "50, 60 and 61" have both been used to designate pneumatic cylinder. Reference characters “60 and 61” have both been used to designate the pneumatic piston. Reference characters “50 and 51” have both been used to reference the hydraulic cylinder. Reference characters “50 and 51” have both been used to reference the hydraulic piston. 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. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: recites "displacably instead of “displaceably” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As currently stated, for claim 10 it is unclear if the actuator is adjusting the pneumatic valve on the basis of sensor values or if the control device is adjusting the pneumatic valve. To clarify claim meaning, a comma to the claim language to complete the recited clause.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 11,478,366 B2 (hereinafter, "Auberger").
In regards to claim 1, Auberger discloses a damper unit (Fig. 24, actuator-damper unit 100-k, col. 16, line 65-68), comprising:
a hydraulic cylinder (Fig. 24, first cylinder 12, col. 16, lines 9-15, see also col. 1 lines 29-31, for hydraulic/pneumatic interchangeability)
a hydraulic piston (Fig. 24, first piston 30, col. 16, lines 9-15) mounted displacably (Fig 1, col. 6, lines 20-35) within the hydraulic cylinder;
therein and which is coupled to (Fig. 24, col. 16, lines 9-15)
a piston rod (Fig. 24, piston rod 35, col. 16, lines 9-15) which divides the hydraulic cylinder into two hydraulic chambers (Fig. 24, fist fluid chamber 41 and second fluid chamber 42, col. 16, lines 15-18)
which are fluidically interconnected via at least one hydraulic channel (see below, annotated Fig. 24, HC1, fluid line 20, col. 16, lines 15-18),
wherein the hydraulic piston is coupled to the piston rod (Abstract);
a pneumatic cylinder (Fig. 24, second cylinder, 14, col. 16, lines 29-35, see also col. 1 lines 29-31, for hydraulic/pneumatic interchangeability);
a pneumatic piston (Fig. 24, piston, 32, col. 16, lines 29-35) mounted displacably (Fig 1, col. 6, lines 20-35) within the pneumatic cylinder,
wherein the pneumatic piston is coupled (Abstract) to the piston rod (Fig. 24, piston rod 35, col. 16, lines 20-35, see also Fig. 20, for configurations utilizing multiple piston rods),
wherein the pneumatic piston divides the cylinder into two pneumatic chambers (Fig. 24, fluid chambers 43 and 44, col. 16, lines 35-41)
which are fluidically interconnected via at least one pneumatic channel (see below, annotated Fig. 24, PC1, fluid line 20, col. 16, lines 5-10),
wherein a value of a volume change of the two hydraulic chambers during a movement of the hydraulic piston differs (col. 6 lines 41-46, and col 6. lines 59-64),
and wherein the two hydraulic chambers are fluidically coupled (Fig. 24, connection line 114, col. 16, lines 37-40) to a compensating volume (Fig. 24, compensating volume 60, see also col. 6, lines 55-60).
PNG
media_image1.png
533
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Auberger further discloses that the value of the volume change (col. 6 lines 41-46) of the two pneumatic chambers (Fig. 24, fluid chambers 43 and 44, col. 16, lines 35-41) during a movement of the pneumatic piston (Fig. 24, piston 32, col. 16, lines 29-35) is identical (col. 6, lines 42-45).
In regards to claim 5, Auberger further discloses at least one switchable or adjustable hydraulic valve (Fig. 24, control valves 21 and22, col. 16, lines 62-65)
arranged in the at least one hydraulic channel (see below, annotated Fig. 24, HC1, , col. 16, lines 5-10).
PNG
media_image1.png
533
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 6, Auberger further discloses at least one switchable or adjustable pneumatic valve (Fig. 24, control valves 23 and 23’, col. 16, lines 40-45) arranged in the at least one pneumatic channel (see above, annotated Fig. 24, PC1, fluid line, 20, see also, col. 7, lines 5-10).
In regards to claim 9, Auberger further discloses an orthopedic device (col. 16, lines 12-14),
comprising: an upper part (Fig. 2, upper part 1, col. 7, lines 35-41);
a lower part (Fig. 2, lower part 3, col. 7, lines 35-41),
wherein the upper part and the lower part are mounted pivotably (Fig. 2, pivot axis 3, col. 7, lines 35-41) on each other via a joint (Fig. 2, joint 300, col. 7, lines 35-41);
and having a damper unit (Fig. 23, actuator-damper unit 100-k, col. 16, lines 9-15, all the 100-n damper units are seen as interchangeable within the large system of Fig. 2) as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the damper unit is arranged between the upper part and the lower part and provides resistance to pivoting (Fig. 2 attachment shows the attachment would resist pivoting) of the upper part relative to the lower part (Fig. 2, damper unit 100-k, in combination with housing, 10, col. 7, lines 35-41).
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.
Claims 3, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,478,366 B2 ("Auberger").
In regards to claim 3, a first embodiment of Auberger further discloses the damper unit (Fig. 24, actuator-damper unit 100-k, col. 16, lines 65-68) as claimed in claim 1,
including the pneumatic piston (Fig. 24, piston 32, col. 16, lines 29-35).
However, Figure 24 in Auberger does not explicitly disclose a configuration with a piston rod arranged on the pneumatic piston.
A second embodiment disclosed in Auberger teaches a damper unit ( Fig. 20, actuator-damper unit, 100-f, col. 14, lines 5-25)
wherein the pneumatic piston (Fig. 20, piston, 32, col. 14, lines 15-20)
is arranged on the piston rod (Fig. 20, piston rod, 35, col. 6, lines 20-35)
and the piston rod projects through the pneumatic cylinder (Fig. 20, piston rod, 35 in combination with cylinder, 14, col. 14 lines 20-30).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a piston rod for use on the pneumatic piston as since doing so merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143).
In regards to claim 7, a first embodiment of Auberger further discloses that in the at least one pneumatic channel (see below, annotated Fig. 24, PC1, col. 16, lines 5-10)
there are arranged two pneumatic valves (Fig. 24, control valves 23 and 23’, col. 16, lines 40-45).
However, Figure 24 in Auberger does not explicitly disclose two pneumatic valves arranged with respect to which two mutually oppositely switched check valves, are arranged in a parallel channel, wherein the parallel channel is connected to the at least one pneumatic channel, via a connecting channel between the two pneumatic valves and the two mutually oppositely switched check valves.
A third embodiment disclosed in Auberger teaches a damper unit ( Fig. 19, actuator-damper unit 100-e, col. 13, lines 47-50) with at least one pneumatic channel (see below, annotated Fig. 19, PC1)
with respect to which two mutually oppositely switched check valves (Fig. 19, 3-way valve 25, col. 13 lines 58-62),
are arranged in a parallel channel (see below, annotated Fig. 19, PP1)
wherein the parallel channel is connected to the at least one pneumatic channel via a connecting channel (see below, annotated Fig. 19, C1) between the two pneumatic valves and the two mutually oppositely switched check valves.
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the damper of the first embodiment of Auberger to include switched check valves of the third embodiment of Auberger in order to allow the pressure to be selectively controlled throughout the system (col. 13, line 55-60).
PNG
media_image1.png
533
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
674
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 8, the first embodiment of Auberger further discloses that the connecting channel (Fig. 24, connection line, 114, col. 16, lines 50-55)
provides a fluidic connection to a surrounding atmosphere and is closed via a filling valve (Fig. 24, non-return valve 24, col. 16, lines 65-col. 17 lines 1-5).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,478,366 B2 ("Auberger") in view of WO 2013/004690 A1 ("Keck").
In regards to claim 4, Auberger further discloses
the pneumatic piston (Fig. 24, piston 32, col. 16, lines 29-35),
the hydraulic cylinder (Fig. 24, first cylinder 12, col. 16, lines 9-15, see also col. 1 lines 29-31, for hydraulic/pneumatic interchangeability), and
the pneumatic cylinder (Fig. 4, cylinder 14, col. 16, lines 29-35, see also col. 1 lines 29-31, for hydraulic/pneumatic interchangeability). However Auberger, does not explicitly disclose a configuration wherein the pneumatic piston is fastened to the hydraulic cylinder and the hydraulic cylinder is arranged movably in the pneumatic cylinder.
Keck teaches the damper unit (Fig. 2, pneumatic actuator with hydraulic dampening, 1, para 0054 ) of claim 1,
wherein the pneumatic piston (Fig. 2, pneumatic piston, 14, para 0079)
is fastened (Fig. 2, para 0079, hydraulic cylinder described as inserted and firmly connected, with corresponding seals, 32, to prevent fluid leak, para 0083)
to the hydraulic cylinder (Fig. 2, hydraulic dampening cylinder, 22, para 0061)
and the hydraulic cylinder is arranged movably (Fig. 2, adjusting element, 11, para 0087)
in the pneumatic cylinder (Fig. 2, pneumatic cylinder, 13, para 0058).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the damper unit of Auberger to create hydraulic cylinder arranged movably in the pneumatic cylinder as taught by Keck in order to create a more compact design of the unit (Keck, para 0078).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,478,366 B2 ("Auberger") in view of US 2020/0237531 A1 (“Prince”).
In regards to claim 10, Auberger further discloses an orthopedic device (col. 16, lines 12-14), in claim 9,
wherein at least one pneumatic valve (Fig. 24, control valves 23 and 23’, col. 16, lines 40-45)
and a control device (Fig. 2, control device 80, col. 7, lines 49-53),
wherein the control device (Fig. 2, control device 80, col. 7, lines 49-53)
is coupled to sensors (Fig. 2, sensor 85, col. 7, lines 49-53) or to an operator control device
and adjusts the at least one pneumatic valve on a basis of sensor values and/or commands via the operator control device (Fig. 2, control valves, 23 and 23’, in combination with control device, 80, col. 7, lines 62-65).
However, Auberger does not explicitly disclose where the pneumatic valve is assigned an actuator. Prince teaches a hydraulic assembly (Fig. 5, hydraulic assembly, 500, para 0063) that can be used in orthopedic device applications (para 0062).
where the valve (Fig. 5A, first valve, 540, para 0066)
is assigned to an actuator (Fig. 5A, actuator, 538, para 0066)
which is coupled to a control device (Fig. 4, controller, 420, para 0069).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the above orthopedic device of Auberger in view of the actuator of Prince, to control the resistance of fluid flow and control prosthesis rotation during the gait cycle (para 0069).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JICHELE MONIQUE SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2240. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu 6:30-5:15.
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 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.
/J.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774