DETAILED ACTION
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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “angular contact bearing assembly” and “angular contact bearing” of claim 1, the “first gear teeth section” of claims 4-6, the “second gear teeth section” of claim 6, the “disc springs” of claim 24 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 25 refers to “disc springs” that are not found in the specification. It is unclear whether Applicant intends spring 918 as the “disc spring”, or another feature. Further clarification is required.
Claim 1 refers to “an angular contact bearing assembly” in lines 13-15 that is found in [0008] of Applicant’s specification, however it is unclear if the claimed “angular contact bearing assembly” is the same as the “angular contact bearing arrangement” referenced in [0045] of Applicant’s specification and reference number 300 in the Drawings. If these two features are one in the same, Examiner recommends amending the claim language to match what is referenced in Applicant’s specification. Similarly, claim 1 refers to “an angular contact bearing” in line 17, but it is unclear whether this feature is synonymous with Applicant’s “upper race bearings 310” and “lower race bearings 312”, or Applicant intends some other feature of the Drawings. If these two features are one in the same, Examiner recommends amending the claim language to match what is referenced in Applicant’s specification.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2013/0175816 A1), “Kawasaki” in view of Lee (US Pat. No. 4946380), “Lee”.
Regarding claim 1, Kawasaki teaches a prosthetic thumb (Fig. 1B, thumb 3) comprising: a fixation plate (Fig. 1B, palm portion 2); a thumb rotation drive (Fig. 2B, thumb turning motor 10) supported by the fixation plate (Fig. 1B, palm portion 2); and a thumb articulation mechanism supported by the fixation plate (Figs. 6-7), the thumb articulation mechanism comprising: a metacarpal rotation wheel configured to be rotated about a rotation axis by the thumb rotation drive to cause rotation of a metacarpal segment about the rotation axis (Fig. 6, first and second spur gears 28, 29 transfers rotation from turning motor 10 and rotates about axis L3 to allow thumb 3 to turn [0071]); a flexion drive inside a housing supported by the metacarpal segment (Fig. 8, thumb motor 36 within base section 33 [0065]) and in mechanical communication with the metacarpal rotation wheel (Fig. 8, first and second spur gears 28, 29 transfers rotation motion to base section 33 comprising thumb motor 36), the flexion drive configured to cause rotation of the metacarpal segment about a flexion axis (Fig. 8, thumb motor 36 is for bending or extending the metacarpophalangeal joint 35 about axis L4 [0065]), but fails to teach an angular contact bearing assembly rotationally supporting the metacarpal rotation wheel about the rotation axis, the angular contact bearing assembly comprising: a bolt supported by the fixation plate; an angular contact bearing disposed about the bolt; and a nut attached to and preloading the angular contact bearing assembly.
Lee teaches an artificial dexterous hand comprising an angular contact bearing assembly rotationally supporting the metacarpal rotation wheel about the rotation axis (Fig. 10, bearings 326 on the upper and lower regions of left yaw worm 310), the angular contact bearing assembly comprising: a bolt supported by the fixation plate (Fig. 10, left primary shaft 300); an angular contact bearing disposed about the bolt (Fig. 10, bearings 326 surround left primary shaft 300 which extends through housing 320); and a nut attached to and preloading the angular contact bearing assembly (Fig. 10, sleeves 328, 330 are disposed around shaft 300 to strengthen and better retain bearings 326 (col. 16, lines 28-31)). Lee discloses that the artificial hand versatilely adapts its configuration and is more stable during operation (col. 2, lines 25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the angular contact bearing assembly taught by Lee with the metacarpal rotation wheel taught by Kawasaki in order to provide a more adaptable thumb on the prosthesis.
Regarding claim 2, Kawasaki fails to teach the limitations of claim 2. Lee teaches an artificial dexterous hand wherein the angular contact bearing comprises bearing elements disposed on upper and lower sides of the metacarpal rotation wheel (Fig. 10, bearings 326 on the upper and lower regions of left yaw worm 310). Lee discloses that the artificial hand versatilely adapts its configuration and is more stable during operation (col. 2, lines 25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the angular contact bearing assembly taught by Lee with the metacarpal rotation wheel taught by Kawasaki in order to provide a more adaptable thumb on the prosthesis.
Regarding claim 4, Kawasaki fails to teach the limitations of claim 4. Lee teaches an artificial dexterous hand the metacarpal rotation wheel comprising a first gear teeth section configured to be rotated by the thumb rotation drive (Fig. 3C, left yaw worm 310 engages with left yaw worm gear 308 and is rotated by left yaw motor 304 (i.e., engagement features for rotational interaction)). Lee discloses that the artificial hand versatilely adapts its configuration and is more stable during operation (col. 2, lines 25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the angular contact bearing assembly taught by Lee with the metacarpal rotation wheel taught by Kawasaki in order to provide a more adaptable thumb on the prosthesis.
Regarding claim 5, Kawasaki fails to teach the limitations of claim 5. Lee teaches an artificial dexterous hand wherein the first gear teeth section is fixed with or machined into the metacarpal rotation wheel (Fig. 3C, left thumb yaw worm 310 engages with left yaw worm gear 308 (i.e., engagement features on both elements for rotational interaction)). Lee discloses that the artificial hand versatilely adapts its configuration and is more stable during operation (col. 2, lines 25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the angular contact bearing assembly taught by Lee with the metacarpal rotation wheel taught by Kawasaki in order to provide a more adaptable thumb on the prosthesis.
Regarding claim 6, Kawasaki fails to teach the limitations of claim 6. Lee teaches an artificial dexterous hand the thumb rotation drive comprising a rotation motor configured to cause rotation of a second gear teeth section that interacts with the first gear teeth section of the metacarpal rotation wheel (Fig. 3C, left yaw motor 304 causes rotation of left thumb yaw worm 310 which further engages with left yaw worm gear 308 to rotate it (i.e., engagement features on both elements for rotational interaction)). Lee discloses that the artificial hand versatilely adapts its configuration and is more stable during operation (col. 2, lines 25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the thumb rotation drive taught by Lee with the metacarpal rotation wheel taught by Kawasaki in order to provide a more adaptable thumb on the prosthesis.
Regarding claim 7, Kawasaki teaches the flexion drive comprising a flexion motor (Fig. 8, thumb motor 36) and a worm gear engaged with a worm wheel (Fig. 8, worm 38 engages with worm wheel 39), wherein the flexion motor is configured to cause rotation of the worm gear to thereby cause rotation of the metacarpal segment about the flexion axis (Fig. 8, thumb motor 36 comprises worm 38 extending from its shaft which engages worm wheel 39 and allows for bending or extending the digit [0065]).
Regarding claim 8, Kawasaki teaches wherein the fixation plate is configured to attach with a prosthetic wrist, such that forces applied to the metacarpal segment are transferred to the fixation plate (Fig. 1B, palm portion 2 is connected to wrist portion 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kawasaki fails to teach the limitations of claim 9. Lee teaches an artificial dexterous hand wherein the metacarpal rotation wheel comprises gear teeth extending along a first plane that is perpendicular to the rotation axis, and worm wheel teeth extending along a second plane that is perpendicular to the flexion axis (Fig. 3C, left thumb yaw worm 310 engages with left yaw worm gear 308 (i.e., engagement features on both elements for rotational interaction extend in perpendicular directions)). Lee discloses that the artificial hand versatilely adapts its configuration and is more stable during operation (col. 2, lines 25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the worm assembly taught by Lee with the metacarpal rotation wheel taught by Kawasaki in order to provide a more adaptable thumb on the prosthesis.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2013/0175816 A1), “Kawasaki” in view of Lee (US Pat. No. 4946380), “Lee”, and further in view of Puchhammer (KR 20080079305 A), “Puchhammer”.
Regarding claim 3, Kawasaki fails to teach the limitations of claim 3. Lee teaches an artificial dexterous hand comprising bearing elements with the metacarpal rotation wheel (Fig. 10, bearings 326 on the upper and lower regions of left yaw worm 310) but fails to teach that they are permanently fixed or machined into the wheel. Lee discloses that the artificial hand versatilely adapts its configuration and is more stable during operation (col. 2, lines 25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the angular contact bearing assembly taught by Lee with the metacarpal rotation wheel taught by Kawasaki in order to provide a more adaptable thumb on the prosthesis.
Puchhammer teaches a hand prosthesis wherein one or more of the bearing elements are permanently fixed with or machined into the metacarpal rotation wheel (device is rotatably bearing on a pivotable coupling element with a fixed bearing (par. 6)). Puchhammer discloses that a fixed bearing allows the desired forced exhibited to be achieved by utilizing a minimal secondary force (par. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the metacarpal rotation wheel taught by Lee with the fixed bearing taught by Puchhammer in order to create a more responsive rotation wheel within the digit.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2013/0175816 A1), “Kawasaki” in view of Rivera et al. (US 2021145610 A1), “Rivera”.
Regarding claim 10, Kawasaki teaches a prosthetic thumb comprising: a thumb rotation drive configured to cause a metacarpal segment to rotate about a rotation axis (Fig. 2B, thumb turning motor 10 rotates to allow thumb 3 to turn about axis L3 [0071]); and a thumb flexion drive configured to cause the metacarpal segment to rotate about a flexion axis (Fig. 8, thumb motor 36 allows for bending or extending the metacarpophalangeal joint 35 about axis L4 [0065]), the thumb flexion drive comprising: a flexion motor extending along a flexion motor axis in a first plane (Fig. 8, thumb motor 36 extends within base section 33 of thumb 3); a gearbox disposed adjacent the flexion motor and extending along a gearbox axis parallel to the flexion motor axis and in the first plane (Fig. 8, worm deceleration mechanism 37 extending below thumb motor 36); a worm gear drive comprising a worm gear supported along a shaft (Fig. 8, worm 38 with worm wheel 39 extending along output shaft of thumb motor [0065]), the worm gear drive disposed adjacent the gearbox and extending along a worm gear axis in a second plane that is parallel to the first plane (Fig. 8, worm 38 extends below thumb motor 36 and worm wheel 39 is adjacent to worm 38 within base section 33), wherein actuation of the flexion motor causes the metacarpal segment to rotate about the flexion axis that is perpendicular to the second plane (thumb motor 36 allows for bending or extending the metacarpophalangeal joint 35 about axis L4 [0065]), but fails to teach wherein a distal end of the flexion motor is in mechanical communication with a proximal end of the gearbox, wherein a distal end of the gearbox is in mechanical communication with a proximal end of the worm gear drive; and a worm wheel in mechanical communication with the worm gear drive and having worm wheel teeth extending along the second plane.
Rivera teaches a prosthetic digit actuator wherein a distal end of the flexion motor is in mechanical communication with a proximal end of the gearbox (Fig. 4A, motor 112 engages with gearbox 114 [0046]), wherein a distal end of the gearbox is in mechanical communication with a proximal end of the worm gear drive (Fig. 5, distal-facing side of worm gear 130 is adjacent to gearbox 114 or motor 112 [0051]); and a worm wheel in mechanical communication with the worm gear drive and having worm wheel teeth extending along the second plane (Fig. 5, teeth 105 of worm wheel 104 engage with worm gear 130 [0045]). Rivera discloses that the arrangement of the actuator parts allows for transmitting axial forces in first and second directions to open and close the digits [0006]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the thumb taught by Kawasaki with the motor, gearbox, and worm gear drive taught by Rivera in order to provide a better range of motion of the prosthetic hand digits.
Regarding claim 14, Kawasaki teaches further comprising a metacarpal rotation wheel rotationally supported about the rotation axis on a fixation plate (Fig. 6, first and second spur gears 28, 29 transfers rotation from turning motor 10 and rotates about axis L3 to allow thumb 3 to turn [0071]), and wherein the thumb rotation drive is in mechanical communication with the metacarpal rotation wheel (Fig. 8, first and second spur gears 28, 29 transfers rotation motion to base section 33 comprising thumb motor 36).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2013/0175816 A1), “Kawasaki” in view of Rivera et al. (US 2021145610 A1), “Rivera” and further in view of Lee (US Pat. No. 4946380), “Lee”.
Regarding claim 11, Kawasaki in view of Rivera fails to teach the limitations of claim 11. Lee teaches an artificial dexterous hand wherein the worm gear drive further comprises a first angular contact bearing located along the shaft distally of the worm gear (Fig. 10, bearings 326 on the upper region of left yaw worm 310). Lee discloses that the artificial hand versatilely adapts its configuration and is more stable during operation (col. 2, lines 25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the angular contact bearing taught by Lee with the worm gear taught by RIvera in order to provide a more adaptable thumb on the prosthesis.
Regarding claim 12, Kawasaki in view of Rivera fails to teach the limitations of claim 12. Lee teaches an artificial dexterous hand wherein the worm gear drive further comprises: a second angular contact bearing located along the shaft proximally of the worm gear (Fig. 10, bearings 326 on the lower region of left yaw worm 310); and a radial bearing located along the shaft proximally of the second angular contact bearing (Fig. 10, lower bearing 334 can be situated between housing 320 and left linkage shaft 312). Lee discloses that the artificial hand versatilely adapts its configuration and is more stable during operation (col. 2, lines 25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the angular contact bearing taught by Lee with the worm gear taught by Rivera in order to provide a more adaptable thumb on the prosthesis.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2013/0175816 A1), “Kawasaki” in view of Rivera et al. (US 2021145610 A1), “Rivera” and further in view of Evans et al. (US 2011257765 A1), “Evans”.
Regarding claim 13, Kawasaki in view of Rivera fails to teach the limitations of claim 13. Evans teaches a prosthetic arm system further comprising a potentiometer configured to detect a rotational position of the metacarpal segment about the rotation axis (potentiometer 366 senses rotational displacement). Evans discloses that the rotational displacement sensed by the potentiometer can be used to measure the load on the index finger and help with gripping and load absorption [0160]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prosthetic thumb taught by Kawasaki in view of Rivera with the potentiometer taught by Evans in order to provide a digit with better gripping and load absorption capabilities.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2013/0175816 A1), “Kawasaki” in view of Evans et al. (US 2011257765 A1), “Evans”.
Regarding claim 15, Kawasaki teaches a prosthetic thumb comprising: a thumb rotation drive comprising a rotation motor (Fig. 2B, thumb turning motor 10), the thumb rotation drive configured to cause rotation of a metacarpal segment of the prosthetic thumb about a rotation axis (Fig. 2B, thumb turning motor 10 rotates to allow thumb 3 to turn about axis L3 [0071]); and a thumb articulation mechanism in mechanical communication with the thumb rotation drive and comprising a flexion motor (Fig. 8, first and second spur gears 28, 29 transfer rotation motion to base section 33 comprising thumb motor 36), the thumb articulation mechanism configured to cause rotation of the metacarpal segment about a first flexion axis that is perpendicular to the rotation axis (Fig. 7, spur gears 28, 29 cause rotation about axis L3 whereas thumb motor 36 causes rotation about axis L4 which is perpendicular to L3), the thumb articulation mechanism comprising: a metacarpal rotation wheel configured to be rotated by the thumb rotation drive about the rotation axis (Fig. 6, first and second spur gears 28, 29 transfers rotation from turning motor 10 and rotates about axis L3 to allow thumb 3 to turn [0071]), the metacarpal rotation wheel rotationally supporting the metacarpal segment about the first flexion axis (Fig. 7, spur gears 28, 29 support base portion 32 of base section 33 (i.e., metacarpal segment) to allow for rotation about axis L4); a phalange segment having a proximal end rotatably coupled with a distal end of the metacarpal segment at a second flexion axis (Fig. 7, distal section 34 engaged with base section 33 comprising rotation axis L5), but fails to teach a rigid linkage having a proximal end rotatably coupled to the metacarpal rotation wheel at a first fulcrum offset from the first flexion axis, and a distal end of the rigid linkage rotatably coupled to the proximal end of the phalange segment at a second fulcrum that is offset from the second flexion axis, wherein rotation of the metacarpal segment about the first flexion axis causes rotation of the phalange segment about the second flexion axis.
Evans teaches a prosthetic arm system comprising a rigid linkage having a proximal end rotatably coupled to the metacarpal rotation wheel at a first fulcrum offset from the first flexion axis (Fig. 58B, linkage element 2868 connected to non-circular pin hole 2870 [0279]), and a distal end of the rigid linkage rotatably coupled to the proximal end of the phalange segment at a second fulcrum that is offset from the second flexion axis (Fig. 58B, linkage element 2868 connected to pivot bar 2872 at distal end [0279]), wherein rotation of the metacarpal segment about the first flexion axis causes rotation of the phalange segment about the second flexion axis [0279]. Evans discloses that the linkage assembly within the finger structure can be done at any point during assembly, and therefore allows the finger to be replaced without disassembling the entire hand [0238]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the thumb taught by Kawasaki with the rigid linkage taught by Evans in order to allow for simplified part replacements.
Regarding claim 16, Kawasaki teaches wherein the metacarpal segment extends along a metacarpal axis and the phalange segment extends along a phalange axis that is coplanar with the metacarpal axis (Fig. 7, base section 33 and distal section 34 are aligned and lay in the same plane).
Regarding claim 17, Kawasaki teaches wherein the metacarpal segment extends along a metacarpal axis and the phalange segment extends along a phalange axis, and wherein the metacarpal axis and the phalange axis are coplanar with the rotation axis (Fig. 7, base section 33 and distal section 34 are aligned and rotate similarly along axes L4 and L5 and lay in the same plane).
Regarding claim 18, Kawasaki teaches wherein rotation of the metacarpal segment about the first flexion axis a first angular amount causes rotation of the phalange segment about the second flexion axis a second angular amount that is greater than the first angular amount (in response to rotational movement the metacarpophalangeal joint of the finger bends or extends and the interphalangeal joint that is linked to it bends or extends as well [0011] and further the metacarpophalangeal joint can maintain a constant joint angle while the interphalangeal joint bends further to correspond to the shape of holding the object [0084-0086]).
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2013/0175816 A1), “Kawasaki” in view of Evans et al. (US 2011257765 A1), “Evans”, and further in view of Gill et al. (US 2019091040 A1), “Gill”.
Regarding claim 19, Kawasaki teaches the metacarpal segment and the phalange segment and the second flexion axis (Fig. 7, distal section 34 engaged with base section 33 comprising rotation axis L5) but fails to teach a first ball bearing and a torsion spring disposed about the second flexion axis and rotationally biasing the phalange segment toward the metacarpal segment in a closing direction.
Gill teaches a prosthetic hand comprising a first ball bearing (inner and outer distal bearings 137, 156 may be ball bearings [0094]) and a torsion spring disposed about the second flexion axis and rotationally biasing the phalange segment toward the metacarpal segment in a closing direction (Fig. 4C, spring 267 may be a tension spring and provides an opening force that acts against the closing force of wire 265 [0125]). Gill discloses that the prosthetic thumb is able to rotate open and closed to form an open or closed grip with the prosthetic hand [0133]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the segments taught by Kawasaki with the spring taught by Gill in order to provide a better grip of the prosthetic hand.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2013/0175816 A1), “Kawasaki” in view of Evans et al. (US 2011257765 A1), “Evans”, and further in view of Lee (US Pat. No. 4946380), “Lee”.
Regarding claim 20, Kawasaki in view of Evans fails to teach the limitations of claim 20. Lee teaches an artificial dexterous hand wherein actuation of the flexion motor in a first direction causes an opening rotation of the metacarpal segment and the phalange segment, and wherein actuation of the flexion motor in a second direction opposite the first direction causes a closing rotation of the metacarpal segment and the phalange segment (Fig. 3c, left pitch motor 362 rotates elements in a clockwise or counter clockwise direction to retract or pitch/pivot the left thumb 16 (col. 19, par. 4)). Lee discloses that the artificial hand versatilely adapts its configuration and is more stable during operation (col. 2, lines 25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the motors taught by Lee with the thumb taught by Kawasaki in view of Evans in order to provide a more adaptable thumb on the prosthesis.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2013/0175816 A1), “Kawasaki” in view of Rivera et al. (US 2021145610 A1), “Rivera” and Evans et al. (US 2011257765 A1), “Evans”.
Regarding claim 21, Kawasaki fails to teach the limitations of claim 21. Evans teaches a prosthetic arm system wherein the worm gear is a hollow worm gear, and wherein the worm gear comprises an internal thread mechanically engaged with an external thread extending along a shaft that extends through the hollow worm gear (Fig. 59, worm gear 1494 is tubular and has an interior surface 1500 which engages with splines 1496 of shaft 1490 [0280]). Evans discloses that the finger structure is able to be replaced without disassembling the entire hand [0238]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the thumb taught by Kawasaki with the worm gear taught by Evans in order to allow for simplified part replacements.
Regarding claim 24, Kawasaki fails to teach the limitations of claim 24. Evans teaches a prosthetic arm system further comprising one or more disc springs on a proximal side of the external thread of the hollow worm gear and biasing the hollow worm gear in a distal direction (Fig. 59, worm gear 1488 may comprise one of the first spring 1492 or second spring 1494 [0239]). Evans discloses that the finger structure is able to be replaced without disassembling the entire hand [0238]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the thumb taught by Kawasaki with the worm gear taught by Evans in order to allow for simplified part replacements.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2013/0175816 A1), “Kawasaki” in view of Rivera et al. (US 2021145610 A1), “Rivera” and Evans et al. (US 2011257765 A1), “Evans”, and further in view of Jury et al. (US 2018036145 A1), “Jury”.
Regarding claim 22, Kawasaki in view of Rivera fails to teach the limitations of claim 22. Evans teaches a prosthetic arm system comprising the distal end of a worm gear (Fig. 59, worm gear 1494). Evans discloses that the finger structure is able to be replaced without disassembling the entire hand [0238]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the thumb taught by Kawasaki with the worm gear taught by Evans in order to allow for simplified part replacements.
Jury teaches an automated hand further comprising a friction disc on a distal end of the worm gear that engages a break in a thumb positioning state and disengages from the break in a thumb pressing state (Figs. 29-30, when thumb is in closed state actuator 702 applies a force to resilient mount 703 which further forces block 708 against palm block 709, and the contacted surface may comprise a brake pad material [0420]). Jury discloses that bringing the two engagement surfaces into contact with each other prevents further rotation of the thumb and allows the hand to retain a better grip [0420]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the worm gear taught by Evans with the positioning taught by Jury in order to provide a better grip.
Regarding claim 23, Kawasaki fails to teach the limitations of claim 23. Evans teaches a prosthetic arm system comprising the hollow worm gear (Fig. 59, worm gear 1494 is tubular). Evans discloses that the finger structure is able to be replaced without disassembling the entire hand [0238]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the thumb taught by Kawasaki with the worm gear taught by Evans in order to allow for simplified part replacements.
Jury teaches an automated hand wherein rotation of the shaft causes separation of the break from the friction disc to prevent rotation of the worm gear along the worm wheel (Figs. 29-30, when thumb is in closed state actuator 702 is rotated and applies a force to resilient mount 703 which further forces block 708 against palm block 709, and the contacted surface may comprise a brake pad material [0420]). Jury discloses that bringing the two engagement surfaces into contact with each other prevents further rotation of the thumb and allows the hand to retain a better grip [0420]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hollow worm gear taught by Evans with the positioning taught by Jury in order to provide a better grip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLA GISELLE B RIOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-6:00 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, THOMAS BARRETT can be reached at (571) 272-4746. 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.
/G.G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights