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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive in light of the amendments. Particularly, the examiner agrees with applicant’s argument that Samadi does not teach “a transfer learning model having a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture with a set of weights pre-trained on ImageNet for obtaining extracted features from the ultrasound images” since Samadi states that a method of training on ImageNet was ineffective. The examiner also agrees that none of the prior art references disclose the claimed two-stage model arrangement with a separate feature-extractor model feeding a separate downstream classifier in combination with an ultrasound module and a myoelectric hand. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn. Only claim objections and issues under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 112(b) remain, as discussed below.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on 4/13/2026. These amendments are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 17, “the ultrasound images” should recite --ultrasound images-- (ultrasound images of FDS, FDP, and FPL are not previously recited).
In claim 2, line 1, “further comprises” is believed to be in error for --further comprising--.
In claim 4, line 4, “waves which is directed” is believed to be in error for --waves which are directed-- (waves is plural).
In claim 5, line 2, “between head” is believed to be in error for --between a head--.
In claim 9, line 4, “the first mechanical finger” is believed to be in error for --a first mechanical finger-- (the first mechanical finger is not previously recited).
In claim 9, line 5, “the second” is believed to be in error for --a second—(the second mechanical finger is not previously recited).
In claim 9, line 5, “the fifth mechanical finger” is believed to be in error for --a fifth mechanical finger-- (the fifth mechanical finger is not previously recited).
In claim 13, line 4, “the force sensor” is believed to be in error for --a force sensor-- (no particular force sensor is previously recited).
In claim 14, line 2, “stimulating” is believed to be in error for --stimulate--.
In claim 20, line 2, “waves which is directed” is believed to be in error for --waves which are directed-- (waves is plural).
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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
MPEP 2173.05(p)II states that a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, but also recites method steps. In line 11, claim 1 recites “…an artificial intelligence (AI) model executed by one or more processors…”. To clarify, applicant may consider amending the limitation to recite “..an artificial intelligence (AI) model executable by one or more processors…”. Claim 1, lines 13-14 recite “…and the volitional movement is transmitted to the myoelectric hand…” therefore claim 1 is indefinite since both an apparatus and method steps are positively recited. To clarify, applicant may consider amending the limitation to be a functional limitation instead of positively reciting a method step. For instance, lines 13-14 could be amended to recite “…such that the volitional movement can be transmitted to the myoelectric hand…”.
Claim 4, line 6 recites the method step “the ultrasound transducer measures acoustic reflections”. Applicant may consider amending the limitation to recite “the ultrasound transducer is configured to measure
Claim 5, lines 2-3 recite “a sticky silicone pad placed between head of the ultrasound transducer and the residual limb”. This is unclear because the residual limb is part of the human body and the limitation appears to be positively reciting the step of placing the sticky silicone pad between the ultrasound transducer and the residual limb of a person. To overcome the indefiniteness issue, applicant may consider amending the limitation to recite “a sticky silicone pad configured to be placed between a head of the ultrasound transducer and the residual limb”.
Claim 6, line 4 recites the method step of “the transfer learning model extracts features”. To overcome the indefiniteness issue of a method step in an apparatus claim, line 4 could be amended to recite “the transfer learning model is configured to extract
Claim 6, lines 5-6 recite “the extracted features” but it is unclear which “extracted features” this refers to (claim 1 recites extracted features as well). It appears amending lines 5-6 to recite “
Claim 10, lines 5-6 recite “the artificial tendon is attached to the tension spring at a first end, through a fingertip of the individual mechanical finger to the roller at a second end”. This limitation is generally unclear. It is unclear what the “first end” and “second end” refer to. Is it a first and second end of the artificial tendon, or the tension spring, or the roller, or the individual mechanical finger? What does “through a fingertip of the individual mechanical finger” mean? Is this meant to say extends through? Please clarify.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and upon overcoming the claim objections.
Claims 16-19 are allowed.
Claim 20 would be allowable upon overcoming the claim objection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As discussed above, applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the examiner agrees the previously cited prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest the combination of the myoelectric hand, the control assembly, the transfer learning model having a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture with a set of weights pre-trained on ImageNet for obtaining extracted features, and the AI model/real-time analysis configured to classify the extracted features as claimed in claims 1 and 16. Newly cited Sikdar et al. US 11,197,768 is relevant to the claimed invention since Sikdar et al. discloses a prosthetic hand device mountable on a residual limb of an amputee, comprising: a myoelectric hand comprising five mechanical fingers actuatable to provide multiple degrees of freedom of movement; a control assembly comprising an ultrasound module as a human-machine interface (HMI), wherein the ultrasound module is configured to acquire ultrasound images of a region of the residual limb; wherein a system determines volitional movement of the amputee, and the volitional movement can be transmitted to the myoelectric hand to control the five mechanical fingers based on at least the volitional movement, wherein: the ultrasound module is configured to capture the ultrasound images of flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS), flexor digitorum profundus (FDP), and flexor pollicis longus (FPL) muscles for determining the volitional movement of the amputee. However, Sikdar et al. only discloses an image-processing algorithm for identifying landmarks and does not disclose a transfer learning model having a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture with a set of weights pre-trained on ImageNet for obtaining extracted features from the ultrasound images and an artificial intelligence (Al) model executable by one or more processors and configured to classify the extracted features from the ultrasound images for determining a volitional movement of the amputee in real-time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN Y WOLF whose telephone number is (571)270-3071. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-2pm.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at (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 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.
/MEGAN Y WOLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
