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 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, in line 5, the claimed, “machine learning system” should be amended to recite, “processing circuit”, to correct improper antecedent basis and to be in line with the claim amendments filed July 6, 2026.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1–4, 6, and 13–16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wasielewski et al. (US Pat. # 8956418), hereinafter referred to as Wasielewski.
Regarding claim 1, Wasielewski teaches, “A system for measurement of loading in a joint of a real or artificial limb extending along a longitudinal axis, the system comprising: a load measuring device insertable into the joint and supporting (Fig. 1–6, ref. 20, 36, 52’s on 12, 14; including multiple 106’s): a first force sensor detecting a load input on the joint along a first axis and producing a first output voltage indicating at least one of a normal and shear force on the joint (Fig. 17, 20; ref. # 1; multiple 106’s included, interpreted as many normal force sensors (1) along arrays; see col. 19, ln. 33–35); a second force sensor detecting the load input on the joint along a second axis displaced from the first axis and producing a second output voltage indicating the at least one of a normal and shear force on the joint (Fig. 18, 20; ref. # 2; one of two available sensor parts in 106); a third force sensor detecting the load input on the joint along a third axis displaced from the first and second axis and producing a third output voltage indicating the at least one of a normal and shear force on the joint (Fig. 18, 20; ref. # 2; other of two available sensor parts in 106; alternatively, ref. # 3 in Fig. 19, 20); a processing circuit receiving the first, second, and third output voltages to determine and output an output value functionally related to a loading on the joint and based on a predetermined relationship between the first, second, and third output voltages and the load input (Fig. 25–28, electronic signal (voltages) output to display controller and showing load distribution based on sensor output distribution; col. 16, ln. 46 – col. 17, ln. 34; col. 21, ln. 8–25); and wherein the output value provides a load measurement of at least one normal force and at least one shear force with respect to the longitudinal axis of the joint (col. 19, ln. 16–35; see also claims 11, 12).”
Regarding claim 2, Wasielewski teaches, “wherein the output value provides a center of pressure of the joint (see Fig. 26–28, graphically showing center position (point of peak area of load)).”
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Wasielewski teaches, “an output device outputting a file for storage linking the output voltage with the output value based on the relationship between the output voltages and the loading on the joint at a load location; an output device outputting a file for storage linking the output voltage with a center of pressure based on the relationship between the output voltages and the loading on the joint at a load location and further including a display simultaneously indicating a location of the center of pressure on the joint (load display and center of pressure shown in Fig. 26–28, and data transmitted/output as described in col. 16, ln. 46 – col. 17, ln. 34).”
Regarding claim 6, Wasielewski teaches, “wherein the load measuring device comprises a disk supporting the first force sensor, second force sensor, and third force sensor displaced apart on the disk (Fig. 1–6, ref. # 20/36/52’s on 12/24, 14/16; col. 18, ln. 62 – col. 19, ln. 35).”
Regarding claim 13, Wasielewski teaches, “wherein the first, second and third sensors detect a normal force on the joint (col. 19, ln. 33–35; when arrays have many 106’s, ref. # 1 (see Fig. 17–20) interpreted as at least first, second, and third sensors detecting normal force; see col. 19, ln. 5–30).”
Regarding claim 14, Wasielewski teaches, “wherein at least one of the first, second and third sensors detect a shear force in a first direction and a second shear force in a second direction on the joint (col. 19, ln. 19–22).”
Regarding claim 15, Wasielewski teaches, “wherein the first, second and third sensors detect a center of pressure of the joint (Fig. 26–28 shows this at peak).”
Regarding claim 16, Wasielewski teaches, “wherein the first, second, and third force sensors each comprise one or more strain gauges (3’s of 106’s measure strain; see col. 19, ln. 5–35 and col. 20, ln. 45–57).”
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasielewski (US Pat. # 8956418) in view of Amirouche (US Pub. # 20070239165).
Regarding claim 5, Wasielewski does not appear to teach, “wherein the processing circuit is a machine learning system trained with a machine learning training set and wherein the machine leaning training set comprises a load input data set at associated load locations and an output voltage data set.” However, Amirouche teaches the deficiencies of Wasielewski (abstract; Fig. 12; para. [0057–0080]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wasielewski’s invention to include wherein the processing circuit is a machine learning system trained with a machine learning training set and wherein the machine leaning training set comprises a load input data set at associated load locations and an output voltage data set.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wasielewski’s invention for at least the purpose of processing the data as collected by Wasielewski, for ensuring more refined accuracy and prediction of loads over the surface of the device, using predictable machine learning techniques, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, Wasielewski teaches, “A method of measuring joint forces for a joint replacement comprising the steps of: (a) installing a load measuring device into a patient (Fig. 1–6, ref. 20, 36, 52’s on 12, 14; including multiple 106’s); and (b) making measurement of a load input on the a joint interface by: (i) applying a load to the load measuring device (abstract); (ii) detecting a first normal or shear force on the load measuring device at a first sensor along a first axis (Fig. 17, 20; ref. # 1; multiple 106’s included, interpreted as many normal force sensors (1) along arrays; see col. 19, ln. 33–35); (iii) detecting a second normal or shear force on the load measuring device at a second sensor along a second axis displaced from the first axis (Fig. 18, 20; ref. # 2; one of two available sensor parts in 106); (iv) detecting a third normal or shear force on the load measuring device at a third sensor along a third axis displaced from the first and second axes (Fig. 18, 20; ref. # 2; other of two available sensor parts in 106; alternatively, ref. # 3 in Fig. 19, 20); (v) applying a predetermined relationship between the first, second, and third output voltages at the first, second and third sensors, respectively (Fig. 25–28, electronic signal (voltages) output to display controller and showing load distribution based on sensor output distribution; col. 16, ln. 46 – col. 17, ln. 34; col. 21, ln. 8–25); and (vi) processing the first, second, and third output voltages at the first, second and third sensors, respectively, to output a values functionally related to the load input applied to the load measuring device providing a load measurement of at least one normal force and at least one shear force with respect to the longitudinal axis of the joint (col. 19, ln. 16–35; see also claims 11, 12).” Wasielewski does not appear to teach, “the load input determined by machine learning.” However, Amirouche teaches the deficiencies of Wasielewski (abstract; Fig. 12; para. [0057–0080]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wasielewski’s invention to include the load input determined by machine learning.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wasielewski’s invention for at least the purpose of processing the data as collected by Wasielewski, for ensuring more refined accuracy and prediction of loads over the surface of the device, using predictable machine learning techniques, yielding predictable results.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasielewski (US Pat. # 8956418).
Regarding claim 21, Wasielewski doesn’t appear to specifically mention measuring torque, however, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wasielewski’s invention to include wherein the output value provides a measure of torque on the joint with respect to the longitudinal axis of the joint, since torque is a calculation of force times distance from a pivot point, and both of these variables are known from the teaching of Wasielewski (force detected at 20, 36, 52; see col. 19, ln. 16–30; distance from sensors/joint to a measurement point along joint is a known value/measurable from Wasielewski’s specific prosthesis). Here the examiner takes Official notice. (Notably, see US Pat. # 10772640 and US Pat. # 8979758, showing teachings of torque measurement at joints of prosthetic limbs.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7–12 and 17–19 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.
Regarding claims 7–12, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein the disk comprises a ring formed of at least three beams, each supporting one of the first force sensor, second force sensor, and third force sensor thereon.”
Regarding claims 17–19, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein the disk comprises a ring of at least three beams wherein each of the at least three beams supports at least two upper strain gauges and at least two lower strain gauges.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 20 (and their related dependent claims) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights