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 .
Corrected Office Action
The present Office action is a correction to the Office action mailed on January 28, 2026. After further review of Applicant’s claims 21-22, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is added, as explained below. The period for reply of THREE MONTHS set in said earlier Office Action is restarted to begin with the mailing date of this Office action (MPEP § 710.06).
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the inclusion of legal phraseology involving “said” and “means”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text (MPEP § 608.01(b)). The amended abstract of June 5, 2023, is acknowledged, but it still includes instances of “means” and is not provided on a separate, appropriately labeled sheet.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 7, line 20, “set of one ore” should be replaced by --sets of one or--; on line 31, “processes” should read --processed--. On page 8, line 18, “processes” should read --processed--. On page 9, line 35, --device-- should apparently be inserted after “separate”. On page 11, line 20, --means-- should be inserted after “storing”, second occurrence. On page 12, line 2, --data-- should be inserted after “processed”; lines 7-9 involve an incomplete sentence. On page 14, line 35, “orthoses” should be --orthosis--. On page 16, line 16, reference is made to specific claims, some of which have been canceled. On page 20, line 23 lacks proper grammatical syntax. On page 23, line 23, “110” should be --120--; on line 36, “210” should be --220--. On page 24, the sentence on lines 35-36 lacks proper grammatical syntax (two errors). On page 25, line 13 lacks proper syntax; on line 25, “connection” should be --connecting--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3, 5, 23-24, 26-28, 31, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 3, line 2, “such as” renders the claim vague and indefinite as whether an actuator or damper is required (MPEP § 2173.05(d)). In claim 5, line 14, “preferably” likewise renders the claim vague and indefinite as to the scope (MPEP § 2173.05(c)I). Similar problems exist in current claims 23-24, 27, and 31. In claim 27, line 12, “regulating” should apparently be --generating--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea involving “determining configuration and/or behavioral data for operating the prosthesis or orthosis based on the received data” (claim 21, lines 7-8; claim 22, lines 8-10); a physician or prosthetist or CPO could observe each prosthesis or orthosis in use or in motion and then recommended changes or improvements based on their training and experience. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data receiving and sending steps are deemed to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the communication steps are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
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.
(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, 4, 9, 18, 21, 23-24, 26, 28, 31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Cassit, US 2022/0104960 A1, which discloses a data transfer method for a prosthesis or orthosis including data storing means and processing means [drawings (sensors 120, 120’, 220, 312; data collection units 130, 230, 314; computing device 320); paragraphs 0014, 0046, 0048-0051, 0054, 0057, 0061, 0073, 0118-0119], the method comprising obtaining and storing sensor data related to operations and an environment of the prosthesis or orthosis (abstract; Figures 3A-3B, 4; paragraphs 0004, 0057, 0070, 0077, 0090, 0106) and using a communications module connected to the prosthesis or orthosis to transfer at least part of the stored data to a remote server 90, 350 (Figures 3A-3B, 4; paragraphs 0014-0015, 0019, 0078, 0081, 0106).
Regarding claim 2, the communication module additionally receives configuration and behavioral data obtained by remote server 90, 350 based on the transferred data (Figures 3A-3B, 4; paragraphs 0015, 0019, 0021-0024, 0078, 0082, 0084-0086, 0106). Regarding claim 9, sensor data is processed, stored, and transferred to remote server 90, 350 (Figures 3A-3B, 4; paragraphs 0008, 0015, 0019, 0025, 0046, 0057, 0077-0078, 0118-0119). Regarding claims 18 and 23, identification of the orthosis or prosthesis is transferred to remote server 90, 350 [paragraphs 0004 (“RFID sensors”), 0025, 0056, 0090], and further data related to the operation and environment of the orthosis or prosthesis is obtained and selectively stored and transferred to the remote server (Figures 1F, 3B; paragraphs 0004, 0020, 0025, 0056, 0059, 0078, 0083, 0085, 0090, 0106). Regarding claims 21 and 24, remote server 90, 350 receives sensory data from the communications module, determines configuration and behavioral data for operating the orthosis or prosthesis, and sends the computed results to the communication module (Figures 3A-3B, 4; paragraphs 0015, 0019, 0021-0024, 0078, 0084-0086). Regarding claim 28, first and second sets of sensors may be defined by the type of parameter measured (paragraphs 0004, 0025, 0032, 0056, 0059, 0083, 0090) and/or by the geometric location on the orthoses (Figures 2A-2B; paragraphs 0010, 0013, 0058, 0060, 0072-0074, 0078). Regarding claim 31, the communication module may alternatively be included in a separate device [paragraphs 0057: “unit 130 may be connectable (e.g., by wire or wirelessly) to a computing device”, emphasis added, and 0080 (“smartphone”)], or the communication module could be interpreted as the communication device in the remote server. Regarding claim 34, a communication module may be included in the orthosis or prosthesis because computing device 320, which communicates with remote computing device 90 or 350 (Figures 3A-3B; paragraphs 0015, 0019, 0078), is connected to the orthosis or prosthesis in some embodiments (paragraphs 0014, 0057, 0070). The further limitations of other claims are plainly evident (MPEP § 707) from the drawings and paragraphs cited above; language following “optionally”, “preferably”, and “such as” is interpreted as not being a requirement for residing within (or meeting) the claimed scope; “and/or” is also broadly interpreted (MPEP § 2111).
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 3, 5, 7, 13, 20, 22, 27, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassit, US 2022/0104960 A1. Regarding claims 3, 5, and 27, force, resistance, and motion generating devices and control modules were quite common in the art (e.g., subgroup A61F 2005/0155 of the cooperative patent classification system) at the effective filing date of the instant invention and would have been obvious to the ordinary practitioner in order to assist the user with motility, balance, and rehabilitation [paragraphs 0001, 0020 (“accelerometers”, “feedbacks and… recommendations based on the information concerning the motility of the device”), 0026, 0048 (“improve a function of a limb”), 0050 (“assist with motion or function of the limb”), 0051 (“prosthesis”, “muscle injury”), 0059 (muscle “tension sensor”, “motion sensor may be used to measure a motility of the limb”), 0083 (“spatial motility”, “relative motility”, “bending, torsion”, “feedbacks”, “recommendations”), 0099, 0114 (detecting falls and potential falls)]. Regarding claim 7, processing data from more than one set of sensors depending on activity mode or data and transferring pertinent processed data to remote server 350 (Figure 3B) would have been obvious in order to appropriately respond to current dynamics of the orthosis during use (paragraphs 0020, 0083). Regarding claim 13, the communication module included in a separate device which also comprises a second data storing means would have been obvious from the variants in which the computing device 320 may be implemented on a personal computer or a smartphone (paragraph 0080) having a second data storing means for saving sensor data from the orthosis or prosthesis until ready for transferring to remote server 350 (Figure 3B). Regarding claims 20, 22, and 36, obtaining, storing, and transferring data from other orthoses or prostheses would have been obvious in order to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of the feedbacks and recommendations from the remote server to the respective orthoses or prostheses [paragraphs 0022 (“build a system reference dataset based on sensors data collected from multiple devices for supporting a limb”; emphasis added), 0023 (“feedbacks and… recommendations are generated based on the system reference dataset”), 0033, 0081 (“reference dataset 82”, “healing patterns of different limbs”), 0104, 0106 (“platform for integrating many other electronic means to monitor many health conditions, such as detect heart rate and predict falls”)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 2021/0099193 A1: abstract; drawings; paragraphs 0001-0005, 0008-0010, 0012-0013, 0025-0028.
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