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 1-13 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
The remarks of 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art doesn't explicitly teach or disclose all the elements of amended claim 1. In particular, applicant argues the following claim language:
“wherein the spring element is biased to a first length to apply tension to the force transmission element and is compressible to a second length which is shorter than the first length during passive pivoting,
wherein when the spring element is compressed to the second length the force transmission element is not under tension and is yielding under pressure of the passive pivoting, and
wherein the spring element remains biased to the first length when the drive actively displaces the pivot element between the starting position and the pivoting position”
This argument is moot in light of the new 103 rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“force transmission element” in claims 1-13
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-3, 5, 7-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0262634 (Puchhammer) in view of US 2016/0367383 (Sensinger) in view of US 6,896,704 (Higuchi)
Regarding claim 1, Puchhammer discloses an orthopedic device, comprising:
a base (Fig. 2, 2);
a pivot element (Fig. 2, finger prostheses 4, 5) mounted in an articulated manner on the base (¶0025, wherein “movable mounting” corresponds to mounted in an articulated manner);
a force transmission element (Fig. 1, 10) for displacing the pivot element (¶0027, wherein 10 articulates 4, 5);
a drive (Fig. 1, 6) connected to the force transmission element (Fig. 2, wherein 6 is connected to 10 via 7) wherein the pivot element is displaceable from a starting position into a pivoting position that is pivoted in relation to the starting position (¶0027, wherein fingers 3,4,5 are configured for this intended use because they can be pivoted), wherein the force transmission element (Fig. 2, 10) permits passive pivoting of the pivot element (Fig. 2, 4) in a direction of the pivoting position without activation of the drive (¶0007, wherein “ a force that brings about closing of the hand or reduction of the angle between the finger prosthesis and the hand chassis” corresponds to permitting passive pivoting in a direction of the pivoting position);
Puchhammer suggests that the force transmission unit may be configured as a spring-damper unit (see ¶0011, “spring-damper unit”) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a spring element designed for counteracting passive pivoting of the pivot element into the pivoting position assigned to the pivot element.
Sensinger discloses an orthopedic device (Fig. 7) comprising: a spring element (Fig. 7, 111) designed for counteracting passive pivoting of the pivot element (Fig. 7, wherein 143 corresponds to passive pivoting of pivot element 100) into the pivoting position assigned to the pivot element (Fig. 7, wherein 111 is designed for this intended use because it locks the finger in position), and wherein the force transmission element (Fig. 7, 104) blocks deformation of the spring element during pivoting by the drive (Fig. 1, 150) into a respective pivoting position (Fig. 7, wherein spring 111 is not deformed because it is static when in either the locked or unlocked position when drive 150 pivots 100 into a flexed position)
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 force transmission element of Puchhammer with spring element designed to counteract passive pivoting and to not deform when pivoted by the drive, as taught by Sensinger, in order to provide a prosthetic digit with a better power-to-weight ratio that is also suitable for fine manipulation task (Sensinger, ¶0015).
Puchhammer doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a force transmission element that is rigid under tension and yielding under pressure, or where the spring element is biased to a first length to apply tension to the force transmission element and is compressible to a second length which is shorter than the first length during passive pivoting, wherein when the spring element is compressed to the second length the force transmission element is not under tension and is yielding under pressure of the passive pivoting, and wherein the spring element remains biased to the first length when the drive actively displaces the pivot element between the starting position and the pivoting position. Sensinger doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a force transmission element that is rigid under tension and yielding under pressure, or where the spring element is biased to a first length to apply tension to the force transmission element and is compressible to a second length which is shorter than the first length during passive pivoting, wherein when the spring element is compressed to the second length the force transmission element is not under tension and is yielding under pressure of the passive pivoting, and wherein the spring element remains biased to the first length when the drive actively displaces the pivot element between the starting position and the pivoting position.
Higuchi discloses an orthopedic device (Fig. 2) comprising:
a force transmission element (Fig. 2, 11) that is rigid under tension and yielding under pressure (Col. 8, wherein a “wire” is rigid under tension and yielding under pressure), and
a spring element (Fig. 2, 21), wherein the spring element is biased to a first length to apply tension to the force transmission element (see Fig. 2, wherein the extended position corresponds to the “first length” and holds tension on 11) and is compressible to a second length which is shorter than the first length during passive pivoting (Fig. 2, wherein 21 is configured to shorten during passive pivoting of 3), wherein when the spring element is compressed to the second length the force transmission element is not under tension and is yielding under pressure of the passive pivoting (Fig. 2, wherein 21 is configured to lose tension when 3 is passively pivoted) and,
wherein the spring element remains biased to the first length when the drive actively displaces the pivot element between the starting position and the pivoting position (Fig. 2, wherein 21 remains in the extended position when the finger is actively pivoted by 16, see Col. 9, Lines 27-55).
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 orthopedic device of Puchhammer in view of Sensinger with a force transmission element and a spring element, as taught by Higuchi, in order to provide a firm grip on objects (Col. 4, Lines 51-56)
Regarding claim 2, Puchhammer discloses a force transmission element (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a spring element.
Sensinger discloses a spring element (Fig. 7, 111) which is mounted on the force transmission element or on an abutment (Fig. 7, wherein spring element 111 is mounted on abutment 108) which is displaceable together with the force transmission element (Fig. 7, wherein 108 is displaceable together with 104 when driven by 150).
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 force transmission element of Puchhammer with spring element mounted on an abutment, as taught by Sensinger, in order to resiliently hold the finger in place.
Regarding claim 3, Puchhammer discloses wherein the force transmission element is in a form selected from the group consisting of a flexible tension means (¶0029, wherein a cable corresponds to a flexible tension means), a movably mounted rod, a movably mounted sleeve, and a telescopic rod.
Regarding claim 5, Puchhammer discloses an orthopedic device (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a spring element.
Sensinger discloses a spring element (Fig. 7, 111) in a form selected from the group consisting of a helical spring, a spiral spring (¶0041, wherein a “torsion spring” corresponds to a spiral spring), a disk spring, and an elastomer element.
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 Puchhammer with a spiral spring, as taught by Sensinger, in order to resist passive flexion of the prosthetic finger.
Regarding claim 7, Puchhammer further discloses wherein the drive (Fig. 1, 6) is mounted on the base (Fig. 1, wherein 6 is mounted on 2) or on or in the force transmission element.
Regarding claim 8, Puchhammer further discloses a force transmission element (Fig. 2, 10) which is mounted on the drive (Fig. 1, 6) via a gear mechanism and/or a holder (Fig. 1, ¶0027, wherein 7 corresponds to a holder because 10 is mounted on 6 via 7)
Regarding claim 9, Puchhammer further discloses a pivot element (Fig. 2, 4) in a form of a prosthetic finger or in a form of a distal part of the prosthetic finger (Fig. 2, wherein finger prosthesis 4 corresponds to both a prosthetic finger and the distal part of the prosthetic finger)
Regarding claim 10, Puchhammer further discloses a base (Fig. 2, 2) which is in a form selected from the group consisting of a prosthetic hand chassis (Fig. 2, wherein 2 corresponds to a prosthetic hand chassis), and proximal part of a prosthetic finger.
Regarding claim 11, Puchhammer further discloses wherein the drive comprises an electric motor (¶0026, “electric motor 6”)
Regarding claim 13, Puchhammer discloses a force transmission element (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose a spring element.
Sensinger discloses wherein the spring element (Fig. 7, 111) is movable without deformation (¶0042, wherein spring 111 rotates without deformation) with flexion of the force transmission element (Fig. 7. 104) into the pivoting position (¶0017, wherein a position of flexion corresponds to the pivoting position)
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 Puchhammer with a spring element, as taught by Sensinger, in order to lock the finger without requiring additional actuation.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0262634 (Puchhammer) in view of US 2016/0367383 (Sensinger) in view of US 6,896,704 (Higuchi), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0339009 (Benning)
Regarding claim 4, Puchhammer discloses a force transmission element (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein the force transmission element is mounted movably in a direction of deformation of the spring element. Sensinger doesn't explicitly teach or disclose is mounted movably in a direction of deformation of the spring element. Higuchi doesn't explicitly teach or disclose is mounted movably in a direction of deformation of the spring element.
Benning discloses a prosthetic digit (Fig. 4A, 400) wherein the force transmission element (Fig. 5a, 459) is rigid under pressure (¶0068, wherein “mechanically-connected rigid links” corresponds to rigid under pressure) and is mounted movably in a direction of deformation of the spring element (see annotated Figs. 5C-5E below)
PNG
media_image1.png
601
944
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 force transmission element of Puchhammer in view of Sensinger in view of Higuchi to be rigid under pressure and mounted movably in a direction of deformation of the spring element, as taught by Benning, in order to reliably and robust open and close the prosthetic digit (Benning, ¶0141).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0262634 (Puchhammer) in view of US 2016/0367383 (Sensinger) in view of US 6,896,704 (Higuchi), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 4,685,929 (Monestier)
Regarding claim 6, Puchhammer discloses a force transmission element (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a spring element. Sensinger doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose wherein the force transmission element is guided within the spring element. Higuchi doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose wherein the force transmission element is guided within the spring element
Monestier discloses an orthopedic device (Fig. 2, 1) wherein the force transmission element (Fig. 2, 36) is guided within the spring element (Fig. 2, wherein 36 is guided within 37)
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 force transmission element of Puchhammer in view of Sensinger in view of Higuchi to be guided within the spring element, as taught by Monestier, in order to neutralize the friction of the force transmitting mechanism.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0262634 (Puchhammer) in view of US 2016/0367383 (Sensinger) in view of US 6,896,704 (Higuchi), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US US 2016/0089251 (Mandl)
Regarding claim 12, Puchhammer discloses a drive (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose that the drive is self-locking. Sensinger discloses a drive (Fig. 7, 150) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose that the drive is self-locking. Higuchi doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a self-locking drive
Mandl discloses an artificial finger wherein the drive is self-locking (¶0015, self-locking electric motor”)
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 drive of Puchhammer in view of Sensinger in view of Higuchi to be self-locking, as taught by Mandl, in order to lock the finger in position, for example when the user is holding a drink, without additional power consumption.
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 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
/YASHITA SHARMA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774