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 § 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.
Claims 17-18 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertels et al (2014/0018938) in view of Einarsson et al (9,883,815).
Bertels et al teaches an electrode interface for a prosthetic assembly comprising a prosthetic liner 2 and a prosthetic socket 26/28, the electrode interface comprising:
an electrode 8 secured to the prosthetic liner and an electrical conduit (20 or a middle portion) arranged to transfer an electrical potential from an interior side of the prosthetic liner to an exterior side of the prosthetic liner (see at least claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
205
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
598
239
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
544
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For this action, the following language of claim 1 is interpreted as positively claiming the dome electrode, prosthetic socket and amplifier:
wherein a dome electrode 14 is arranged to be connected to the prosthetic socket (see abstract) and arranged to connect to the electrode 8 to provide for electrical contact (as shown);
However, Bertels et al fails to teach wherein the dome electrode is arranged to relay signals to an amplifier.
Einarsson et al teaches a similar prosthetic/orthotic comprising electrodes (EMG) which connects to an amplifier.
PNG
media_image4.png
210
429
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have an amplifier after the dome electrode to boost the signal from the dome electrode for processing.
Claims 18 and 31, wherein the electrode defines an inner portion arranged to cover a predetermined surface area of the interior side 22 of the prosthetic liner 2 which is best shown in figures 6a-6c.
Claims 19-29, 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertels et al (2014/0018938) in view of Einarsson et al (9,883,815) and further in view of Koppe et al (12,097,369).
Bertels et al in view of Einarsson et al produces an electrode interface for a prosthetic assembly as described above. However, the combination fails to teach the inner portion is defined by a conductive textile.
Koppe et al also teaches a prosthetic assembly comprising a socket and a liner with an electrode 4 defined by a conductive textile 8. See at least the abstract and figure 7.
It would have been a simple substitution to have substituted the electrodes of Koppe et al for the electrodes (including both portions inner and outer 16, 18) of Bertels et al to obtain predictable results. Further, Koppe et al teaches the following advantage: Electrodes made from an electrically conductive polymer known from the prior art are susceptible to artifacts and unwelcome disruptions in the measurement signal; this is likely to be due to the smooth hydrophobic surface of the electrode made of such a polymer. Due to the effective contact between the conductive textile and the conductive polymer, this disadvantage is also considerably minimised or completely eliminated (column 3, lines 20-27).
Claims 20 and 32, wherein the inner portion of the electrode is arranged to be flush with an inner surface of the prosthetic liner along the interior side thereof as shown in figure 7 of Koppe et al.
Claim 21, the combination using the electrodes of Koppe et al defines an outer portion arranged to cover a predetermined surface area of the exterior side of the prosthetic liner.
Claim 22, the combination using the electrodes of Koppe et al would produce an outer portion is defined by a conductive textile.
Claim 23, wherein the electrode defines an inner portion arranged to cover a predetermined surface area of the interior side 22 of the prosthetic liner 2 which is best shown in figures 6a-6c.
Claim 24, wherein the electrode uses multiple electrodes to contact the dome electrode. See figure 61-6c above. As shown, the outer portion of the electrode is “sized larger”, using 2 to 1 or longer in length, than the dome electrode.
Claim 25, the combination using the electrode of Koppe et al places the outer portion of the electrode flush with an exterior surface of the prosthetic liner along the exterior side thereof.
Claim 26, the electrical conduit (at least 20 of Bertels et al) is embedded in a thickness of the prosthetic liner extending between the interior and exterior sides of the prosthetic liner.
Claim 27, see claim 25 above. The elastomer material is interpreted as the liner. The pads are interpreted as the conductive polymer 10 taught be Koppe et al.
Claim 28, at least one of the interior pad and the exterior pad is formed from a stretchable conductive textile 8. The elastomer material may be silicone with electrical conductive particles which is stretchable. A textile is inherently or at least obviously stretchable to one skilled in the art and to approximate the stretchability of the liner and/or elastomer material to prevent dislocation.
Claim 29, all method steps are inherent or at least obvious to one skilled in the art when donning a liner with electrodes and prosthetic socket. See figure 6a-6c. Recording signals is inherent/obvious to for use of the prosthetic assembly.
Claim 32, see at least claim 20 above.
Claim 33, see at least claim 23 above.
Claim 34, see at least claim 25 above.
Claim 35, see at least claim 26 above.
Claim 36, see at least claim 27 above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE EDWARD SNOW whose telephone number is (571)272-4759. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Monday through Thursday.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 5712729062. 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.
/BRUCE E SNOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights