DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 21, 23-29, 31-39 are pending, of which claims 29 and 31-39 are withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1, 21, and 23-28 are examined below.
Response to Arguments
The remarks of 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art doesn't explicitly teach or disclose all of the elements of amended claim 1, in particular applicant argues the following claim language
wherein axial translation of the housing or other member is configured to cause the proximal end of the proximal digit segment to rotate
wherein the leadscrew is configured to rotate while remaining axially stationary relative to the motor
Regarding the first bullet – Traveling nut 58 of Figure 5 corresponds to the housing or other member. This travels axially along leadscrew 22 to rotate the proximal end of the proximal digit segment 40 to rotate as shown in Figure 6.
Regarding the second bullet point - Applicant has taken the position that leadscrew 22 does not meet the claim limitations “remaining axially stationary relative to the motor” because it moves with the nut. (I.e. the leadscrew is retracted into the housing).
Examiner respectfully disagrees – as this argument appears to be a misinterpretation of Figure 6 wherein the leadscrew 22 is hidden from view. This is confirmed by Figure 8 of Varley. In simple terms – the leadscrew cannot possibly be retracted because there is no space available. Paragraph 0045 confirms that cog wheel 90 is fixed relative to leadscrew 22.
Therefore – the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0226315 (Varley) in view of US 2018/0036145 (Jury)
Regarding claim 1, Varley discloses an actuator for a prosthetic digit (Figs. 1 & 2), the actuator comprising:
a proximal end (Fig. 1, 14);
a gearbox (Fig. 8, 76) and a motor (Fig. 8, 66) in mechanical communication with the gearbox (¶0039, wherein 66 is in mechanical communication with 76 because it transfers torque to the 76);
a shaft (Fig. 8, shaft 92) extending axially and distally from the gearbox (¶0043, wherein 92 extends through hole 94 of gearbox);
a leadscrew (Fig. 8, 22) coupled to the shaft (¶0044, wherein 22 is connected to shaft 92 via 96), the leadscrew having an external thread (See Fig. 8, wherein 22 has external thread), wherein the motor is configured to cause the leadscrew to rotate in a first rotational direction (¶0036, wherein 66 drives 22 to rotate and clockwise corresponds to a first direction); and
a housing or other member (Fig. 1, 58) having a distal end (Fig. 7, 62) configured to rotatably couple with a proximal end of a proximal digit segment of the prosthetic digit (Fig. 5, wherein 58 is rotatably coupled with proximal end of 40) at a joint, wherein axial translation of the housing or other member is configured to cause the proximal end of the proximal digit segment to rotate about a joint (Fig. 6, wherein 58 translates axially along 22 to cause the proximal end of the proximal segment 40 to rotate) and about a pivot that is offset from the joint (Fig. 5, wherein 62 rotates about 44 and about 64)
the housing or other member having an internal thread (¶0033, wherein “traveling nut” corresponds to having an internal thread) configured to engage the external thread of the leadscrew (¶0033, wherein 58 engages 22), wherein the leadscrew is configured to rotate while remaining axially stationary relative to the motor (see Fig 8, wherein leadscrew 22 is understood to remain axially stationary relative to motor)
wherein rotation of the leadscrew causes the housing or other member to translate axially relative to the leadscrew (¶0034, wherein “draw the traveling nut towards the mount” corresponds to translate axially relative to the leadscrew”) and to apply a normal force to the proximal digit segment at the joint (see annotated Fig. 6) to thereby cause the proximal digit segment of the prosthetic digit to rotate about a pivot (Figs. 5 & 6, wherein 40 is caused to rotated about 64) to thereby cause the prosthetic digit to articulate (Figs. 5 and 6, wherein 62 applies a normal force to joint 44 to bend the prosthetic finger)
PNG
media_image1.png
555
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Varley discloses an actuator (Fig. 2) with a proximal end (Fig. 2, 14) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose that the proximal end is configured to attach with a palm of a prosthetic hand.
