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 Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to for referring to “sound sensing” when it appears this is missing a hyphen.
Claim 2 is objected to for referring to “Hall effect”, and “sound sensing”, when it is understood these should include hyphens.
Further, the claim is unclear for claiming the device can include combinations of the listed sensing elements, but it unclear how the sensing element can be a “combination” of those items – for example, what is a combination hyrdrophone and antenna sensor – how does it work, and what is it’s structure?
Claim 3 is objected to for referring to a “pole area pad”. While it is unclear what this term is (see 112 rejections below), it is possible this requires a hyphen.
Claim 4 is objected to for claiming the insulation is a “combination” of one of the various listed elements, since as was noted above, it is unclear how the insulation is a “combination” of the various elements – for example, what is a combination of an insulation against liquid, insulations against chemicals, and dielectric insulations – what is it’s structure or material, how is it made, and how does it work?
Claim 6 is objected to for listing various elements (action time, pause length, two dimensional, three dimensional) which appear to require hyphens.
Further, the claim is unclear as above, for claiming that the parameter is a “combination” of the listed parameters, but it is unclear what a combination parameter is and how it works. For example, how does the controller set a combination parameter of velocity and action time?
The claim is further objected to for claiming “paramether” which appears to be spelled incorrectly.
Claim 7 is objected to for missing a hyphen between “field” and “potential”.
The claim is also objected to for claiming the sensor is a combination of the listed sensors, since it is unclear how the sensor is a combination of the various sensors – how such a sensor might be constructed, and how it might function.
Claim 9 is objected to for claiming “at least one said sound” is selected from a group, when claim 1 does not refer to a sound. The claim refers to a sound sensing system, but there is no sound within the claim.
Claim 10 is objected to for missing hyphens between the terms capacitance sensing, inductance sensing, field effect, digital measurement.
Further, the claim is unclear for again describing the electrocomponent being a “combination” of one of the listed components since it is unclear how such a combination component would be structured and/or how it would function.
Claim 12 is objected to for referring to “a prosthesis, orthosis, or exoskeleton device” with improper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 is objected to for referring to “an information”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sound sensing element (presumably from figure 22 item 506) comprising microphones, hydrophones, coils, capacitors, optical systems, Hall-effect sensors, piezoelectric sensors, electro-mechanical sensors, antenna sensors, analog sensors, digital sensors, and the combination element thereof (claim 2), the “sound sensing coil” (claim 3), “component” (claim 4), “insulation” (claim 4), the thermal insulations, electrical insulations, dielectric insulations, etc. (claim 4), the actuator (claim 5), the communications interface (claim 8), the exterior computing system (claim 8), the elcetrocomponent (claim 10, 14) and the electrocomponent being each of the listed elements and combinations (claim 10), the mechanocomponent (claim 11, 14), and the mechanocomponent being each of the listed elements and combinations (claim 11), the sensitive array (claim 16),
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because:
-item 141 is used to represent “bionic limb system”, “wearable device”, “external device”, and “prosthesis”
-the specification describes item 141 as pointing to a “human and wearable device” (among other things, see above objection), but figure 3 appears to point to item 141 pointing towards four chords or some other tubular structure
-item 101 is used to represent exoskeleton/prosthetic/orthotic device, “bionic limb”, and also “prosthetic device”
-item 104 is used to represent both “controller” and “artificial processor”
-Figure 4 item 163 is used to represent “acoustic sensor” but it appears the item in figure 4 might be pointing towards a hand, or possibly lines
-Figure 6 item 208 is not pointing towards anything
-Figure 12 item 311 is talking about a “bionic limb system” but the figure appears to just be pointing towards a hand
-various parts of the figures appear to be pointing towards a “bionic limb system”, but the figures appear to illustrate various items which do not all appear to be pointing towards the same structure(s)
-item 347 is described by the specification as being a diaphragm, and item 348a-b are described as being “cores”, but the figures appear to just show lines and do not appear to show a core or a diaphragm.
-item 367 id described by the specification as being a diaphragm and item 368 is described as being an “optical transducer”, but the shapes shown in the figures do not appear to show these items. Further, the transfer 367 appears to be the exact same thing/shape as the “cores” 348.
-item 465 is described as being a “freeze box” but it is unclear what this is, as the term is not known in the art, and the figures do not appear to clarify what this might be. the specification likewise does not describe or explain what this might be
-item 248a is in the specification but not the figures
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors can be found on the following pages/lines: 8/16, 8/23, 9/11, 12/21 (erroneously provided hyphen), 14/17, 14/18, 15/18, 16/29 (missing hyphen), 16/3 (hyphen or missing hyphen), 21/23.
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.
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.
Claims 2-3, 12-16 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is indefinite for claiming the device further includes a sounding sensing element” when this is claimed as a distinct structure from the “sound sensing system” of claim 1. However, the specification appears to describe the sound sensing element as being a part of the sound sensing system, making it unclear whether or not the sound sensing system and element are actually partly co-extensive or not.
Claim 3 is indefinite since it is unclear what a “pole area pad” is. The specification appears to use the term, but does not elaborate on what exactly it is. The Examiner does not believe this is a term in the art, and is unclear what it might mean, what it entails, and what its scope is.
Further, the claim is unclear for referring to “said sound sensing coil” when there is no “sound sensing coil” in the previous claims from which this claim depends. Notably, claim 2 does refer to a “sound sensing element” as well as “coils”, and claim 1 refers to a “sound sensing system”. It is possible the claim is referring to one of these three elements, but it is unclear. For the purposes of examination, this will be understood to mean the “coils” of the “sound sensing elements” (if present) have a pole area pad.
Claim 12 is indefinite for claiming the steps “can be” separated, when it is unclear, for the scope of the claim, whether the steps must be separated or not.
Claim 13 is indefinite for claiming “in a prosthesis, orthosis or exoskeleton device for…” a purpose, “said device comprising…” elements to generate a “signal controlling said…device control method, the method comprising the steps of…”. The claim appears to claim something “in” a device, but then appears to attempt to claim method steps. It is unclear what the claim is attempting to claim, since it appears to attempt to claim a device, its purpose, its components, as well as a control method in one sentence. The Examiner is unable to determine the scope or requirements of the claim since this is unclear. For the purposes of examination, this will be understood to be a “device”.
Claims 14-16 are indefinite for claiming the “device control method according to claim 13” when claim 13 does not appear to refer to a “device control method”.
Remaining claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 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) 1-3, 5-6, 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lei et al. (CN 107647951 A), hereinafter known as Lei.
Regarding claims 1, 5-6 Lei discloses a device for restoring lost functionality to a patient that suffers from at least partial loss of a limb (The applicant is advised that, while the features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In addition, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2144 (I). In this case, the patented apparatus of Lei discloses (as detailed above) all the structural limitations required to perform the recited functional language, therefore was considered to anticipate the claimed apparatus. See, for example the translation page 2 paragraph 1: “China has large paralysis or lost due to disease, accident caused by limbs function”), the device comprising:
a sound-sensing system (page 3 paragraph 3: “obtaining voice information” indicates the inherent presence of a sound-sensing system; see also page 5, last paragraph: “obtains sound signal can be for example by phone APP microphone”) that communicates with a controller to generate a signal to control the device (This is stated as an “intended use” of the claimed device. The applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 (II). In this case, the patented structure of Lei was considered capable of performing the cited intended use of communicating with a controller. See, for example page 3 paragraphs 1-3: “a method for assisting limb motion, the method comprising: generating command information by the inner computer”, “the generating order information by the upper computer, comprising: obtaining voice information…generates identification information, and generating the command information through the identification information”.), the controller commands an actuator (the controller is not a positively claimed part of the device, and this appears to also be an “intended use” of the non-claimed controller), and the controller sets a parameter (the controller is not a positively claimed part of the device, and this appears to also be an “intended use” of the non-claimed controller).
Regarding claims 2-3 Lei discloses the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Lei further discloses a sound-sensing element which is a microphone (page 5 last paragraph: “obtains sound signal can be for example by phone APP microphone”).
Regarding claim 8 Lei discloses the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Lei further discloses a communications interface to communicate with an exterior computing system (page 10, paragraphs 3-4: “readable storage medium comprises the program code can use any appropriate media transport, including byt not limited to wireless, wired, optical fiber cable, RF, etc.”, and “program code can be executed…on a remote computing device, or completely executed on a remote computing device or server” so the devices are connected via a “local area network (LAN)”.).
Regarding claim 9 Lei discloses the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed, wherein a sound is selected from those listed (the “sound” is not a positively-claimed part of the device).
Regarding claim 10 Lei discloses the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed, coupled with an electrocomponent (the coupling of the device to an electrocomponent appears to be an intended use of the claimed device, which does not materially alter the structure of the device).
Regarding claim 11 Lei discloses the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed, coupled with a mechanocomponent the coupling of the device to an mechanocomponent appears to be an intended use of the claimed device, which does not materially alter the structure of the device).
Regarding claim 12 Lei discloses a prosthesis, orthosis, or exoskeleton device control method comprising:
providing the device for restoring lost functionality to a patient that suffers from at least partial loss of a limb (page 2 paragraph 1: “China has large paralysis or lost due to disease, accident caused by limbs function”; page 2 paragraph 2 “and a deletion for a patient for limbs, limb as necessities in many limb disabled patient global, only a few people can load it wearing the prosthesis”), the device comprising a sound-sensing system (page 3 paragraph 3: “obtaining voice information” indicates the inherent presence of a sound-sensing system; see also page 5, last paragraph: “obtains sound signal can be for example by phone APP microphone”) that communicates with a controller to generate a signal to control the device (page 3 paragraphs 1-3: “a method for assisting limb motion, the method comprising: generating command information by the inner computer”, “the generating order information by the upper computer, comprising: obtaining voice information…generates identification information, and generating the command information through the identification information”.),
giving an acoustic command (page 5 last paragraph “obtains sound signal can be for example by phone APP microphone”),
executing the voice command by means of the device to perform movements (page 6 paragraph 4: “the lower computer analyzes the command information and generating the control instruction”), wherein the steps can be repeated.
Regarding claim 13 Lei discloses in a prosthesis, orthosis, or exoskeleton device for restoring lost functionality to a patient that suffers from at least partial loss of a limb (this is stated as a functional limitation of the claimed device (see the explanation regarding “functional limitations” in the rejection to claim 1 above). See also Lei page 2 paragraph 1: “China has large paralysis or lost due to disease, accident caused by limbs function”; page 2 paragraph 2 “and a deletion for a patient for limbs, limb as necessities in many limb disabled patient global, only a few people can load it wearing the prosthesis”,
the device comprising:
a sound-sensing system (page 3 paragraph 3: “obtaining voice information” indicates the inherent presence of a sound-sensing system; see also page 5, last paragraph: “obtains sound signal can be for example by phone APP microphone”) that communicates with a controller generating a signal controlling the device (This is stated as an “intended use” of the claimed device. See the explanation in the rejection to claim 1 above. See also (page 3 paragraphs 1-3: “a method for assisting limb motion, the method comprising: generating command information by the inner computer”, “the generating order information by the upper computer, comprising: obtaining voice information…generates identification information, and generating the command information through the identification information”.),
the device method of control comprising the steps of: measuring contraction/stretching of part of the device with an expanding sensor, the sensor being configured to include an expanding structure, wherein a changement in the expanding structure parameters can change a defined reasonance frequency and/or harmonics thereof, and processing an information from the expanding sensor in a processor to determine a position of the device (this is stated as an intended method of use (see the explanation regarding “intended use” statements in the rejection to claim 1 above). The device of claim 13 is understood to be capable of being controlled via the method described.),
Regarding claim 14 Lei discloses the [device?] of claim 13 substantially as is claimed, wherein the expanding sensor is coupled with an electrocomponent to enhance functionality of the device (the expanding sensor and anything else it is coupled is not a part of the [claimed device]).
Regarding claim 15 Lei discloses the [device?] of claim 13 substantially as is claimed, wherein the expanding sensor includes a moveable electrode (the expanding sensor is not a part of the [claimed device]).
Regarding claim 16 Lei discloses the [device?] of claim 13 substantially as is claimed, wherein the expanding sensors form a sensitive array (the expanding sensor is not a part of the [claimed device]).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei as is applied above in view of Cornman et al. (US 20200306059 A1) hereinafter known as Cornman.
Regarding claim 4 Lei discloses the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to whether a component exists which is provided with an insulation.
However, regarding claim 4 Cornman teaches a device which includes a component which is provided with an insulation against dirt ([0015] a component (motor) includes a housing (which is understood to inherently physically block dirt where it covers the motor)). Lei and Cornman are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetic devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Lei by including a component which includes a component with an insulation as is taught by Cornman in order to ensure the device includes a mechanism to move the prosthetic in question, as well as to ensure the component is shielded from dirt which could enter and ruin the motor with everyday wear and tear otherwise, thus extending the length of life of the device as a whole.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei as is applied above in view of Yang et al. (CN 114732577 A) hereinafter known as Yang.
Regarding claim 7 Lei discloses the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to there being a sensor.
However, regarding claim 7 Yang teaches a device which includes a sensor comprising a biologic functions sensor (Abstract: myoelectric signal connecting module). Lei and Yang are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prosthetics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Lei by including an additional sensor as is taught by Yang in order to augment the control method of the device of Lei, since voice and myoelectric information can work together to provide better control over a device as opposed to a voice command alone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacqueline Woznicki whose telephone number is (571)270-5603. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm 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, 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.
/Jacqueline Woznicki/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 08/20/25