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 9-10, 12, 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 is objected to for:
first bullet point: the use of “respectively” appears to be grammatically in the wrong place for it to indicate that the distal segment is a foot if it represents the lower limb that contacts a ground, or the distal segment is a hand if it represents the upper limb gripping an object
second bullet point: the location of the word “respectively” is again in the wrong location, as there is nothing for the tibia or forearm to be “respectively” tied to within this phrase.
third bullet point: the claim refers to the prosthetic distal and middle segments being “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” but it appears this intends the hinge device to be positionable between the two segments (e.g. on one end or a second end) as opposed to on “hands”. The use of “hands”, particularly with the improper antecedent basis, muddies the meaning of the claim since it appears to refer back to the previously claimed “prosthetic hand”. However, from the disclosure/specification the Examiner believes this is a simple grammatical issue as opposed to a reference back to “hands”.
Further, there is improper antecedent basis for “the environment”, “the positioning”, and “three-dimensional point clouds”.
Further, the use of the term “respectively” throughout the last paragraph appears to be used incorrectly, since there is no alternative being referred to for there to be one thing or another (respectively).
Further, the claim is unclear for referring to assembling “a plurality of three-dimensional point clouds” when the claim has already positively identified “a three dimensional point cloud”, making it unclear how, if at all, the two recitations are related to one another.
Claim 10 is objected to for referring to almost every single element with improper antecedent basis. It appears the claim is written as if it were an independent claim (except for the introduction), although it depends from claim 9 and so should acquire its dependencies therefrom.
The claim is further unclear for claiming the prosthesis of claim 9, “forming” a bionic lower limb prosthesis, since it is unclear whether this intends a method of formation of the prosthesis (which does not appear to be supported or mentioned by the specification), or whether this is a word used that does not properly indicate the intent behind the claim. The steps and elements that follow in the claim do not appear to be drawn towards forming a prosthesis, and actually refer to the exact same steps already positively required by the claim from which this depends, making this unclear.
Claim 12 is objected to for having improper antecedent basis for “a motion intention”.
Claim 14 is objected to for the same reason as the third bullet point in claim 9, which refers to “hands”. Please see the objection above.
Claim 15 is objected to for the same reasons as claim 9 above.
The claim is also objected to for referring to “the current state” and “the motions” with improper antecedent basis.
Claim 16 is objected to for referring to almost every single element with improper antecedent basis. It appears the claim is written as if it were an independent claim (except for the introduction), although it depends from claim 15 and so should acquire its dependencies therefrom.
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 upper limb, prosthetic hand, free end of the bionic prosthesis, object to be gripped, prosthetic forearm, the motor-driven hinge device of the upper limb, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because they appear to be method steps which are written in another language.
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.
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 9-16 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 9 is indefinite for claiming “a prosthetic distal segment of the lower or upper limb” when the claim has identified the upper/lower limb as presumably being a part of the user/subject/human utilizing the prosthesis. Notably, the claim states previously that the claimed “bionic prosthesis” is “usable on a lower limb or an upper limb”, indicating that the upper/lower limb appears to be a part of the user. This makes it unclear how there is a “prosthetic distal segment of the lower or upper limb”. If the prosthetic distal segment is of the upper or lower limb, this would be a part of the user’s body (and accordingly a 101 rejection, as it is improper to positively claim a part of the body). However, if this is the case, the claim is further unclear since a user/human’s upper/lower limb would simply include a “distal segment” and it would not be “prosthetic” as the claim requires. As the Examiner best understands from the disclosure, the claim appears to mean that the prosthetic distal segment is intended to replace the upper or lower limb of the user, and thus not be a positively claimed part of the body, but rather a part of the bionic prosthesis. However, since this is contrary to what is written by the claim, the Examiner respectfully requests clarification.
The claim is further indefinite for claiming “a prosthetic distal segment…in order words, a prosthetic foot or, respectively a prosthetic hand” but it is unclear whether or not this claim language actually requires the prosthetic distal segment to be a prosthetic foot or prosthetic hand, or whether the distal segment could actually be some other distal segment (of) the upper/lower limb (e.g. a finger, toe, or different segment of an upper/lower limb). It appears Applicant has written the phrase “in other words” to indicate that the “prosthetic segment of the lower or upper limb” means the same thing as “a prosthetic foot, or, respectively, a prosthetic hand”, but the scope of these is much different. The Examiner is unclear accordingly whether both limitations need to be met, or not based on the wording of the claim.
Similarly, claiming “a prosthetic middle segment, in other words, a prosthetic tibia, or, respectively, a prosthetic forearm” for the same reasons as above.
Claim 11 is indefinite for claiming the prosthesis “according to the preceding claim” when there are at least two preceding claims, making the Examiner unclear which claim this is intended to depend from.
The claim is further unclear for referencing the environment of the prosthetic foot, making it unclear whether this is intended to positively limit the claim to the prosthesis being a lower limb prosthesis and not an upper limb prosthesis, or whether this was already limited in claim 10 (from which this claim may or may not depend from).
Claim 12 is indefinite for claiming “it” comprises a myoelectric sensor system since it is unclear what “it” is referring to.
Further, the claim is indefinite for claiming [it] comprises a “myoelectric sensor system” that is configured to “generate the control signals” corresponding to the motion intention when the claim from which this depends has identified a “control unit” as being the element that controls the hinge device from control signals corresponding to the motion intention. Claim 9 appears to indicate the control signals originate from the “control unit”, whereas claim 12 now indicates that the signals originate with the myoelectric sensor system. It is unclear if the control signals are intended to originate from both the control unit and the myoelectric sensor system or not. It is further unclear how control signals “generate” control signals (e.g. as opposed to measuring control signals, or as the Examiner believes more likely, measuring myoelectric signals”, since it is a myoelectric sensor system).
Claim 13 is indefinite for claiming the vector of the foot is oriented “substantially” in a longitudinal direction of the prosthetic foot, when it is unclear what it means to “substantially” be oriented in a particular direction. The specification does not appear to elaborate on the term, or give examples of what might not fall within the scope of “substantially” aligning. The Examiner understands figure 1 item 111 showing one example of substantially aligning, but this does not clarify what might not fall within the scope of “substantially aligning”, making this indefinite.
Further, the claim again refers to “it” comprising a set of accelerometers which is unclear, since it is unknown what “it” is.
Claim 14 is indefinite for also referring to “it” when it is unclear what “it” is.
Claim 15 is indefinite for the same reasons as claims 9 and 13 above.
The claim is further indefinite for claiming the prosthetic proximal segment is measured “where applicable” but it is unclear what this means, and what situations this measurement would be considered applicable, and what conditions this would be considered not applicable. The specification does not appear to elaborate on either when it would be applicable or when it would not be applicable.
The claim is further indefinite for claiming the directional vector of the foot is “substantially” perpendicular to the normal to the ground when it is unclear what “substantially” perpendicular would encompass, and what it would not encompass (see the explanation in the rejection to claim 13 above for a more detailed explanation).
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) 9-10, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. "A Subvision System for Enhancing the Environmental Adaptability of the Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis", IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS, IEEE, PISCATAWAY, NJ, USA, vol. 51, no. 6, 19 March 2020 (2020-03-19). pages 3285-3297, XP011854987, ISSN: 2168-2267, DOI: 10.1109/ TCYB.2020.2978216, hereinafter known as Zhang.
Regarding claim 9 Zhang discloses a bionic prosthesis usable on a lower or upper limb (page 3287 column 1 paragraph 2 transfemoral prosthesis) comprising:
a prosthetic distal segment comprising a prosthetic foot or hand at a free end of the prosthesis (Figure 3 shows the foot at the lower free end of the prosthesis below an ankle joint), adapted to contact a ground or an object to be gripped, respectively (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 Zhang was considered capable of performing the cited intended use. See, for example Figure 3 the stance phase showing the foot in contact with ground.),
a prosthetic middle segment comprising a prosthetic tibia or forearm (Figure 3 shows a middle segment between the bottom two joints),
a first motor-driven hinge device mechanically connected to the distal segment and middle segment (Figure 3 shows the bottom ankle joint; page 3287 column 1 paragraph 2 powered ankle joint),
a control unit configured to control the hinge device from control signals corresponding to a motion intention (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 Zhang 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 page 3290 column 1 “ 5) Motion Control” indicates velocity control and position control are available for the prosthesis, which is converted from the joint torque and utilized to control the prosthesis motion),
a depth camera (page 3287 column 1 paragraph 2) adapted to generate a 3d point cloud of an environment which includes the ground or object to be gripped (this is also stated as a functional limitation of the depth camera (see the explanation regarding “functional limitations” above. See also page 3287 column 1 paragraphs 2-3 a depth camera is included in the subvision system to recognize the environment in front of the prosthesis (understood to include a ground); this article captured the point cloud of environments using a depth camera; the point cloud is 3d.),
wherein the control unit is configured to process the 3d point cloud to detect the ground or object (this is likewise stated as a functional limitation (see the explanation regarding functional limitations above). See also page 3287 column 2 paragraph 2 environmental classification that categorizes the ground as level, up/down stairs, up/down ramps) and control the hinge device to adapt a position of the distal segment relative to the ground or object (this is likewise stated as a functional limitation (see the explanation regarding functional limitations above). See also page 3290, column 1 6) finite state control: "The subvision system compared the x coordinate value of the foot with that of the obstacle to determine the time to pull back the prosthesis”),
and wherein the control unit is configured to construct a plurality of 3d point clouds by successively acquiring the clouds by the camera (this is likewise stated as a functional limitation (see the explanation regarding functional limitations above). See also page 3294, column 2 paragraph 3 the subvision system and depth camera operate in in real time).
Regarding claim 10 Zhang discloses the prosthesis of claim 9 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Zhang further discloses the prosthesis is the lower limb prosthesis (page 3287 column 1 paragraph 2 transfemoral prosthesis).
Regarding claim 12 Zhang discloses the prosthesis of claim 9 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Zhang further discloses the prosthesis further comprises a myoelectric sensor system (page 3285 Column 2 paragraph 2 surface EMG recorded from the residual limb) configured to generate the control signals corresponding to the motion intention (this is stated as a functional limitation (see the explanation above). See also page 3285 column 2 paragraph 2 surface EMG recognizes the motion intent of the amputees).
Regarding claim 14 Zhang discloses the prosthesis of claim 10 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Zhang further discloses the prosthesis further comprises a prosthetic femur (Figure 3 shows the topmost proximal segment between the top two joints), and a second motor-driven hinge device mechanically connected to the prosthetic tibia and the prosthetic femur (Figure 3 shows the middle knee joint; page 3287 column 1 paragraph 2 powered knee joint).
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 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as is applied above in view of Farina et al. (US 20140371871 A1) hereinafter known as Farina, further in view of van der Merwe et al. (US 20120010749 A1) hereinafter known as van der Merwe.
Regarding claim 11 Zhang discloses the prosthesis of claim [10?] substantially as is claimed,
wherein Zhang further discloses the depth camera is configured so as to cover a front field of the environment of the prosthetic foot (page 3287 column 1 paragraph 2 the depth camera recognizes the environment in front of the prosthesis),
but is silent with regards to there being a second depth camera to cover the environment of the rear field of the foot.
However, regarding claim 11 Farina teaches a prosthetic leg system ([0002]) which provides 3d information about surrounding areas of the limb ([0010]), and wherein van der Merwe further teaches that cameras for prosthetic devices should offer a 360 degree view around the prosthetic when collecting images of the prosthesis’s surroundings ([0284]) (which is understood to contain a “rear field”). Zhang, Farina, and van der Merwe are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely methods of prosthetic control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prosthesis of Zhang so that there are multiple cameras measuring the field of the prosthesis as is taught by Farina, so the cameras can image a 360 degree view as is discussed by van der Merwe in order to ensure the entire environment of the foot is observable, thus increasing the amount of information the control system has and ultimately resulting in a more accurate and safer prosthesis.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as is applied above in view of Herr et al. (US 20070043449 A1) hereinafter known as Herr.
Regarding claim 13 Zhang discloses the prosthesis of claim 10 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Zhang further discloses the prosthetic foot has a directional vector oriented in a longitudinal direction of the foot (this is considered inherent),
wherein the prosthesis further comprises an accelerometer (page 3287 column 1 paragraph 2 an IMU includes an accelerometer)
but is silent with regards to the accelerometer being part of a set which measures the directional vector.
However, regarding claim 13 Herr teaches a prosthesis can include a set of accelerometers ([0134]-[0138]). Zhang and Herr are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely lower limb prostheses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prosthesis of Zhang by including a set of accelerometers within the sensing system as is taught by Herr in order to allow the prosthesis multiple inputs for measuring various parts of the prosthesis. Increased number and locations of measurements only increases the amount of information the control system has, thus leading to a more reliable and accurate control. As regards the set of accelerometers being capable of measuring the directional vector, the Examiner points to Applicant’s specification which indicates a set of accelerometers is capable of this measurement, along with Herr [0138] which indicates inertial navigation systems measure orientation.
Regarding claim 15 a method of controlling the prosthesis of claim 9 substantially as is claimed (see the rejection to claim 9 above), comprising:
a prosthetic proximal segment where applicable comprising a prosthetic femur or arm (Figure 3 shows a proximal segment between the top two joints),
wherein the method follows an instruction corresponding to a motion intention (page 3285 column 2 paragraph 2 surface EMG recorded from the residual limb to recognize the motion intent of the amputees) comprising:
measuring a current state of the prosthesis (page 3285 column 2 paragraph 2 the recognition results from the EMG sensors were applied to switch the control modes of a finite state controller; see also page 3290 column 1, titled “6) Finite-State Control”) by an accelerometer (page 3287 column 1 paragraph 2 an IMU includes an accelerometer),
acquiring the 3d point cloud of the environment of the prosthesis by the depth camera (page 3287 column 1 paragraphs 2-3 a depth camera is included in the subvision system to recognize the environment in front of the prosthesis; this article captured the point cloud of environments using a depth camera; the point cloud is 3d.),
assembling a plurality of 3d point clouds with successive acquisitions by the depth camera (page 3294, column 2 paragraph 3 the subvision system and depth camera operate in in real time),
processing the 3d point cloud by the control unit (page 3287 column 1 last paragraph to column 2 first paragraph),
calculating the motions to be implemented by the hinge device, and
moving the prosthesis (page 3290 column 1 “ 5) Motion Control” indicates velocity control and position control are available for the prosthesis, which is converted from the joint torque and utilized to control the prosthesis motion),
but is silent with regards to there being a set of accelerometers which measures the directional vectors of the distal, middle, and proximal segment where applicable.
However, regarding claim 15 Herr teaches a prosthesis can include a set of accelerometers ([0134]-[0138]) which can measure directional vectors of the segments of the prosthesis ([0138], [0182] IMUs can measure orientation, which is understood to indicate a directional vector of the system (see Zhang, which indicates the system includes the three segments)). Zhang and Herr teaches a prosthesis can include a set of accelerometers ([0134]-[0138]). are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely lower limb prostheses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prosthesis of Zhang by including a set of accelerometers within the sensing system as is taught by Herr in order to allow the prosthesis multiple inputs for measuring various parts of the prosthesis. Increased number and locations of measurements only increases the amount of information the control system has, thus leading to a more reliable and accurate control.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as is applied above in view of Mouchoux et al. "Artificial Perception and Semiautonomous Control in Myoelectric Hand Prostheses Increases Performance and Decreases Effort", IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS, IEEE SERVICE CENTER, PISCATAWAY, NJ, US, vol. 37, no. 4, 1 March 2021 (2021-03-01), pages 1298-1312, XР011870783, ISSN: 1552-3098, DOI: 10.1109/ TRO.2020.3047013, hereinafter known as Mouchoux.
Regarding claim 16 the Zhang Herr Combination teaches the method of claim 15 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Zhang further discloses the limb is the lower limb prosthesis (page 3287 column 1 paragraph 2 transfemoral prosthesis),
wherein the environment of the prosthesis includes the ground (page 3287 column 2 paragraph 2 environmental classification that categorizes the ground as level, up/down stairs, up/down ramps),
wherein the directional vector of the foot is oriented in a longitudinal direction of the foot (this is considered to be inherent),
wherein the directional vector of the foot’s vector is perpendicular to the ground’s normal (Figure 3 shows the foot lying flat on the ground, with the prosthesis lying normal to the ground),
but is silent with regards to extracting the set of points that corresponds to the ground,
However, regarding claim 16 Mouchoux teaches processing the 3d point cloud with the control unit comprises extracting a set of points from the cloud that corresponds to the ground, reconstructing the 3d point cloud, and calculating the normal to a surface defined by the set of points, referred to as the normal to the ground (page 1302 column 1 paragraph 2the algorithm creates a point cloud and calculates the points representing the gound, and those perpendicular to the ground).
Zhang and Mouchoux are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely methods of prosthetic control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Zhang so that the processing includes determining the cloud points related to the ground and calculating the normal as is taught by Mouchoux in order to achieve the desired ability of Zhang, allowing the algorithm to recognize and calculate the surroundings of the prosthesis.
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 02/09/26