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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 40 and 42-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Workers Accident Medical Corporation, KR 10-0401458 B1, in view of Gramnäs et al., US 2005/0137717 A1. The Korean patent document illustrates upper and lower elongate foot members and an ankle module configured to be coupled to a lower limb member via a frusto-pyramidal connecting adapter 2 and to a posterior end of the upper elongate foot member such that base portion 1 extends rearwardly of said posterior end (Figure 3; machine translation: page 3, second paragraph), with the ankle module facilitating heel height adjustments (abstract; page 3; page 4, claim 2, last two lines).
The Korean patent document thus utilizes a mechanical heel height adjustment rather than a hydraulic one, but the latter was likewise known in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, as seen from Gramnäs et al., which similarly teaches a prosthetic foot 100 comprising an elongate foot member 10 extending between a toe section 2 and a heel section 4 and an ankle module 50 configured to be coupled to a lower limb member 80 at pyramid 62 (Figures 1, 2A-2C, 3-4, 7A-7B, 8A-8B, 9A-9B, 10; abstract; paragraphs 0031, 0056, 0069-0070) and coupled to elongate foot member 10 at its posterior end with one or more connectors 37 [Figure 2C; paragraphs 0011 (“cantilever fashion”), 0043 (bolts, screws, etc.; “solely at the posterior section 34a of the rocker member 30”)].
The ankle module 50 includes a hydraulic adjustment mechanism selectively actuatable to control a flow of hydraulic fluid between an anterior chamber 54a and a posterior chamber 56a to adjust an angle between prosthetic foot 100 and lower limb member 80 so as to allow for adjustment of a heel height (Figures 5-6; paragraphs 0048-0050, 0056-0058, 0060-0061, 0068), the ankle module 50 having an intermediate wall 52a dividing a central cavity into the anterior and posterior chambers 54a and 56a and connecting to a central hub encircling and configured to pivot about axle 42 via bearings 44 and bearing spacer 46 (Figures 5-6; paragraph 0047), the ankle module 50 further comprising a base portion 30 fixedly coupled to the axle 42 (Figures 2A-2C, 3, 5-6; paragraph 0047) and fixedly coupled to elongate foot member 10 with said one or more connectors 37 (Figure 2C; paragraph 0043).
To replace the mechanical heel height adjustment mechanism of the Korean patent document with the hydraulic embodiment of Gramnäs et al. would have been obvious from the advantages in Gramnäs et al. [paragraphs 0048 (“valve 48 can be operated to selectively permit communication between the cylinders 54a, 56a”), 0051 (“push button 60”), 0068 (“variety of footwear”; different inclines)] with further motivation (to combine) provided by Gramnäs et al. indicating that “the foot member 10 may comprise multiple pieces separated, for example, transversely or longitudinally from each other” [paragraphs 0031 (second to last sentence); 0070 (separate toe or heel member)] and incorporating by reference modular leaf spring teachings (paragraph 0032, last sentence) and by the Korean patent document similarly being directed to a base portion 1 having upstanding members 14 and 14a to which an axle 3 is threadingly fixed (Figures 1-2) and a Teflon bearing 4 for rotational coupling to a pyramidal adapter portion 2 (machine translation: third page, third paragraph).
Regarding claims 42-44, the lower elongate foot member curves upwardly at a toe region distally beyond a coupled upper elongate foot member (Figure 1 of the Korean patent document, which depicts bolts or screws passing through both lower and upper foot members and into base portion 1). The further limitations of claims 45-47 are adequately addressed above (MPEP § 707); attention is directed to Gramnäs et al.: Figures 5-6, valve 58, and paragraphs 0048-0051.
Claim 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Workers Accident Medical Corporation, KR 10-0401458 B1, in view of Gramnäs et al., US 2005/0137717 A1, as applied above to claim 40, and further in view of Clausen et al., US 2006/0015192 A1. The Korean patent document defines an arch region (Figure 3) and, like Gramnäs et al., possesses base portion projections extending upwardly to form a rotational connection with a hub (Figures 1-2 of the Korean patent document; Figures 1 and 5-6 of Gramnäs et al.). Adding the Clausen et al. cosmesis 200 of Figures 2A-2B, which depict a region of channels 230 in an inner surface 216b of the sole portion (paragraph 0034), would have been obvious in order to protect the hydraulic and other components from the surroundings and to improve the aesthetics, with the ordinary practitioner having been left to select an appropriate covering, the cosmesis or cover 200 being compatible with the flexion and rollover functions of the Korean foot and the Gramnäs et al. prosthetic foot 100 [Clausen et al.: paragraph 0034 (recesses 230 “facilitate flexion” and “advantageously provide a functional foot cover 200 with improved rollover characteristics”); Gramnäs et al.: Figure 10; paragraphs 0012-0013, 0032, 0039, 0062], with further motivation (to combine) given by Clausen et al. being open to “any prosthetic foot design” (paragraph 0033) and Gramnäs et al. being directed towards compatible cosmeses (paragraphs 0009, 0014, 0036, 0067).
Claims 29 and 31-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Workers Accident Medical Corporation, KR 10-0401458 B1, in view of Gramnäs et al., US 2005/0137717 A1, as applied above to claims 40 and 42-47, and further in view of Gramnäs, US 5,957,981. Regarding claims 29 and 35, Gramnäs ‘981 Figures 7 and 10-11 appear to depict a ball-and-socket joint at lever 24 end opposite to shaft 25 end (MPEP § 2125), and such a joint would have been obvious to the ordinary practitioner in order to adapt to different angulations of lever 24 and maneuvering cable 26 so as to accommodate a diversity of abilities and preferences among amputees in reaching for and manipulating said cable (column 3, line 62, to column 4, line 3); valve body 23 is selectively positioned in a rotational manner by components 24-26, collectively considered to be a ball lock by virtue of said obvious ball-and-socket joint, to assume open as well as closed (i.e., locking) positions (column 3, lines 10-45); to utilize such a mechanism for Gramnäs et al. ‘717 valve 58 would have been obvious from the aforementioned advantages, with Gramnäs et al. ‘717 being open to various valve types [paragraphs 0048, 0051 (“lever”)] and with motivation (to combine) provided by Gramnäs et al. ‘717 incorporating by reference Gramnäs ‘981 (paragraph 0051, last sentence, of Gramnäs et al. ‘717).
Regarding claim 34, elongate foot members, including toe regions, comprising glass fiber would have been obvious from paragraph 0032 of Gramnäs et al. ‘717 in order to accommodate a diversity of users and activities. Regarding claim 38, said ball lock also comprises a spring (Gramnäs ‘981: column 4, lines 3-5). Further limitations of other claims are addressed above with respect to similar dependent claims (MPEP § 707).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered. The examiner is unable to find any criticality or advantage of “the base portion extending rearward of the posterior end of the upper elongate foot member” (e.g., amended claim 29 at lines 9-10) in Applicant’s grandparent application 15/828,944 and provisional application 62/428,942. Although the drawings appear to support such a limitation, paragraphs 0048-0049 of said grandparent application and paragraphs 0039-0040 of said provisional merely describe an associated coupling as “at, adjacent, or proximate the proximal end [of the upper foot member]”, and as noted above, the Korean patent document illustrates the newly claimed feature. Applicant’s arguments involve neither the Applicant’s specification nor the Korean patent document, so no further comment by the examiner is deemed necessary at this time; reference is made to the grounds for rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the modified grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Therefore, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL (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 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 David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Melanie Tyson can be reached at telephone number 571-272-9062. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights