Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
In the Information Disclosure Statement of February 26, 2025, certain references were not considered because a complete copy (37 CFR § 1.98(a)(2); MPEP § 609.04(a)II) or the date and sufficient publication information (37 CFR § 1.98(b)(5); MPEP § 609.04(a)I) are not provided.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too long (more than 150 words). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text (MPEP § 608.01(b)).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: At the beginning of the specification, the status of the parent application needs to be updated. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 46 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 46, line 6, “one” should read --on--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 27-28, 31, and 34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Herr et al., US 2006/0249315 A1, which discloses a method for controlling an active knee joint coupled to and positioned between upper and lower attachment components of a leg prosthesis (Figures 28-33, 43-49; abstract; paragraphs 0002, 0051, 0057, 0105, 0109, 0150+, 0184+) with a computer unit, sensors, and an active actuator in the form of an electric motor or the like (Figures 8, 50; paragraphs 0042, 0052, 0106, 0112, 0118-0119) configured to assist and effect flexion and extension movements of the knee joint while walking on level and inclined surfaces, climbing and descending stairs, and jumping (paragraphs 0127-0128, 0143, 0156-0158, 0168-0171) based on stored criteria (values and/or algorithms in program store 5041 and/or data memory 5042 and/or RAM of processor 5000: paragraph 0201) associated with sensor detected parameters [paragraphs 0195 (joint angles), 0196 (joint torque), 0197 (damper velocity), 0198 (stored spring energy), 0199 (“absolute orientations and displacements”)], the method comprising detecting and comparing several of said parameters to respective criteria [paragraphs 0193 (“timing of these different functions”, “multiple sensors are employed to determine the dynamic status of the skeletal structure”), 0194-0201, 0203], selecting a criterion that is suitable based on the detected parameters [paragraphs 0061, 0189 (adaption to walking speed criteria), 0193 (deliver data indicative of dynamic status to processor 5000 to compute outputs for controlling an electric motor and variable dampers), 0199 (“heel strike”, “toe-off”), 0200, 0201 (“timed control signals”), 0203], and adapting assistance of flexion and/or extension movement of the knee joint in accordance with said criteria to adapt to special functions other than walking on a level surface (paragraphs 0021, 0042, 0061-0064, 0127-0128, 0143, 0168-0171, 0193, 0201).
Regarding claim 28, the above identified parameters thus include movement states such as joint angles and absolute displacements and load states such as forces and torques on joints. Regarding claim 31, flexion assistance is increased and decreased on a continual basis depending on the phase and type of activity; for example, flexion assistance may be increased in order to clear the ground or a stair step during a swing phase of walking or stair climbing (Figure 2; paragraphs 0021, 0125, 0127, 0153, 0157, 0169). Regarding claim 34, stair climbing dynamic status or criterion and other types of dynamic criteria are based on multiple sensors (paragraph 0193) to enable “general actuator operation and control” (paragraph 0194), the sensors including joint angle sensors (paragraph 0195), sensors “to measure the actual torque borne by the joint” (paragraph 0196), IMUs for computing “absolute orientations and displacements” (paragraph 0199), and even user control inputs for ascertaining terrain changes (paragraph 0200), with “kinematic and kinetic patterns at the ankle during stair ascent/descent [being] significantly different from that of level-ground walking” (paragraph 0021).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 29-30, 32-33, and 35-46 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herr et al., US 2006/0249315 A1. Regarding claims 29 and 42-43, detecting vertical and horizontal movement (both directions) of a lower attachment shaft and prosthetic foot would have been obvious to the ordinary practitioner at the effective date of the instant invention from the use of a plurality of IMUs “positioned on skeletal members” for determining “absolute… displacements of the artificial joint system” (paragraphs 0199, 0203) in order to ensure that a foot is accurately and stably positioned on a stair step (Figures 2-3, 50; paragraph 0157). Regarding claim 30, continuously monitoring axial force on the lower attachment shaft would have been obvious from the force sensors or strain gauges for measuring torque applied to joints (paragraph 0196), and detecting reductions of axial force would also have been obvious in order to help determine the onset of toe-off and a swing phase. Regarding claims 32-33, reducing flexion and extension assistance when a criterion for climbing stairs is met to a level below such knee joint assistance in a swing phase while walking on a level surface would have been obvious during toe-off and early swing (or lift-off) because gravity and lifting forces tend to maintain the lower attachment shaft generally vertical and forward during stair ascent (Figure 2: toe-off and early swing phase), whereas flexion and extension assistance are typically required to facilitate ground clearance and heel strike during level walking (Figures 4-5; paragraphs 0033, 0035, 0153-0154, 0169-0170).
Regarding claim 35, extension resistance being greater during stair climbing in a set-down and hip straightening phase than extension resistance during a swing phase of level walking would have been obvious in order to prevent collisions with the successively higher step (Figure 2; paragraph 0127), level walking generally requiring a full knee extension during the late swing phase (Figure 4; paragraphs 0035, 0154, 0170). Regarding claims 36-38, flexion and extension resistance forces and profiles are set for climbing stairs and various walking patterns and situations (based on the selected or computed criterion, as explained above) via springs and variable dampers for automatically controlling the prosthetic knee joint (Figures 8-50; abstract; paragraphs 0042-0045, 0051-0052, 0057-0058, 0150, 0153+, 0169). Regarding claims 39-41 and 44-45, joint angles, axial forces, joint torques, tilt angles, and profiles and combinations thereof, would have been immediately obvious parameters from the inclusion of “multiple sensors” (paragraphs 0193-0194) for measuring joint angles (paragraph 0195), forces and torques (paragraph 0196), and “absolute orientations” or tilt angles (paragraph 0199) in order to accommodate the variety of techniques and control mechanisms contemplated (paragraph 0193).
Regarding claim 36, adapting an assistance force and profile of the electric motor in accordance with the selected or computer criterion (e.g., climbing, descending, etc.) so as to provide an increased extension resistance in the prosthetic knee joint during a set-down phase and a hip-straightening phase, the resistance being maintained constant until hip straightening is complete, would have been obvious in order to enable the motor to store energy in a spring while the knee joint is locked or stiffened so as to impart a power burst or catapult action during a toe-off or other phase (Figures 2, 4-5, 49-50; paragraphs 0045, 0116, 0151, 0153, 0156-0158, 0168).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Melanie Tyson can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights