DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s response with respect to the objections to claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 18, and 21 has been fully considered and is accepted. The objections to these claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s response with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claim 21 has been fully considered and is accepted. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claim 21 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s response with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 5-6 and 18-19 has been fully considered but is not persuasive. These claims were rejected because the specification was not found to link or associate any specific structure to the functionality recited in relation to the communications module in these claims. The applicant responded by asserting that "a 'communications module' is universally understood to refer to conventional structures that provide data communication capabilities within a given system or environment. Consistent with the limitations of claims 5 and 18, as amended, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have readily understood the meaning and associated structure of a communications module that is communicably coupled to a microprocessor and configured to transmit data in the manner required by the claims. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the specification and drawings of Applicant's as-filed application provide adequate written description for the claimed 'communications module.'" It is noted that this claim limitation was interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and in such case the specification must describe structure described for the claimed function, or equivalents thereof. It is not enough to merely assert that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have readily understood the meaning and associated structure of a communications module. The requirement that a particular structure be clearly linked with the claimed function in order to qualify as corresponding structure is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing 35 U.S.C. 112(f). In the instant case, the applicant has provided no examples of specific structure that corresponds to the communications module, nor has the applicant challenged the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the claim limitations. Accordingly, because the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation is proper, and the relevant claim limitations are not supported by/correspond to specific structure in the specification, the related 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) are maintained.
Applicant’s response with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1 and 11, and by extension all dependent claims, has been fully considered and but is not persuasive.
Here, the applicant argues: "Applicant submits that this disclosure does not teach or require determination of an angle of incidence, which corresponds to an angular orientation between an object and a normal vector extending through a midpoint of a sensor assembly, in the manner recited in independent claim 1. Indeed, Moore is completely silent with respect to the determination of an angle of incidence." However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "determination of an angle of incidence, which corresponds to an angular orientation between an object and a normal vector extending through a midpoint of a sensor assembly, in the manner recited in independent claim 1") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim merely requires that an output signal be indicative of an angle of incidence, which is an extremely broad limitation. The output signals of the sensors in Moore are used so that manipulator 105 and end-effector 200 can adopt a desired shape and orientation based on the surface features of object 365, mirror the surface of the object at a given range, etc., according to at least col. 2, ll. 2-7, col. 3, ll. 19-22, and col. 6, ll. 19-21. These sensor output signals are accordingly seen to be "indicative" of an angle of incidence corresponding to an angular orientation between the object and a normal vector extending through a midpoint of the sensor assembly (e.g., between elements 355/356).
The applicant next states "Applicant submits that when starting from the robotic end-effector of Moore, which is not configured for use with prosthetic devices, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the configuration of the end-effector based on the goal of providing a more realistic feel and performance. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the tactile sensor 400 of Moore to detect a change in pressure due to compression of the viscoelastic compressible material in the manner recited in the claims." The the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, note that Ihrke teaches the feature of covering robotic fingers with a glove or skin-like covering for protection from the environment and to provide grip surfaces (col. 8, ll. 8-11). Kishida was relied upon to teach a specific type of covering (the viscoelastic covering). It does not appear to be relevant to the claim whether a given hand or finger is part of a prosthetic hand, as such limitation is not in any claim. Accordingly, this line of argument is also unpersuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims have essentially been maintained, but with modifications as necessitated by the amendments.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the myoelectrical sensors (claims 9, 24), myoelectric interface (claim 14), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 ends with a colon. It should end with a period.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s)
Generic placeholder or "means for"
Functional language
Corresponding structure
(citations as-published)
5-6, 18-19
communications module
configured to transmit the array of output signals to a central controller board
None expressly given. Best description is in fig. 6 and [0054], which merely states "I2C communications module 680 allows the output of microprocessor 670 to be communicated to other integrated circuits or controllers (e.g., a central controller board."
23-24
neural interface
configured to provide feedback to a patient, …, wherein the neural interface is configured to receive the one or more signals representative of the spatial position and angular orientation of an object relative to each of the sensor assemblies
None expressly given. Only mention is in fig. 14 and [0075], [0078], and [0082], which merely state "Various embodiments of the sensor assembly's extended spatial capabilities will provide relevant force feedback to amputees even when an object is not centered against each digit. This fact will provide a better sensor for advanced neural interfaces since one can ensure a reliable source of force feedback during the complex activities of daily life.", "Once accomplished, the spatial and angular information may be relevant to certain neural interfaces and/or may be used in shared control paradigms of the prosthetic limb.", and "These signals can then be pushed to brain-machine interface 1440, neural interface 1445, or robotic interface 1450."
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-6, 18-19, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. thus
Specifically, claims 5 and 18 include the limitation "a communications module configured to transmit the array of output signals to a central controller board." Claim 24 includes the limitation "a neural interface configured to provide feedback to a patient, …, wherein the neural interface is configured to receive the one or more signals representative of the spatial position and angular orientation of an object relative to each of the sensor assemblies." However, the written description does not expressly link or associate any specific structure to the functionality recited in relation to the communications module or the neural interface. Because 35 U.S.C. 112(f) requires the limitations at issue to be read as covering corresponding structure, materials, or acts in the specification and equivalents, when the specification is thus insufficient, it necessarily does not explain how the claimed function is performed to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 6, 19, and 24 are similarly rejected due to respectively depending from claims 5, 18, and 23.
Claim 24 also introduces the limitation "the neural interface is operatively coupled to the one or more myoelectrical sensors." The as-filed specification does not describe any sort of coupling between a neural interface and a myoelectrical sensors. This feature is accordingly found to be new matter unsupported by the as-filed specification and should be removed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6, 18-19, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the neural interface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this claim is interpreted to depend from claim 23.
Claim 24 further recites the limitation "the neural interface is operatively coupled to the one or more myoelectrical sensors." However, the as-filed specification provides no guidance as to how such coupling or co-operation is achieved. For the purpose of examination, this operative coupling is broadly interpreted as simply being part of a same system.
In addition, in claims 5 and 18, the claim limitation "a communications module to transmit the array of output signals to the central controller board" invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as does the claim limitation "a neural interface configured to provide feedback to a patient, …, wherein the neural interface is configured to receive the one or more signals representative of the spatial position and angular orientation of an object relative to each of the sensor assemblies" in claim 23. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. Specifically, no association between a specific structure and transmitting an array of output signals to a central controller board, or between a specific structure and provide feedback to a patient, wherein the neural interface is configured to receive one or more signals, can be found in the specification. Because 35 U.S.C. 112(f) requires the means-(or step-) plus-function limitation to be read as covering corresponding structure, materials, or acts in the specification and equivalents, the claim is indefinite as it is unclear what structure, materials or acts are covered by the claimed invention with such a specification. For the purpose of examination, this communications module is interpreted to be any element operable to transmit data, and the neural interface is interpreted to be any element operable to receive signals and provide feedback to a user.
Claims 6, 19, and 24 are similarly rejected due to respectively depending from claims 5, 18, and 23.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,120,233 to Moore, US 2013/0018489 to Grunthaner et al. (hereinafter referred to as Grunthaner), US 8,562,049 to Ihrke et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ihrke), US 9,268,434 to Sultenfuss et al. (hereinafter referred to as Sultenfuss), and US 7,984,658 to Kishida et al. (hereinafter referred to as Kishida).
With regards to claim 1, Moore teaches an artificial finger comprising a sensor assembly (see the finger and sensors in fig. 2a, etc.), the sensor assembly comprising:
a proximity sensor (optical proximity sensor 350) to detect a distance from the proximity sensor to an object (object 365) and produce a proximity signal (col. 5, l. 64 to col. 6, l. 3),
a pressure sensor (tactile sensor 400) to detect a pressure applied by the object and produce a pressure signal (col. 5, ll. 45-52),
the sensors generating output signals indicative of a spatial relationship between the object and the sensor assembly (controller 260 receives data from the sensors and based thereon configures the manipulator 105 and end-effector 200 in a desired shape and orientation based on the surface features of object 365 according to at least col. 6, ll. 4-28; these sensor output signals are accordingly seen to be "indicative" of a spatial relationship between the object and the sensor assembly),
at least one output signal being indicative of an angle of incidence corresponding to an angular orientation between the object and a normal vector extending through a midpoint of the sensor assembly (the sensors output data so that manipulator 105 and end-effector 200 can adopt a desired shape and orientation based on the surface features of object 365, mirror the surface of the object at a given range, etc., according to at least col. 2, ll. 2-7, col. 3, ll. 19-22, and col. 6, ll. 19-21; these sensor output signals are accordingly seen to be "indicative" of an angle of incidence corresponding to an angular orientation between the object and a normal vector extending through a midpoint of the sensor assembly (e.g., between elements 355/356)); and
wherein the artificial finger comprises a compressible material (compressible contact surface, e.g., surface 405; see col. 5, ll. 4-20 and col. 6, l. 66 to col. 7, l. 13), and
wherein the pressure sensor is configured to detect a change in pressure due to compression of the compressible material (col. 6, l. 66 to col. 7, l. 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
597
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moore does not expressly teach:
the proximity sensor detecting an initial contact with the object,
wherein the proximity signal being sampled at a first rate,
wherein the pressure signal is sampled at a second rate that is lower than the first rate,
a circuit with digital electronics to receive the proximity signal from the proximity sensor and the pressure signal from the pressure sensor and generate output signals indicative of a spatial relationship between the object and the sensor assembly,
the compressible material being a viscoelastic compressible material enclosing the proximity sensor, the pressure sensor, and the circuit.
Grunthaner teaches the feature of indicating that contact has occurred when a proximity signal is above a baseline and a force (pressure) signal is above a baseline (see fig. 16 and [0004]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Grunthaner to Moore and detect an initial contact with the object when the proximity signal and the pressure signal are each above a respective baseline (with the proximity sensor thus detecting all contact (including initial contact) with objects together with the pressure sensor). Doing so would provide the predictable benefit increasing the accuracy of contact detection by reducing false positives.
Ihrke teaches a circuit with digital electronics (compact electronics 126 provided within individual phalanges of a robotic hand; fig. 19) to receive (analog) signals from sensors and generate (digital) output signals (col. 7, ll. 40-48). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a circuit with digital electronics like taught by Ihrke into a phalange of Moore and therewith receive the proximity signal from the proximity sensor and the pressure signal from the pressure sensor and generate (digital) output signals indicative of a spatial relationship between the object and the sensor assembly. Doing so would provide the benefit of enabling signal processing to be distributed and thus decrease the processing load borne by controller 260, freeing up resources for other tasks.
Ihrke also teaches the feature of covering robotic fingers with a glove or skin-like covering for protection from the environment and to provide grip surfaces (col. 8, ll. 8-11). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a skin-like covering over the aforementioned arrangement of Moore et al. and therewith enclose the proximity sensor, the pressure sensor, and the circuit. Ihrke teaches that such modification would provide protection to these elements and provide grip surfaces for specific tasks (col. 8, ll. 8-11).
Sultenfuss teaches configuration wherein a proximity signal is sampled at a first rate and a pressure signal is sampled at a second rate that is lower than the first rate (signals from a proximity sensor 122 are sampled at a given rate, and signals from a touch (pressure) sensor 112 are sampled at a rate as low as 2% of a maximum sampling rate to reduce power consumption by the touch sensor 122 when nothing is detected by the proximity sensor 122 and high-rate sampling would be wasteful; col. 5, l. 29 to col. 6, l. 39). Because proximity will be detected in advance of physical contact, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, and Ihrke based on the teachings of Sultenfuss such that the proximity signal is sampled at a first rate and the pressure signal is sampled at a second rate that is lower than the first rate when nothing has triggered a proximity sensor. Such modification would provide the benefit of enabling power consumption by the pressure sensors to be reduced (Sultenfuss, col. 1, ll. 7-9).
Kishida teaches the feature of providing a skin-like covering that is a viscoelastic compressible material (col. 5, ll. 56-61). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement taught by Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Sultenfuss such that the material enclosing the proximity sensor, the pressure sensor, and the circuit is a viscoelastic compressible material, as Kishida teaches that such material is soft like the human skin (col. 5, ll. 56-61) and would thereby provide a more realistic-feeling and performing covering material. Moreover, the result of this combination of features would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and this combination accordingly amounts to no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, and Kishida teaches the artificial finger of claim 1. This combination further teaches the output signals being indicative of the spatial relationship between the object and the sensor assembly (signals output from sensor 350 indicate, among other things, the distance to the surface of object 365 (Moore, col. 5, ll. 64-66) and once digitized this would still be the case).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, and Kishida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10,576,643 to Lessing et al. (hereinafter referred to as Lessing).
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, and Kishida teaches the artificial finger of claim 1. Moore further teaches the proximity sensor including an infrared (IR) emitter-detector to detect the distance (col. 3, ll. 48-50) and the pressure sensor detecting the initial contact with the object (col. 6, ll. 58-63), but does not teach the pressure sensor including a barometer.
Lessing teaches encasing a barometric pressure sensor into the tip of a soft finger to detect contact pressure (col. 18, ll. 45-58). The pressure sensor taught by Moore and the pressure sensor taught by Lessing both function to detect contact pressure, and it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the barometric pressure sensor taught by Lessing into the artificial finger taught by the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, and Kishida in place of the existing pressure sensor (element 400 in Moore). Doing so would have the predictable result of allowing pressure to be sensed, and would advantageously enable pressure to be sensed using inexpensive barometric sensors (Lessing, col. 18, ll. 50-52).
Claims 4 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, and Kishida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang, David, "Derivative Integration Algorithm For Proximity Sensing," Texas Instruments, Application Report SNOA939, 5 pages, September 2015 (hereinafter referred to as Wang, cited by applicant).
With regards to claim 4, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, and Kishida teaches the artificial finger of claim 1. This combination further teaches a microprocessor (corresponding to the portion of circuitry 126 taught by Ihrke that collects analog sensor data, and converts the data to digital signals as per col. 7, ll. 40-48). This combination does not teach the microprocessor being configured to compute a derivative of the proximity signal and upon determining that the derivative of the proximity signal has exceeded a threshold generate an output signal that indicates contact with the object.
Wang teaches an algorithm (a derivative integration algorithm, described with pseudocode in fig. 2) that computes a derivative of a proximity signal (derivative D(i)), and upon determining that the derivative of the proximity signal has exceeded a threshold (when a sum of derivative D(i) points is greater than threshold IT), generates an output signal indicating proximity (object detected) (page 2, first to fifth paragraphs). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the algorithm taught by Wang with the microprocessor of the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, and Kishida and thereby compute a derivative of the proximity signal, and upon determining that the derivative of the proximity signal has exceeded a threshold, generate an output signal indicating contact with the object (as per Grunthaner). Doing so would have the benefit of enabling proximity to be detected with greater efficiency and reduced susceptibility to drift (page 1, last paragraph of Wang).
With regards to claim 22, Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, Kishida and Wang teach the artificial finger of claim 4. Moore further teaches the output signal indicating zero force contact between the object and the artificial finger (this is included within the range of forces in col. 1, ll. 48-54).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, and Kishida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9,221,171 to Sugiura et al. (hereinafter referred to as Sugiura).
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, and Kishida teaches the artificial finger of claim 1. This combination further teaches the circuit including:
an analog to digital converter to produce digitized signals by sampling and quantizing sensor signals (the portion of electronics 126 that performs A/D conversion; see Ihrke, col. 7, ll. 43-44);
a microprocessor communicably coupled to the analog to digital converter and configured to receive the digitized signals and produce an array of output signals (the portion of electronics 126 that multiplexes the digital signals; see Ihrke, col. 7, ll. 44-45) indicative of a spatial position (signals output from sensor 350 in Moore are indicative of the distance to the surface of object 365; see Moore, col. 5, ll. 64-66) and an angular orientation of the object relative to the sensor assembly (the sensors of Moore output data that are indicative of the surface orientation and contour information for object 365 relative to the finger sensors as stated previously; see Moore, col. 3, ll. 19-22 & col. 6, ll. 19-21); and
a communications module communicably coupled to the microprocessor and configured to transmit the array of output signals to a central controller board (the portion of electronics 126 that communicates the multiplexed signals to upstream electronics (corresponding to controller 260 in Moore); see Ihrke, col. 7, ll. 45-46).
The applied combination does not expressly teach a first analog to digital converter to produce a digitized proximity signal by sampling and quantizing the proximity signal, and a second analog to digital converter to produce a digitized pressure signal by sampling and quantizing the pressure signal.
Sugiura teaches the feature of providing separate A/D converters for respective sensors (see converters 60, 64, and 68 in fig. 3). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide separate analog to digital converters as in Sugiura in the circuit taught by Ihrke and thus provide a first analog to digital converter to produce a digitized proximity signal by sampling and quantizing the proximity signal and a second analog to digital converter to produce a digitized pressure signal by sampling and quantizing the pressure signal, with the microprocessor communicably coupled to the first analog to digital converter and the second analog to digital convert to multiplex said signals. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling both signals to be digitized simultaneously without conflict.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, Kishida, and Sugiura as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2005/0165989 to Kim (cited by applicant, hereinafter referred to as Kim 2005).
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, Kishida, and Sugiura teaches the artificial finger of claim 5. However, this combination does not teach the communications module using an I2C protocol. Kim 2005 teaches the feature of using an I2C protocol to communicate data between IC chips (see at least the abstract, fig. 2, and [0034]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the communications module comprise an I2C communications port (SDA/SCL pins/lines, and an interrupt pin/line if desired) and use the I2C protocol in order to communicate sensor data from the sensors using just three I/O pins or lines without waiting for a master controller to request the data (Kim 2005, [0011]-[0013]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, and Kishida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 7,878,075 to Johansson et al. (hereinafter referred to as Johansson).
With regards to claim 7, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, and Kishida teaches the artificial finger of claim 1. However, this combination does not teach the viscoelastic compressible material being formed from a liquid silicon polymer, or the viscoelastic material being overmolded over the sensor assembly . Johansson teaches the feature of making a skin-like covering from Dragon Skin silicone (col. 19, ll. 19-23) (Dragon Skin is given as an example of the viscoelastic compressible material in [0039] of the instant application). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the viscoelastic compressible material from a liquid silicon polymer as in Johansson. Doing so would enable mechanical and cosmetic properties similar to that of real skin to be achieved (Johansson, col. 19, ll. 19-23).
Although the applied art does not expressly teach the viscoelastic material being overmolded over the sensor assembly, this language is a product-by-process limitation not found to be limiting in this claim. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also see MPEP 2113.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, and Kishida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10,758,379 to Mandelbaum.
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Sultenfuss, and Kishida teaches the artificial finger of claim 1. However, this combination does not teach the circuit being configured to receive a myoelectric signal collected from electrodes positioned on a limb of a subject to direct volitional control of the artificial finger.
Mandelbaum teaches the feature of receiving a myoelectric signal collected from electrodes positioned on a limb of a subject to direct volitional control of a hand with fingers (it is known to command artificial hands to close using a signal read from muscles in the forearm picked up by electrodes; col. 2, ll. 2-29, particularly 16-20).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Moore et al. so as to be, for example, located on a prosthetic arm, and have the circuit configured to receive a myoelectric signal collected from electrodes positioned on a limb of a subject to direct volitional control of the artificial finger, in other words in the manner of control taught in Mandelbaum. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of allowing a user/operator to select precisely, and naturally, when and what he/she wants to grasp or manipulate, as opposed to having the hand automatically close when an object is detected.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida.
With regards to claim 10, Moore teaches an artificial prehensor (end-effector 200, see fig. 2a, 2b, etc.) comprising:
a plurality of artificial fingers comprising respective sensor assemblies (see the fingers and sensors in fig. 2a, etc.), wherein each of the sensor assemblies includes:
a proximity sensor (optical proximity sensor 350) to detect a distance from the sensor assembly to an object (object 365) and produce a proximity signal (col. 5, l. 64 to col. 6, l. 3);
a pressure sensor (tactile sensor 400) to detect a pressure applied by the object and produce a pressure signal (col. 5, ll. 45-52);
the sensors generating output signals indicative of a spatial relationship between the object and the sensor assembly (controller 260 receives data from the sensors and based thereon configures the manipulator 105 and end-effector 200 in a desired shape and orientation based on the surface features of object 365 according to at least col. 6, ll. 4-28; these sensor output signals are accordingly seen to be "indicative" of a spatial relationship between the object and the sensor assembly),
at least one output signal being indicative of an angle of incidence corresponding to an angular orientation between the object and a normal vector extending through a midpoint of the sensor assembly (the sensors output data so that manipulator 105 and end-effector 200 can adopt a desired shape and orientation based on the surface features of object 365, mirror the surface of the object at a given range, etc., according to at least col. 2, ll. 2-7, col. 3, ll. 19-22, and col. 6, ll. 19-21; these sensor output signals are accordingly seen to be "indicative" of an angle of incidence corresponding to an angular orientation between the object and a normal vector extending through a midpoint of the sensor assembly (e.g., between elements 355/356)); and
wherein the artificial finger comprises a compressible material (compressible contact surface, e.g., surface 405; see col. 5, ll. 4-20 and col. 6, l. 66 to col. 7, l. 13), and
a central controller board (controller 260) configured to receive, from each of the sensor assemblies, one or more signals representative of a spatial position and angular orientation of an object relative to each of the sensor assemblies and generate control signals (as stated previously, controller 260 receives data from the sensors and based thereon configures the manipulator 105 and end-effector 200 to a desired shape and orientation based on the surface features of object 365; col. 6, ll. 4-28); and
a set of actuators each configured to receive one or more of the control signals and set a position of a portion of the artificial prehensor (the set of elements that receive commands from controller 260 to move the manipulator 105 and end-effector 200 to a desired shape and orientation based on the surface features of object 365 as per col. 6, ll. 4-28),
wherein the pressure sensor is configured to detect a change in pressure due to compression of the compressible material (col. 6, l. 66 to col. 7, l. 13).
Moore does not expressly teach:
the proximity sensor detecting contact with the object,
a circuit with digital electronics configured to receive the proximity signal from the proximity sensor and the pressure signal from the pressure sensor and generate output signals indicative of a spatial relationship between the object and the sensor assembly,
the compressible material being a viscoelastic compressible material enclosing the proximity sensor, the pressure sensor, and the circuit.
Grunthaner teaches the feature of indicating that contact has occurred when a proximity signal is above a baseline and a force (pressure) signal is above a baseline (see fig. 16 and [0004]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Grunthaner to Moore and detect contact with the object when the proximity signal and the pressure signal are each above a respective baseline (with the proximity sensor thus detecting contact with the object together with the pressure sensor). Doing so would provide the predictable benefit increasing the accuracy of contact detection by reducing false positives.
Ihrke teaches a circuit with digital electronics (compact electronics 126 provided within individual phalanges of a robotic hand; fig. 19) to receive (analog) signals from sensors and generate (digital) output signals (col. 7, ll. 40-48). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a circuit with digital electronics like taught by Ihrke into the phalanges of the end-effector 200 of Moore and therewith receive the proximity signal from the proximity sensor and the pressure signal from the pressure sensor and generate (digital) output signals indicative of a spatial relationship between the object and the sensor assembly. Doing so would provide the benefit of enabling signal processing to be distributed and thus decrease the processing load borne by controller 260, freeing up resources for other tasks.
Ihrke also teaches the feature of covering robotic fingers with a glove or skin-like covering for protection from the environment and to provide grip surfaces (col. 8, ll. 8-11). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a skin-like covering over the artificial prehensor of Moore, Grunthaner, and Ihrke, and therewith enclose the proximity sensor, the pressure sensor, and the circuit. Ihrke teaches that such modification would provide protection to these elements and provide grip surfaces for specific tasks (col. 8, ll. 8-11).
Kishida teaches the feature of providing a skin-like covering that is a viscoelastic compressible material (col. 5, ll. 56-61). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement taught by Moore, Grunthaner, and Ihrke such that the material enclosing the proximity sensor, the pressure sensor, and the circuit is a viscoelastic compressible material, as Kishida teaches that such material is soft like the human skin (col. 5, ll. 56-61) and would thereby provide a more realistic-feeling and performing covering material. Moreover, the result of this combination of features would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and this combination accordingly amounts to no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
With regards to claim 11, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida teaches the artificial prehensor of claim 10. Moore further teaches the central controller board being configured to generate a pre-shaping control signal based on the proximity signals produced by the sensor assemblies (controller 260 generates control signals such that the manipulator and end-effector may follow the contours of the object, without touching that object, at a predetermined distance; col. 6, ll. 15-25).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 7,184,858 to Okazaki et al. (hereinafter referred to as Okazaki).
With regards to claim 12, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida teaches the artificial prehensor of claim 10. Moore further teaches controlling the fingers so as to maintain a uniform distance from the object (the end-effector may follow the contours of the object, without touching that object, at a predetermined distance, see col. 6, ll. 15-22). However, this combination does not teach the central controller board including a proportion, integral, and derivative (PID) controller with gains tuned for each finger to maintain the uniform distance from the object.
Okazaki teaches the use of a proportion, integral, and derivative (PID) controller (PID compensator/position error compensation means 12/112) with gains tuned so that a robot realizes accurate positioning (zero positioning error) (col. 28 ll. 7-23). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Moore so as to include a proportion, integral, and derivative (PID) controller with gains tuned for each finger in a manner similar to that taught in Okazaki, and thereby accurately maintain uniform finger distance from the object when the artificial prehensor is controlled to follow the contours of the object at the predetermined distance. Employing a PID controller in this manner would provide the benefit of having positioning error converge to zero (Okazaki, col. 28, ll. 20-22).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida, and further in view of US 4,980,626 to Hess et al. (hereinafter referred to as Hess), US 8,260,458 to Kim et al. (hereinafter referred to as Kim), Mandelbaum, and US 8,730,166 Larsen et al. (hereinafter referred to as Larsen).
With regards to claim 13, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida teaches the artificial prehensor of claim 10. However, this combination does not expressly teach that the central controller board is configured to navigate through multiple modes of operations including:
an open mode of operation during which the central controller board commands fingers of the artificial prehensor to extend to an open position;
a closing state of operation, entered from the open mode of operation upon receipt of a volitional signal, during which the central controller board commands the fingers of the artificial prehensor to close around the object;
a pre-shaping state of operation, entered from the closing state of operation upon detection of the proximity signal exceeding a threshold, during which the central controller board cause each finger to maintain an equal distance from the object while continuing to close; and
a grasping state of operation, entered from the pre-shaping state of operation upon detection of the contact signal exceeding a threshold, during which the central controller board cause each finger to maintain a desired level of pressure.
Hess teaches a method (see fig. 7a-7d) for operating an artificial hand (hand 30), wherein a central controller board (computer system 55) navigates through multiple modes of operations including:
an open mode of operation during which the central controller board commands fingers of the artificial prehensor to extend to an open position (the mode of fig. 7a in which the fingers have been commanded open);
a pre-shaping state of operation, entered upon detection of the proximity signal exceeding a threshold, during which the central controller board cause each finger to maintain an equal distance from the object (the state of fig. 7b & 7c in which the hand 30 and fingers are brought into alignment with a target object and the fingers are then made to follow the contour thereof upon the target object being detected by a first proximity sensor according to the grasp protocol described in detail in col. 5, l. 42 to col. 6, l. 41); and
a grasping state of operation, entered from the pre-shaping state of operation upon detection of the contact signal, during which the central controller board cause each finger to maintain a desired level of pressure (the state of fig. 7d in which once fingers contact the target object, the fingers apply a predetermined amount of force controlled by the computer system 55 to complete the grasp operation; col. 7, ll. 23-27).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Hess with the controller of Moore in order to minimize a the escape potential of the object during grasping (Hess, col. 2, ll. 46-48).
Hess does not expressly teach:
a closing state of operation, entered from the open mode of operation upon receipt of a volitional signal, during which the central controller board commands the fingers of the artificial prehensor to close around the object;
the pre-shaping state of operation being entered from the closing state of operation upon detection of the proximity signal exceeding a threshold, during which the central controller board cause each finger to maintain an equal distance from the object while continuing to close; and
a grasping state of operation being entered from the pre-shaping state of operation upon detection of a contact signal exceeding a threshold,
Kim teaches a method (the method describing the operation shown in fig. 7) for operating an artificial prehensor (hand 100; fig. 1), wherein:
in a pre-shaping state of operation (the state of fig. 7c), a central controller board (calculating unit 306) causes each finger to maintain an equal distance from an object while continuing to close (col. 6, l. 59 to col. 7, l. 6 & col. 8, ll. 50-62); and
a grasping state of operation (the state of fig. 7d) is entered from the pre-shaping state of operation upon detection of a contact signal (col. 6, ll. 35-58 & col. 8, ll. 58-63).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the artificial prehensor of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Kishida, and Hess such that in the pre-shaping state of operation the central controller board causes each finger to maintain an equal distance from the object while continuing to close as in Kim, and the grasping state of operation is entered upon detection of a contact signal from a tactile sensor as in Kim. Doing so would enable objects to be gripped with less chance of escape due to the fingers all making contact at the same time, enable more rapid gripping (see Kim, col. 8, l. 64 to col. 9, l. 3).
Mandelbaum teaches controlling a prosthetic hand to close using a volitional signal (it is known to command artificial hands to close using a signal read from muscles in the forearm picked up by electrodes; col. 2, ll. 2-29).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the artificial prehensor taught by Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Kishida, Hess, and Kim so as to receive a volitional signal to close from the arm of a user/operator like taught in Mandelbaum and only close from the open mode when a user/operator desires the hand to close instead of automatically closing when an object is detected as in Hess, thereby providing a closing state of operation, entered from the open mode of operation upon receipt of a volitional signal, during which the central controller board commands the fingers of the artificial prehensor to close around the object, and then enter the pre-shaping state of operation if a target object is within range of the proximity sensors. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of allowing a user/operator to select precisely when and what he/she wants to grasp as opposed to having the hand automatically close when an object is detected.
Larsen teaches detecting proximity through detection of a proximity signal exceeding a threshold (col. 10, ll. 31-37) and detecting contact through detection of a contact signal exceeding a threshold (col. 10, ll. 7-13).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the artificial prehensor taught by Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Kishida, Hess, Kim, and Mandelbaum such that the detection of a proximity signal is detection of a proximity signal exceeding a threshold and the detection of a contact signal is detection of a contact signal exceeding a threshold as in Larsen. Doing so would provide known standards by which proximity and contact can be detected to minimize false positives due to noise, etc.
With regards to claim 14, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Kishida, Hess, Kim, Mandelbaum, and Larsen teaches the method of claim 13. Mandelbaum further teaches a myoelectric interface to detect voluntary muscular contractions from a patient and generate the volitional signal (electrodes placed on the forearm of a subject that detect muscle signals to open or close; col. 2, ll. 16-20).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 4,894,598 to Daggett.
With regards to claim 15, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida teach the artificial prehensor of claim 10. However, this combination does not expressly teach the control signals including pulse width modulated (PWM) control signals for each actuator in the set of actuators. Daggett teaches control signals including pulse width modulated (PWM) control signals for each actuator in a set of actuators (each motor respectively associated with an axis of arm motion of a robot is controlled with PWM signals; col. 8, ll. 8-20). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the artificial prehensor taught by Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida such that the control signals include pulse width modulated (PWM) control signals for each actuator in the set of actuators, as Daggett teaches that such control scheme is more efficient for controlling motor current levels as opposed to current amplitude control (col. 8, ll. 15-20).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lessing.
With regards to claim 16, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida teaches the artificial prehensor of claim 10. Moore further teaches the proximity sensor including an infrared (IR) emitter-detector to detect the distance (col. 3, ll. 48-50) and the pressure sensor detecting the contact with the object (col. 6, ll. 58-63), but does not teach the pressure sensor including a barometer.
Lessing teaches encasing a barometric pressure sensor into the tip of a soft finger to detect contact pressure (col. 18, ll. 45-58). The pressure sensor taught by Moore and the pressure sensor taught by Lessing both function to detect contact pressure, and it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the barometric pressure sensor taught by Lessing into the artificial prehensor taught by the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida in place of the existing pressure sensor (element 400 in Moore). Doing so would have the predictable result of allowing pressure to be sensed, and would advantageously enable pressure to be sensed using inexpensive barometric sensors (Lessing, col. 18, ll. 50-52).
Claims 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wang.
With regards to claim 17, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida teaches the artificial prehensor of claim 10. This combination further teaches the circuit or the central controller board including a microprocessor (controller 260 in Moore receives data from the sensors and based thereon configures the manipulator 105 and end-effector 200 to a desired shape and orientation based on the surface features of object 365 as per col. 6, ll. 4-28, and the controller 260 is seen to comprise a microprocessor for executing these processes). This combination does not teach the microprocessor being configured to compute a derivative of the proximity signal and upon determining that the derivative of the proximity signal has exceeded a threshold generate an output signal that indicates contact with the object.
Wang teaches an algorithm (a derivative integration algorithm, described with pseudocode in fig. 2) that computes a derivative of a proximity signal (derivative D(i)), and upon determining that the derivative of the proximity signal has exceeded a threshold (when a sum of derivative D(i) points is greater than threshold IT), generates an output signal indicating proximity (object detected) (page 2, first to fifth paragraphs). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the algorithm taught by Wang with the microprocessor of the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida and thereby compute a derivative of the proximity signal, and upon determining that the derivative of the proximity signal has exceeded a threshold, generate an output signal indicating contact with the object (as per Grunthaner). Doing so would have the benefit of enabling proximity to be detected with greater efficiency and reduced susceptibility to drift (page 1, last paragraph of Wang).
With regards to claim 25, Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Kishida, and Wang teach the artificial prehensor of claim 17. Moore further teaches the output signal indicating zero force contact between the object and the artificial finger (this is included within the range of forces in col. 1, ll. 48-54).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sugiura.
With regards to claim 18, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Kishida teaches the artificial prehensor of claim 10. This combination further teaches the circuit including:
an analog to digital converter to produce digitized signals by sampling and quantizing sensor signals (the portion of electronics 126 that performs A/D conversion; see Ihrke, col. 7, ll. 43-44);
a microprocessor communicably coupled to the analog to digital converter and configured to receive the digitized signals and produce an array of output signals (the portion of electronics 126 that multiplexes the digital signals; see Ihrke, col. 7, ll. 44-45) indicative of the spatial position (signals output from sensor 350 in Moore indicate the distance to the surface of object 365; see Moore, col. 5, ll. 64-66) and the angular orientation of the object relative to the sensor assembly (the sensors of Moore output data that includes surface orientation and contour information for object 365; see Moore, col. 3, ll. 19-22 & col. 6, ll. 19-21); and
a communications module communicably coupled to the microprocessor and configured to transmit the array of output signals to the central controller board (the portion of electronics 126 that communicates the multiplexed signals to upstream electronics (corresponding to controller 260 in Moore); see Ihrke, col. 7, ll. 45-46).
The applied combination does not expressly teach a first analog to digital converter to produce a digitized proximity signal by sampling and quantizing the proximity signal, and a second analog to digital converter to produce a digitized pressure signal by sampling and quantizing the pressure signal.
Sugiura teaches the feature of providing separate A/D converters for respective sensors (see converters 60, 64, and 68 in fig. 3). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide separate analog to digital converters as in Sugiura in the circuit taught by Ihrke and thus provide a first analog to digital converter to produce a digitized proximity signal by sampling and quantizing the proximity signal and a second analog to digital converter to produce a digitized pressure signal by sampling and quantizing the pressure signal, with the microprocessor communicably coupled to the first analog to digital converter and the second analog to digital convert to multiplex said signals. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling both signals to be digitized simultaneously without conflict.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Kishida, and Sugiura as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kim 2005.
With regards to claim 19, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Kishida, and Sugiura teaches the artificial prehensor of claim 18. However, this combination does not teach the communications module comprising an I2C communications port. Kim 2005 teaches the feature of using an I2C protocol to communicate data between IC chips (see at least the abstract, fig. 2, and [0034]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the communications module comprise an I2C communications port (SDA/SCL pins/lines, and an interrupt pin/line if desired) and use the I2C protocol in order to communicate sensor data from the sensors using just three I/O pins or lines without waiting for a master controller to request the data (Kim 2005, [0011]-[0013]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Johansson.
With regards to claim 20, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida teaches the artificial prehensor of claim 10. However, this combination does not teach the viscoelastic compressible material including a liquid silicon polymer. Johansson teaches the feature of making a skin-like covering from Dragon Skin silicone (col. 19, ll. 19-23) (Dragon Skin is given as an example of the viscoelastic compressible material in [0039] of the instant application). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the viscoelastic compressible material include a liquid silicon polymer as in Johansson. Doing so would enable mechanical and cosmetic properties similar to that of real skin to be achieved (Johansson, col. 19, ll. 19-23).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 7,209,788 to Nicolelis et al. (hereinafter referred to as Nicolelis).
With regards to claim 23, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, and Kishida teaches the artificial prehensor of claim 10. However, this combination does not expressly teach a neural interface configured to provide feedback to a patient, wherein the central controller is operatively coupled to the neural interface, wherein the neural interface is configured to receive the one or more signals representative of the spatial position and angular orientation of an object relative to each of the sensor assemblies.
Nicolelis teaches the feature of providing a neural interface (see fig. 1A, at least elements 18 and 16 correspond thereto) configured to provide feedback to a patient or user (col. 16, ll. 36-39 & 51-60), wherein a central controller (feedback microchip in fig. 1A) is operatively coupled to the neural interface (as per fig. 1A), wherein the neural interface is configured to receive one or more feedback signals from an operated device (col. 16, ll. 36-39 & 51-60, also see the abstract, etc.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the artificial prehensor of Moore et al. such that it comprises a neural interface configured to provide feedback to a patient (broadly read as a user or operator of the artificial prehensor), wherein the central controller is operatively coupled to the neural interface (to provide the output signals from the sensors), wherein the neural interface is configured to receive the one or more signals representative of the spatial position and angular orientation of an object relative to each of the sensor assemblies, similarly to in Nicolelis. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to provide a user or operator of the artificial prehensor with valuable sensory feedback hitherto unavailable, and even assist in controlling the prehensor (see col. 3, ll. 9-33, and col. 31, ll. 6-12 & col. 32, ll. 27-32 of Nicolelis).
With regards to claim 24, the combination of Moore, Grunthaner, Ihrke, Kishida and Nicolelis teaches the artificial prehensor of claim 23.
Nicolelis further teaches the feature of using one or more myoelectrical sensors that are configured to detect voluntary muscular contractions from the patient and generate a volitional signal for directing control signals (e.g., as per col. 31, l. 60 to col. 32, l. 21). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly apply this control method to Moore et al., and specifically to provide one or more myoelectrical sensors that are configured to detect voluntary muscular contractions from the patient and generate a volitional signal for directing control signals, in order to allow persons with muscular control to control the artificial prehensor in a manner that more closely approximates how a corresponding physical limb (hand) would be moved. Moreover, the result of this combination of features would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and this combination accordingly amounts to no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions. In such a system, the neural interface would also be operatively coupled to the one or more myoelectrical sensors (part of the same system, as explained under the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of this claim).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858