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 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) 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb et al (US 20190125550 A1) “Goldfarb”.
Regarding Claim 1, the first embodiment of Goldfarb teaches an artificial hand system (prosthetic hand device 300, par. [0033], Fig. 3) to reduce physical and mental discomfort in muscles of an individual using a hand prosthesis while using the hand prosthesis, comprising:
a wrist configuration (member 332, par. [0040], Fig. 3), wherein a stiffness of the wrist configuration is controlled according to a weight of a load;
a sensing unit (sensors 336, par. [0040], Fig. 3) for sensing the weight of the load;
a processor unit (control system 315 and computing device 600, par. [0047], Figs. 3 and 6) for receiving data from the sensing unit;
and a drive element (force actuators 314 and 326, pars. [0035] and [0037], Fig. 3) actuated by the processor unit, but does not teach a processor unit configured to receive and process data related to the weight of a load using signal processing and machine learning.
However, another embodiment of Goldfarb teaches wherein the processor unit is configured to: receive at least one data related to the weight of the load from the sensing unit (par. [0035], monitors the operation of force actuators 314 and can process multiple EMG signals), process at least one data about the weight taken from the sensing unit by methods comprising signal processing and machine learning (hardware entities 614 and other components of computing device 600, par. [0050], Fig. 6), detect a continuous and/or gradual relationship of processed data with the weight of the load (par. [0035]), generate an output signal containing weight information of the load as a result of a detected weight relationship (par. [0049], user interface 602 can include various output devices), and actuate the drive element to set the stiffness of the wrist configuration based on the output signal (par. [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the structure disclosed by the first embodiment of Goldfarb to include a processor unit configured to receive and process data related to the weight of a load using signal processing and machine learning, as taught by another embodiment of Goldfarb, in order to monitor various forces and successfully actuate hand motion (par. [0035]).
Regarding Claim 3, the first embodiment of Goldfarb further teaches the artificial hand system according to claim 1, wherein the sensing unit comprises at least one second sensor for measuring biological activity signals, wherein the biological activity signals occur due to muscle movement (par. [0040], Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, the first embodiment of Goldfarb further teaches the artificial hand system according to claim 1, further comprising an upper body (joint 333, par. [0040], Fig. 3) placed to connect the wrist configuration to the hand prosthesis.
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb et al (US 20190125550 A1) “Goldfarb” in view of Sharon et al (US 20200138356 A1) “Sharon”.
Regarding Claim 2, Goldfarb does not teach a sensor for measuring biological activity signals in a brain. However, Sharon, in the same field of art, teaches a system for monitoring sense data from biometric features (Abstract), wherein the sensing unit (subject state sensors 12, par. [0052], Fig. 1) comprises at least one first sensor (sensor 23 in contact with body, par. [0059], Fig. 1, can measure brain wave patterns) for measuring biological activity signals in a brain. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the structure disclosed by Goldfarb to include a sensor for measuring biological activity signals in a brain, as taught by Sharon, in order to have a reliable bodily signal to translate to a desired movement or state (Sharon, par. [0031]).
Regarding Claim 4, Goldfarb does not teach a sensor for measuring visual signals. However, Sharon, in the same field of art, teaches a system for monitoring sense data from biometric features (Abstract), wherein the sensing unit (subject state sensors 12, par. [0052], Fig. 1) comprises at least one third sensor (optical imaging devices 22, par. [0056], Fig. 1) for measuring visual signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the structure disclosed by Goldfarb to include a sensor for measuring visual signals, as taught by Sharon, in order to have a reliable bodily signal to translate to a desired movement or state (Sharon, par. [0031]).
Regarding Claim 5, Goldfarb does not teach a sensor for measuring acoustic signals. However, Sharon, in the same field of art, teaches a system for monitoring sense data from biometric features (Abstract), wherein the sensing unit (subject state sensors 12, par. [0052], Fig. 1) comprises at least one fourth sensor for measuring acoustic signals (sensor 23 not in direct contact with skin or body, par. [0061], Fig. 1, measurement may include an acoustic heartbeat). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the structure disclosed by Goldfarb to include a sensor for measuring acoustic signals, as taught by Sharon, in order to have a reliable bodily signal not connected to the body to translate to a desired movement or state (Sharon, pars. [0031] and [0061]).
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb et al (US 20190125550 A1) “Goldfarb” in view of Yang et al (CN 104665962 A) “Yang”.
Regarding Claim 7, Goldfarb does not teach a wrist configuration with a pulley. However, Yang, in the same field of art, teaches a wearable function enhancing mechanical hand system (Abstract), wherein the wrist configuration (drive motors a2, a3, and a4, par. [0014], Fig. 1) comprises at least one pulley (pulleys p1 and p2, par. [0019], Fig. 3) provided to transmit tendons of the wrist configuration to the drive element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the structure disclosed by Goldfarb to include a wrist configuration with a pulley, as taught by Yang, in order to drive the motor function of the wrist components (Yang, par. [0019]).
Regarding Claim 8, Goldfarb does not teach a wrist configuration comprising a lower body with a pulley and drive element. However, Yang, in the same field of art, teaches a wearable function enhancing mechanical hand system (Abstract), wherein the wrist configuration comprises a lower body (motors a2 and a3, par. [0019], Fig. 1), wherein the lower body comprises the pulley and the drive element (pulleys p1 and p2, par. [0019], Figs 1 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the structure disclosed by Goldfarb to include a wrist configuration comprising a lower body with a pulley and drive element, as taught by Yang, in order to drive the motor function of the wrist components (Yang, par. [0019]).
Regarding Claim 9, Goldfarb does not teach a wrist configuration comprising a joint between the lower and upper body. However, Yang, in the same field of art, teaches a wearable function enhancing mechanical hand system (Abstract), wherein the wrist configuration comprises a joint (control panel mounting surface c2 and wrist joint c3, pars. [0014] and [0015], Fig. 3) placed between a lower body (motors a2 and a3, par. [0019], Fig. 1) and an upper body (motor a4, par. [0012], Fig. 1) to connect the lower body and the upper body to each other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the structure disclosed by Goldfarb to include a wrist configuration comprising a joint between the lower and upper body, as taught by Yang, in order to have more cohesive motor function of the wrist components (Yang, par. [0014]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb et al (US 20190125550 A1) “Goldfarb” in view of Poirters (US 20180140441 A1) “Poirters”.
Regarding Claim 10, Goldfarb does not teach a wrist configuration made of biocompatible material with three-dimensional printers. However, Poirters, in the same field of art, teaches a mechanism for an artificial hand (Abstract), wherein the wrist configuration (wrist joint 22, par. [0072], Fig. 1) is made of biocompatible material with three-dimensional printers (par. [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the structure disclosed by Goldfarb to include a wrist configuration made of biocompatible material with three-dimensional printers, as taught by Poirters, in order to offer more flexibility to the user (Poirters, par. [0072]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE NICOLE THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-0004. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Jerrah 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.
/NATALIE N THOMAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights