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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11, 13-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art Ross et al. GB 2606080 does not expressly disclose wherein the wheels comprise sets of wheels that are independent from each other's movement and configured for the actuation of the end tool. Claim 11 depends from claim 10.
The closest prior art Ross et al. GB 2606080 does not expressly disclose further comprising one or more pulleys mechanically coupled to the wheels and the motor. Claims 14-17 depends from claim 13.
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 7-9, 12 and 15-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the foot controller" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the foot controller" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the foot controller" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the foot controller" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the foot controller" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 depends from claim 13, this is improper. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Witte et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0369537 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Witte et al. discloses a system 110 for operating an actuated end-effector 150 (paragraph [0033]), the system comprising: a controller 120 configured to be operated by a body part of the user (the foot of the user, see Figure 1 and paragraph [0033]); one or more cables 140; and a cable-driven end tool 150 operably coupled with the controller 120 by the one or more cables 140 such that operation by the controller by the user effects operation of the tool 150 via the one or more cables 140 (paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 2, Witte et al. discloses wherein the end tool is an end effector 150 (paragraph [0033] and as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Witte et al. discloses wherein the one or more cables 140 comprise Bowden cables (paragraphs [0017], [0021-0022]).
Regarding Claim 4, Witte et al. discloses further comprising one or more motors 130 (paragraphs [0012], [0020-0022]).
Regarding Claim 5, Witte et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to be operated by the user's foot (via torque sensors attached to the foot device, paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 7, Witte et al. discloses wherein the one or more motors 130 are mounted and coupled to both the foot controller and the end tool and/or the foot controller (paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 8, Witte et al. discloses wherein the one or more motors of the foot controller are configured to assist and generate haptic feedback to user (paragraphs [0009], [0045], [0072]).
Regarding Claim 18, Witte et al. discloses wherein the one or more cables comprises a plurality of cables and the end tool comprises an end-effector 150 (paragraph [0033] and as seen in Figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witte et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0369537 A1 in view of Ross et al. GB 2606080 A.
Regarding Claim 6, Witte et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the tool is configured to be mounted on a user's arm for use as a prosthetic or human augmentation. Ross et al. teaches a prosthetic device control system in the same field of endeavor comprising an end tool in the form of an end effector, e.g. prosthetic arm 100 (as seen in Figure 1), the prosthetic arm is controlled by a controller in the from of a foot controller (page 1, lines 5-18 and page 3, lines 13-30) for the purpose of allowing movement of the prosthetic arm (page 1, lines 20-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Witte’s tool coupled to one or more cables coupled to a controller that is to be configured for a user’s arm as taught by Ross et al. for the purpose of allowing movement to a prosthetic arm.
Regarding Claim 9, Witte et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the foot controller comprises wheels that enable movement. Ross et al. teaches a prosthetic device control system in the same field of endeavor comprising an end tool in the form of an end effector, e.g. prosthetic arm 100 (as seen in Figure 1), the robotic arm is controlled by a controller in the from of a foot controller (page 1, lines 5-18 and page 3, lines 13-30), and wherein the robotic arm 200 further includes a base that is supported by a trolley (having wheels, page 1, lines 5-8 and page 6, lines 9-11) for the purpose of allowing increased mobility of the robotic arm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Witte’s tool to be coupled to a trolley as taught by Ross et al. for the purpose of allowing increased mobility of the instrument.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witte et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0369537 A1.
Regarding Claim 19, in the embodiment used in the rejection above, Figure 1 of Witte et does not expressly disclose wherein the end-effector is coupled to multiple sets of cables configured to actuate the end-effector along multiple degrees of freedom. In an alternative embodiment as seen in Figure 2, Witte et al. teaches the Bowden cables 240 include multiple cables (see Figure 2) which are coupled to the end-effector 250 for the purpose of allowing different flexion, plantar flexion, dorsiflexion to allow for multiple degrees of freedom (paragraph [0040-0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bowden cables to e multiple set of cables as taught in Figure 2 for the purpose of allowing different flexion, plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, to allow for multiple degrees of freedom.
Regarding Claim 20, Witte et discloses wherein the end-effector 150 comprises one or more joints configured to allow the movement along the multiple degrees of freedom (paragraphs [0009-0010], [0015-0018], [0020-0022], [0033] and [0038]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lainer et al. WO 2008/098059 A2 discloses a prosthetic arm (as seen in Figures 8-9), the prosthetic arm is controlled by a controller in the form of a foot controller 310 in the form of a shoe (page 6, lines 19-26), wherein the foot controller comprises sensors 314 allowing control movement of the arm forward, to the right and left (page 6, lines 6-31) thus allowing movement of the prosthetic arm being controlled in the form of velocity change and position change (page 6, lines 26-31).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEEMA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571) 270-1452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am – 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, SPE, Melanie Tyson 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEEMA MATHEW/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights