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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 20, 23, and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 15; claim 23, line 16; and claim 40, line 11, “remote” is misspelled. In claim 20, line 12, and claim 40, line 26, “determining of” lacks proper syntax. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 13, 23-24, 27, 31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Bisbee et al., US 2010/0185124 A1, which discloses obtaining and storing data related to operations and environments of prostheses and orthoses (Figures 1, 7, 11; paragraphs 0003, 0015-0017, 0041-0042, 0046, 0055, 0057, 0081-0083); transferring with a communications module at least part of the data to a remote server (Figures 3, 3A, 4-6; paragraphs 0008-0010, 0012-0013, 0045, 0062, 0064-0066, 0072); and receiving with the communications module configuration and behavioral data, based on the transferred data, from the remote server for operating prostheses and orthoses (abstract; Figures 3, 3A, 4-6; paragraphs 0008, 0012, 0073-0078, 0115). Various sensors are utilized by the control module (Figures 1, 7, 11; paragraphs 0016-0017, 0041-0042) and may involve first and second sets of sensors, priority levels and timing, and data or processed data transferred to the remote server [paragraphs 0020-0023, 0044-0046 (“calibration… PDA interface functions… virtual damper control functions and debug support”), 0088]. For example, a first set of sensors relates to kinematics [angular rate, position, angle (paragraph 0042)], and a second set of sensors pertains to kinetics [load sensors, front and rear strain gauges (paragraphs 0017, 0081, 0095)].
Applicant’s claim 1 includes thirteen “and/or” conjunctions, with “optionally” appearing twice and “and/or” occurring eleven times in Applicant’s claim 23. The last six lines of instant claim 1 are separated from the remainder of the claim by “and/or” and are thus interpreted as being optional limitations. Moreover, different priority levels are distinguished by dissimilar timings or frequencies of sensor readings in Bisbee et al. (paragraphs 0044-0046, 0088), and processed data being determined based on one set of sensor means does not preclude another set of sensor means having an effect on said processed data. Additionally, the language added at lines 19-24 of amended claim 1 may be viewed as further limiting the “processed data” option but not the “data” option at claim 1, lines 9, 12, and 17-18.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 24, and 27, a resistance generating device in the form of a damper influences mechanical behavior of a prosthesis or orthosis as determined by a control module and control models (Figures 7, 11; paragraphs 0011, 0015-0018, 0060, 0081-0083, 0096, 0102-0103) and can even use configuration and behavioral data from the remote server to adapt control models (abstract; Figures 4-6; paragraphs 0011-0012, 0073-0075, 0078). Regarding claims 9 and 34, processed data is stored and transferred to the remote server (Figures 1, 3; paragraphs 0023, 0044-0045, 0051, 0057, 0065). Regarding claims 13 and 31, a separate device 320 has communication module 322 connected to data storing means associated with components 324 and 326 along with a network interface 328 for transferring data to remote server 340 (Figures 3, 3A; paragraphs 0009, 0013, 0062, 0066, 0072, 0077-0078).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 18, 20, 36, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisbee et al., US 2010/0185124 A1. Regarding claim 18, the data including identification of the prosthesis, orthosis, or communication module would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention from paragraphs 0043, 0055, 0068 (“multiplexing”), 0071, 0074 (“new user”), 0080 (“personal profile”), and 0115 (“remote configuration and maintenance” for a plurality of patients) in order to enable mobile computing device 320 and network computing device 340 (Figures 3, 3A, 5-6) to distinguish among various prostheses, orthoses, and communication systems. Regarding claims 20, 36, and 40, additional prosthetic or orthotic devices 100 would likewise have been obvious in order to accommodate a diversity of such patients; claim 20 employs the term “respectively” at lines 13 and 16, and nothing in the claim language requires that data from one prosthesis or orthosis influences the configuration and/or behavioral data determined for the other prosthesis or orthosis; claims 36 and 40 likewise use the term “respectively”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered and are addressed in the above grounds of rejection, which demonstrates that Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the actual scope of the current claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Melanie Tyson can be reached at telephone number 571-272-9062. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
