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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending and examined below
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 8, the claim reads “ground level reaction forces”. Examiner believes this should instead read “ground
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,616,590. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they name the same inventive entity
Instant application 18/759,244
US Patent 12,616,590
1 (genus)
1 (species)
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
8
8
9
9
1
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0158029 (Kuiken)
Regarding claim 1, Kuiken discloses an assistive device (Fig. 13, 1000) with hybrid control systems, comprising:
a knee joint (Fig. 13, 1030);
one or more actuating components (Fig. 13, 1300) for actuating the knee joint (¶0097, wherein 1300 is configured for this intended use);
a plurality of sensors (¶0098, “sensors”, see also ¶0073, wherein sensors are provided on the transmission) positioned along the one or more actuating components that generate feedback data associated with the knee joint (¶0087, wherein “sensors may be applied to knee joint to determine its position” corresponds to positioned along the one or more actuating components),
a hybrid control system defined along the knee joint and in operable communication with the plurality of sensors (see below), including:
an active control system (Fig. 13, 1200) that provides net positive energy (¶0097, wherein 1200 is configured to provide net positive energy), and
a passive control system (Fig. 13, passive system 1100) that varies power dissipated at the knee joint to accommodate net zero or negative energy (¶0095, wherein “applying resistance to slow the extension or flexion of the knee joint” corresponds to varying powered dissipated at the knee joint); and
a processing device (¶0116, “controller”) in operable communication with the plurality of sensors and the hybrid control system (¶0116, wherein the controller is configured for this intended use because it receives information from the sensors), the processing device configured to determine a state of the knee joint based on the feedback data (¶0116, wherein receiving a first set of information from sensors to determine stair climbing corresponds to determining a state of the knee joint) and engage one or both of the active control system or the passive control system based on the state of the knee joint (¶0116, wherein the “controller” is configured for this intended use because it can received information from the sensors to operate the prosthesis in either active mode or passive mode)
Regarding claim 2, Kuiken further discloses wherein, based on a change in the state of the knee joint (¶0087, wherein “knee joint position” corresponds to the state of the knee joint”), the processing device (¶0087, controller 150) engages the active control system to perform a first set of mechanical functions (¶0116, wherein actuation sequence for powered stair climbing corresponds to “engaging the control system to perform a first set of mechanical functions”), and the processing device disengages the active control system (¶0116, wherein “the motor and the linear actuator stop actuating” corresponds to disengaging the active control system) and engages the passive control system to perform a second set of mechanical functions to minimize consumption of electrical energy (¶0116, wherein the actuation sequence described for level ground walking corresponds to “performing a second set of mechanical functions to minimize consumption of electrical energy”).
Regarding claim 6, Kuiken discloses wherein the one or more actuating components comprises:
a first motor (Fig. 13, 1310) for converting electrical energy to mechanical energy as rotational motion
a roller screw (Fig. 13, 1320) that receives and converts the rotational motion from the first motor to linear motion; and
a slider crank assembly (see annotated Fig. 13) that converts the linear motion back to rotational motion at the knee joint (see Fig. 14a-14b), including: a crank (1230), and a connecting rod (Fig. 13, 1210), including a first end engaged to a nut (Fig .13, nut 1330) of the roller screw at a first rod pivot (see annotated Fig. 13), and a second end of the connecting rod engaged to the crank at a second rod pivot (See annotated Fig. 13), the nut of the roller screw transmitting the linear motion through the connecting rod to the second rod pivot to rotate the crank about an axis (¶0096, wherein nut is driven up and down 1320 by motor to rotate crank 1230)
PNG
media_image1.png
1227
1306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kuiken further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors includes at least one encoder for measuring knee joint angle (¶0115, wherein the “encoders” are configured to determine the position of the knee joint)
Regarding claim 8, Kuiken discloses wherein the plurality of sensors includes a load cell (¶0015, “load cell) that measures ground level reaction forces and moments, and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that measures knee joint acceleration and inclination angles (¶0115, wherein the IMU, i.e. inertial measurement unit, is configured to measure acceleration and inclination angles)
Regarding claim 18, Kuiken discloses a system for substituting a joint of the human body (Fig. 13), comprising:
an assistive device (Fig. 13, 1000) including a joint (Fig. 13, knee joint 1030, ¶0095), one or more actuating components for engaging the joint (Fig. 13, linear actuator 1300), and a plurality of sensors (¶0098, “sensors”, ¶0073, wherein sensors include at least strain gauges, force sensitive resistors, ¶0115, “encodes, load cells, IMUs and the like”);
a hybrid control system for controlling the assistive device (see below), including:
an active control system (Fig. 13, 1200) that provides net positive energy (¶0097, wherein 1200 is configured to provide net positive energy, and
a passive control system (Fig. 13, passive system 1100) that varies power dissipated at the joint to accommodate net zero or negative energy (¶0095, wherein “applying resistance to slow the extension or flexion of the knee joint” corresponds to varying powered dissipated at the knee joint), and
a processing device (¶0116, “controller”) in operable communication with the plurality of sensors and the hybrid control system (¶0116, wherein the controller is configured for this intended use because it receives information from the sensors), the processing device configured to determine a state of the joint (¶0116, wherein receiving a first set of information from sensors to determine stair climbing corresponds to determining a state of the knee joint) and engage either or both of the active control system or the passive control system (¶0116, wherein the “controller” is configured for this intended use because it can received information from the sensors to operate the prosthesis in either active mode or passive mode)
Regarding claim 19, Kuiken discloses an assistive device with hybrid control systems (Fig. 13, 1000), comprising:
one or more actuating components for actuating a joint (Fig. 13, 1300);
a plurality of sensors (¶0098, “sensors”), positioned along the one or more actuating components (¶0073, wherein sensors are provided on the transmission);
a hybrid control system (see below) in operable communication with the plurality of sensors (¶0116, wherein sensor info is used to “to transition the assistive device between other powered tasks and passive tasks”, including:
an active control system (Fig. 13, 1200) that provides net positive energy to the one or more actuating components (¶0097, wherein 1200 is configured to provide net positive energy), and
a passive control system (Fig. 13, passive system 1100) that varies power dissipated at the joint to accommodate net zero or negative energy to the one or more actuating components (¶0095, wherein “applying resistance to slow the extension or flexion of the knee joint” corresponds to varying powered dissipated at the knee joint), wherein the passive control system includes
a dynamic braking control mechanism (Fig. 11, resistance element 1500) configured for varying an amount of braking of the one or more actuating components in real time (¶0095, wherein velocity dependent resistance corresponds to a dynamic braking control mechanism that operates in real time); and
a processing device (¶0116, “controller”) in operable communication with the plurality of sensors and the hybrid control system (¶0116, wherein the controller is configured for this intended use because it receives information from the sensors), the processing device configured to determine a state of the joint (¶0116, wherein receiving a first set of information from sensors to determine stair climbing corresponds to determining a state of the knee joint) based on data output from the plurality of sensors and engage one or both of the active control system or the passive control system based on the state of the joint (¶0116, wherein the “controller” is configured for this intended use because it can received information from the sensors to operate the prosthesis in either active mode or passive mode)
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0158029 (Kuiken) in view of US 2006/0249315 (Herr)
Regarding claim 3, Kuiken discloses a passive control system with a motor and a passive control system (see rejection of claim 1 above) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose rheostatic dynamic braking.
Herr discloses a biomimetic hybrid actuator (Fig. 12) which utilizes rheostatic dynamic braking to dissipate electrical energy as thermal energy through windings of a motor of the one or more actuating components (¶0128, wherein “the damper dissipates mechanical energy as heat and the motor acts as a generator” corresponds to rheostatic dynamic braking)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the passive control system of Kuiken to utilize rheostatic dynamic braking, as taught by Herr, in order to modulate damping of the prosthetic knee joint
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0158029 (Kuiken) in view of US 2019/0328551 A1 (Gregg)
Regarding claim 4, Kuiken discloses an active control system (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose utilizing impendence control.
Gregg discloses a powered prosthesis (Fig. 1A ,100) which utilizes impedance control (¶0059, “impendence control”) which includes acceptance of a desired knee joint angle (¶0059, wherein θ corresponds to joint angle), stiffness (¶0059, wherein motor inertia I is corresponds to stiffness) and dampening (¶0059, wherein bm corresponds to damping) as inputs from the processing device to calculate a desired motor current (¶0059, wherein im corresponds to the motor current).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the active control system of Kuiken with impendence control, as taught by Gregg, in order to make the system more adaptable to outside forces acting on the prosthesis.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0158029 (Kuiken) in view of US 6,755,870 (Biedermann)
Regarding claim 5, Kuiken discloses a passive control system (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose wherein the passive control system accepts a desired knee joint angle and two braking factors as inputs from the processing device to calculate a desired braking parameter for a motor of the one or more actuating components.
Biedermann discloses wherein the passive control system accepts a desired knee joint angle (Fig. 5, wherein knee angle reference curve corresponds to a desired knee joint angle) and two braking factors (Col 5 Line 66-Col 6, Line 4, wherein the control parameters P’ which control flexion and extension resistance correspond to two braking factors) as inputs from the processing device to calculate a desired braking parameter for a motor of the one or more actuating components (Fig. 5, wherein the brake value corresponds to a desired braking parameter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing device of Kuiken to accept a desired knee joint angle and two braking factors as inputs to calculate a desired braking parameter, as taught by Biedermann, in order to improve gait appearance, improv timing and provide optimal support (Col. 1).
Conclusion
Included below is relevant prior art that was considered but not relied upon for this office action:
US 2018/0177614 – discloses a dynamic braking in a lower limb prosthesis
US 4,409,529 – discloses dynamic braking applied to a prosthetic hand
US 2006/0136072 – discloses a magnetorheological braking system (note: the rheo knee is understood to dump heat into MR fluid i.e. rheostatic braking)
US 2007/0050044 – discloses a regenerative braking knee joint
US 2013/0204395 – discloses hybrid knee prosthesis
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER whose telephone number is (571)272-8382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached on 408.918.7557. 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.
/MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/YASHITA SHARMA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights