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 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.
(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) 1-3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higuchi (US Patent No.: 6,896,704).
Regarding claim 1, Higuchi (US Patent No.: 6,896,704) teaches a prosthetic device (being the prosthetic finger disclosed in the abstract) comprising a monolithic first portion (figure 7 parts 1-3) having a flexure cut (being the gap between part 3 and part 17c shown in figures 6 and 7) defining a dimension between a first side and a second side (the dimension being the space between parts 17c and figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, Higuchi teaches the prosthetic device of claim 1 further comprising a second portion pivotally mounted on said first portion (parts 4 and 5 are mounted to part 3 in figures 1a and 1b).
Regarding claim 3, Higuchi teaches the prosthetic device of claim 2 wherein said the second portion is monolithic and has a second flexure cut (being the space between the top and bottom parts of part 5 in figure 1b) defining a second dimension between a third side and a fourth side (being the gap between part parts 6 and 3, which is assumed to be similar to the gap between part 3 and 17a as the hinges are depicted as being similar in figures 1a and 1b).
Regarding claim 9, Higuchi teaches the prosthetic device of claim 2 further comprising a hinge between said first portion and said second portion (being part 2, shown in figures 8a-8b).
Regarding claim 10, Higuchi teaches the prosthetic device of claim 9 wherein said hinge defines a wire path (as per column 10 line 50-67 into column 11 line 1-20, as well as figure 8B, a path for a wire 23 is disclosed between two pin members 1a and 17b about a pulley 24).
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.
Claim(s) 4-8 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi (US Patent No.: 6,896,704) in view of Donati (US Pub No.: 2015/0351935).
Regarding claim 4, Higuchi teaches the prosthetic device of claim 3. However, Higuchi does not teach an instance further comprising a second sensor configured for measuring the second dimension.
Donati (US Pub No.: 2015/0351935) teaches an instance further comprising a second sensor configured for measuring the second dimension (being the hall effect sensor in [0086] and figure 5, with a sensor and magnet used to detect a rotation about an axis. Here, as part the gap of Higuchi would be between parts 3 and 1 where part 17 is rotating to cause changes in the gap (rotation about part 17 shown in figures 14-17 of Higuchi), the sensing of Donati is taken to be applicable to monitor this rotation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hall sensor and magnet of Donati into Higuchi for the purpose of allowing the “generation of a feedback signal” as disclosed in [0086] of Donati that could be used for a control of the prosthesis (in [0086] of Donati, with Higuchi also disclosing a controller in figure 18).
Regarding claim 5, Higuchi in view of Donati teach the prosthetic device of claim 4 wherein the second dimension corresponds with an amount of force applied to: said first portion; said second portion; and combinations thereof (as Donati teaches force sensors in [0033] and [0047], said sensors can be implemented on the prosthesis of Higuchi to determine an amount of force applied to either the first or second portion of the device of Higuchi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hall sensor and magnet of Donati into Higuchi for the purpose of allowing the “generation of a feedback signal” as disclosed in [0086] of Donati that could be used for a control of the prosthesis (in [0086] of Donati, with Higuchi also disclosing a controller in figure 18).
Regarding claim 6, Higuchi teaches the prosthetic device of claim 1. However, Higuchi does not teach an instance further comprising a sensor configured for measuring the dimension.
Instead, Donati (US Pub No.: 2015/0351935) teaches teach a sensor configured for measuring the dimension (being the hall effect sensor in [0086] and figure 5, with a sensor and magnet used to detect a rotation about an axis. Here, as part the gap of Higuchi would be between parts 3 and 1 where part 17 is rotating to cause changes in the gap (rotation about part 17 shown in figures 14-17 of Higuchi), the sensing of Donati is taken to be applicable to monitor this rotation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hall sensor and magnet of Donati into Higuchi for the purpose of allowing the “generation of a feedback signal” as disclosed in [0086] of Donati that could be used for a control of the prosthesis (in [0086] of Donati, with Higuchi also disclosing a controller in figure 18).
Regarding claim 7, Higuchi in view of Donati teach the prosthetic device of claim 6. However, Higuchi does not teach wherein the dimension corresponds with an amount of force applied to said first side and/or said second side.
Instead, Donati teaches wherein the dimension corresponds with an amount of force applied to said first side and/or said second side (as Donati teaches force sensors in [0033] and [0047], said sensors can be implemented on the prosthesis of Higuchi to determine an amount of force applied to either the first or second side of the device of Higuchi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hall sensor and magnet of Donati into Higuchi for the purpose of allowing the “generation of a feedback signal” as disclosed in [0086] of Donati that could be used for a control of the prosthesis (in [0086] of Donati, with Higuchi also disclosing a controller in figure 18).
Regarding claim 8, Higuchi in view of Donati teach the prosthetic device of claim 6. However, Higuchi does not teach wherein the sensor comprises a hall sensor.
Instead, Donati teaches the sensor comprises a hall sensor (in [0086] of Donati). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hall sensor and magnet of Donati into Higuchi for the purpose of allowing the “generation of a feedback signal” as disclosed in [0086] of Donati that could be used for a control of the prosthesis (in [0086] of Donati, with Higuchi also disclosing a controller in figure 18).
Regarding claim 11, Higuchi teaches a prosthetic device of claim 9. However, Higuchi does not teach an instance further comprising: a hall sensor; and a wire connected to said sensor traversing said hinge in a first direction and in a second direction.
Instead, Donati teaches an instance further comprising: a hall sensor ([0086] and figure 5); and a wire (wire part 23 of Higuchi) connected to said sensor (it stands to reason that the wire of Higuchi can be connected to the sensor of Donati that is incorporated back into Higuchi) traversing said hinge in a first direction and in a second direction (the wire part 23 traverses a first, second, and hinge portion in figures 8a-8b and 9, where the wire wraps back around the hinge in figures 8a and 8b as the finger flexes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hall sensor and magnet of Donati into Higuchi for the purpose of allowing the “generation of a feedback signal” as disclosed in [0086] of Donati that could be used for a control of the prosthesis (in [0086] of Donati, with Higuchi also disclosing a controller in figure 18).
Regarding claim 12, Higuchi in view of Donati teach the prosthetic device of claim 11 wherein Higuchi teaches that said wire traverses said first side and/or said second side (in Higuchi, the wire part 23 passes by a side of a part of Higuchi).
Regarding claim 13, Higuchi teaches a method of enabling detecting contact with a prosthetic device comprising disposing a flexure cut (being the gap between part 3 and part 17c shown in figures 6 and 7) in a monolithic member (figure 7 parts 1-3) and defining a dimension between a first segment and a second segment the dimension being the space between parts 17c and figure 3), wherein the dimension corresponds to an amount of force exerted on the first segment and/or the second segment (as a force is required to cause a flexion of the finger device, detailed in column 1 lines 45-67 into column 2 lines 1-44, and as a flexion of the finger modifies the placement of the opened dimension, as shown in the finger’s movement from figure 7 to figure 8, the dimension of the finger does change due to an applied force).
However, Higuchi does not explicitly teach a detecting contact with a prosthetic device.
Instead, Donati teaches a detecting contact with a prosthetic device (detecting contact with a patient via a myoelectric sensor present in [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensors of Donati into Higuchi for the purpose of allowing the “generation of a feedback signal” as disclosed in [0086] of Donati that could be used for a control of the prosthesis (in [0086] of Donati, with Higuchi also disclosing a controller in figure 18).
Regarding claim 14, Higuchi in view of Donati teach the method of claim 13 further comprising configuring a sensor for measuring the dimension.
Instead, Donati (US Pub No.: 2015/0351935) teaches teach a sensor configured for measuring the dimension (being the hall effect sensor in [0086] and figure 5, with a sensor and magnet used to detect a rotation about an axis. Here, as part the gap of Higuchi would be between parts 3 and 1 where part 17 is rotating to cause changes in the gap (rotation about part 17 shown in figures 14-17 of Higuchi), the sensing of Donati is taken to be applicable to monitor this rotation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hall sensor and magnet of Donati into Higuchi for the purpose of allowing the “generation of a feedback signal” as disclosed in [0086] of Donati that could be used for a control of the prosthesis (in [0086] of Donati, with Higuchi also disclosing a controller in figure 18).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi (US Patent No.: 6,896,704) in view of Donati (US Pub No.: 2015/0351935) in further view of Clark (US Pub No.: 2013/0204157).
Regarding claim 15, Higuchi in view of Donati teach a method of detecting contact with a prosthetic device comprising measuring the dimension of claim 13 (via the myoelectric and force sensors in [0058] of Donati). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hall sensor and magnet of Donati into Higuchi for the purpose of allowing the “generation of a feedback signal” as disclosed in [0086] of Donati that could be used for a control of the prosthesis (in [0086] of Donati, with Higuchi also disclosing a controller in figure 18).
Clark (US Pub No.: 2013/0204157) also teaches a detecting contact with a prosthetic device comprising measuring the dimension of claim 13 (contact sensor that detects a contact via a compressive force in [0121]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the contact sensor of Clark into the combination of Higuchi and Donati for the purpose of providing a contact sensor configured to measure data at a junction between two members (in [0003], disclosure to prosthetic limb use in [0184]), where the structure of the sensor is configured to replicate the junction being measured without the need of extraneous testing material (as per [0097]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Simmons (US Pub No.: 2003/0120183) considered for a movable finger prosthesis with a sensor. Puchhammer (US Pub No.: 2010/0191343) considered for a prosthetic finger with multiple members 10, 20, and 30 in the abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AREN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0144. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:30 M-Th.
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.
/AREN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights