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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-9 and 22 is 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.
Claims 8-9 recite the limitation "the shaft".
Claim 22 recite the limitations: “said control unit”, “the sensor means”, and “at least one load cell”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paquette et al. (US Patent 4,432,223; IDS dated 09/15/2023 Cite No. 1; hereinafter Paquette).
With regards to claim 1, Paquette teaches a walking simulator (FIG. 1) comprising:
- a lower-limb prosthetic device (32 and 32A; FIG. 1-3) comprising at least a foot portion (32; FIG. 3) having a sole (68), a tibial element (32A), and an ankle articular center (60) suitable to connect the foot portion (32) to the tibial element (32A; FIG. 1; col. 6, lines 3-26);
- a base structure (see frame in FIG. 1 including 26, 40 holding up 32 and 32A),
- an arm (20) coupled to the base structure (see frame holding up gear 14; FIG. 1) via coupling means (including couplings connecting to 18 and 34/36) that allow said arm to rotate or pivot about a substantially horizontal axis of rotation (col. 4, lines 1-9), wherein said arm comprises fastening means (coupling between 18 and 20; FIG. 1) for constraining the prosthetic device to said arm so that it extends substantially parallel to said arm (col. 4, lines 5-9);
- a substantially horizontal base (38) positioned under the prosthetic device (32, 32A), wherein said base comprises a top portion suitable to receive in abutment a sole of the foot portion of said prosthetic device (col. 4, lines 20-34);
- first actuating means (including 10) associated with the arm (20) for creating a horizontally pivoting or oscillating rotary motion of the arm about the axis of rotation and for controlling the leg angle of the prosthetic device constrained to said arm (col. 4, lines 42-64);
- second actuating means (including 28) associated with the fastening means for permitting a linear translational motion of the prosthetic device along the arm (col. 4, lines 42-64).
However, Paquette is silent regarding the walking simulator comprising: wherein said axis of rotation and the top portion of the base are mutually positioned in the sagittal plane at a first height comprised between 45 mm and 85 mm.
It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Paquette teaches a general sizing of the prosthetic 32 and bar 20 attaching to the prosthetic 32 and finding the optimum sizing for the prosthetic such that the axis of rotation (at 34) and the top portion of the base (38; FIG. 1) are mutually positioned in the sagittal plane at a particular height would be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find the optimum sizing of the prosthetic and bar as taught by Paquette including the sizing to achieve the height as claimed with reasonable expectation of functioning as originally intended.
Furthermore, Paquette is silent regarding the walking simulator comprising: - third actuating means associated with the base for permitting a linear translational motion of said base along a substantially horizontal plane.
Paquette further teaches that the stationary walking surface 38 produces the same motion as that moving over a treadmill (col. 4, line 65 to col. 5, line 7), which includes (an inherent) actuating means associated with the base for permitting a linear translational motion of said base along a substantially horizontal plane.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the walking surface 38 as taught by Paquette with its equivalent treadmill with reasonable expectation of providing the same motion of foot movement (col. 4, line 65 to col. 5, line 7).
With regards to claim 2, Paquette teaches the simulator according to claim 1, wherein said first height between the axis of rotation and the top portion of the base (treadmill or 38) is approximately 70 mm (see claim 1 above regarding height).
With regards to claim 3, Paquette teaches the simulator according to claim 1, wherein said first height substantially corresponds to a second height of the ankle articular center of the prosthetic device (32, 32A; see changes in size as in claim 1).
With regards to claim 4, Paquette teaches the simulator according to claim 1, wherein said coupling means (34) comprise a shaft (shaft of cam follower 34) rigidly constrained to a lower end of the arm (20) and suitable to rotate about an axis of rotation substantially coinciding with said substantially horizontal axis of rotation (col. 4, lines 23-50).
With regards to claim 5, Paquette teaches the simulator according to claim 4, characterized in that wherein said coupling means (34/36) comprise at least one connection element (36) suitable to couple said shaft (34) to the base structure (26) so as to allow the arm (20) and the shaft (34) to rotate about said axis of rotation (col. 4, lines 20-41).
With regards to claim 8, Paquette teaches the simulator according to claim 1, wherein said first actuating means (including 10) comprise a rotary actuator (14) connected to the shaft (shaft connecting 18 and 20).
With regards to claim 9, Paquette teaches the simulator according to claim 1, wherein said first actuating means (including 10) comprise a rotary actuator (10) connected to the shaft (shaft connecting 18 and 20) by means of a transmission system (14; col. 3, line 65 to col. 4, line 9).
It is noted that the rejection of claim 1 is the exact same as the rejection above with the exception of the citation for the first/second actuator being 28/10, respectively.
With regards to claim 1, Paquette teaches a walking simulator (FIG. 1) comprising:
- a lower-limb prosthetic device (32 and 32A; FIG. 1-3) comprising at least a foot portion (32; FIG. 3) having a sole (68), a tibial element (32A), and an ankle articular center (60) suitable to connect the foot portion (32) to the tibial element (32A; FIG. 1; col. 6, lines 3-26);
- a base structure (see frame in FIG. 1 including 26, 40 holding up 32 and 32A),
- an arm (20) coupled to the base structure (see frame holding up gear 14; FIG. 1) via coupling means (including couplings connecting to 18 and 34/36) that allow said arm to rotate or pivot about a substantially horizontal axis of rotation (col. 4, lines 1-9), wherein said arm comprises fastening means (coupling between 18 and 20; FIG. 1) for constraining the prosthetic device to said arm so that it extends substantially parallel to said arm (col. 4, lines 5-9);
- a substantially horizontal base (38) positioned under the prosthetic device (32, 32A), wherein said base comprises a top portion suitable to receive in abutment a sole of the foot portion of said prosthetic device (col. 4, lines 20-34);
- first actuating means (including 28) associated with the arm (20) for creating a horizontally pivoting or oscillating rotary motion of the arm about the axis of rotation and for controlling the leg angle of the prosthetic device constrained to said arm (col. 4, lines 42-64);
- second actuating means (including 10) associated with the fastening means for permitting a linear translational motion of the prosthetic device along the arm (col. 4, lines 42-64).
However, Paquette is silent regarding the walking simulator comprising: wherein said axis of rotation and the top portion of the base are mutually positioned in the sagittal plane at a first height comprised between 45 mm and 85 mm.
It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Paquette teaches a general sizing of the prosthetic 32 and bar 20 attaching to the prosthetic 32 and finding the optimum sizing for the prosthetic such that the axis of rotation (at 34) and the top portion of the base (38; FIG. 1) are mutually positioned in the sagittal plane at a particular height would be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find the optimum sizing of the prosthetic and bar as taught by Paquette including the sizing to achieve the height as claimed with reasonable expectation of functioning as originally intended.
Furthermore, Paquette is silent regarding the walking simulator comprising: - third actuating means associated with the base for permitting a linear translational motion of said base along a substantially horizontal plane.
Paquette further teaches that the stationary walking surface 38 produces the same motion as that moving over a treadmill (col. 4, line 65 to col. 5, line 7), which includes (an inherent) actuating means associated with the base for permitting a linear translational motion of said base along a substantially horizontal plane.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the walking surface 38 as taught by Paquette with its equivalent treadmill with reasonable expectation of providing the same motion of foot movement (col. 4, line 65 to col. 5, line 7).
With regards to claim 6, Paquette teaches the simulator according to claim 1, wherein said first actuating means (including 28) comprise a linear actuator (28) connected to the arm (20) and to the base structure (frame part including 26) via a first hinge (22; FIG. 1) and a second hinge (34; FIG. 1), respectively.
With regards to claim 7, Paquette teaches the simulator according to claim 6, wherein said linear actuator (28) consists of a cylinder-piston mechanism (col. 4, lines 14-19; FIG. 1).
Claims 15-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paquette et al. (US Patent 4,432,223; IDS dated 09/15/2023 Cite No. 1; hereinafter Paquette) in view Coggins (US Publication 2015/0335450; IDS dated 09/15/2023 Cite No. 2).
With regards to claim 15, Paquette teaches the simulator according to claim 1. However, Paquette is silent regarding the simulator comprising first sensor means associated with the first actuating means for controlling the position and/or force of said first actuating means.
Coggins teaches a prosthetic limb test apparatus comprising first sensor means associated with the first actuating means for controlling the position and/or force of said first actuating means ([0065, 0068]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine sensors as taught by Coggins to the simulator as taught by Paquette to evaluate the forces fall within acceptable operational ranges ([0069]; Coggins).
With regards to claim 16, Paquette, as combine with Coggins, teaches the
simulator according to claim 15, wherein said first sensor means comprise at least one position sensor and at least one force sensor ([0065]; Coggins).
With regards to claim 17, Paquette teaches the simulator according to claim 1. However, Paquette is silent regarding the simulator comprising second sensor means associated with the arm and/or with the second actuating means for controlling the position of said second actuating means, in particular said second sensor means comprising at least one position sensor.
Coggins teaches a prosthetic limb test apparatus comprising second sensor means associated with the arm and/or with the second actuating means for controlling the position of said second actuating means, in particular said second sensor means comprising at least one position sensor ([0065, 0068]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine sensors as taught by Coggins to the simulator as taught by Paquette to evaluate the forces fall within acceptable operational ranges ([0069]; Coggins).
With regards to claim 18, Paquette teaches the simulator according to claim 1. However, Paquette is silent regarding the simulator comprising third sensor means associated with the base and/or with the third actuating means for controlling the position of said base and the vertical and anteroposterior reaction force exerted by the prosthetic device on the base.
Coggins teaches a prosthetic limb test apparatus comprising third sensor means ([0050]) associated with the base and/or with the third actuating means for controlling the position of said base and the vertical ([0056]) and anteroposterior reaction force exerted by the prosthetic device on the base ([0065, 0068]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine sensors as taught by Coggins to the simulator as taught by Paquette to evaluate the forces fall within acceptable operational ranges ([0069]; Coggins).
With regards to claim 19, Paquette, as combine with Coggins, teaches the
simulator according to claim 18, wherein said third sensor means comprise at least one position sensor for controlling the position of said base ([0065, 0068-0069]; Coggins).
With regards to claim 21, Paquette teaches the simulator according to claim 1. However, Paquette is silent regarding the simulator comprising a control unit adapted to receive, as input, an attempt command signal (x,ref,n) and signals coming from said sensor means ([0065]), and suitable to generate command signals for driving said actuating means ([0012-0015]; Coggins).
Coggins teaches a prosthetic limb test apparatus comprising a control unit (FIG. 18) adapted to receive, as input, an attempt command signal (x,ref,n) and signals coming from said sensor means ([0065]), and suitable to generate command signals for driving said actuating means ([0012-0015]; Coggins).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine sensors and its control as taught by Coggins to the simulator as taught by Paquette to evaluate the forces fall within acceptable operational ranges ([0069]; Coggins).
Claims 20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paquette et al. (US Patent 4,432,223; IDS dated 09/15/2023 Cite No. 1; hereinafter Paquette) in view Coggins (US Publication 2015/0335450; IDS dated 09/15/2023 Cite No. 2), and further in view of Yngve (US Publication 2012/0297889).
With regards to claim 20, Paquette, as combined with Coggins, teaches the simulator according to claim 18. However, Paquette, as combined with Coggins, is silent regarding wherein said third sensor means comprise a load cell for controlling the vertical and anteroposterior reaction force exerted by the prosthetic device on the base.
Yngve teaches force sensor means comprise a load cell ([0019]) for controlling the vertical and anteroposterior reaction force exerted by the moving shoe on the base ([0020]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one type of force sensor such as an inline load cell as taught by Yngve for the force sensor(s) as taught by Paquette, as combined with Coggins, with reasonable expectation of sensing force as originally intended ([0068-0069]; Coggins).
With regards to claim 22, Paquette teaches the simulator according to claim 1. However, Paquette is silent regarding a method of operation of a simulator according to claim 1, wherein said control unit is associated with a pipeline comprising a plurality of software modules, said method including the following steps: reading and pre-processing the data coming from the sensor means by means of a first module; processing the data coming from at least one load cell by means of a second module; making a biomechanical analysis of the simulated walk by means of a third module; segmenting the gait cycle of the simulated walk by means of a fourth module; receiving, as input, the output of the fourth module and parameters associated with objective walking characteristics contained in a database, by means of a fifth module comprising a self-learning algorithm outputting biomechanical data and a signal (xi,refn+1) which feeds a second buffer and is inputted to the control unit.
Coggins teaches a simulator comprising a method of operation of the simulator, wherein said control unit is associated with a pipeline comprising a plurality of software modules,
said method including the following steps:
reading and pre-processing the data coming from the sensor means by means of a first module ([0048]);
processing the data coming from at least one sensor means by means of a second module ([0049]);
making a biomechanical analysis of the simulated walk by means of a third module ([0044, 0049]);
segmenting the gait cycle of the simulated walk by means of a fourth module ([0066-0067]);
receiving, as input, the output of the fourth module and parameters associated with objective walking characteristics contained in a database, by means of a fifth module comprising a self-learning algorithm outputting biomechanical data and a signal (xi,refn+1) which feeds a second buffer and is inputted to the control unit ([0068-0070]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine sensors and its control as taught by Coggins to the simulator as taught by Paquette to evaluate the forces fall within acceptable operational ranges ([0069]; Coggins).
However, Paquette, as combined with Coggins, is silent regarding at least one sensor means comprising at least one load cell.
Yngve teaches a testing apparatus comprising at least one sensor means comprising at least one load cell (18; [0019-0020]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one type of force sensor such as an inline load cell as taught by Yngve for the force sensor(s) as taught by Paquette, as combined with Coggins, with reasonable expectation of sensing force as originally intended ([0068-0069]; Coggins).
With regards to claim 23, Paquette, as combined with Coggins and Yngve, teaches a computer program product which can be loaded into a memory associated with a control unit (50) adapted to implement the method according to claim 22 ([0049]; FIG. 18; Coggins).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts on record fail to anticipate and/or suggest the combination of the claimed invention. Notably, the prior arts fail to teach, inter alia, the limitations of claims 10-14. Specifically, the closest prior art, Paquette, teaches a walking simulator similar to the claimed invention, not the disclosed invention. Thus, claims 10-14 further differentiate the structure of claim 1 such that the claimed invention is more in line with the disclosed invention. Therefore, there would be no reason to further modify Paquette as such modification would make the simulator more complex than necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853