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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 is objected to for referring to “pressure of the fluid” when it is unclear how, if at all, this relates back to the previously claimed “pressure of the fluid”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lang (US 20040186591 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Lang discloses a prosthetic knee joint comprising:
a valve comprising an inlet connected to an outlet via a fluid connection, and a valve body (claim 28 hydraulic valve comprising a valve member positioned within a valve cavity with an inlet port and outlet port ) moveable into a first position in which the fluid connection is blocked (claim 28 closed position) and a second position in which the fluid connection is open (claim 28 open position),
a lower leg and an upper leg arranged on the lower leg such that the upper leg is moveable relative to the lower leg (claim 28 first and second joint parts rotatable relative to each other in joint flexion and extension) when the fluid connection is open (Abstract),
wherein the valve body is configured so that a switch force is required to be applied to the valve body to move it from the first (closed) position to the second (open) position (Abstract: the valve member is moveable from the closed (first) position to the open (second) position in response to weight actuation),
but is silent with regard to the valve body being maintained in the second position when fluid pressure flowing in the fluid connection is greater than a predetermined threshold even if the switch is no longer present.
and the valve body is maintained in the second (open) position when a fluid is flowing in the fluid connection and a pressure of the fluid is greater than a predetermined threshold even if the switch force is no longer present (this is considered to be inherent at some level of fluid pressure. See for example [0006] and [0024] where it is discussed that the valve body is biased closed, meaning a fluid pressure, if present, would overcome the bias to keep it closed).
Regarding claim 2 Lang discloses the knee joint of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Lang further discloses the switch force is configured to occur when the knee joint is subjected to an external load (Abstract weight activation).
Regarding claim 3 Lang discloses the knee joint of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Lang further discloses the valve body is only moveable from the first position to second position when the knee joint is extended (Abstract: the valve member opens in response to fluid pressure caused by flexion torque to the knee joint (if the knee joint is flexing, it is considered extended relative to at least some level of flexion).).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang as is applied above in view of Bisinger et al. (US 20070208431 A1) hereinafter known as Bisinger.
Regarding claim 4 Lang discloses the knee joint of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the valve body being immovable from the first position to the second position when the pressure of the fluid is greater than a predetermined limit.
However, regarding claim 4 Bisinger teaches a prosthetic knee joint wherein fluid pressure which increases as a result of moving to/from extension/flexion and it reaches/exceeds a predetermined limit, the movement is throttled (Abstract). Lang and Bisinger are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic knee joints. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the knee joint of Lang so that the transition of the valve from the first position to the second position is throttled if the fluid pressure is greater than a predetermined limit as is taught by Bisinger in order to ensure wing control during use of the joint (Bisinger [0006]).
Regarding claim 5 Lang discloses the knee joint of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to whether or not an increase in the pressure of the fluid at the inlet counteracts a displacement of the valve body from the first position to the second position or not.
However, regarding claim 5 Bisinger teaches that an increase in fluid pressure counteracts movement of the knee (Abstract). Lang and Bisinger are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic knee joints. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the knee joint of Lang so that an increase in the pressure of the fluid at the inlet of the valve counteracts or throttles movement of the knee’s movement (i.e. counteracts a displacement of the valve body of Lang from the first position to the second position) as is taught by Bisinger in order to ensure wing control during use of the joint (Bisinger [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacqueline Woznicki whose telephone number is (571)270-5603. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-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, 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.
/Jacqueline Woznicki/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 07/15/26
Prosecution Insights