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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “224” has been used to designate both memory (¶ [0061]) and I/O device (¶ [0074]).
Reference character “228” has been used to designate I/O devices (¶ [0061]), display (¶ [0061]), power source (¶ [0074]).
They do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 154.
They include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 308, 312, 408.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 1-8 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 array of movement data" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-6 are likewise rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the electromechanical hand” in lines 9, 12, 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-6 are likewise rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the array of movement data" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the second label" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first label" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. These claims are an omnibus type claim.
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 (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 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 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(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levay (Incorporating User Feedback in Supervised Machine Learning for Long-term Prosthesis Control) in view of Karri (Information Centric Updating Scheme Using EASRC for Upper-Limb Myoelectric Control).
Regarding claim 1, Levay discloses a prosthetic system comprising:
a prosthetic device (fig. 3-1) comprising:
one or more sensors configured to detect myoelectrical signals of a patient (electrodes, page 68); and
a controller (IBT Core Controller, fig. 3-1, page 67) configured to:
provide the array of movement data as input to a classification model (page 67-68), the array of movement data based on the detected myoelectric signals (page 67-68);
an electronic device (watch/iPhone, fig. 3-1) configured to:
receive, from the prosthetic device, an indication of the first and second movements; (fig. 3-1)
output, a selectable interface element for indicating the second movement as the intended movement of the patient (fig. 3-1); and
in response to the patient selecting the user interface element, causing the classification model to be updated (fig. 3-1 and fig. 3-2, page 41).
Levay fails to teach the classification model has a first and second classification corresponding to a first and second movement each with a confidence metric where the second confidence metric is lower than the first confidence metric and a control command is transmitted to the electromechanical hand to perform the first movement. However, Karri discloses a classification model for myoelectric control of a prosthesis that includes from the classification model (EASRC, pg. 35-36):
a first classification (Class A, fig. 3.1) corresponding to a first movement to be performed by the electromechanical hand (each class is a grip which corresponds to a movement, page 47);
a first confidence metric associated with the first classification (page 36); and
a second classification (Class B, fig. 3.1) corresponding to a second movement to be performed by the electromechanical hand (each class is a grip which corresponds to a movement, page 47); and
a second confidence metric associated with the second classification (page 36), the second confidence metric lower than the first confidence metric (page 36); and
transmit, to the electromechanical hand, a control command to perform the first movement (page 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the classification model of Levay to include a first and second classification corresponding to a first and second movement each with a confidence metric where the second confidence metric is lower than the first confidence metric and a control command is transmitted to the electromechanical hand to perform the first movement as taught by Karri in order to take advantage of ELM's speed and SRC's robustness in order to quickly and effectively classify inputs (page 35-36, Karri).
Regarding claim 2, Levay fails to teach the update to the classification model causes the model to out up the second movement with a higher confidence than the first movement. However, Karri further discloses the update to the classification model causes the classification model, in response to receiving the array of movement data, to output the second label with a higher confidence than the first label (page 65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the classification model of Levay to include the update to the classification model causes the model to out up the second movement with a higher confidence than the first movement as taught by Karri in order to take advantage of ELM's speed and SRC's robustness in order to quickly and effectively classify inputs (page 35-36, Karri).
Regarding claim 3, Levay further teaches the prosthetic device further comprises: a frame configured to couple to a limb of a patient (cuff, fig. 4-6); and the one or more sensors are coupled to the frame (fig. 4-6).
Regarding claim 4, Levay further teaches the prosthetic device further comprises an interface (fig. 3-1, fig. 4-6) for coupling to an electromechanical hand (BeBionic V3 multi-articulated prosthetic hand, page 69, fig. 4-6).
Regarding claim 5, Levay further teaches the electronic device comprises:
a touch-sensitive display (touch screen, fig3-1 and fig. 3-2); and
the touch-sensitive display is configured to display the selectable interface element (fig. 3-1).
Regarding claim 6, Levay further teaches the selectable interface element is selected via a patient interaction with the touch-sensitive display (fig. 3-1).
Regarding claim 7, Levay teaches a prosthetic system as shown and described (fig. 3-1 and fig. 3-2, pages 41 and 67-68). Levay fails to teach the classification model has a first and second classification corresponding to a first and second movement each with a confidence metric where the second confidence metric is lower than the first confidence metric and a control command is transmitted to the electromechanical hand to perform the first movement. However, Karri discloses a classification model as shown and described. (EASRC, pg. 35-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the classification model of Levay to include a first and second classification corresponding to a first and second movement each with a confidence metric where the second confidence metric is lower than the first confidence metric and a control command is transmitted to the electromechanical hand to perform the first movement as taught by Karri in order to take advantage of ELM's speed and SRC's robustness in order to quickly and effectively classify inputs (page 35-36, Karri).
Regarding claim 8, Levay teaches a method of operating a prosthetic system as shown and described (fig. 3-1 and fig. 3-2, pages 41 and 67-68). Levay fails to teach the classification model has a first and second classification corresponding to a first and second movement each with a confidence metric where the second confidence metric is lower than the first confidence metric and a control command is transmitted to the electromechanical hand to perform the first movement. However, Karri discloses a classification model as shown and described. (EASRC, pg. 35-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the classification model of Levay to include a first and second classification corresponding to a first and second movement each with a confidence metric where the second confidence metric is lower than the first confidence metric and a control command is transmitted to the electromechanical hand to perform the first movement as taught by Karri in order to take advantage of ELM's speed and SRC's robustness in order to quickly and effectively classify inputs (page 35-36, Karri).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M DUDDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm 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 C EDWARDS can be reached at (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.
/T.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799