DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the Examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the Examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: this is a continuation application, and there is lack of antecedent basis in the specification for the limitation(s) triggering 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, new matter rejection(s) as detailed hereinbelow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This is a continuation application. Thus, written description for the claimed subject matter must be present in the originally filed parent application.
Independent claims 1 and 16 each recites the limitation, “a feedback actuator fixed relative to a foot controller.” Examiner is unable to find written description support in the original disclosure for this limitation. In particular, the claims appear to be directed to features of the embodiment as described with respect to figure 37 and paragraphs [00170] and [00172]. However, the claims, which specifically require a feedback actuator to be “fixed relative to” a foot controller is not commensurate with the scope of the originally filed disclosure, including disclosure found in figure 37 and paragraphs [00170] and [00172]. For example, the originally filed disclosure describes the feedback actuator being “incorporated into the foot controller.” However, said disclosure is not commensurate with the scope and implications of the limitation the feedback actuator “fixed relative to” the foot controller as recited by the independent claims. Among other things, the limitation of the feedback actuator being “fixed relative to” the foot controller does not positively require positioning or incorporating the actuator within the same foot control device. For example, the limitation may be directed to an electronic configuration of the two components as being wired or wirelessly connected or “fixed relative to” one another. Additionally and/or alternatively, the limitation “fixed relative to” implies the actuator as being “fastened securely into a position,” which is not expressly disclosed in the originally filed disclosure in a scope that is commensurate with the independent claims. For example, the scope implies that the actuator is fastened of fixed at its location in relation to a foot controller, but does not in any way suggest that the location is necessarily within the foot controller, itself.
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.
Claims 13, 14 and 19 are 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the feedback sensor” in line 3. It is unclear if this is referring back to the first or second feedback sensor (see at least claims 1, line 6, and 12, line 1).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the feedback indication” in line 1. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the second feedback sensors [plural]” in lines 4-5. It is unclear if this is the same or related to the “second feedback sensor [singular]” recited in claim 19, line 2, or not.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the user” in line 5. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-12 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sears et al. U.S. patent no. 7,438,724 B2 (“Sears”) in view of Elkins 2004/0078091 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Sears discloses a prosthetic hand assembly (figure 2), comprising: a hand support for providing an interface for connecting to a wrist assembly (figure 2); a thumb structure (figures 2); a feedback sensor (220, seq.; figures 2 and 3); and a feedback actuator (216, seq.; figures 3-8) located at a fixed position with respect to other features of the prosthetic hand assembly; wherein the feedback sensor (220, seq.) is operatively connected to the feedback actuator (216, seq.) to generate a feedback indication to a user based on a detection by the feedback sensor (e.g., see at least figure 3; and col. 2, lines 57-67 and col. 3, line 60, through col. 4, line 14, etc. and as described throughout).
Sears is silent regarding the controller (i.e., controller producing “command signal” 210 or the like - figure 3; and col. 3, lines 63-65) for operating the prosthetic hand assembly is specifically a “foot” controller substantially as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic hand devices, Elkins teaches a practical control device that is a foot-operated controller (e.g., see at least figures and abstract, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the controller producing the command signal of Sears with the foot controller of Elkins based on comfort, preference and/or ability of a particular user to perform the command signal for use of his or her prosthetic device with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, in the invention of Sears in view of Elkins the feedback actuator (Sears: 216, seq; figures 3-8) of Sears is “fixed relative to” the foot controller because it is a concrete element that may be configured for repeated use at a specific location in accordance with the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Sears discloses the feedback sensor (220, seq.) is arranged on the thumb structure (see at least figure 2; and col. 3, lines 25-27).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Sears discloses the feedback actuator (216, seq.) is a vibration motor (col. 4, lines 10-14, 26-36 and 48-67).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Sears discloses the feedback sensor is a tactile feedback sensor, including a pressure sensor, force sensor or displacement sensor (e.g., see at least abstract; and col. 3, lines 45-52; col. 4, lines 1-7; col. 4, lines 13-20; etc.).
Regarding claim 8, Sears discloses the feedback indication is configured to indicate a change in pressure or force (e.g., see at least col. 4, lines 8-20, etc.).
Regarding claim 10, Sears discloses the hand further comprises an index finger structure (e.g., figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Sears discloses the hand further comprises an MRP structure replicating a middle finger, ringer finger and pinky finger (e.g., figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Sears discloses the hand assembly further comprising a second feedback sensor arranged on the index finger structure, the MRP structure and/or a palm of the hand assembly (e.g., see at least figures; and col. 3, lines 45-52, etc.).
Regarding claim 15, Sears discloses the feedback indication is configured to be capable for indicating a slip of an object within the hand assembly by indicating the force with which the object is being held (e.g., see at least abstract; etc.).
Claims 3, 5, 9, and 13-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sears et al. U.S. patent no. 7,438,724 B2 (“Sears”) in view of Elkins U.S. publication no. 2004/0078091, as applied above, and further in view of Colgate et al. U.S. publication no. 2008/0200994 A1 (“Colgate”).
Regarding claim 3, as described supra, Sears in view of Elkins teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sears in view of Elkins, as applied above, is silent regarding the feedback sensor is operatively connected to the feedback actuator wirelessly substantially as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic hand assemblies, Colgate teaches transmission between feedback sensors and actuators may be wired or wireless, as selected for a given application of the device (e.g., see at least paragraph [0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the operative connection between the feedback sensor and feedback actuator in the invention of Sears in view of Elkins as a wireless connection, as taught and/or suggested by Colgate, in order to use the best option for a given use of the device with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, as described supra, Sears discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sears is silent regarding the feedback actuator is a pressure actuator substantially as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic hand assemblies, Colgate teaches a feedback actuator includes a pressure actuator (e.g., see at least paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0031], [0040], [0041], etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include a pressure feedback actuator to the invention of Sears, as taught and/or suggested by Colgate, in order to provide for a more complete mapping of the sensations of the prosthetic hand provided to enhance feedback received by the user with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Sears in view of Elkins teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sears in view of Elkins, as applied above, is silent regarding the feedback sensor is a temperature sensor substantially as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic hand assemblies, Colgate teaches further including a temperature sensor (e.g., see at least abstract; and paragraphs [0005], [0012], [0031], [0038] and [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further include a temperature sensor and indicator to the invention of Sears in view of Elkins, as taught and/or suggested by Colgate, in order to provide additional sensing indication for enhanced information and control to the user with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, as described supra, Sears in view of Elkins teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sears in view of Elkins, as applied above, is silent regarding the hand assembly further comprising a second feedback actuator operatively connected to connected to a second feedback sensor and configured for generating a feedback indication to the user based on a detection by the feedback sensor substantially as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic hand assemblies, Colgate teaches a hand assembly further comprising one or more additional feedback actuators, wherein each of the one or more feedback sensors are operatively connected to connected to an associated feedback actuator of the one or more additional feedback actuators to generate a feedback indication to the user based on a detection by the respective feedback sensor (e.g., see at least paragraphs [0005], [0031], etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include multiple sensors with multiple corresponding feedback actuators in the invention of Sears in view of Elkins, as taught and/or suggested by Colgate, in order to provide a wide range of desired information to the user with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, as described supra, Sears in view of Elkins teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sears in view of Elkins, as applied above, is silent regarding the feedback indication is configured to indicate a surface finish substantially as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic hand assemblies, Colgate teaches the feedback indication is configured to include indication of a surface finish of an object (see at least paragraphs [0004], [0009], [0037], [0049], etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include multiple sensor with multiple corresponding feedback actuators including feedback indication configured to indicate a surface finish of an object in the invention of Sears, as taught and/or suggested by Colgate, in order to provide a wide range of desired information to the user with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1 and 3-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smits U.S. patent no. 5,336,269 in view of Puchhammer U.S. publication no. 2008/0262634 in view of Colgate et al. U.S. publication no. 2008/0200994 A1 (“Colgate”) and further in view of Elkins U.S. publication no. 2004/0078091.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 16 and 17, Smits discloses a prosthetic arm, comprising: a plurality of interconnected segments arranged adjacently (e.g., see at least col. 1, lines 46-61, etc.), each of said segments comprising: an input interface; an output interface; and an actuator (e.g., in one example including an actuator for elbow flexion/extension; separately selectable actuator for wrist pronation/supination and separately selectable actuator for hand opening and closing) disposed between the input interface and the output interface (e.g., see at least col. 1, lines 46-61; col. 4, lines 16-37; and col. 8, lines 5-23, etc.), each actuator configured for driving the output interface through a drive system and causing relative movement in a degree of freedom between the input interface and the output interface when actuated such that each segment operates independently (e.g., see at least col. 1, lines 46-61; col. 4, lines 16-37; and col. 8, lines 5-23, etc.); wherein a final segment is a hand assembly (e.g., see at least col. 4, lines 23 and 30-32; col. 6, line 20; and col. 8, lines 9-11; etc.).
Smits is simply silent regarding the structure of the final segment/hand assembly. Thus, Smits is silent regarding the structure of the final hand assembly substantially as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, namely arm prosthetic devices, Puchhammer teaches a hand/final segment including a hand support for providing an interface for connecting to a wrist assembly and the hand assembly being configured to include a thumb structure; an index finger structure; and an MRP structure replicating the middle finger, ring finger and pinky finger (e.g., see at least figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the final segment in the invention of Smits to be configured as taught by Puchhammer in order to provide a hand that has a natural appearance and good function with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Smits in view of Puchhammer, as applied above, is silent regarding the arm apparatus further including a feedback sensor; and a feedback actuator, wherein the feedback sensor is operatively connected to the feedback actuator for generating a feedback indication based on a detection by the feedback sensor substantially as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, namely arm prosthetic devices, Colgate teaches an arm apparatus further including a feedback sensor; and a feedback actuator located at a fixed position with respect to other features of the prosthetic hand assembly (namely, whatever “sensitive body” location is chosen by the prosthetist/user and fitted for use by the user- e.g., see at least abstract and paragraphs [0006] and [0031]), wherein the feedback sensor is operatively connected to the feedback actuator for generating a feedback indication based on a detection by the feedback sensor (e.g., see at least abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a feedback sensor and corresponding stimulator to the invention of Smits in view of Puchhammer, as taught and/or suggested by Colgate, in order to provide tactile or haptic sensations of various forms to a distal location of the user of the prosthetic device with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate, as applied above, is silent regarding the controller (i.e., myoelectric sensors and controller of Smits- e.g., see at least col. 3, lines 10-17, etc.) for operating the prosthetic hand assembly is specifically a “foot” controller substantially as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic hand devices, Elkins teaches a practical control device that is a foot-operated controller (e.g., see at least figures and abstract, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the controller type [i.e., myoelectric] producing the command signal of Smits with a foot controller, as taught and/or suggested by Elkins, to operate the Smits device based on the same control strategy of Smits but substituted by a different controller type based on comfort, preference and/or ability of a particular user to perform the command signal for use of his or her prosthetic device with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, in the invention of Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate and further in view of Elkins the feedback actuator of Colgate, as applied in the invention of Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate, is “fixed relative to” the foot controller because both are concrete elements that may be configured for repeated use at specific/fixed locations (i.e. “sensitive body location” of Colgate and foot of Elkins) in accordance with the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Colgate, as applied above in the invention of Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate in view of Elkins, further teaches the feedback sensor is operatively connected to the feedback actuator wirelessly (e.g., see at least paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 4, Colgate, as applied in the invention of Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate in view of Elkins, further teaches the feedback actuator is a vibration motor (e.g., see at least abstract; and paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0037], and [0041], etc.).
Regarding claim 5, Colgate as applied in the invention of Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate in view of Elkins, further teaches the feedback actuator is a pressure actuator (e.g., see at least paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0031], [0040], [0041], etc.).
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 17, Colgate, as applied in the invention of Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate in view of Elkins, further teaches the feedback sensor is a tactile feedback sensor including a pressure, force or displacement sensor (e.g., see at least paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0012], [0031], [0038], [0041], [0049]-[0052], etc.).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Colgate, as applied in the invention of Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate in view of Elkins, further teaches the feedback indication is configured to indicate a change in pressure or force (e.g., see at least paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0013], [0031], [0038], [0040], [0041], and [0049]-[0052], etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Colgate, as applied in the invention of Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate in view of Elkins, further teaches the feedback sensor is a temperature sensor (e.g., see at least abstract; and paragraphs [0005], [0012], [0031], [0038] and [0041]).
Regarding claims 12, 13 and 19, Colgate, as applied in the invention of Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate in view of Elkins, teaches the prosthetic arm further including a second feedback sensor arranged on the index finger structure, MRP structure and/or palm of the hand assembly, and a second feedback actuator operatively connected to the second feedback sensor and configured for generating a feedback indication to the user based on a detection by said second feedback sensor (e.g., see at least paragraphs [0005], [0031], etc.).
Regarding claim 14, Colgate, as applied in the invention of Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate, further teaches the feedback indication is configured to include indication of a surface finish of an object (see at least paragraphs [0004], [0009], [0037], [0049], etc.).
Regarding claim 15, Colgate, as applied in the invention of Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate, further teaches the feedback indication is configured to indicate a slip of an object within the hand assembly [e.g., grip pressure, force and sear forces etc.] (e.g., see at least abstract; and paragraphs [0004], [0006], [0010], [0012], [0031], [0038], [0041], [0049]-[0052]).
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smits U.S. patent no. 5,336,269 in view of Puchhammer U.S. publication no. 2008/0262634 in view of Colgate et al. U.S. publication no. 2008/0200994 A1 (“Colgate”) in view of Elkins U.S. publication no. 2004/0078091, as applied above, and further in view of Sears et al. U.S. patent no. 7,438,724 B2 (“Sears”).
Regarding claim 2, as described supra, Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate in view of Elkins teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate in view of Elkins is simply silent regarding the feedback sensor is arranged on the thumb structure substantially as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic hand assemblies, Sears teaches the feedback sensor (220, seq.) is arranged on the thumb structure (see at least figure 2; and col. 3, lines 25-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a sensor in the device of Smits in view of Puchhammer in view of Colgate in view of Elkins on the thumb structure, as taught and/or suggested by Sears, in order to provide a high degree of accuracy in force determination using a smaller number of sensors for obtaining said force determination with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
Claims 1-7 of U.S. publication application no. 18/302,282 (reference application).
Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,114,028.
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 654,034.
Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,864,845.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent or reference application claims contain narrower limitations than the present application claims in some regards and broader in others. With regard to those limitations making the patent or reference application claims narrower than the presently filed claims, species anticipates genus. With regard to those limitations in the presently filed application claims that are narrower than the patent or reference application claims, such features are known by the prior art applied in this application, in particular prior art reference to Colgate for at least the reasons discussed hereinabove. Thus, the claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each of the above listed patents or reference applications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nurse U.S. patent no. 6,978,684 published as U.S. publication no. 2005/0097970 teaches a shoe for providing feedback stimulus to a user based on sensor input.
Loeb et al. U.S. publication no. 2009/0272201 teaches feedback indication configured for indicating a surface finish (claim 14) (e.g., see at least paragraph [0027]; abstract and figures).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCIA LYNN WATKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. & Tues. 3-8pm and Thurs. 12-6pm.
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.
/MARCIA L WATKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights