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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/22/26, 06/24/24 and 03/28/24 have been considered by the examiner
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on June 29, 2026 is acknowledged. Invention II (claims 12-17) have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the terms
“the steps” in line 1. Examiner notes this should read “steps”
“the intent” in line 4. Examiner notes this should read “an intent”
“the dynamics” in lines 7-8. Examiner notes this should read “dynamics”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the grip force”. Examiner notes this should read “a grip force”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 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 1 recites the limitation “the device” in line X and again in claim 4. Does this refer to the “prosthetic device” or the “wearable device” mentioned in claim 1?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method of controlling a prosthetic device. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
acquiring electromyographic (EMG) signals
analyzing the acquired electromyographic (EMG) signals to determine the intent of the user;
measuring one or more positional covariates associated with the user's residual limb
wherein signal variations caused due to the positional covariates are compensated
These limitations set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites controlling the prosthetic device in proportional response to the determined intent, and providing multi-point sensory feedback to the user in response to the dynamics of the device, wherein the sensory feedback is provided via a wearable device that can be donned on or off by the user, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The controlling the prosthetic device in response to the intent, and providing sensory feedback to the user in response to device does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the system does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the model, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea. Additionally claims 6-8 recite the multi point sensory feedback device is provided in a specific pattern to convey information on the dynamics of the prosthetic device to the user, wherein specific patterns are mapped to different dynamics of the prosthetic device and are calibrated to user's preference, the wearable device provides dynamic patterns to the user in response to the dynamics of fingers of the prosthetic hand, and the wearable device provides feedback of varying intensity in response to the grip force being applied by the prosthetic hand on an object, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The feedback device providing varying feedback in response to the dynamics of fingers and grip force does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the system does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the model, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of:
electrodes configured to be in physical contact with a user
a prosthetic device
a wearable device
Additionally, claims 5 and 6 recite the additional limitations
a vibrotactile feedback unit, pressure feedback unit
a prosthetic hand
The providing and recording steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the providing and recording steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-4, 9 and 10 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-10 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farina (US 2014/0371871) and in further view of Lundborg (US 2009/0048539)
Farina and Lundborg were cited in Applicant’s IDS
Regarding claim 1, Farina teaches a method of controlling a prosthetic device comprising the steps of: acquiring electromyographic (EMG) signals from one or more active electrodes configured to be in physical contact with a user [par. 67]; analyzing the acquired electromyographic (EMG) signals to determine the intent of the user [par. 67]; measuring one or more positional covariates associated with the user's residual limb [par. 67]; controlling the prosthetic device in proportional response to the determined intent, wherein signal variations caused due to the positional covariates are compensated [par. 67]
However, Farina does not teach providing multi-point sensory feedback to the user in response to the dynamics of the device, wherein the sensory feedback is provided via a wearable device that can be donned on or off by the user
Lundborg teaches providing multi-point sensory feedback to the user in response to the dynamics of the device [par. 19, 50, 55, 56], wherein the sensory feedback is provided via a wearable device that can be donned on or off by the user [par. 55, 57, 61, 62]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Farina, to incorporate providing multi-point sensory feedback to the user in response to the dynamics of the device, wherein the sensory feedback is provided via a wearable device that can be donned on or off by the user, for allowing non-permanently arranged signal transducers, as evidence by Lundborg [par. 47].
Regarding claim 5, Lundborg further teaches the multi-point sensory feedback is at least one of: a vibrotactile feedback unit, pressure feedback unit [par. 120].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Farina, to incorporate the multi-point sensory feedback is at least one of: a vibrotactile feedback unit, pressure feedback unit, for stimulating the skin of a neighbouring intact body extremity, as evidence by Lundborg [par. 47]
Regarding claim 6, Lundborg further teaches the multi point sensory feedback device is provided in a specific pattern to convey information on the dynamics of the prosthetic device to the user, wherein specific patterns are mapped to different dynamics of the prosthetic device and are calibrated to user's preference [par. 56, 57]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Farina, to incorporate the multi point sensory feedback device is provided in a specific pattern to convey information on the dynamics of the prosthetic device to the user, wherein specific patterns are mapped to different dynamics of the prosthetic device and are calibrated to user's preference, to achieve the spatial resolution required, as evidence by Lundborg [par. 56]
Regarding claim 7, Lundborg further teaches the prosthetic device is a prosthetic hand, and the wearable device provides dynamic patterns to the user in response to the dynamics of fingers of the prosthetic hand [par. 56]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Farina, to incorporate the prosthetic device is a prosthetic hand, and the wearable device provides dynamic patterns to the user in response to the dynamics of fingers of the prosthetic hand, to achieve the spatial resolution required, as evidence by Lundborg [par. 56]
Regarding claim 8, Lundborg further teaches the prosthetic device is a prosthetic hand, and the wearable device provides feedback of varying intensity in response to the grip force being applied by the prosthetic hand on an object [par. 56, 57, 60]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Farina, to incorporate the prosthetic device is a prosthetic hand, and the wearable device provides feedback of varying intensity in response to the grip force being applied by the prosthetic hand on an object, for regulating the grip force, as evidence by Lundborg [par. 60]
Regarding claim 9, Farina further teaches filtering and amplifying the EMG
signals, and digitizing the EMG signals into a format suitable for analyzing [par. 58]
Claims 2, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farina and Lundborg and in further view of Tan (US 2009/0327171)
Tan was cited in Applicant’s IDS
Regarding claim 2, Farina and Lundborg teach a method of controlling a prosthetic device, as disclosed above.
However, Farina and Lundborg do not teach receiving training data related to the user, wherein the training data comprises electromyographic (EMG) signal data corresponding to a plurality of gestures performed by the user during a training phase; and providing the training data to a machine learning model for training thereof, wherein the machine learning model is configured to compute feature vectors for each of the plurality of gestures based on the EMG signal data
Tan teaches receiving training data related to the user, wherein the training data comprises electromyographic (EMG) signal data corresponding to a plurality of gestures performed by the user during a training phase; and providing the training data to a machine learning model for training thereof, wherein the machine learning model is configured to compute feature vectors for each of the plurality of gestures based on the EMG signal data [par. 28, 32, 35]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Farina and Lundborg, to incorporate receiving training data related to the user, wherein the training data comprises electromyographic (EMG) signal data corresponding to a plurality of gestures performed by the user during a training phase; and providing the training data to a machine learning model for training thereof, wherein the machine learning model is configured to compute feature vectors for each of the plurality of gestures based on the EMG signal data, for recognizing gestures, as evidence by Tan [par. 32]
Regarding claim 3, Tan further teaches training the machine learning model using training data relating to the positional covariates associated with the user's residual limb while the user performs the gestures in different residual limb positions [par. 39, 53].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Farina and Lundborg, to incorporate training the machine learning model using training data relating to the positional covariates associated with the user's residual limb while the user performs the gestures in different residual limb positions, for improving recognition accuracy, as evidence by Tan [par. 53]
Regarding claim 10, Tan further teaches classifying the EMG signals using a classification model to determine an intended gesture for the user and control the prosthetic device to perform the intended gesture [par. 34, 35].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Farina and Lundborg, to incorporate classifying the EMG signals using a classification model to determine an intended gesture for the user and control the prosthetic device to perform the intended gesture, because the classifications 148 (e.g., "index finger moved", or "ring finger tapped") can serve as the gesture conclusions output for use by some other application, as evidence by Tan [par. 57]
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farina, Lundborg and Tan and in further view of Wheeler (US 2019/0370650)
Wheeler was cited in Applicant’s IDS
Regarding claim 4, Farina, Lundborg and Tan teach a method of controlling a prosthetic device, as disclosed above
However, Farina, Lundborg and Tan do not teach providing the EMG signal data and determined gesture to the machine learning model for continuous training during routine usage of the device
Wheeler teaches providing the EMG signal data and determined gesture to the machine learning model for continuous training during routine usage of the device [par. 78]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Farina, Lundborg and Tan, to incorporate providing the EMG signal data and determined gesture to the machine learning model for continuous training during routine usage of the device, to accurately and rapidly train and re-train a decoder function in an unsupervised setting, using predictive signals to infer user intent and feedback signals obtained from operation of the device, as evidence by Wheeler [par. 77]
Regarding claim 11, Wheeler further teaches receiving an input from the user in response to the generated gesture, in an event the generated gesture does not meet the intent of the user
Wheeler teaches receiving an input from the user in response to the generated gesture, in an event the generated gesture does not meet the intent of the user [par. 76, 79].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Farina, Lundborg and Tan, to incorporate receiving an input from the user in response to the generated gesture, in an event the generated gesture does not meet the intent of the user, to accurately and rapidly train and re-train a decoder function in an unsupervised setting, using predictive signals to infer user intent and feedback signals obtained from operation of the device, as evidence by Wheeler [par. 77]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE L ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm, alt F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571)272-4233. 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.
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights