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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 regarding prior art rejections, Applicant argues amendments overcome the rejection of record since the prior art fails to teach all functional limitations of the claim. On pages 9-10 Applicant argues no part of McBean teaches applying a force to a finger saddle relative to a thumb saddle in order to cause relative motion between a grasping and open position. Applicant argues McBean teaches grasping with a distinct device.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting [0061], [0024]-[0025], and [0083]-[0084] describes, and Figure 18 directly shows the finger/thumb flexion/extension motion as the brace 7 attaches via cuffs 4 to fingers and thumbs respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Special definitions: As required by [0049] of Applicant’s specification, the term “set” is defined as “at least one member”. This definition will be used throughout examination of the claims.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBean et al. (US 20090227925 A1) hereinafter known as McBean in view of Larose et al. (US 20200069441 A1) hereinafter known as Larose.
Regarding claim 1 McBean discloses a powered orthotic device (Abstract) for use in assisting relation motion of body parts of a subject (The applicant is advised that, while the features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In addition, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2144(I). In this case, the patented apparatus of McBean discloses (as detailed above) all the structural limitations required to perform the recited functional language, therefore was considered to anticipate the claimed apparatus. See, for example the Abstract.) the device comprising:
an arm assembly (Figure 1 item 2) having:
an upper arm module (34), an upper arm cuff coupled to the upper arm module (4), configured to removably attach the upper arm module to an upper arm of the subject (this is stated as a functional limitation (See explanation above). See also [0061].),
a forearm module (32), a forearm cuff coupled to the forearm module (4),
an elbow module (8) pivotally attaching the upper arm module and the forearm module (this is stated as a functional limitation (see explanation above). See also the Figure 1 and the Abstract) via an associated first pivot (8) and configured to support relative motion of the subject’s upper arm and forearm about an elbow of the subject (Figure 1; [0061]); and (([0061] the arm and hand assemblies attached in series);
an electrically powered arm actuator including an electric motor ([0065]) configured to convert rotational motion to translational motion ([0066]-[0067], [0076] drive assembly cables of the motor are considered capable of converting rotational motion to translational motion), the actuator coupled through an elbow cable ([0066] the actuator assembly can include tensile members 42 which can be a cable) to apply force to the upper arm module relative to the forearm module so as to cause relative motion of the upper arm and forearm about the elbow (This is stated as a functional limitation of the actuator (see explanation above). See also [0065] and [0084]);
a hand assembly ([0061]; Figure 18) having a grasp module including (aa) a finger saddle (34 (top)) configured for removable attachment to (one finger) of the subject (This is stated as an “intended use” of the claimed device. The applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 (II). In this case, the patented structure of McBean was considered capable of performing the cited intended use. See, for example Figure 18) and (bb) a thumb saddle (34 (bottom)) configured for removable attachment to a thumb of the subject (this is likewise an intended use (See the explanation above). See also Figure 18), wherein the finger saddle is pivotally coupled to the thumb saddle via a second pivot (Figure 18) to support relative motion of the finger saddle and the thumb saddle between a grasping position and an open position (This is stated as a functional limitation of the actuator (see explanation above). See also [0065] and [0083]-[0084] while the embodiments shown and described in detail throughout have been referencing an “arm and motion about the elbow”, the device can also be used around the ankle (seen in figure 16), the wrist (figure 17), and around the hand (figure 18). Paragraph [0061] indicates the wearable component 2 has two sections 32, 34 operatively connected at a pivot, and one or more sections can be placed on the fingers, with removeable sets of straps 4 with the pivot located between the two limb segments near a joint. Figure 18 shows the two sections 34, which show motion of the hand (distinct from that of a wrist) ([0024]-[0025]).); the hand assembly further including an electrically powered hand actuator including an electric motor ([0065], [0084]) configured to convert rotational motion to translational motion ([0066]-[0067], [0076] drive assembly cables of the motor are considered capable of converting rotational motion to translational motion), the hand actuator coupled through a grasp cable ([0066] the actuator assembly can include tensile members 42 which can be a cable; [0084] the actuator can be applied to the hand; see also the embodiment of Figure 18) to apply force to the finger saddle relative to the thumb saddle so as to cause relative motion of the finger saddle and the thumb saddle between the grasping position and the open position (This is stated as a functional limitation of the actuator (see explanation above). See also [0065] and [0083]-[0084] while the embodiments shown and described in detail throughout have been referencing an “arm and motion about the elbow”, the device can also be used around the ankle (seen in figure 16), the wrist (figure 17), and around the hand (figure 18). Paragraph [0061] indicates the wearable component 2 has two sections 32, 34 operatively connected at a pivot, and one or more sections can be placed on the fingers, with removeable sets of straps 4 with the pivot located between the two limb segments near a joint. Figure 18 shows the two sections 34, which show motion of the hand (distinct from that of a wrist) ([0024]-[0025]).) and
wherein the arm and hand actuators are disposed in a pack (18) configured to be worn by the subject in a position remote from an arm of the subject ([0082] any component of the device can be positioned in the external control system, the control system is worn “over the shoulder” which is considered to be “remote from the arm”; [0105] the component includes actuators);
but is silent with regards to the actuator(s) being linear and backdriveable.
However, regarding claim 1 Larose teaches that actuators can be linear and backdriveable ([0010]-[0012], [0019] ball screw operation), and further teaches that actuators can be mounted within a remote linear actuator assembly (Figures 12-13 show the assembly including the motor and transmission components located remote from the joints which they control on the user’s back). McBean and Larose are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely orthotic devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of McBean so that the actuators are linear and backdriveable as is taught by Larose as a known drive mechanism to allow movement in two directions. Bi-directional movement is ideal for joints of the upper extremities since these often require both forward/reverse movements (e.g. abduction/adduction). The courts have held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Regarding claim 2 the McBean Larose Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein McBean further discloses the elbow cable is coupled to the arm actuator (Figure 7 item 26; [0065] the housing 26 includes the motor and gearhead at the elbow pivot 8) and routed to the elbow module over (a pulley) (Figure 8 items 44; [0066] pulleys) which causes the relative motion of the upper arm module and the forearm module about an axis proximate an elbow of the subject (this is stated as a functional limitation (see explanation above). See also [0067]).
Regarding claim 3 the McBean Larose Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but isn’t clear on the details of the cables/actuators and pulley configuration of the hand.
However, regarding claim 3 McBean discloses (or makes obvious) all the elements claimed for the hand cables, in relation to the arm assembly (see rejection to claim 2 above). Since the disclosure of McBean makes the inclusion of the same configuration and actuation/activation obvious (see McBean [0061] the arm assembly and hand assembly can be present in series), the obviousness of utilizing the same cable/pulley setup as is disclosed in the arm assembly is clear. See also Figure 18 for the movements of the fingers in opposite directions.
Regarding claim 5 the McBean Larose Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein McBean further discloses the hand assembly is coupled to the forearm module of the arm assembly ([0061] linear coupling).
Regarding claim 6 the McBean Larose Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein McBean further discloses a plurality of EMG sensor arrays (Figure 3 item 24; [0063] multiple arrays 24 can be present on or adjacent to different muscles, on different straps, and on different sections of the device), each configured to make electrical contact with skin of the subject (this is stated as an intended use of the sensor array (see explanation above). See also [0063]) which is in electronic communication with the assembly ([0067]);
wherein the linear actuator is configured to respond to respective volitional EMG signals from at least one of the arrays (this is stated as an intended use of the actuators (see explanation above). However, also see [0067]).
Regarding claim 7 the McBean Larose Combination teaches the device of claim 6 substantially as is claimed,
wherein McBean further discloses the EMG sensor array is configured to be located on the upper arm of the subject or the forearm of the subject, or both (Figure 3; [0063]).
Regarding claim 8 the McBean Larose Combination teaches the device of claim 7 substantially as is claimed,
wherein McBean further discloses the actuators are configured to cause the relative motion of the upper arm and forearm modules (this is stated as a functional limitation of the actuator. See the explanation above. See also [0067]).
Regarding claim 9 the McBean Larose Combination teaches the device of claim 7 substantially as is claimed,
wherein McBean further discloses the hand actuator is configured to respond to the EMG signals to cause the relative motion of the finger saddle and thumb saddle (this is stated as an intended use (see explanation above). See also [0084]).
Regarding claim 10 the McBean Larose Combination teaches the device of claim 7 substantially as is claimed,
wherein McBean further discloses the arm and hand actuators are configured to respond to EMG signals to cause motion of both the upper arm and forearm modules, as well as to move the grasp cable to cause the relative motion of the finger saddle and thumb saddle (this is stated as an “intended use” of the actuator (see explanation above). See also [0065] and [0084]).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeam and Larose as is applied above in view of Goldfarb et al. (US 11207202 B2) hereinafter known as Goldfarb.
Regarding claim 14 the McBean Larose Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to each of the upper arm/forearm modules being configured to be adjustable in length to accommodate a range of sizes of a corresponding limb of the subject.
However, regarding claim 14 Goldfarb teaches an orthotic arm device which is able adjust in length to accommodate a range of limb sizes on both an upper arm and forearm (Column 5 lines 59-62; Figure 1 shows how elements 106 are on both a forearm and upper arm). McBean and Goldfarb are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely orthotics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of the McBean Larose Combination so that there are “length adjustments” as is taught by Goldfarb in order to allow the device to be fit to different users with different arm lengths.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Jacqueline Woznicki whose telephone number is (571)270-5603. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm EST.
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.
/Jacqueline Woznicki/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 02/17/26