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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1 and 9 in the reply filed on 3/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amendments overcome the restriction claiming each of the at least two sets of body signal patterns and prosthesis movement is assigned at least one trigger signal that switches over between the sets. This is not found persuasive.
First, Goldfarb et al are numerous sets of body signal patterns: flexion or extension (including different patterns for percentage of effort); additionally, the above patterns can be broken down into patterns for knee or ankle.
Second, at least one trigger signal includes that determined via module 110/210 triggering between flexion-extension (and function of effort), each having a trigger signal, “intent recognizer”; or the user selection based on detection of co-contraction or a “twitch” using module 211; or selector module. Goldfarb et teaches numerous signal patterns with an assigned trigger signal. Finally, giving the broadest reasonable interpretation, wherein each set of body signal patterns is assigned at least one trigger signal, the at least one trigger signal maybe/is the same. Additionally, a first trigger signal and a second trigger signal does not mean that they are different.
It is the examiner’s position that Goldfarb teaches the common technical feature of claim 1 and, therefore, all depending claim branches are separate inventions as broken down in the Restriction Requirement dated 12/18/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldfarb et al (2014/0100667).
Goldfarb et al teaches an actuatable prosthesis device, having:
at least one drive (powered joint, see abstract), an electronic data processing device (controller 100, 200), and at least one sensor assembly (see at least par. 0028 and 0045, EMG electrodes) for arrangement on a body part of a prosthesis wearer;
wherein said at least one sensor assembly is designed to detect body signal patterns (see at least par. 0028, 0041-0043, 0049, 0063 for pattern classification for flexion or extension (can included different patterns as a function of percentage of effort) for knee or ankle), and
said electronic data processing device is designed to actuate the at least one drive (powered joint, knee and/or ankle) depending on a detected body signal pattern in such a way that the prosthesis device carries out a prosthesis movement assigned to the body signal pattern (at least par. 0028, 114, 214);
wherein at least two sets of body signal patterns (flexion or extension (can included different patterns as function of percentage of effort) for knee or ankle) and prosthesis movements assigned to each body signal pattern are stored on said electronic data processing device, and at least one trigger signal (via module 110/210 triggering/switching between flexing/extending (see at least par. 0043); or par. 0057, “intent recognizer”; or the user selection based on detection of co-contraction or a “twitch” using module 211 - see at least par. 0061; or selector module, claim 11) which switches over between the sets is assigned to the sets. Goldfarb et teaches numerous signal patterns with an assigned trigger signal.
Finally, giving the broadest reasonable interpretation, wherein each set of body signal patterns is assigned at least one trigger signal, the at least one trigger signal can be the same. Additionally, a first trigger signal and a second trigger signal does not mean that they are different.
Claim 9, an electronic data processing device (controller 100, 200) for an actuatable prosthesis device of claim 1, wherein a first set of body signal patterns of the at least two sets of body signal patterns (one of flexion or extension (can included different patterns as a function of percentage of effort) for knee or ankle) is assigned a first trigger signal (via module 110/210 triggering/switching between flexing/extending (see at least par. 0043); or par. 0057, “intent recognizer”; or the user selection based on detection of co-contraction or a “twitch” using module 211 - see at least par. 0061; or selector module, claim 11) configured to switch between the sets, and a second set of body signal patterns (another of a patterns for flexion or extension (can included different patterns for percentage of effort) for knee or ankle) of the at least two sets of body signal patterns is assigned a second trigger signal (via module 110/210 triggering/switching between flexing/extending (see at least par. 0043); or par. 0057, “intent recognizer”; or the user selection based on detection of co-contraction or a “twitch” using module 211 - see at least par. 0061; or selector module, claim 11) configured to switch between the sets.
It is the examiner’s position that there are numerous different triggers between flexing, extending and functions of precent of effort. Further there are different triggers between knee or ankle. Additionally, giving the broadest reasonable interpretation, a first trigger and a second trigger can be the same.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Roca Vives Manel (WO 2018/178420) – actuatable prosthesis with wrist control and hand control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE EDWARD SNOW whose telephone number is (571)272-4759. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Monday through Thursday.
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 5712729062. 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.
/BRUCE E SNOW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights