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 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, 5, 7-8, 11-13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr (US Pub No.: 2012/0283845) in view of Gregg (US Pub No.: 2018/0360639).
Regarding claim 1, Herr (US Pub No.: 2012/0283845) discloses a powered prosthesis (shown in figure 1A), comprising: a first joint actuator (backdrivable actuator in [0005]), the first joint actuator including: a first high output torque motor having a peak output torque measured over a 10 second time period of at least about 1.0 Nm (a continuous torque disclosed in [0006], 100 Nm of torque delivered to a foot structure in [0039]. As a continuous torque is disclosed, a torque applied over 10 seconds is implied); and a first transmission coupled with the first high output torque motor (in [0033], shown in figure 1A),
the first transmission having transmission gear ratio of less than or equal to 32 to 1 (in [0039]), the first high output torque motor and the first transmission providing the first joint actuator with a static backdrive torque (backdriving in [0008]) of less than 10 Nm; and a power source connected with the first high output torque motor (in [0040], a powered actuator with disclosure to a battery is present)
However, Herr does not teach a static backdriving torque of less than 10 Nm. Instead, Gregg (US Pub No.: 2018/0360639) does teach a static backdriving torque of less than 10 Nm (in [0080]-[0081]). 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 backdriving torque values of Gregg into the backdrivable actuator of Herr for the purpose of providing specific backdrive torque values that are compensated by an actuator to minimize resistance for a user in [0085].
Regarding claim 5, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 4, wherein Herr discloses the first high output torque motor is a first very high output torque motor (being the high torque low RPM motor in [0008] of Herr) having a peak output torque measured over a 10 second time period of at least about 1.5 Nm (a continuous torque disclosed in [0006], 100 Nm of torque delivered to a foot structure in [0039]. As a continuous torque is disclosed, a torque applied over 10 seconds is implied), the first joint actuator further including a first housing (in [0044], the motor 104 is mounted to a prosthesis housing in [0044]. Part 104 is within a housing as per figures 1A and 1B, where the motor 104 is not visible in the outside view of the prosthesis in 1B but is present in the cutaway view in figure 1A) having the first very high output torque motor (part 104), the first transmission positioned co-axially within the housing (cable transmission in [0045], gear ratio for transmission in [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 1, with Herr further including a second joint actuator (two actuators in [0021]), wherein the second joint actuator includes a second housing having a second motor and a second transmission positioned co-axially within the second housing (in [0021], the motor may include a high-torque motor and a low RPM motor or transverse flux motor. As motor part 104 in figure 1A is depicted as having a housing and transmission, an embodiment with both motors (present in [0012] and [0021]) is taken to have a housing and transmission for both motors).
Regarding claim 8, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 7, wherein the second motor is a second very high output torque motor having a peak output torque measured over a 10 second time period of at least about 1.5 Nm (a continuous torque disclosed in [0006], 100 Nm of torque delivered to a foot structure in [0039]. As a continuous torque is disclosed, a torque applied over 10 seconds is implied. Additional torque details in [0020]-[0021] with respect to the two motor types).
Regarding claim 11, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 1, wherein Herr discloses at least one of the first and second joint actuators is very backdrivable (in [0005]-[0009] of Herr).
However, Herr does not teach wherein said actuators thereby has a static backdrive torque less than 5 Nm.
Instead, Gregg (US Pub No.: 2018/0360639) does teach wherein said actuators thereby has a static backdrive torque less than 5 Nm (in [0080]-[0081]). 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 backdriving torque values of Gregg into the backdrivable actuator of Herr for the purpose of providing specific backdrive torque values that are compensated by an actuator to minimize resistance for a user in [0085].
Regarding claim 12, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 1, wherein at least one of the first and second joint actuators is excessively backdrivable (in [0005]-[0009] of Herr).
However, Herr does not teach wherein said actuators thereby has a static backdrive torque less than 2.0 Nm.
Instead, Gregg does teach wherein said actuators thereby has a static backdrive torque less than 2.0 Nm (in [0080]-[0081]). 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 backdriving torque values of Gregg into the backdrivable actuator of Herr for the purpose of providing specific backdrive torque values that are compensated by an actuator to minimize resistance for a user in [0085].
Regarding claim 13, Herr (US Pub No.: 2012/0283845) discloses a 13 a powered prosthesis (shown in figure 1A), comprising: a first joint actuator (backdrivable actuator in [0005], two actuators in [0021] where the first joint actuator will be one of the actuators disclosed here), the first joint actuator including a first motor and a first transmission axially aligned with the first motor (in [0033], axial alignment shown in figure 1A), wherein the first motor is a first high output torque motor having a peak output torque measured over a 10 second time period of at least about 1.0 Nm (a continuous torque disclosed in [0006], 100 Nm of torque delivered to a foot structure in [0039]. As a continuous torque is disclosed, a torque applied over 10 seconds is implied);
and a second joint actuator (being the second of the two actuators in [0021]), the second joint actuator including a second motor and a second transmission axially aligned with the second motor (in [0021], the motor may include a high-torque motor and a low RPM motor or transverse flux motor. As motor part 104 in figure 1A is depicted as having a housing and transmission, the embodiment with both motors (present in [0012] and [0021]) has a housing and transmission for both motors),
wherein the second motor is a second high output torque motor having a peak output torque measured over a 10 second time period of at least about 1.0 Nm (a continuous torque disclosed in [0006], 100 Nm of torque delivered to a foot structure in [0039]. As a continuous torque is disclosed, a torque applied over 10 seconds is implied. Additional torque details in [0020]-[0021] with respect to the two motor types, where the disclosed torque output is for both motors in [0039]), wherein at least one of the first and second joint actuators is backdrivable (backdriving in [0008]).
Herr does not teach a first or second joint actuators thereby has a static backdrive torque less than about 10 Nm.
Instead, Gregg (US Pub No.: 2018/0360639) does teach a static backdriving torque of less than 10 Nm (in [0080]-[0081]). 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 backdriving torque values of Gregg into the backdrivable actuator of Herr for the purpose of providing specific backdrive torque values that are compensated by an actuator to minimize resistance for a user in [0085].
Regarding claim 16, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 13, wherein Herr discloses the first and second high output torque motors are first and second very high output torque motors having a peak output torque measured over a 10 second time period of at least 1.5 Nm (a continuous torque disclosed in [0006], 100 Nm of torque delivered to a foot structure in [0039]. As a continuous torque is disclosed, a torque applied over 10 seconds is implied. Additional torque details in [0020]-[0021] with respect to the two motor types, where the disclosed torque output is for both motors in [0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 13, wherein Herr discloses the first and second high output torque motors are first and second extremely high output torque motors having a peak output torque measured over a 10 second time period of at least 2.0 Nm (a continuous torque disclosed in [0006], 100 Nm of torque delivered to a foot structure in [0039]. As a continuous torque is disclosed, a torque applied over 10 seconds is implied. Additional torque details in [0020]-[0021] with respect to the two motor types, where the disclosed torque output is for both motors in [0039]).
Regarding claim 18, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 13, wherein Herr discloses at least one of the first joint actuator or the second joint actuator is a quasi-direct drive actuator having a transmission gear ratio of less than or equal to 24 to 1 (in [0039] of Herr).
Regarding claim 19, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 13, wherein Herr discloses at least one of the first transmission or the second transmission has a transmission gear ratio of less than or equal to 22 to 1 (gear ratio range in [0039] of Herr).
Regarding claim 20, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 13. However, Herr does not teach wherein both of the first and second joint actuators are backdrivable, and thereby have a static torque less than 10 Nm.
Instead, Gregg teaches wherein both of the first and second joint actuators are backdrivable, and thereby have a static torque less than 10 Nm (in [0080]-[0081], where the backdrivability will be incorporated into both motors of Herr). 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 backdriving torque values of Gregg into the backdrivable actuator of Herr for the purpose of providing specific backdrive torque values that are compensated by an actuator to minimize resistance for a user in [0085].
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr (US Pub No.: 2012/0283845) in view of Gregg (US Pub No.: 2018/0360639) in further view of Herr 2010 (US Pub No.: 2010/0324699).
Regarding claim 2, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 1. However, Herr does not teach wherein the first joint actuator has a mechanical impedance including an inertia of 0.0696 kg·m2 or less and a damping of 0.4169 Nms/rad or less.
Instead, Herr 2010 (US Pub No.: 2010/0324699) teaches wherein the first joint actuator has a mechanical impedance (impedance provided by rotary spring damper in [0102]) including an inertia of 0.0696 kg·m2 or less (inertia values shown in Table 5, defined in [0095]).
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 inertia values of Herr 2010 into Herr for the purpose of providing a low inertia value as required by Herr in [0009], with the inertia values in Herr 2010 being based off of a MTU model ([0089]-[0095]) moving in a robotic device (in [0009]) that will determine an appropriate inertia value for a walking leg of a user with respect to the muscles and tendons of the user. The model of Herr 2010 teaches beneficial inertial values that are appropriate for a user’s leg during an assisted walking motion that should not damage the leg during said assisted motion.
Regarding claim 14, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 13. However, Herr does not teach wherein the first joint actuator has a mechanical impedance including an inertia of 0.0696 kg·m2 or less and a damping of 0.4169 Nms/rad or less.
Instead, Herr 2010 (US Pub No.: 2010/0324699) teaches wherein the first joint actuator has a mechanical impedance (impedance provided by rotary spring damper in [0102]) including an inertia of 0.0696 kg·m2 or less (inertia values shown in Table 5, defined in [0095]).
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 inertia values of Herr 2010 into Herr for the purpose of providing a low inertia value as required by Herr in [0009], with the inertia values in Herr 2010 being based off of a MTU model ([0089]-[0095]) moving in a robotic device (in [0009]) that will determine an appropriate inertia value for a walking leg of a user with respect to the muscles and tendons of the user. The model of Herr 2010 teaches beneficial inertial values that are appropriate for a user’s leg during an assisted walking motion that should not damage the leg during said assisted motion.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr (US Pub No.: 2012/0283845) in view of Gregg (US Pub No.: 2018/0360639) in further view of Herr 2014 (US Pub No.: 2014/0296997).
Regarding claim 3, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 1. However, Herr does not teach wherein the powered prosthesis has a peak acoustic noise of less than 60 dB at 0.9 m/s
Instead, Herr 2014 (US Pub No.: 2014/0296997) teaches wherein the powered prosthesis has a peak acoustic noise of less than 60 dB at 0.9 m/s (an acoustic output of 45dB in [0052] and 40dB in [0065]. Speed details in [0060], where 45dB is the highest acoustic noise output disclosed in Herr 2014).
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 acoustic noise of Herr 2014 into Herr for the purpose of providing a lower acoustic noise output, as sought out by Herr in [0008]-[0010], where the flux motors of Herr 2014 in [0053] are used to reduce the acoustic noise output (with 45 dB in [0052]) over the range of motion provided by Herr 2014.
Regarding claim 4, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 1. However, Herr in view of Gregg does not teach wherein the power prosthesis has a peak acoustic noise of less than 65 dB at 1.3 m/s.
Instead, Herr 2014 does teach wherein the power prosthesis has a peak acoustic noise of less than 65 dB at 1.3 m/s (an acoustic output of 45dB in [0052] and 40dB in [0065]. Speed details in [0060], where 45dB is the highest acoustic noise output disclosed in Herr 2014).
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 acoustic noise of Herr 2014 into Herr for the purpose of providing a lower acoustic noise output, as sought out by Herr in [0008]-[0010], where the flux motors of Herr 2014 in [0053] are used to reduce the acoustic noise output (with 45 dB in [0052]) over the range of motion provided by Herr 2014.
Regarding claim 15, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 14. However, Herr in view of Gregg does not teach wherein the powered prosthesis has a peak acoustic noise of less than 60 dB at 0.9 m/s and a peak acoustic noise of less than 65 dB at 1.3 m/s
Instead, Herr 2014 does teach wherein the powered prosthesis has a peak acoustic noise of less than 60 dB at 0.9 m/s (an acoustic output of 45dB in [0052] and 40dB in [0065]. Speed details in [0060], where 45dB is the highest acoustic noise output disclosed in Herr 2014) and a peak acoustic noise of less than 65 dB at 1.3 m/s (an acoustic output of 45dB in [0052] and 40dB in [0065]. Speed details in [0060], where 45dB is the highest acoustic noise output disclosed in Herr 2014).
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 acoustic noise of Herr 2014 into Herr for the purpose of providing a lower acoustic noise output, as sought out by Herr in [0008]-[0010], where the flux motors of Herr 2014 in [0053] are used to reduce the acoustic noise output (with 45 dB in [0052]) over the range of motion provided by Herr 2014.
Claim(s) 6, 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr (US Pub No.: 2012/0283845) in view of Gregg (US Pub No.: 2018/0360639) in further view of Smith (US Pub No.: 2018/0193172).
Regarding claim 6, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 1.
However, Herr does not teach wherein the first transmission is a single-stage stepped-planet compound planetary gear transmission.
Instead, Smith (US Pub No.: 2018/0193172) teaches wherein the first transmission is a single-stage stepped-planet compound planetary gear transmission (in [0118]-[0120], where a planetary gear system is present, being a single-stage stepped planetary gear in cited figures such as 9B).
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 planetary gear transmission of Smith into Herr for the purpose of providing a transmission (as per [0120]) that will provide for higher gear ratios and torque output (as per [0118] and what is known in the art for planetary gear systems), with planetary gears being known in the art for being efficient and lightweight when compared to other gear systems.
Regarding claim 10, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 7, wherein the second transmission includes a plurality of planetary gears.
However, Herr does not teach wherein the second transmission includes a plurality of planetary gears.
Instead, Smith (US Pub No.: 2018/0193172) teaches wherein the second transmission includes a plurality of planetary gears (in [0118]-[0120], where a planetary gear system is present, being a single-stage stepped planetary gear in cited figures such as 9B. Said planetary gears are to be incorporated into the second actuator’s second transmission means).
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 planetary gear transmission of Smith into Herr for the purpose of providing a transmission (as per [0120]) that will provide for higher gear ratios and torque output (as per [0118] and what is known in the art for planetary gear systems), with planetary gears being known in the art for being efficient and lightweight when compared to other gear systems.
Regarding claim 21, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 13. However, Herr does not teach wherein the first transmission is a single-stage stepped-planet compound planetary gear transmission (in [0118]-[0120], where a planetary gear system is present, being a single-stage stepped planetary gear in cited figures such as 9B).
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 planetary gear transmission of Smith into Herr for the purpose of providing a transmission (as per [0120]) that will provide for higher gear ratios and torque output (as per [0118] and what is known in the art for planetary gear systems), with planetary gears being known in the art for being efficient and lightweight when compared to other gear systems.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr (US Pub No.: 2012/0283845) in view of Gregg (US Pub No.: 2018/0360639) in further view of Herr 2019 (US Pub No.: 2019/0307583).
Regarding claim 9, Herr in view of Gregg teach the powered prosthesis according to Claim 7 with Herr teaching wherein the second joint actuator further includes a link system connecting the second joint actuator with a joint plate (being the connection between actuator element 104 via part 120 to joint plates 108 and 112, where both 108 and 112 are equivalent to joint plates as per figure 1A), and further including a connector to connect the first joint actuator with the second joint actuator (as both actuators can be present together in [0021] and will drive a motion of the prosthesis, a connection between the two actuators will be present).
Herr in view of Gregg does not teach a 6-axis load cell coupled with the joint plate.
Instead, Herr 2019 (US Pub No.: 2019/0307583) does teach a 6-axis load cell (load cell in [0024], six-axis sensing in [0104] and claim 113. Further details in [0053]-[0054]) coupled with the joint plate (the load cell of Herr 2019 can be coupled to the joint plate of Herr, as the load cell of Herr 2019 is on the prosthetic foot as per [0070] and claim 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 load cell of Herr 2019 into Herr for the purpose of providing a load sensor that can be used to determine a state of the foot and knee of a user as per [0055].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Langlois (US Pub No.: 2013/0261766) was considered for teaching a prosthetic leg with backdriving in [0126]. Unluhisarcikli (US Pub No.: 2013/0226048) was considered for teaching backdrivable joints and motors for prosthetic/exoskeleton devices.
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