Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Engeberg does not teach “analyzing the EMG data and the at least one of the inertial measurement data or the magnetic field data using a mapping matrix.” A person of ordinary skill in prosthetics engineering understands how to use a matrix/comparison chart, regardless of how many columns are present or whether one or two elements are being used to determine the desired position. The Examiner notes while the Applicant is focusing on the specific elements Engeberg is comparing for the benefit of control of their prosthetic, the rejection of record is modifying Gill, in light of using a comparison matrix to understand the desired final position. Since Gill already discloses the features used to control their prosthetic include IMU and Hall effect sensor data, the person of ordinary skill would not adjust these simply to use Engeberg’s teaching of using a comparison matrix as Applicant appears to be arguing.
Applicant fails to provide any additional arguments remarks (in addition to those already discussed above with respect to Gill in view of Engeberg) concerning the rejection of:
Claim(s) 2-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Gill (US 2018/0064563 A1 – as previously cited) and Engeberg (US 2014/0128992 A1 – as previously cited);
As such, the aforementioned rejection(s) has/ have been maintained.
Claim Status
The drawing objections with respect to reference character 112b and sheet 2 have two figure numbers have been overcome.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20-24 are examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 118 (Fig. 1A).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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.
Claim 24 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.
Regarding claim 24, t.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20-24 are examined and determined to be eligible at step 2a prong 2 as having a practical application due to the control signal. The control signal is more than mere extra solution activity.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill (US 2018/0064563 A1) in view of Engeberg (US 2014/0128992 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gill discloses a method of controlling an upper limb prosthetic device, the method comprising:
receiving electromyography (EMG) data generated by an EMG sensor in response to a muscle contraction of a residual limb of a user of the prosthetic device(¶ [0019] and [0125]);
receiving, in response to a motion of the residual limb or of the prosthetic device, at least one of i) inertial measurement data generated by one or more inertial measurement sensors (IMS) (¶ [0015]) or ii) magnetic field data generated by one or more magnetic field sensors (¶ [0083]);
generating the control signal for controlling the prosthetic device, wherein the control signal is generated in response to analyzing the combination of the generated EMG data and the at least one of the generated inertial measurement data or the generated magnetic field data(¶ [0016]-[0017]).
Gill fails to teach analyzing the sensor data within a mapping matrix so the combination is mapped to the control signal. However, Engeberg discloses methods of prosthetic control that includes mapping matrices can be used to analyze data and map the data to a control signal or controlling the prosthetic device (fig. 3, ¶ [0015], ¶ [0026-0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for Gill to use a mapping matrix method for mapping sensor data to the control signal as is taught by Engeberg in order to simultaneously control two or more degrees of freedom or functions of the prosthetic hand (abstract, Engeberg). This results in the method of controlling the upper limb prosthetic of Gill, which relies on the EMG, IMU, and Hall effect sensor data to generate a control signal to control the prosthetic device, with an adjusted method of analysis of the data (e.g. using a comparison matrix as is taught by Engeberg).
Regarding claim 2, Gill further discloses the motion comprises a motion pattern (gesture pattern recognition, ¶ [0132]).
Regarding claim 3, Gill further discloses the motion comprises a translation (¶ [0130]).
Regarding claim 4, Gill further discloses the motion comprises a rotation (¶ [0130]).
Regarding claim 5, Gill further discloses the muscle contraction comprises a muscle contraction pattern (¶ [0125]).
Regarding claim 7, Gill further discloses entering a control mode for the prosthetic device in response to receiving the generated EMG data, and then receiving the at least one of the generated inertial measurement data or the generated magnetic field data(¶ [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 8, Gill further discloses monitoring movement of the residual limb to generate a movement threshold, wherein generating the control signal comprises comparison of the at least one of the generated inertial measurement data or the generated magnetic field data with the movement threshold (¶ [0147]).
Regarding claim 9, Gill further discloses replacing the movement threshold with an updated movement threshold, wherein generating the control signal comprises comparison of the at least one of the generated inertial measurement data or the generated magnetic field data with the updated movement threshold (¶ [0147]-[0148]).
