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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laszczak et al US Patent Pub. 2021/0113356A1.
Regarding claim 1, Laszczak et al discloses a prosthesis (1) for a leg, comprising a flexible sleeve (see Fig. 1 and 2, 71 Including elements 68 & 69) for receiving a residual limb, a constrictor (70, see Fig. 2) on the flexible sleeve for tightening the sleeve around the residual limb, and a rigid mount (the whole artificial prosthetic leg 33, especially an intelligent knee joint, see Fig. 9) secured to the sleeve and spaced axially along the sleeve from the constrictor for mounting a tool (prosthetic foot and lower structure below knee joint), wherein a sensor (21, see paragraphs 174 and 175 disclosing an intelligent knee having sensors to send data to the socket for the purpose of tightening and loosening the socket) is provided in the mount to measure a physical parameter associated with the function performed by the tool (see paragraph 198 disclosing different sensing parameters, such as, detecting when to release the knee (paragraph 264), detecting seated position (see paragraph 266)) and wherein the prosthesis further comprises an actuator connected to the constrictor and a control circuit acting on the actuator to vary the force tightening the sleeve around the residual limb (see paragraphs 161, 175 and 176) in dependence upon the measured parameter.
Regarding claim 2, a prosthesis (1) for a leg, comprising a flexible sleeve (see Fig. 1 and 2, 71 Including elements 68 & 69) for receiving a residual limb, a constrictor (70, see Fig. 2) on the flexible sleeve for tightening the sleeve around the residual limb, a rigid mount (the whole artificial prosthetic leg 33, especially an intelligent knee joint, see Fig. 9) secured to the sleeve and spaced axially along the sleeve from the constrictor for releasably attaching to the prosthesis a tool (prosthetic foot and lower structure below knee joint) that incorporates a sensor (21, see paragraphs 174 and 175 disclosing an intelligent knee having sensors to send data to the socket for the purpose of tightening and loosening the socket) for measuring a physical parameter associated with the function performed by the tool (see paragraph 198 disclosing different sensing parameters, such as, detecting when to release the knee (paragraph 264), wherein the prosthesis comprises an actuator (see paragraph 175 and 176) connected to the constrictor and a control circuit (see paragraph 161, 162, 173 and 174) communicating with the sensor by way of the mount and acting on the actuator to vary the force tightening the sleeve around the residual limb in dependence upon the measured parameter (see paragraph 175).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, see paragraph 162 disclosing that the control unit (23) is in communication with the different modules through a wired or wireless transmitters and transducers mounted in the socket 1A. Regarding the sensors, see sensors mounted at prosthetic limb elements (See paragraph 174, lines 4-7 and lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 5, see paragraphs 148 and 154 disclosing a variety of sensors, such as, piezoelectric sensors and strain gauges.
Regarding claim 6, see paragraph 176.
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laszczak et al US Patent Pub. 2021/0113356A1 in view of Martin US Patent Pub. 2020/0397602A1.
Laszczak et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Laszczak et al is silent regarding a step-down gearing and a sensor that determines position (encoder).
Martin discloses an implant having a socket, a constrictor and an actuator capable of tightening and loosening the constrictor for the purpose of avoiding accidental dislocation of the socket with respect to the amputated stump of a patient. Additionally, Martin discloses a worm gear and a microprocessor having a plurality of sensors, such as, a motor position sensor for the purpose of having a step-down gear and have a system capable of loosening or tightening the socket. See paragraphs 94-97.
Regarding claim 7, it is well known in the art to use worm gears connected to electric motors for the purpose of reducing output speed and increasing torque, therefore, they are used to step-down gearing.
Regarding claim 8, Martin discloses a motor position sensor for the purpose of determining how loose or how tight is the constrictor so the control unit can give feedback to the user and/or system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN J STEWART whose telephone number is (571)272-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM 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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/ALVIN J STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 8/28/26
Prosecution Insights