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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the subject" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the signals" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the signal relative to" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the time intervals to" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to “a plurality of time intervals of predetermined duration” in lines 19-20 or another time interval. If it is referring to the plurality of time intervals it is recommended to amend to recite “the plurality of time intervals of predetermined duration”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the set of the values relative to" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
1. Claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites A prosthetic device comprising: - a limb or artificial joint or orthosis or a partial or full exoskeleton comprising a mechanism provided with at least an actuator and configured to carry out one or more actions;- a supplying source; - at least an input source modulated by the contraction of one or more muscles of the subject wearing the device, comprising at least an electrode;- electronic computing means, on which computer programs are loaded, configured to detect the signals coming from said at least one input source and to actuate said at least one actuator in order that said mechanism carries out an action as a function of the signals coming from said at least one input sources and wherein on said computing means computer programs are loaded configured to carry out a method comprising the steps of: (100) recording the signals (Ns) detected by said at least one electrode while said subject wearing the device is in a predetermined condition of movement or rest, for a predetermined time interval AT;(110) subdividing each of said signals (Ns) in a plurality of time intervals of predetermined duration;(120) extracting from the signal relative to each of the time intervals defined at point (120) at least a characteristic parameter (feature) relative to the signal selected from the list comprising: peak or peak-to-peak average amplitude, peak or peak-to-peak maximum amplitude, effective value, power spectrum average frequency, power spectrum median frequency, -6dB power spectrum band, -20dB power spectrum band;(130) calculating a statistical estimator for each feature calculated at point (120),(140) repeating the steps (100) to (130) sequentially with said subject in rest condition and, in the following, with said subject carrying out a known movement selected from a list of a plurality of predetermined movements (Mov_1, Mov_2,..., Moven) for each iteration, (150) associating a vector defined by the set of the values of the features calculated at point (130) with each movement known carried out by the subject and with the rest condition of point (140), and storing said vectors.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method comprising steps; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of subdividing each of said signals (Ns) in a plurality of time intervals of predetermined duration. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, subdividing signals (Ns) in a plurality of time intervals of predetermined duration can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of extracting from the signal relative to each of the time intervals defined at point (120) at least a characteristic parameter (feature) relative to the signal selected from the list comprising: peak or peak-to-peak average amplitude, peak or peak-to-peak maximum amplitude, effective value, power spectrum average frequency, power spectrum median frequency, -6dB power spectrum band, -20dB power spectrum band. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, extracting a characteristic parameter (feature) relative to a signal can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating a statistical estimator for each feature calculated at point. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a statistical estimator for each feature calculated at point can performed mentally.
The claim recites the limitation of associating a vector defined by the set of the values of the features calculated at point (130) with each movement known carried out by the subject and with the rest condition of point (140), and storing said vectors. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, associating a vector defined by the set of the values of the features calculated at point (130) with each movement known carried out by the subject and with the rest condition of point can be done by a human or pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea:
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: repeating the steps (100) to (130) sequentially with said subject in rest condition and, in the following, with said subject carrying out a known movement selected from a list of a plurality of predetermined movements (Mov_1, Mov_2,..., Moven) for each iteration; storing said vectors.
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the steps are performed: a limb or artificial joint or orthosis or a partial or full exoskeleton comprising a mechanism provided with at least an actuator and configured to carry out one or more actions;- a supplying source; - at least an input source modulated by the contraction of one or more muscles of the subject wearing the device, comprising at least an electrode; electronic computing means, on which computer programs are loaded, configured to detect the signals coming from said at least one input source and to actuate said at least one actuator in order that said mechanism carries out an action as a function of the signals coming from said at least one input sources
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of dividing signals to extract a parameter, then calculate a value to associate with a vector, all done in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… (200) detecting the signals detected by said at least one electrode while the user carries out one specific movement, -(210) calculating, with the same modes described in steps (110) to (130), a plurality of statistical estimators, and defining a vector defined by the set of the values of said statistical estimators; -(220) individuating, among all the vectors stored at step (150) and associated with a different movement, the one with the lower Euclidean distance from the point defined at step (210); -(230) providing the user with a feedback indicating the movement individuated at point (220).”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3, which depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein said method provides at step (230) to provide also the user with an indication relative to the Euclidean distance between the vector calculated at step (210) and the vector individuated at step (220).”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4, which depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein said method provides, after step (230), a procedure of usage of said device, comprising the steps of: -(300) acquiring, at predetermined time intervals, the signals (Ns) coming from said at least one electrode, for a predetermined duration and storing them in a relative buffer.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising a position sensor configured to recognize a plurality of positions of reference and characterized in that said method provides to repeat the steps (100) to (150) for each one of said positions of reference, storing for each one and for each movement of point (140) as well as for the rest condition a vector defined by the set of the values of the features calculated at point (130).”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1 therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 26 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein said method comprises also, before step (300), the steps of: -(298) acquiring by means of said position sensor the position of the prosthetic device, thus identifying the significant position of reference;-(299) selecting the set of reference points representing each movement relative to the position identified at point (298).”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 26 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… an automatic updating procedure of the vectors stored at step (150), comprising the steps of: -(400) with the device being used, starting a timer of predetermined period; -(410) storing the values of the features relative to the first movement following the timer expiring of point (400) associated with the rest condition, thus defining a first vector (Rest_1) associated with said first movement associated with the rest condition, and starting a new timer of predetermined period; -(420) storing the values of the features relative to the first movement following the timer expiring of point (410) associated with the rest condition, thus defining a second vector (Rest_2) associated with the rest condition; -(430) calculating the Euclidean distances of each one the two vectors defined at steps (410) and (420) from the reference vector representing the rest condition (Rest ref) stored at step (150); -(440) in case the distance between the reference vector (Rest ref) stored at step (150) and said second vector associated with the rest condition defined at step (420) is greater than the distance between the reference vector (Rest ref) stored at step (150) and said first vector associated with the rest condition defined at step (410), updating the values of said reference vector according to what known at point (450), on the contrary, not updating said values.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… defining the mathematical form of a function of dependency of the output value of said proportional control as a function of the features calculated for the signal recorded by each sensor, said mathematical form comprising the summation of at least a term directly proportional to each ith feature by means of a respective coefficient (-9(oli),(1100) setting with a value equal to 1 the values of all the coefficients (o ei, oni) defining said mathematical form and which are not relative to the direct proportionality to a feature;(1200) estimating the values of said coefficients of direct proportionality (CO i) defined at point (1000) by means of an error reduction algorithm which, for a plurality of percentage values of the instruction to be used for the actuator, imposes that the summation of the maximums recorded during the execution of the movement for each feature (Fimax), multiplied each by the respective coefficient of proportionality (-4(o1i) and by the considered percentage value, is equal to the percentage values of the instruction to be used for the actuator.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martin; James Jay (US Publication #US 20160278947 A1; hereinafter Martin).
Regarding claim 1, Martin teaches A prosthetic device (fig.1) comprising:
- a limb or artificial joint or orthosis or a partial or full exoskeleton (fig.1) comprising a mechanism provided with at least an actuator and configured to carry out one or more actions (figs. 20A-C illustrate the use of a linear actuator to control a prosthetic system);
- a supplying source (par.188 and fig.9 #130);
- at least an input source (par.250 “a myoelectric sensor system 400”) modulated by the contraction of one or more muscles of the subject wearing the device (par.270 “Myoelectric controls and/or myoelectric sensor system 400 may provide a prosthetic system wherein instantaneous communication or signals from the user to the prosthesis is achieved for better regulating, controlling, or positioning the prosthesis. It is understood that the human body produces electrical signal through muscular and other activity.”), comprising at least an electrode (par.270 “applying that to control prosthetic movement may be utilized as well, such as but not limited to implanted electrode arrays”);
- electronic computing means (fig.12 microprocessor 172), on which computer programs are loaded (par.242), configured to detect the signals coming from said at least one input source and to actuate said at least one actuator in order that said mechanism carries out an action as a function of the signals coming from said at least one input sources and
wherein
on said computing means computer programs are loaded configured to carry out a method comprising the steps of:
(100) recording the signals (Ns) detected by said at least one electrode while said subject wearing the device is in a predetermined condition of movement or rest, for a predetermined time interval AT (par.327 average angular velocity and historical angular velocity are calculated; which means the signals must be recorded in a predetermined time interval);
(110) subdividing each of said signals (Ns) in a plurality of time intervals of predetermined duration (par.327 average angular velocity and historical angular velocity are calculated; which means the signals must be subdivided into a plurality of time intervals);
(120) extracting from the signal relative to each of the time intervals defined at point (120) at least a characteristic parameter (feature) relative to the signal selected from the list comprising:
peak or peak-to-peak average amplitude, peak or peak-to-peak maximum amplitude, effective value (par.327 angular velocity is extracted and the average angular velocity is the “effective value”), power spectrum average frequency, power spectrum median frequency, -6dB power spectrum band, -20dB power spectrum band;
(130) calculating a statistical estimator for each feature calculated at point (120) (par.327 average angular velocity is a statistically estimator),
(140) repeating the steps (100) to (130) sequentially (par.230) with said subject in rest condition (par.245) and, in the following, with said subject carrying out a known movement selected from a list of a plurality of predetermined movements (Mov_1, Mov_2, ..., Move n) for each iteration (par.398-404 specifically describes the plurality of predetermined movements; because the invention relates to control of a prosthesis, it is inherent the steps are repeated endlessly),
(150) associating a vector defined by the set of the values of the features calculated at point (130) with each movement known carried out by the subject and with the rest condition of point (140) (par.301-303 teaches association of various vector quantities “This may require force sensor and/or angle information, amongst others to be analyzed to assess the force distribution, and force changing velocity in placement over the foot, gait cycle moments, and others.”), and storing said vectors (par.272 “the prosthesis system may employ pattern recognition to differentiate between different user inputs or to analyze the historical data stored in its memory bank to recognize different gait or terrain patterns.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20130261766 A1; Langlois; David et al. is a powered prosthetic hip joint.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858