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 .
The Amendment filed 1/27/2026 has been entered. The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments. Claims 21-40 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to applicant’s argument on pages 7-8 that the previous office action has not demonstrated that Segil teaches the link bar as claimed, the examiner disagrees. The previous office action indicates that a ratchet is a mechanism that consists of a bar or wheel having inclined teeth into which a pawl drops so that motion can be imparted to the wheel or bar, governed, or prevented and that is used to allow effective motion in one direction only, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Therefore, in order to allow effective motion, the ratchet of Segil is construed to be a mechanism that consists of a linkage system, such as a bar (i.e., link bar) or wheel, to which motion can be imparted to flex all three joints at an anatomically appropriate rate. The examiner further relies on Thompson, which clearly shows a ratchet mechanism in combination with a linkage system that includes a link bar coupled to components of a prosthetic joint to permit natural movement, as intended by Segil. The rejections below have been modified for clarity purposes and also to address the newly amended limitations.
In response to applicant's argument on page 8 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., single link bar) 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21-28 and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over The Point Digit: Mechanical Design and Testing of a Ratcheting Prosthetic Finger to Segil et al. (Segil) in view of US Patent 4,090,264 to Thompson (Thompson).
Regarding at least claim 21
Segil teaches that the Point Digit is a purely mechanical prosthetic finger that includes a ratchet for positioning the finger into one of ten distinct levels of flexion (col. 1, 2nd paragraph, lines 1-4).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (knuckle)][AltContent: textbox (Distal phalange)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First phalange end)][AltContent: textbox (First phalange)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
344
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Segil meets the limitations of a prosthetic finger, comprising: a knuckle that attaches to a prosthetic socket (col. 2, 2nd full paragraph, lines 5-9 discloses a mounting bracket/knuckle to install into the prosthetic socket); a first phalange having a phalange end coupled to the knuckle (see annotated fig. 1 above which shows a first phalange having an end coupled to the knuckle) and configured to move in flexion and extension with respect to the knuckle (fig. 1 shows that the first phalange moves in flexion and extension with respect to the knuckle); a distal phalange coupled to the first phalange (annotated fig. 1 above shows a distal phalange coupled to the first phalange) and configured to move in flexion and extension (fig. 1 shows that the distal phalange moves in flexion and extension); and a ratcheting mechanism (col. 1, 2nd paragraph discloses a ratchet that positions the finger into one of ten distinct levels of flexion and ensures that the finger is non-backdrivable) comprising: a set of teeth (a ratchet by definition is a mechanism that consists of a bar or wheel having inclined teeth into which a pawl drops so that motion can be imparted to the wheel or bar, governed, or prevented and that is used in a hand tool to allow effective motion in one direction only, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary); and a release mechanism (the final paragraph spanning col. 1 through 2 discloses a self-locking button that releases the ratchet, presumably by pivoting a portion to lift in order to disengage from the teeth of the ratchet, thereby acting as a mechanism, and extends the finger) that moves between a first position (locked position) and a second position (lifted/release position), wherein: in the first position, the release mechanism is engaged with the set of teeth and prevents movement of the first phalange and the distal phalange in extension; and in the second position, the release mechanism is disengaged with the set of teeth and allows movement of the first phalange and the distal phalange in extension (engagement of the release button with the teeth of the ratchet prevents movement in extension and that pressing the button disengages from the teeth and allows movement in extension as claimed).
Segil also discloses a linkage system that couples all three joints so that all three joints can be flexed at an anatomically appropriate rate to ensure that the finger behaves similar to the intact limb while maintaining mechanical strength (col. 2, 1st full paragraph). As noted above, a ratchet by definition is a mechanism that consists of a bar or wheel having inclined teeth into which a pawl drops so that motion can be imparted to the wheel or bar, governed, or prevented and that is used to allow effective motion in one direction only, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Therefore, in order to allow effective motion, the ratchet of Segil is construed to be a mechanism that consists of a linkage system, such as a bar (i.e., link bar) or wheel, to which motion can be imparted by the ratchet to flex all three joints at an anatomically appropriate rate. However, Segil does not explicitly teach that the linkage system is a link bar extending through the first phalange and having: a first link bar end coupled to the knuckle; and a second link bar end coupled to the distal phalange.
Thompson teaches a similar ratchet mechanism for an artificial leg device that includes a pivotable pawl member (73) cooperating with a ratchet wheel (40) to form a lock therebetween for locking the joint (abstract).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
744
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
An operator assembly is carried by a lower support member for operating the pawl (73) and includes a rod (48) responsive to pressure on the foot (20), a resilient biasing means carried by the rod, and a quick-release mechanism (107; fig. 7) carried adjacent the upper portion of the rod for releasing the biasing means to provide quick and positive disengagement of the pawl from the ratchet (abstract). The ratchet disengaging member (107) provides the quick-release mechanism for the ratchet and pawl and includes a pair of linkage members (linkage bars; 117) pivotably carried about pivot (118) on each side of a base (107a) (col. 6, lines 40-45), which are moved outward to permit quick disengagement of the pawl and ratchet (col. 7, lines 36-46), for the purpose of permitting natural movement without backlash of the ratchet teeth (col. 7, lines 20-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the linkage system of Segil, which interacts with the ratchet to ensure a finger that behaves similar to the intact limb, is a link bar extending through the first phalange and having a first link bar end coupled, at least indirectly, at a first end to the knuckle and at a second link bar end to the distal phalange, in order to permit natural movement without backlash of the ratchet teeth, as taught by Thompson.
Regarding at least claim 22
Segil in view Thompson discloses the prosthetic finger of claim 21. Segil also teaches wherein: when the release mechanism engages with a first tooth of the set of teeth, the first phalange and the distal phalange are positioned in a first articulated state; and when the release mechanism engages with a second tooth of the set of teeth, the first phalange and the distal phalange are positioned in a second articulated state that is different from the first articulated state (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that when the release button/mechanism engages with a first tooth of the ratchet wheel, the first and distal phalange are positioned in a first articulated state, such as into one of the ten distinct levels disclosed in col. 1, 2nd full paragraph, lines 2-4, and when the release button/mechanism engages with a second tooth, the first and distal phalange are positioned in a second articulated state that is different from the first, for example a second of the ten distinct levels disclosed by Segil).
Regarding at least claim 23
Segil in view Thompson teaches the prosthetic finger of claim 21. Segil also teaches further comprising a spring configured to bias the release mechanism to the first position, wherein the release mechanism is engaged in the first position until the release mechanism is actuated (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that the release button/mechanism is biased in the engaged position via a spring until it is pressed/actuated to extend the finger).
Regarding at least claim 24
Segil in view Thompson teaches the prosthetic finger of claim 21. Segil also teaches wherein the release mechanism is configured to rotate about a pivot, thereby transitioning from the first position to the second position (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that the release button/mechanism rotates about a pivot that allows it to transition from the first locked position to the second lifted/release position).
Regarding at least claim 25
Segil in view Thompson teaches the prosthetic finger of claim 24. Segil also teaches wherein the release mechanism comprises: a user engagement portion positioned on a first side of the pivot; and a tooth engagement feature positioned on a second side of the pivot (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that the top/first side of the button/mechanism is a user engagement portion and the second side includes a feature that engages with a tooth of the ratchet wheel).
Regarding at least claim 26
Segil in view Thompson teaches the prosthetic finger of claim 25. Segil also teaches wherein: the set of teeth is positioned on the knuckle; and the pivot is positioned on the first phalange (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that the set of teeth of the ratchet wheel is positioned on the knuckle as shown in fig. 1 and that the pivot is positioned on the first phalange as shown in annotated fig. 1 above).
Regarding at least claim 27
Segil in view Thompson teaches the prosthetic finger of claim 25. Segil also teaches wherein: the tooth engagement feature is positioned between the pivot and the knuckle; and the user engagement portion is positioned further from the knuckle than the tooth engagement feature (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that the tooth engagement feature on the second side of the release button/mechanism is positioned between the pivot and the knuckle and that the user engagement portion on the first side of the release button/mechanism is positioned further from the knuckle than the tooth engagement feature).
Regarding at least claim 28
Segil in view Thompson teaches the prosthetic finger of claim 25. Segil also teaches wherein: the release mechanism is positioned on a top side of the first phalange (fig. 1 shows that the release button/mechanism is positioned on a top side of the first phalange end of the first phalange); and the user engagement portion pivots toward the first phalange when the release mechanism moves from the first position and to the second position (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that the user engagement portion of the release button/mechanism pivots toward the first phalange when moving from the first to the second lifted/release position).
Regarding at least claim 36
Segil meets the limitations of a prosthetic finger assembly, comprising: a knuckle that is configured to couple to a user using a prosthetic socket (col. 2, 2nd full paragraph, lines 5-9 discloses a mounting bracket/knuckle to install into the prosthetic socket); a first segment corresponding to a proximal phalange and comprising a first end coupled to the knuckle (see annotated fig. 1 above which shows first phalange/ segment and a first phalange end/first end); a second segment corresponding to a distal phalange and coupled to a second end of the first segment (see annotated fig. 1 above which shows distal phalange/second segment which is coupled to a second end of the first phalange/segment); and a ratchet (col. 1, 2nd paragraph discloses a ratchet that positions the finger into one of ten distinct levels of flexion and ensures that the finger is non-backdrivable) comprising: a set of teeth (a ratchet by definition is a mechanism that consists of a bar or wheel having inclined teeth into which a pawl drops so that motion can be imparted to the wheel or bar, governed, or prevented and that is used in a hand tool to allow effective motion in one direction only, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary); a release mechanism (the final paragraph spanning col. 1 through 2 discloses a self-locking button that releases the ratchet, presumably by pivoting a portion to lift in order to disengage from the teeth of the ratchet, thereby acting as a mechanism, and extends the finger) configured to engage and disengage with the set of teeth (the button/mechanism is configured to engage and disengage with the teeth of the ratchet in the same way as applicant’s); wherein: when the release mechanism is engaged with the set of teeth, the first and second segments are positionable at one or more flexion states (col. 1, 2nd paragraph discloses a ratchet that positions the finger into one of ten distinct levels of flexion and ensures that the finger is non-backdrivable); when the release mechanism is engaged with the set of teeth, the ratchet prevents movement of the first and second segments in extension (col. 1, 2nd paragraph discloses a ratchet that positions the finger into one of ten distinct levels of flexion and ensures that the finger is non-backdrivable); and when the release mechanism is disengaged from the set of teeth, the first and second segments are movable in flexion and in extension (pressing the button/mechanism results in disengagement from the teeth and allows movement in extension and flexion as claimed). However, Segil does not explicitly teach props coupled to the first segment and configured to disengage the release mechanism from the set of teeth.
Segil also discloses a linkage system that couples all three joints so that all three joints can be flexed at an anatomically appropriate rate to ensure that the finger behaves similar to the intact limb while maintaining mechanical strength (col. 2, 1st full paragraph). As noted above, a ratchet by definition is a mechanism that consists of a bar or wheel having inclined teeth into which a pawl drops so that motion can be imparted to the wheel or bar, governed, or prevented and that is used in a hand tool to allow effective motion in one direction only, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Therefore, in order to allow effective motion, the ratchet of Segil is construed to be a mechanism that consists of a linkage, such as a bar (i.e., link bar) or wheel to which motion can be imparted to flex all three joints at an anatomically appropriate rate and meets the limitation of coupling movement of the first and second segments such that the first and second segments move cooperatively in flexion or extension (fig. 1). However, Segil does not explicitly teach that the linkage extends through the first segment, having a first link bar end coupled to the knuckle and a second link bar end coupled to the second segment.
Thompson teaches a similar ratchet mechanism for an artificial leg device that includes a pivotable pawl member (73) cooperating with a ratchet wheel (40) to form a lock therebetween for locking the joint (abstract).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
744
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
An operator assembly is carried by a lower support member for operating the pawl (73) and includes a rod (48) responsive to pressure on the foot (20), a resilient biasing means carried by the rod, and a quick-release mechanism (107; fig. 7) carried adjacent the upper portion of the rod for releasing the biasing means to provide quick and positive disengagement of the pawl from the ratchet (abstract). The ratchet disengaging member (107) provides the quick-release mechanism for the ratchet and pawl and includes a pair of linkage members (linkage bars; 117) pivotably carried about pivot (118) on each side of a base (107a) (col. 6, lines 40-45), which are moved outward to permit quick disengagement of the pawl and ratchet (col. 7, lines 36-46), for the purpose of permitting natural movement without backlash of the ratchet teeth (col. 7, lines 20-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the linkage system of Segil, which interacts with the ratchet to ensure a finger that behaves similar to the intact limb, is a linkage that extends through the first segment, having a first link bar end coupled, at least indirectly, to the knuckle and a second link bar end coupled, at least indirectly, to the second segment, in order to permit natural movement without backlash of the ratchet teeth, as taught by Thompson.
As noted above, the final paragraph spanning col. 1 through 2 of Segil discloses a self-locking button that releases the ratchet, presumably by pivoting a portion to lift in order to disengage from the teeth of the ratchet, thereby acting as a mechanism, and extends the finger. However, Segil also does not explicitly teach props coupled to the first segment and configured to disengage the release mechanism from the set of teeth.
Thompson teaches a similar ratchet mechanism for an artificial leg device that includes a pivotable pawl member cooperating with a ratchet wheel (40) to form a lock therebetween for locking the joint (abstract).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
744
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
An operator assembly is carried by a lower support member for operating the pawl (73) and includes a rod (48) responsive to pressure on the foot (20), a resilient biasing means carried by the rod, and a quick-release mechanism (107; fig. 7) carried adjacent the upper portion of the rod for releasing the biasing means to provide quick and positive disengagement of the pawl from the ratchet (abstract). The ratchet disengaging member (107) provides the quick-release mechanism for the ratchet and pawl and includes a pair of linkage members (props; 117) pivotably carried about pivot (118) on each side of a base (107a) (col. 6, lines 40-45), which are moved outward to permit quick disengagement of the pawl and ratchet (col. 7, lines 36-46), for the purpose of permitting natural movement without backlash of the ratchet teeth (col. 7, lines 20-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ratchet release mechanism of Segil, which includes a linkage system that is intended to ensure a finger that behaves similar to the intact limb, with props coupled to the first segment and configured to disengage the release mechanism from the set of teeth, in order to permit natural movement without backlash of the ratchet teeth, as taught by Thompson.
Regarding at least claim 37
Segil in view of Thompson teaches the prosthetic finger assembly of claim 36. Segil also teaches further comprising a spring that causes the first and second segments to move in extension when the release mechanism is disengaged from the set of teeth (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that a spring biases the first and second segments to move in extension when the release button/mechanism is disengaged from the teeth of the ratchet).
Regarding at least claim 38
Segil in view of Thompson teaches the prosthetic finger assembly of claim 37. Segil also teaches further comprising a stop that causes the first and second segments to move to a full extension position in response to being moved to a full flexion position (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that a stop disengages the release button/mechanism from the teeth when the finger reaches full flexion causing the first and second segments to move to full extension).
Regarding at least claim 39
Segil in view of Thompson teaches the prosthetic finger assembly of claim 36. Segil also teaches wherein the second segment is configured to rotate about the second end of the first segment (fig. 1 shows that the second segment/distal phalange rotates about the second end of the first segment/phalange).
Regarding at least claim 40
Segil in view of Thompson teaches the prosthetic finger assembly of claim 36. Segil also teaches wherein the first and second segments comprise a metal material (col. 1, 2nd paragraph discloses metal material).
Claim(s) 29-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segil in view of Thompson, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0110631 A1 to Cazenave (Cazenave).
Regarding at least claim 29
Segil also meets the limitations of a mechanical finger, comprising: a knuckle configured to attach to a prosthetic socket (col. 2, 2nd full paragraph, lines 5-9 discloses a mounting bracket/knuckle to install into the prosthetic socket); a first phalange and comprising a first phalange end coupled to the knuckle (see annotated fig. 1 above); a distal phalange (see annotated fig. 1 above) and comprising a distal phalange end rotationally coupled to the first phalange (the end of the distal phalange is rotationally coupled to the first phalange as shown in annotated fig. 1 above); a linkage coupling movement of the first phalange and the distal phalange, such that the linkage causes the first phalange and the distal phalange to simultaneously move in flexion or simultaneously move in extension (col. 2, 1st full paragraph discloses a linkage system that couples all three joints and flexes all three joints in an anatomically appropriate rate ensuring a finger that behaves similar to the intact limb); a ratcheting mechanism (col. 1, 2nd paragraph discloses a ratchet that positions the finger into one of ten distinct levels of flexion and ensures that the finger is non-backdrivable) that transitions between: a first state that prevents movement of the first phalange and the distal phalange in extension; and a second state that allows movement of the first phalange and the distal phalange in extension (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that it transitions between a first state that prevents movement of the first and distal phalanges in extension and a second state that allows movement of the first and distal phalanges in extension); a spring coupled to the first phalange and configured to bias the first phalange and the distal phalange to move in extension; and a stop that causes the first phalange and the distal phalange to move to an extended position in response to the first phalange and the distal phalange moving to a full flexion position (the final paragraph spanning col. 1 through 2 discloses that full flexion of the finger causes the finger to spring-back to full extension and is therefore construed to include a spring that is coupled to the first phalange, at least indirectly, that biases the first and distal phalanges to move in extension and a stop that causes movement to extension in response to the full flexion position).
As noted above, Segil discloses a linkage system that couples all three joints so that all three joints can be flexed at an anatomically appropriate rate to ensure that the finger behaves similar to the intact limb while maintaining mechanical strength (col. 2, 1st full paragraph). Further, a ratchet by definition is a mechanism that consists of a bar or wheel having inclined teeth into which a pawl drops so that motion can be imparted to the wheel or bar, governed, or prevented and that is used in a hand tool to allow effective motion in one direction only, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Therefore, in order to allow effective motion, the ratchet of Segil is construed to be a mechanism that consists of a linkage, such as a bar (i.e., link bar) or wheel, to which motion can be imparted by the ratchet to flex all three joints at an anatomically appropriate rate. However, Segil does not explicitly teach that the linkage system extends through the first phalange and has a first link bar end coupled to the knuckle and a second link bar end coupled to the distal phalange.
Thompson teaches a similar ratchet mechanism for an artificial leg device that includes a pivotable pawl member (73) cooperating with a ratchet wheel (40) to form a lock therebetween for locking the joint (abstract).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
744
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
An operator assembly is carried by a lower support member for operating the pawl (73) and includes a rod (48) responsive to pressure on the foot (20), a resilient biasing means carried by the rod, and a quick-release mechanism (107; fig. 7) carried adjacent the upper portion of the rod for releasing the biasing means to provide quick and positive disengagement of the pawl from the ratchet (abstract). The ratchet disengaging member (107) provides the quick-release mechanism for the ratchet and pawl and includes a pair of linkage members (linkage bars; 117) pivotably carried about pivot (118) on each side of a base (107a) (col. 6, lines 40-45), which are moved outward to permit quick disengagement of the pawl and ratchet (col. 7, lines 36-46), for the purpose of permitting natural movement without backlash of the ratchet teeth (col. 7, lines 20-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the linkage system of Segil, which is intended to ensure a finger that behaves similar to the intact limb, is a linkage extending through the first phalange and having a first link bar end coupled to the knuckle and a second link bar end coupled to the distal phalange, in order to permit natural movement without backlash of the ratchet teeth, as taught by Thompson.
As noted above, Segil teaches a spring (final paragraph spanning col. 1 through 2). However, Segil does not explicitly teach that the spring is a torsion spring.
Cazenave teaches a driving mechanism for a prosthetic hand (abstract) that includes movable joints at each digit that are spring loaded and have a ratchet and pawl pair mechanism (paragraph 0014). Fig. 9 shows a finger assembly comprising a torsion spring (26), for the purpose of allowing the digit to “spring back” to the natural open position (paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the spring that biases the joint to move in extension, as taught by Segil, is a torsion spring, in order to allow the digit to “spring back” to the natural open position, as taught by Cazenave.
Regarding at least claim 30
Segil in view of Cazenave teaches the mechanical finger of claim 29. Segil also teaches wherein: the ratcheting mechanism comprises: a set of teeth (a ratchet by definition is a mechanism that consists of a bar or wheel having inclined teeth into which a pawl drops so that motion can be imparted to the wheel or bar, governed, or prevented and that is used in a hand tool to allow effective motion in one direction only, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary); and a release mechanism (the final paragraph spanning col. 1 through 2 discloses a self-locking button that releases the ratchet, presumably by pivoting a portion to lift in order to disengage from the teeth of the ratchet, thereby acting as a mechanism, and extends the finger) configured to: engage with the set of teeth in the first state; and disengage with the set of teeth in the second state (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that the release button/mechanism engages with the teeth of the ratchet wheel in the first state and disengages with the teeth in the second state); wherein: the stop is configured to disengage the release mechanism from the set of teeth (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that the stop disengages the release button/mechanism from the teeth when the finger reaches full flexion).
Regarding at least claim 31
Segil in view of Cazenave teaches the mechanical finger of claim 30. Segil also teaches wherein the release mechanism is coupled to the first phalange and configured to pivot with respect to the first phalange (fig. 1 shows that the release button/mechanism is coupled to the first phalange and is construed to pivot with respect the first phalange in the same way as applicant’s).
Regarding at least claim 32
Segil in view of Cazenave teaches the mechanical finger of claim 31. Segil also teaches wherein the release mechanism is positioned on a dorsal side of the first phalange (fig. 1 shows that the release button/mechanism is positioned on a dorsal side of the first phalange).
Regarding at least claim 33
Segil in view of Cazenave teaches the mechanical finger of claim 29. Segil also teaches wherein: the torsion spring is a first spring; and the mechanical finger further comprises a second spring configured to bias the ratcheting mechanism into the first state (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that the first spring is used to spring-back to full extension when the finger reaches full flexion and a second spring biases the ratcheting mechanism into the first state in which movement in extension is prevented).
Regarding at least claim 34
Segil in view of Cazenave teaches the mechanical finger of claim 29. Segil also teaches wherein: the stop is adjustable; and adjusting the stop changes the full flexion position (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that the full flexion position can be adjusted by adjusting the stop).
Regarding at least claim 35
Segil in view of Cazenave teaches the mechanical finger of claim 34. Segil also teaches wherein: the stop is positioned on the knuckle; and adjusting the stop changes a location of the stop with respect to the knuckle (the ratchet mechanism of the finger of Segil is construed to operate in the same way as applicant’s in that the stop is positioned on the knuckle and adjusting the stop changes a location of the stop with respect to the knuckle).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 23, 29, 30, and 34-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 11, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,905,570 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 21, the patent claims also recite a prosthetic finger, comprising: a knuckle that attaches to a prosthetic socket; a first phalange having a phalange end coupled to the knuckle and configured to move in flexion and extension with respect to the knuckle; a distal phalange coupled to the first phalange and configured to move in flexion and extension; a link bar extending through the first phalange and having: a first link bar end coupled to the knuckle; and a second link bar end coupled to the distal phalange; and a ratcheting mechanism comprising: a set of teeth; and a release mechanism that moves between a first position and a second position, wherein: in the first position, the release mechanism is engaged with the set of teeth and prevents movement of the first phalange and the distal phalange in extension; and in the second position, the release mechanism is disengaged with the set of teeth and allows movement of the first phalange and the distal phalange in extension (see patent claims 1, 2, 11, and 28).
Regarding claim 23, the patent claims also recite the prosthetic finger of claim 21, further comprising a spring configured to bias the release mechanism to the first position, wherein the release mechanism is engaged in the first position until the release mechanism is actuated (see patent claims 3 and 11).
Regarding claim 29, the patent claims also recite a mechanical finger, comprising: a knuckle configured to attach to a prosthetic socket; a first phalange and comprising a first phalange end coupled to the knuckle; a distal phalange and comprising a distal phalange end rotationally coupled to the first phalange; a linkage coupling movement of the first phalange and the distal phalange, such that the linkage causes the first phalange and the distal phalange to simultaneously move in flexion or simultaneously move in extension; a ratcheting mechanism that transitions between: a first state that prevents movement of the first phalange and the distal phalange in extension; and a second state that allows movement of the first phalange and the distal phalange in extension; a torsion spring coupled to the first phalange and configured to bias the first phalange and the distal phalange to move in extension; and a stop that causes the first phalange and the distal phalange to move to an extended position in response to the first phalange and the distal phalange moving to a full flexion position (see patent claims 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 30, the patent claims also recite the mechanical finger of claim 29, wherein: the ratcheting mechanism comprises: a set of teeth; and a release mechanism configured to: engage with the set of teeth in the first state; and disengage with the set of teeth in the second state; wherein: the stop is configured to disengage the release mechanism from the set of teeth (see patent claim 1).
Regarding claim 34, the patent claims also recite the mechanical finger of claim 29, wherein: the stop is adjustable; and adjusting the stop changes the full flexion position (see patent claim 1).
Regarding claim 35, the patent claims also recite the mechanical finger of claim 34, wherein: the stop is positioned on the knuckle; and adjusting the stop changes a location of the stop with respect to the knuckle (see patent claim 1).
Regarding claim 36, the patent claims also recite a prosthetic finger assembly, comprising: a knuckle that is configured to couple to a user using a prosthetic socket; a first segment corresponding to a proximal phalange and comprising a first end coupled to the knuckle; a second segment corresponding to a distal phalange and coupled to a second end of the first segment; a linkage extending through the first segment and coupling movement of the first and second segments such that the first and second segments move cooperatively in flexion or extension; and a ratchet comprising: a set of teeth; a release mechanism configured to engage and disengage with the set of teeth; and props coupled to the first segment and configured to disengage the release mechanism from the set of teeth; wherein: when the release mechanism is engaged with the set of teeth, the first and second segments are positionable at one or more flexion states; when the release mechanism is engaged with the set of teeth, the ratchet prevents movement of the first and second segments in extension; and when the release mechanism is disengaged from the set of teeth, the first and second segments are movable in flexion and in extension (see patent claims 1 and 2).
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,229,533 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 21, the patent claims also recite a prosthetic finger, comprising: a knuckle that attaches to a prosthetic socket; a first phalange having a phalange end coupled to the knuckle and configured to move in flexion and extension with respect to the knuckle; a distal phalange coupled to the first phalange and configured to move in flexion and extension; a link bar extending through the first phalange and having: a first link bar end coupled to the knuckle; and a second link bar end coupled to the distal phalange; and a ratcheting mechanism comprising: a set of teeth; and a release mechanism that moves between a first position and a second position, wherein: in the first position, the release mechanism is engaged with the set of teeth and prevents movement of the first phalange and the distal phalange in extension; and in the second position, the release mechanism is disengaged with the set of teeth and allows movement of the first phalange and the distal phalange in extension (see patent claims 1 and 5).
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 MELISSA A HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 571-272-9062. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://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.
/M.A.H/
Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights