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.
Claim 18 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. Claim 18 recites details of an apparatus, but depends from a method claim (Claim 11). It appears that the claim should depend from Claim 14 and for the purposes of examination, the claim will be treated thus. The claim also recites “at least one spring” and “at least one force sensor” which renders the claim indefinite. These two elements are already recited in parent claim 14 and it is unclear if the claim is intended to clarify where these elements are or to add separate elements from those already recited.
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 14-19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campilii in US Publication 2019/0231631 in view of Ruddy in US Publication 2010/0175730.
Regarding Claims 14-17, Campilii teaches a walking assistance device, the device comprising: a handle portion (54); a shaft portion (52) operationally connected to the handle portion; a base portion (16) operationally connected to the shaft portion; a return spring (53) disposed between the shaft portion and the base portion; and a force sensor (20) disposed adjacent to the return spring; wherein the base portion comprising a bottom surface adapted to contact the ground or a floor surface, wherein the force sensor is configured to measure force applied to the return spring at predetermined points in the user's gait.
Campilii is silent on the details of the base portion or a telescoping shaft. Ruddy teaches a walking assistance device including a shaft (12) that has an adjustable length (at 22/24) and a base portion (see Fig. 8b) with a bottom surface defining a continuous, uninterrupted surface having a curved front portion (64), a flat middle portion (62), and a curved back portion (A, see below), the curve of the front portion and the curve of the back portion are explicitly configured to apply assistive forces that assist the user at predetermined points in the user's gait, wherein the curve of the front portion has a radius greater than the curve of the back portion, and wherein the bottom surface is textured (at 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Campilii by using an adjustable shaft as taught by Ruddy in order to allow the device to be configured for users of different height, and to use a base portion as taught by Ruddy in order to provide a stable base for the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
351
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Campilii, as modified, teaches that the device further includes at least one spring (53) disposed in the base portion and at least one force sensor (20) disposed adjacent to the at least one spring disposed in the base portion.
Regarding Claim 19, Campilii teaches that the at least one force sensor in the base is configured to measure force applied to the at least one spring in the base at predetermined points in the user's gait (see Paragraph 0032).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art made of record has failed to suggest, either singly or in combination, a novel method for customizing a cane system including adjusting the system in a plurality of configurations with a combination of foot profile, shaft length, shaft angle, and return spring force variables, monitoring the force applied to the knee of a user walking with the system in both configurations and then customizing the system for the user.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Clar et al., Sarkar et al., Jang, and Aubin et al. teach canes with sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah Chandler Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636