Regarding claim 10, Gill further discloses the prosthetic device comprises one or more of the following: a prosthetic hand, a prosthetic digit, a prosthetic wrist, a prosthetic arm, and a prosthetic elbow (abstract), and wherein the control signal comprises one or more control signals configured to cause one or more of the following: formation of a grip with the prosthetic hand, rotation of the prosthetic digit, rotation of the prosthetic wrist, and rotation of the prosthetic elbow (abstract, ¶ [0015]).
Regarding claim 11, Gill discloses an upper limb prosthetic control system comprising:
a prosthetic device (10, prosthetic hand and wrist system, fig. 1) configured to attach to a residual limb of a user (¶ [0008]);
an electromyography (EMG) sensor configured to detect an EMG signal generated by a muscle contraction of the residual limb of the user (¶ [0019] and [0125]);
one or more motion sensors configured to couple with the residual limb or the prosthetic device (¶ [0015]) and to detect a motion signal generated by a motion of the residual limb or of the prosthetic device (¶ [0015]), wherein the one or more motion sensors comprises at least one of i) an inertial measurement sensor (IMS) (¶ [0015]) or ii) a magnetic field sensor (¶ [0083]); and
a processor (144, processor, fig. 2C, ¶ [0084]) in communication with the EMG sensor and the one or more motion sensors (¶ [0084]) and configured to:
receive EMG data related to the EMG signal (¶ [0019] and [0125]);
receive at least one of i) inertial measurement data related to the motion signal (¶ [0015]) or ii) magnetic field data related to the motion sensor (¶ [0083]);
generate the control signal for controlling the prosthetic device, wherein the control signal is generated in response to analyzing the combination of the generated EMG data and the at least one of the generated inertial measurement data or the generated magnetic field data (¶ [0016]-[0017]).
Gill fails to teach analyzing the sensor data within a mapping matrix so the combination is mapped to the control signal. However, Engeberg discloses methods of prosthetic control that includes mapping matrices can be used to analyze data and map the data to a control signal or controlling the prosthetic device (fig. 3, ¶ [0015], ¶ [0026-0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for Gill to use a mapping matrix method for mapping sensor data to the control signal as is taught by Engeberg in order to simultaneously control two or more degrees of freedom or functions of the prosthetic hand (abstract, Engeberg). This results in the system of controlling the upper limb prosthetic of Gill, which relies on the EMG, IMU, and Hall effect sensor data to generate a control signal to control the prosthetic device, with an adjusted method of analysis of the data (e.g. using a comparison matrix as is taught by Engeberg).
Regarding claim 12, Gill further discloses the motion comprises a motion pattern, a translation, or a rotation (¶ [0130]), and wherein the muscle contraction comprises a muscle contraction pattern (¶ [0125]).
Regarding claim 14, Gill further discloses the processor is further configured to enter a control mode in response to receiving the generated EMG data, and then receive the at least one of the generated inertial measurement data or the generated magnetic field data (¶ [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 15, Gill further discloses the processor is further configured to monitor movement of the residual limb to generate a movement threshold, wherein generating the control signal comprises comparison of the at least one of the generated inertial measurement data or the generated magnetic field data with the movement threshold (¶ [0147]).
Regarding claim 16, Gill further discloses the prosthetic device comprises one or more of the following: a prosthetic hand, a prosthetic digit, a prosthetic wrist, a prosthetic arm, and a prosthetic elbow (abstract), and wherein the control signal comprises one or more control signals configured to cause one or more of the following: formation of a grip with the prosthetic hand, rotation of a prosthetic digit, rotation of the prosthetic wrist, and rotation of the prosthetic elbow (abstract, ¶ [0015]).
Regarding claim 17, Gill discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (¶ [0177]) having instructions stored thereon that when executed by a processor (144, processor, fig. 2C, ¶ [0084]) performs a method of controlling an upper limb prosthetic device, the method comprising (¶ [0084]):
receiving electromyography (EMG) data generated by an EMG sensor in response to a muscle contraction of a residual limb of a user of the prosthetic device (¶ [0019] and [0125]);
receiving, in response to a motion of the residual limb or of the prosthetic device, at least one of i) inertial measurement data generated by an inertial measurement sensor (¶ [0015]) or ii) magnetic field data generated by one or more magnetic field sensors (¶ [0083]);
generating the control signal for controlling the prosthetic device, wherein the control signal is generated in response to analyzing the combination of the generated EMG data and the at least one of the generated inertial measurement data or the generated magnetic field data (¶ [0016]-[0017]).
Gill fails to teach analyzing the sensor data within a mapping matrix so the combination is mapped to the control signal. However, Engeberg discloses methods of prosthetic control that includes mapping matrices can be used to analyze data and map the data to a control signal or controlling the prosthetic device (fig. 3, ¶ [0015], ¶ [0026-0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for Gill to use a mapping matrix method for mapping sensor data to the control signal as is taught by Engeberg in order to simultaneously control two or more degrees of freedom or functions of the prosthetic hand (abstract, Engeberg). This results in the method of controlling the upper limb prosthetic of Gill, which relies on the EMG, IMU, and Hall effect sensor data to generate a control signal to control the prosthetic device, with an adjusted method of analysis of the data (e.g. using a comparison matrix as is taught by Engeberg).
Regarding claim 18, Gill further discloses the motion comprises a motion pattern, a translation, or a rotation (¶ [0130]), and wherein the muscle contraction comprises a muscle contraction pattern(¶ [0125]).
Regarding claim 20, Gill further discloses the method further comprises monitoring movement of the residual limb to generate a movement threshold, and wherein generating the control signal comprises comparison of the generated inertial measurement data with the movement threshold (¶ [0147]).
Regarding claim 21, Gill further discloses the method further comprises replacing the movement threshold with an updated movement threshold, wherein generating the control signal comprises comparison of the at least one of the generated inertial measurement data or the generated magnetic field data with the updated movement threshold (¶ [0147]-[0148]).
Regarding claim 22, Gill further discloses the prosthetic device comprises one or more of the following: a prosthetic hand, a prosthetic digit, a prosthetic wrist, a prosthetic arm, and a prosthetic elbow (abstract), and wherein the control signal comprises one or more control signals configured to cause one or more of the following: formation of a grip with the prosthetic hand, rotation of a prosthetic digit, rotation of the prosthetic wrist, and rotation of the prosthetic elbow (abstract, ¶ [0015]).
Regarding claim 23, Gill further discloses the method further comprises entering a control mode for the prosthetic device in response to receiving the generated EMG data, and then receiving the at least one of the generated inertial measurement data or the generated magnetic field data (¶ [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 24, Gill fails to teach identifying the combination wherein the mapping matrix maps each combination to a particular control signal. However, Engeberg teaches the use of a mapping matrix for identifying a control signal (¶ [0026-0027]). In choosing a specific control signal from the matrix, there are inherently a plurality of potential control signals within the matrix based on which column/row of the matrix is chosen which corresponds to the data. Accordingly, the person of ordinary skill understands that there is inherently a plurality of combinations of the EMG and inertial/magnetic data, since this is how matrices store data. A matrix with the multiple columns and rows of data as is taught by the Combination (see the rejection to claim 1, above where the Examiner explains how Gill is obviously modified to utilize a mapping matrix to store data and choose a control signal) accordingly inherently includes each particular combination of data which results in the corresponding control signal from the plurality of possible control signals, for controlling the prosthetic device as the claim requires. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Gill to include the use of a mapping matrix for identifying a control signal as taught by Engeberg in order to simultaneously control two or more degrees of freedom or functions of the prosthetic hand (abstract, Engeberg).
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 TERESA M DUDDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, THOMAS BARRETT can be reached at (4746. 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.
/T.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights