Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/935,147

AUTOMATED HAND

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 01, 2024
Examiner
WILLSE, DAVID H
Art Unit
3774
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Taska Prosthetics Limited
OA Round
4 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
388 granted / 575 resolved
-2.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
615
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 575 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 12-18, and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leuthardt et al., US 9,539,118 B2, in view of Goldfarb et al., US 2012/0150321 A1, and Snell, US 9,724,211 B1. Leuthardt et al. include a plurality of digits extending from a palm (Figures 3, 5, 7A-7B) and moved by actuators (Figure 2; column 7, lines 3-5 and 17-39) connected to a control system for receiving brain signals (Figure 1A; column 5, line 45, et seq.), the receipt of which is indicated by a display 106 or 206 on a forearm (Figures 3, 7A-7B, 9G; column 11, lines 51-58; column 12, lines 17-31). Leuthardt et al. process brain signals such as EEG (column 6, line 4, et seq.; column 15, lines 1-7) rather than EMG, but the latter was likewise used in the art at the effective date of the present invention (Goldfarb et al.: paragraphs 0015-0016), and Leuthardt et al. encompass prosthetics as well as assist devices (column 17, lines 5-9), so an EMG control system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in view of its advantages in the prosthetics arts (Goldfarb et al.: Figure 1; paragraphs 0003, 0033). Moreover, locating the Leuthardt et al. display 106 or 206 on a prosthetic hand or palm outer shell would have been obvious in order to impart compactness (Leuthardt et al.: column 19, lines 10-23) and to circumvent the need for wiring across a prosthetic or natural wrist, with such an arrangement having been known in the art [Goldfarb et al.: Figures 1 (control system 115) and 5 (display screen 504); paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0053; Snell: Figure 8A; column 6, line 48, to column 7, line 3] at the effective date of the instant invention, the ordinary practitioner having been left to devise an appropriate assembly for the Leuthardt et al. prosthetic variant, and with further motivation (to combine) provided by the similar features and functions described in Goldfarb et al. (Figures 2-3; paragraphs 0006, 0031-0032, 0034+, 0044, 0054, 0057) and Snell (Figures 7, 8A, 10A). Regarding claims 2, 6, 13-14, and 17, display 106 or 206 may indicate signal strengths (Leuthardt et al.: Figure 9G; column 36, lines 32-57; column 13, lines 48-54) and predetermined grip patterns (column 27, lines 20-21; column 28, lines 58-60; column 29, lines 21-24) and use alphanumerics (Figures 9A-9G; column 28, lines 61-63; column 32, lines 10-12; column 36, line 38). Regarding claim 4, light-emitting diodes were common in the art (Snell: column 5, lines 16-19) and would have been obvious for the Leuthardt et al. user interface display to provide images (column 28, lines 58-60) and/or colors (column 36, lines 35-38). Regarding claim 8-9, 13, and 15-17, the Leuthardt et al. control system causes the digits to assume a grip pattern depending on signals received from a user interface having buttons [Figures 9A-9F (controls 902, 904, 906 may be physical buttons: column 32, lines 59-64); column 15, lines 52-54; column 16, lines 2-5; column 33, lines 44-51]. Regarding claim 17, the user interface may be spaced apart from the display (Leuthardt et al.: column 16, lines 6-8), and both separately positioned on an outer or “upper” part of a palm shell would have been obvious from Goldfarb or Snell (explained above) in order to readily enable access and viewing by a user (Leuthardt et al.: column 19, lines 19-23; column 36, lines 51-57). Regarding claim 25, a sealed panel for the display would have been obvious in order to protect the display from the elements, such as rain and mud. The further limitations of the other claims are adequately addressed (MPEP § 707) in the passages cited above. Claims 10, 19-24, and 26-27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leuthardt et al., US 9,539,118 B2, in view of Goldfarb et al., US 2012/0150321 A1, Snell, US 9,724,211 B1, and Einarsson, US 2004/0034436 A1. Regarding claims 10 and 19, lights on depressible buttons were likewise known in the art at the effective date of the instant invention, as seen from Einarsson (Figures 4-5C; paragraph 0031), and would have been obvious for the Leuthardt et al. controls or buttons 902, 904, 906 in order “to prompt the wearer” and affirm that a button has been selected or activated (Einarsson: paragraph 0031) and to improve visibility and distinguishability, particularly in relatively dark environments, with further motivation (to combine) provided by Leuthardt et al. similarly utilizing displays and colors [Figures 9A-9G; column 16, lines 6-8; column 23, line 49 (“visual prompts”); column 28, lines 58-63; column 32, lines 61-63; column 36, lines 35-38], and the controls or buttons are innately electrically wired to communicate with the control system (Leuthardt et al.: Figure 2; column 16, line 6; column 25, lines 8-16; column 32, line 59, to column 33, line 7). Other claim limitations are addressed above (MPEP § 707). Regarding claims 26-27, varying colors and different patterns for different grips would have been obvious in order to provide distinguishable visual cues for user interaction in the various modes of operation and diverse finger movements (Leuthardt et al.: Figures 2, 8A- 8D; column 3, lines 47-48; column 11, lines 41-47; column 12, lines 10-16; column 15, lines 33-36 and 50-54; column 16, lines 6-8; column 20, lines 30-34; column 23, lines 44-49; column 26, lines 6-7). Claim 29 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leuthardt et al., US 9,539,118 B2, in view of Goldfarb et al., US 2012/0150321 A1, Snell, US 9,724,211 B1, Einarsson, US 2004/0034436 A1, and Schulz, US 2012/0109337 A1. Actuators individually sealed within digits were well-known in the art at the effective date of the present invention, as taught by Schulz (drawings; paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036), with the “pipe-shaped first phalange 5” and the silicone optic casing or glove sealing the motoric drive 11 from the environment; “seal” is defined as “to fasten with or as if with a seal to prevent tampering” or “to close or make secure against access, leakage, or passage by a fastening or coating” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.: 1996). To incorporate such finger drives into the prosthetic version of Leuthardt et al. would have been obvious from the stated advantages (Schulz: paragraphs 0011-0014, 0030, 0035) in order to impart sufficient room for the display and user interface of Leuthardt et al. in the palm or hand, with the ordinary practitioner having been left to devise an appropriate drive system for the Leuthardt et al. prosthetic hand variant and with further motivation (to combine) provided by Schulz likewise utilizing control electronics (paragraph 0030) and sensors (paragraph 0032). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 28 is 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the limitations added to claim 1 and others and by the new claims. Conclusion Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL (MPEP § 706.07(a)). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Melanie Tyson can be reached at telephone number 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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. /DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 01, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 28, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 12, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 29, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594159
SEALING MEMBER FOR PROSTHETIC HEART VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12558238
ARTHROPLASTY INSERT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12508133
Prosthesis Surface Treatment for Soft Tissue Attachment Thereto
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12502288
PROSTHETIC FOOT WITH REMOVABLE FLEXIBLE MEMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12496195
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF A GLENOID COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+12.9%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 575 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month