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 § 102
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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Will et al. 2019/0183663. Noting fig. 1 Will discloses the invention as claimed comprising:
a prosthetic socket comprising an open proximal end (3), a distal end (Figure 1) with a distal abutment surface, and a lateral surface extending between the proximal end (3) and the distal end, wherein an effective length of the prosthetic socket extends from the distal abutment surface of the distal end (Figure 1) to the proximal end (3), wherein an effective circumference of the prosthetic socket extends along the inner surface of the lateral surface;
and wherein the prosthetic socket comprises an electrical control unit (40) and an adjustment device (41) for the effective length and the effective circumference, and comprises at least a first sensor (31) for detecting a force acting distally on the amputation stump (claim 4) and at least a second sensor (32) for detecting forces acting radially on the amputation stump, the measured values of which are transmitted to the electrical control unit, wherein the electrical control unit is configured to control the adjustment device in dependence on the measured values of both sensors (31, 32).
It is noted that the claim comprise intended use recitation language e.g. “…are configured for transmitting the measured values of which are transmitted to the electrical control unit, wherein the electrical control unit is being configured to control the adjustment device according to the measured values of the at least one first sensor and the at least one second sensor both sensors…”. The functional language of the claims carries no weight in the absence of any distinguishing structure. Will discloses the structure as claimed and is thus capable of performing the functions. See MPEP 2114 which states:
“II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).”
4. Regarding claim 2 see [0028] of Will et al.
5. Regarding claims 3-5 the adjustment device/actuator (41) is capable of performing the functions as claimed (see [0013] which states that the actuator may increase or decrease the effective length thereof and thereby changes the inner circumference of the prosthesis socket.
6. Regarding claim 7-9 see [0028-0029] which describes the use of the pressure sensor. Note that the functional language (e.g. of the pressure sensors) in the claims which has been discussed supra with respect to MPEP 2114.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Will et al. 2019/0183663 in view of Laszczak et al. 2021/0113356.
Will et al. has been disclosed supra however does not specify at least one additional sensor comprises has at least one inertial sensor that is preferably configured to determine a spatial position, a speed, and/or a change in the angle of the prosthetic socket or of a component of the prosthetic socket directly or indirectly connected to the prosthetic socket. Laszczak et al. teaches a prosthetic device that utilizes sensors that determine factors such as temperature, oxygen levels and moisture (see [0035; 0045-0046; 0234]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Will et al. and provide a variety of sensors that measure multiple parameters in order to detect that the functions of the prosthetic are performing in a proper manner for the patient.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Suzette Gherbi whose telephone number is (571)272-
4751. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:00pm. 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:/Avww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Melanie Tyson can be reached on 571-272-9062. 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197.
/SUZETTE J GHERBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights