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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
The remarks of 08/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record doesn't explicitly teach or disclose all the elements of newly amended claim 1, in particular the following claim language:
wherein a signal processing system of the at least a sensor is fine-tuned using a machine-learning model, wherein the machine-learning model is trained using training data, and wherein the training data comprises feedback from at least a deployment of a previous iteration of the machine- learning model;
This argument is moot in light of the new 103 rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over attached non-patent literature titled “Venture – technical instructions” (Venture) in view of non-patent literature titled “Using computed tomography and 3D printing to construct custom prosthetics attachments and devices” (Liacouras), in view of US 2016/0302686 (Einarsson), and further in view of US 2019/0175365 (Herr)
Regarding claim 1, Venture discloses a high-performance prosthetic attachment (see annotated Fig. 1 below), the high-performance prosthetic attachment comprising:
at least one articulating attachment (see annotated Fig. 1, A) with varying, adjustable ranges of motion (see page 4, wherein the “stride control adjustment” corresponds to varying, adjustable ranges of motion), comprising at least one adjustment wheel (annotated Fig. 1, 3), wherein the adjustment wheel is located at a rear of the articulating attachment (see annotated Fig. 1, wherein 3 is located at rear of A);
a limb connector (annotated Fig. 1) coupled to the at least one articulating attachment;
a base connector (annotated Fig. 1, B), and
the base (annotated Fig. 1, B), wherein the adjustment wheel is configured to adjust range of movement required to maintain stability and flexibility of the base (see page 4, wherein the “stride control adjustment” is configured for this intended use as plantarflexion/dorsiflexion resistance can be adjusted to both adjust range of motion and maintain stability and flexibility).
a base connector (see annotated Fig. 1) coupled to the at least one articulating attachment (annotated Fig. 1, wherein B is coupled to A);
PNG
media_image1.png
611
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Venture discloses a base connector (see element labeled 5 above) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose that it is configured to match a skate chassis.
Liacouras discloses a prosthetic attachment (Fig. 3) comprising a skate chassis configured to match the base connector (see annotated Figure 3 provided below).
PNG
media_image2.png
532
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venture with a base connector configured to match a skate chassis, as taught by Liacouras, in order to enable active users to participate fully in biomechanically complex activities such as skating.
Venture discloses a base connector (see element labeled 5 above) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein the base connector comprises at least a sensor configured to scan at least a near-field communication tag identifying at least a characteristic of a base. Liacouras doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least a sensor configured to scan at least a near-field communication tag identifying at least a characteristic of a base.
Einarsson discloses a sensor (interface module 308, ¶0078) configured to scan at least a near-field communication tag (¶0078, wherein 308 is configured to use near-field communication which is understood to include a sensor and a tag) identifying at least a characteristic of a base (¶0078, wherein a public key corresponds to at least a characteristic of the POD)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venture in view of Liacouras with a sensor configured to scan a near-field communication tag to identify a base, as taught by Einarsson, in order to provide users with a greater range of motion and greater stability (Einarsson, ¶0006)
Venture doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein a signal processing system of the at least a sensor is fine-tuned using a machine-learning model, wherein the machine-learning model is trained using training data, and wherein the training data comprises feedback from at least a deployment of a previous iteration of the machine- learning model. Liacouras doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein a signal processing system of the at least a sensor is fine-tuned using a machine-learning model, wherein the machine-learning model is trained using training data, and wherein the training data comprises feedback from at least a deployment of a previous iteration of the machine- learning model. Einarsson doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein a signal processing system of the at least a sensor is fine-tuned using a machine-learning model, wherein the machine-learning model is trained using training data, and wherein the training data comprises feedback from at least a deployment of a previous iteration of the machine- learning model.
Herr discloses a prosthetic attachment (Fig. 17A) comprising a signal processing system of a sensor (¶0526, wherein “inertial measurement unit” corresponds to a sensor) which is fine-tuned using a machine-learning model (¶0529, wherein “HMM”, i.e. hidden Markov model, correspond to a machine learning model), wherein the machine-learning model is trained using training data, and wherein the training data comprises feedback from at least a deployment of a previous iteration of the machine- learning model (¶0533, wherein the “supervised approach” gives feedback
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fine-tune the signal processing system of Venture in view of Liacouras in view of Einarsson with a machine learning model, as taught by Herr, in order to adapt the system to new conditions over time (¶0537)
Regarding claim 2, Venture discloses a base (see rejection of claim 1 above) and a base connector (see rejection of Claim 1) but the base connector is slid into the base rather than bolted on.
Liacouras discloses a base (see figure 3 provided below) with mounting holes that correspond to the base of Venture (see figure 3 below, wherein base has mounting holes that correspond to the base connector of Venture)
PNG
media_image2.png
532
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bolt the base connector of Venture to the base, as taught by Liacouras, in order to allow patients to enjoy skating or play stand up hockey (Liacouras, Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 3, Venture discloses a base (see rejection of claim 1) and a base connector (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn’t explicitly disclose a plate.
Liacouras discloses wherein the base connector is configured to be bolted to a plate and wherein the plate is further bolted to the base (see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image3.png
935
925
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venture with a plate and a base connector, as taught by Liacouras, in order to reinforce the attachment, point and allow the user to skate or play stand up hockey.
Regarding claim 4, Venture discloses a composite footplate (see rejection of claim 1) however it is not made of metal.
Liacouras discloses a plate (see rejection of Claim 3 above) wherein the plate comprises a metal material (See caption under Fig. 3, wherein titanium alloy corresponds to a metal material)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venture with a plate comprising a metal material, as taught by Liacouras, in order to reinforce the attachment, point while the patient skates or plays stand up hockey.
Regarding claim 7, Venture discloses wherein the at least one articulating attachment comprises a multi-axial joint (see annotated figure below, wherein “tri-axial” corresponds to multi-axial)
PNG
media_image4.png
538
1015
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Venture discloses wherein the at least one articulating attachment (see rejection of claim 1) comprises a hinged synovial joint (see Fig. 1, wherein the hinge joint shown corresponds to a hinged synovial joint)
Regarding claim 10, Venture discloses wherein the limb connector comprises at least a latching mechanism selected from a group consisting of a threaded adapter, an adhesive, and a bonding (see figure provided below wherein the limb connector comprises threaded fasteners).
PNG
media_image5.png
620
536
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over attached non-patent literature titled “Venture – technical instructions” (Venture) in view of non-patent literature titled “Using computed tomography and 3D printing to construct custom prosthetics attachments and devices” (Liacouras), in view of US 2016/0302686 (Einarsson), in view of US 2019/0175365 (Herr), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0400814 (Wang)
Regarding claim 6, Venture doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a plate. Liacouras discloses a plate but it comprises titanium alloy rather than carbon fiber. Einarsson doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a plate comprising carbon fiber. Herr doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a plate comprising carbon fiber
Wang disclose a plate comprising carbon fiber (7, Fig. 4, ¶0005, “carbon fiber curved plate 7”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plate of Venture in view of Liacouras in view of Einarsson in view of Herr with a carbon fiber material, as taught by Wang, in order to provide more energy storage and return (Wang, ¶0003) as well as a lighter overall weight compared to titanium alloy.
Regarding claim 12, Venture discloses a base connector (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a carbon fiber material. Liacouras doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a base connector made of carbon fiber material. Einarsson doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a base connector made of carbon fiber material. Herr doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a base connector made of carbon fiber material.
Wang discloses wherein the base connector (8, figure 4) comprises a carbon fiber material (upper carbon fiber curved plate 8, ¶0005).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base connector of Venture in view of Liacouras in view of Einarsson in view of Herr to include a carbon fiber material, as taught by Wang, in order to provide more energy storage and return (Wang, ¶0003) as well as a lighter overall weight compared to titanium alloy.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over attached non-patent literature titled “Venture – technical instructions” (Venture) in view of non-patent literature titled “Using computed tomography and 3D printing to construct custom prosthetics attachments and devices” (Liacouras), in view of US 2016/0302686 (Einarsson), and further in view of US 2019/0175365 (Herr), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 9,693,884 B1 (Morgan)
Regarding claim 9, Venture discloses a limb connector (see rejection of claim 1 above) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a magnetic attachment. Liacouras doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a magnetic attachment. Einarsson doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a magnetic attachment. Herr doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a magnetic attachment.
Morgan discloses a quick release prosthetic connector wherein the limb connector (prosthetic socket 512, Figure 10) comprises a magnetic attachment (“The socket-connect portion 200 of the connector 100 may be configured to detachably attach to the prosthetic socket 512 according to any suitable technique which is known by those skilled in the art…. Other means of attachment which are suitable for the purpose may include screws, magnets”, Col. 6, Lines 48-57, wherein means for attachment includes magnets).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venture in view of Liacouras in view of Einarsson in view of Herr with a magnetic attachment, as taught by Morgan, in order to quickly and easily attach the socket to the prosthesis (Morgan, Col. 1, Lines 14-16)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over attached non-patent literature titled “Venture – technical instructions” (Venture) in view of non-patent literature titled “Using computed tomography and 3D printing to construct custom prosthetics attachments and devices” (Liacouras), in view of US 2016/0302686 (Einarsson), and further in view of US 2019/0175365 (Herr), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2015/0209160 (Lecomte)
Regarding claim 11, Venture discloses a base connector (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a magnetic attachment. Liacouras doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a magnetic attachment. Einarsson doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a magnetic attachment. Herr doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a magnetic attachment.
Lecomte discloses a prosthetic sport foot wherein the base connector (foot member 102, Figure 4) comprises a magnetic attachment (“The anterior and/or posterior components 110, 112 of the fairing, as well as any components disposed on the side of the foot member 102, can be coupled to the foot member 102 in a variety of ways. …magnetic strips”, ¶0035).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base connector of Venture in view of Liacouras in view of Einarsson in view of Herr to include a magnetic attachment, as taught by Lecomte, in order to quickly and easily change bases.
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over attached non-patent literature titled “Venture – technical instructions” (Venture) in view of non-patent literature titled “Using computed tomography and 3D printing to construct custom prosthetics attachments and devices” (Liacouras), in view of US 2016/0302686 (Einarsson), and further in view of US 2019/0175365 (Herr), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2012/0016492 A1 (Clausen)
Regarding claim 13, Venture doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose at least one actuator, at least one sensor, or a control circuit. Liacouras doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose at least one actuator, at least one sensor, or a control circuit. Herr doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose at least one actuator, at least one sensor, or a control circuit However, Einarsson incorporates the entirety of Clausen by reference in paragraph 0048.
Clausen discloses at least one actuator (116, figure 2) mechanically connected to the at least an articulating attachment (see Figure 2) wherein the at least one actuator is configured to adjust the range of motion of the at least an articulating attachment (“the actuator 116 may provide for increased resistance, or dampening, so as to provide stability to the user”, ¶0137);
at least one sensor (sensor module 302, figure 9), wherein the at least a sensor is configured to detect an attachment datum of a base (“In one embodiment, the sensor module 302 is used to measure variables relating to the ankle device 304, such as the position and/or the movement of the ankle device 304 throughout a gait cycle”, ¶0142); and
a control circuit (CPU 305, figure 9) communicatively connected to the prosthetic attachment (“The CPU 305 communicates with the control drive module 310 to control the operation of the actuator 316 so as to mimic natural ankle movement by the ankle device 304”, ¶0141), wherein the control circuit is configured to:
receive the attachment datum (“The CPU 305 may also receive commands from a user and/or other device through the interface module 308”, ¶0141); and
drive the at least an actuator to adjust the range of motion available to the at least an articulating attachment (“In one embodiment, the control system 300 depicted in FIG. 9 processes data received from the sensing module 302 with the CPU 305. The CPU 305 communicates with the control drive module 310 to control the operation of the actuator 316 so as to mimic natural ankle movement by the ankle device 304”, ¶0141).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venture in view of Liacouras in view of Einarsson in view of Herr with at least one actuator, at least one sensor and a control circuit, as taught by Clausen, in order to electronically power and control the prothesis.
Regarding claim 14, Venture discloses a base (see rejection of claim 1 above) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose at least one sensor on the base. Liacouras doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose at least one sensor on a base. Herr doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least one sensor on a base. Einarsson incorporates the entirety of Clausen by reference in paragraph 0048.
Clausen discloses that at least one sensor (302, Fig. 9, ¶0245) located on the base (¶0245, wherein sensors located in foot covers corresponds to on the base)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of Venture in view of Liacouras in view of Einarsson in view of Herr with a sensor, as taught by Clausen, in order to measure the relative position of the device to ground during stance phase (Clausen, ¶0245).
Regarding claim 15, Venture discloses at least one articulating attachment (see rejection of Claim 1) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose at least one sensor. Liacouras doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose at least one sensor. Herr doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least one sensor locating on an articulating attachment. However, Einarsson incorporates the entirety of Clausen by reference in paragraph 0048.
Clausen discloses wherein the at least one sensor (302, Fig. 9, ¶0142) is located on the at least an articulating attachment (¶0142, wherein pivot assembly 114 corresponds to at least an articulating attachment).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least an articulating attachment of Venture in view of Liacouras in view of Einarsson in view of Herr with a sensor as taught by Clausen, in order to measure variables relating to the ankle such as position or movement throughout the gait cycle (Clausen, ¶0142).
Regarding claim 16, Venture discloses a base connector but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a sensor on the base connector. Liacouras doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a sensor on the base connector. Herr doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a sensor on the base connector. However, Einarsson incorporates the entirety of Clausen by reference in paragraph 0048.
Clausen discloses a prosthetic foot similar to US 2006/0195197 (see ¶0286) and incorporates it by reference in its entirety. 2006/0195197 discloses at least one sensor (38, Fig. 1, ¶0078) located on a base connector (34, Fig. 1, Fig. 1, ¶0077).
PNG
media_image6.png
554
855
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base connector of Venture in view of Liacouras in view of Einarsson in view of Herr with a sensor, as taught by Clausen, in order to measure bending forces on both sides of a bending axis of the prosthetic foot (¶0078).
Regarding claim 17, Venture doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a sensor suite. Liacouras doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a sensor suite. Herr doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a sensor suite. However, Einarsson incorporates the entirety of Clausen by reference in paragraph 0048.
Clausen discloses at least a sensor (302, Fig. 9) which comprises a sensor suite (¶0143, wherein multiple sensors correspond to a sensor suite)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prosthetic attachment of Venture in view of Liacouras in view of Einarsson in view of Herr with a sensor suite, as taught by Clausen, in order to measure acceleration of the device in three perpendicular axes (Clausen, ¶0143)
Regarding claim 18, Venture discloses at least one articulating attachment (see rejection of claim 1 above) and a base connector (see rejection of claim 1 above) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose at least one sensor. Liacouras doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose at least one sensor. Herr doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose at least one sensor located on the articulating attachment and the base connector. However, Einarsson incorporates the entirety of Clausen by reference in paragraph 0048.
Clausen discloses wherein the at least one sensor (302, Fig. 9, ¶0142) is located both on the at least one articulating attachment (102, Fig. 2) and on the base connector (¶0142, wherein 302 is located on pivot assembly 114 which comprises both 102 and 104, corresponding to the articulating attachment and base connector respectively)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the articulating attachment and base connector of Venture in view of Liacouras in view of Einarsson in view of Krajbich with at least one sensor, as taught by Clausen, in order to measure position or movement of the ankle device throughout a gait cycle (¶0142).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over attached non-patent literature titled “Venture – technical instructions” (Venture) in view of non-patent literature titled “Using computed tomography and 3D printing to construct custom prosthetics attachments and devices” (Liacouras), in view of US 2016/0302686 (Einarsson) in view of US 2019/0175365 (Herr) in view of US 2012/0016492 A1 (Clausen), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2016/0278947 (Martin)
Regarding claim 19, Venture doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a control circuit. Liacouras doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a control circuit. Einarsson doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a control circuit. Herr doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a control circuit. Clausen discloses a control circuit (see rejection of claim 13 above) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose instantiating a machine learning model.
Martin, an electronically controlled prosthetic system discloses that the control circuit is further configured to instantiate a machine learning model (“The control system in general may operate through any number of mathematical models, artificial intelligence programs, equations, neural networks, or other methods of controlling such a device”, ¶0289).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Venture in view of Liacouras in view of Einarsson in view of Herr in view of Clausen to incorporate a machine learning model, as taught by Martin, in order to provide feedback to the control system as different inputs are changed through the gait cycle.
Regarding claim 20, Venture doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a machine learning model. Liacouras doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a machine learning model. Einarsson doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a control circuit. Herr doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a control circuit. Clausen discloses a control circuit (see rejection of claim 13 above) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a machine learning model or a neural network.
Martin discloses that the machine learning model comprises a neural network “In one embodiment, the system's control may be based off of approximating nonlinear functions using methods such as neural networks to provide feedback controllers for systems where the weights of the neural network are updated based on the critic function”, ¶0289).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Venture in view of Liacouras in view of Einarsson in view of Herr in view of Clausen with a neural network, as taught by Martin, in order to provide feedback to the control system as different inputs are changed through the gait cycle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER whose telephone number is (571)272-8382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774