Jury discloses an automated hand (Fig. 1) comprising an actuator (¶0020, “first actuator”) comprising: a proximal end (¶0020, “first actuator having a proximal end) configured to attach with a palm of a prosthetic hand (¶0020, “proximal end pivotally mounted to the palm”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proximal end of Varley to attach with a palm of a prosthetic hand, as taught by Jury, in order to displace the actuator with respect to the palm to provide a secure grip on an object (¶0019)
Regarding claim 23, Varley discloses wherein rotation of the leadscrew (Fig. 5, 22) in the first rotational direction causes the housing or other member (Fig. 5, 58) to translate distally relative to the leadscrew (¶0035, wherein “rotation in the opposite sense moves 58 away from 14” corresponds to translate distally relative to leadscrew) and rotation of the leadscrew in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction causes the housing or other member to translate proximally relative to the leadscrew (¶0043, wherein “rotation of the leadscrew in the first sense will draw 58 towards 14” corresponds to translate proximally relative to the leadscrew)
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0226315 (Varley) in view of US 2018/0036145 (Jury), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2016/0235555 (Hunter)
Regarding claim 21, Varley discloses a housing or other member (Fig. 1, 58) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose that is defines an internal cavity configured to receive therein the gearbox, shaft, leadscrew, and at least part of the motor. Jury doesn't explicitly teach or disclose an internal cavity configured to receive therein the gearbox, shaft, leadscrew, and at least part of the motor
Hunter discloses a housing or other member (Fig. 4b, wherein 72 and 64 together correspond to a housing or other member) defining an internal cavity (¶0066, wherein “inside the 64 and 72” corresponds to an internal cavity) configured to receive therein the gearbox (Fig. 4b, 104), shaft (¶0009, “axial drive shaft”), leadscrew (Fig. 4b, 74), and at least part of the motor (Fig. 4b, wherein 26 is inside the cavity formed by 64 and 72)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing or other member of Varley in view of Jury contain the gearbox, shaft, leadscrew, and at least part of the motor as taught by Hunter, in order to protect the vital moving components of the device from wear and tear.
Regarding claim 22, Varley discloses a leadscrew and a motor (see rejection of claim 1 above) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose wherein the wherein the leadscrew is configured to remain axially stationary relative to the motor. Jury doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein the wherein the leadscrew is configured to remain axially stationary relative to the motor.
Hunter discloses wherein the wherein the leadscrew (74, Fig. 7a-7b) is configured to remain axially stationary relative to the motor (See Fig. 7A wherein 74 is configured rotates about the fixed shaft of motor 26)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the leadscrew of Varley in view of Jury to remain axially stationary relative to the motor, as taught by Hunter, in order to prevent the loosening of the two components over time.
Claim(s) 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0226315 (Varley) in view of US 2018/0036145 (Jury), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2015/0351935 A1 (Donati)
Regarding claim 24, Varley discloses a housing or other member (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose that it comprises a rack. Jury doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a rack.
Donati discloses a housing or other member (Fig. 2, 112) comprising a rack (flexible rack 117, Figs. 3A-3B, ¶0080).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing or other member of Varley in view of Jury with a rack, as taught by Donati, in order to replace the pulling function of a natural human tendon to flex the prosthetic finger (Donati, ¶0081)
Regarding claim 25, Varley doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a rack including elongated portion having partial threads extending transversely along a length of the rack. Jury doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a rack including elongated portion having partial threads extending transversely along a length of the rack
Donati discloses wherein the rack (117, Fig. 2) includes an elongated portion (117b, Fig. 3A) having partial threads (see Fig. 3B, wherein 117b has threads, see also ¶0082, wherein 117b meshes with worm screw 116 at zone P) and wherein the partial threads extend transversely along a length of the rack (See Fig. 3A, wherein threads on 117b extend transversely along a length of 117b).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing or other member of Varley in view of Jury with a rack, as taught by Donati, in order to replace the pulling function of a natural human tendon to flex the prosthetic finger (Donati, ¶0081)
Regarding claim 26, Varley doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a rack comprising a joint attached to the proximal digit segment. Jury doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a rack comprising a joint attached to the proximal digit segment.
Donati discloses wherein the rack (117, Fig. 3A-3B) comprises a joint (Joint A, Fig. 3A-3B, ¶0082) the joint being attached to the proximal digit segment (see Fig. 3B, wherein Joint A is attached to proximal stiff link 112)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing or other member of Varley in view of Jury with a rack comprising a joint attached to the proximal digit segment, as taught by Donati, in order to replace the pulling function of a natural human tendon to flex the prosthetic finger (Donati, ¶0081)
Regarding claim 27, Varley doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a worm rack. Jury doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a worm rack.
Donati discloses a worm rack (¶0080, wherein rack 117 meshes with the threaded profile of worm screw 116 - corresponding to a worm rack)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing or other member of Varley in view of Jury with a worm rack, as taught by Donati, in order to replace the pulling function of a natural human tendon to flex the prosthetic finger (Donati, ¶0081)
Regarding claim 28, Varley doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a support defining a cavity or a rack. Hunter doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a support defining a cavity or a rack.
Donati further comprising a support extending longitudinally and defining a cavity therein (Fig. 2, wherein 112 extends longitudinally and defines a cavity), wherein the rack (Fig. 2, 117) is configured to slide linearly within the cavity (¶0080, wherein 117 translates within 112)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Varley in view of Hunter with a support and rack, as taught by Donati, in order to robustly articulate the prosthetic digit in flexion and extension (Donati, ¶0035).
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER whose telephone number is (571)272-8382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerrah Edwards can be reached on 408.918.7557. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights