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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the second sentence is incomplete. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text (MPEP § 608.01(b)).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0014 involves an incomplete sentence. In paragraph 0015, the second sentence is incomplete. In paragraph 0018, the last sentence is incomplete. In paragraph 0023, eighth line, “bell” should apparently read --belt--. On page 12, the sentence on lines 2-3 is incomplete. In paragraphs 0035 and 0036, “a hand prostheses” (plural) lacks proper grammatical syntax. In paragraph 0051, third (last) line, --in-- or --to-- should evidently follow “rotated”. In paragraph 0062, the second sentence is incomplete. In paragraph 0063, fifth line, “M” should be --A--, based on Figure 2. On page 17, line 11, “restraint” should read --restrained--. In paragraph 0065, third and fourth lines, “string” should apparently be replaced by --thread--, all three instances; attention is directed to paragraphs 0120-0121. In paragraph 0066, the first sentence is incomplete, and on the first line, “81A and 82A”, second occurrence, should be replaced by --81 and 82--; on the third line, “81A and 82A”, first occurrence, should be replaced by --81 and 82--. On page 18, second to last line, and on page 19, line 9, reference character “1” is not shown in the drawings. In paragraph 0069, fifth line, “51’, 61’, 62’, 52’ and 53’” are likewise not found in the drawings. In paragraph 0072, on the fifteenth line, “8” should be --9--. On page 23, the sentence on lines 5-7 is incomplete; on the second to last line of page 23, “elements” should read --element--. In paragraph 0078, “X” and “Y” are not present in the drawings. In paragraph 0084, line 11, “clamps” should be --clamp--. In paragraph 0090, fifth line, “portions” should be --positions--. In paragraph 0093, sixth line, “its” is misspelled. On page 34, line 12, “to” should be omitted. On page 35, line 1, “skill” should read --skilled--; on line 6, --element-- should be inserted after “wrist”, second occurrence; on line 23, an --A-- should be inserted after “132”, first occurrence. On page 36, third to last line, “192” should be --191--. In paragraph 0104, third line, and in paragraph 0105, second line, “magnetic”, first occurrence in each, should apparently be --metal--. In paragraph 0107, the last line lacks proper syntax. On page 39, line 7, “end” should be --ends--. In paragraph 0109, second line, “220” should evidently be --222--. In paragraph 0120, second line, “strings” should apparently be --threads--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 1, lines 3-4, “the central portion of the curvature” lacks a proper antecedent basis; on line 9, “the motor shaft” lacks a proper antecedent basis; on line 10, “the proximal end” lacks a proper antecedent basis; on line 12, “the tip” lacks a proper antecedent basis; on line 13, “the distal end” lacks a proper antecedent basis; on line 18, “protrusion”, rather than --projection--, appears to be inaccurate relative to the disclosure. In claim 15, third line, “±5” is vague as to whether a percentage range or an angular range is intended. In claim 23, line 5, “the axis of symmetry” lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 23-24 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bravo Castillo, US 2011/0217405 A1, which illustrates a support plate 5 machined with a longitudinal flute 5-a and a transverse flute 5-b on either side of the plate in a mirror relationship relative to a transverse axis of symmetry so as to respectively accommodate projecting tongues 8-a of a displacement mobile 8 and sides of a safety plate 10 upon folding support plate 5 into a U-shape (Figures 1, 6-7, 9-11; paragraphs 0018, 0031, 0038-0039, 0044), a central portion of which is formed with a hole defining an axis parallel to longitudinal flutes 5-a in order to align motor 13 and worm gear 9 with the follower or displacement mobile 8 (Figures 1-2, 11; abstract; paragraphs 0018, 0032, 0037-0038, 0044). Regarding claim 24, marks in the form of holes are drilled in support plate 5 (paragraph 0032), and the aforementioned flutes are innately formed by slotting or hollowing. The further limitations of claim 26 are plainly evident from Figures 6-7 (MPEP § 2125). Regarding claim 27, support plate 5 may be of an aluminum alloy (paragraphs 0030-0031; page 4, claim 23).
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 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bravo Castillo, US 2011/0217405 A1. Drilling the above mentioned holes prior to making the folds to form the U-shape would have been immediately obvious to the ordinary practitioner at the effective filing date of the present application in order to simplify manufacture by facilitating a more stable support (with plate 5 flat against a working surface) during the drilling steps.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bravo Castillo, US 2011/0217405 A1, in view of Allison et al., US 3,418,661. Bravo Castillo does not really employ a gearing system other than the selectively variable threading of worm gear 9 and displacement mobile 8 (paragraphs 0038, 0040, 0042-0043), but gears were common in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, as seen from Figure 2 of Allison et al., which drawing depicts a drive motor 9 in parallel or anti-parallel relationship with a lead screw 46 driven via reduction gear train 63 and pinion 51 (column 1, lines 62-66; column 4, lines 21-55; column 4, line 72, to column 5, line 3). To utilize such a gearing system in Bravo Castillo would have been obvious in order to impart a more compact system and to readily optimize speed and torque for a diversity of amputees and uses, with further motivation (to combine) provided by the discussions in Bravo Castillo with regard to aesthetics (paragraph 0004) and speed, torque, and energy considerations (paragraph 0041), while maintaining advantageous features of the Bravo Castillo worm gear (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 3, spur gears with helical teeth were common in the art and would have been an obvious variant in order to enhance engagement among teeth for improved transmission efficiency. Regarding claims 2 and 4-5, a bearing between the substantially circular hole in the central portion of U-shaped plate 5 and the driven gear (such as pinion 51 of Allison et al.) would have been obvious in order to reduce friction and to support forces and torques during use. Regarding claim 6, gears of the same diameter would have been an obvious variant for amputees and/or uses not requiring altered gripping forces or speeds, other than what is offered by worm gear 9. Regarding claims 7 and 10, the gripping degree of angular freedom effects gripping and releasing displacements as well as displacements along gliding guides 1-a and 4-a. The further limitations of claims 8-9 and 11 are addressed in the grounds of rejection above. Regarding claims 12-15, varying the separation distances so as to be greater than, lesser than, or the same as the other would have been obvious in order to accomplish different tasks pertaining to various gripped object shapes and sizes, and splayed angles of 33° or the like would have been obvious under routine experimentation in order to stably grasp relatively wide objects. Regarding claims 16-17, retainer 10 is coupled to U-shaped support plate 5 via transverse flutes 5-b (Figures 1-2, 6-7; paragraphs 0018, 0031, 0039), retainer 10 comprises a hole through which worm screw 9 is passed (Figure 1; paragraph 0039), and a bearing coupled between a distal end of the driven gear and retainer 10 would have been obvious from the purpose of bearing 14 (Figures 1-2, 8, 10-11; paragraph 0039).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Melanie Tyson can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774