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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/04/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 regarding prior art rejections, Applicant argues it would not be obvious to modify Collins by including a torque sensor on the heel lever since the particular location of the sensor is unique and not obvious from the disclosure of either reference. Applicant argues, as is supported by the declaration filed 09/04/25, that there are various ways of measuring torque such as measuring motor current, measuring motor torque, measuring torque at a pulley spoke, and measuring rope tension, and argues sensors are routinely positioned on rigid mechanical elements as opposed to a heel lever.
The Examiner respectfully points out that this is not persuasive, since Herr actually teaches positioning the torque sensor on a non-rigid (e.g. flexible) element 1732 ([0257]-[0258] describes the element 1732 as a flexural element). Additionally, the torque sensor of Herr is necessarily placed on a flexible element, since it is a strain gauge sensor ([0258]). Strain gauges which measure torque work by detecting the deformation in the element it is attached to, thus electrically signaling the torque change. If a strain gauge is positioned on a rigid element, no deformation would be detected, meaning it would not actually function. Accordingly, suggestions that it isn’t obvious to position the strain gauge sensor of Herr onto the heel lever of Collins (which is a spring – meaning it deforms), is not supported.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 25-27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the elected invention was drawn towards the exoskeleton in Figure 2 (the alpha exoskeleton). This includes a heel spring made of a leaf spring, whereas the newly presented claims are drawn towards the non-elected beta exoskeleton. Additionally, the disclosure describes the hollow carbon fiber frame as being a part of the beta exoskeleton.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented (and elected) invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 25-27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10, 13, 15-16, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103a as being unpatentable over Collins et al. “Inducing Self-Selected Human Engagement in Robotic Locomotion Training” (IEEE, 2013), hereinafter known as Collins in view of Herr et al. (WO 2010027968 A2), hereinafter known as Herr.
Regarding claims 1 and 13 Collins discloses an exoskeleton device comprising:
a cable (Annotated Figure 2 “cable drive”);
a heel lever connected to the cable (Annotated Figure 2 “spring”);
a frame comprising a strut (Annotated Figure 2 “frame”) that directs the cable toward the heel lever (Annotated Figure 2), wherein the frame is coupled to the heel lever by a rotational joint (Annotated Figure 2 “ankle joint”);
a motor that is connected to the cable (Collins’ Figure 2 description of figure A “powerful off-board motor” which is seen to connect to the cable via the transmission attachment) and configured to cause the cable to provide a torque about the rotational joint (the applicant is advised that, while the features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In addition, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2144 (I).In this case, the patented apparatus of Collins discloses (as detailed above) all the structural limitations required to perform the recited functional language, therefore was considered to anticipate the claimed apparatus. In this case, the motor is understood to be capable of causing the cable to provide a torque about the rotational joint. This is evidenced by Collins Page 3, column 1, lines 2-7), wherein the cable is configured to provide the torque by exerting a first force on the heel lever and a second force on the frame, and wherein the cable is further configured to provide the torque in a first rotational direction (plantarflexion) and is prevented from applying the torque in an opposite rotational direction (dorsiflexion) to the first rotational direction (The Examiner notes that this is also recited as “functional language” (please see explanation above). The cable of Collins is understood to be capable of exerting a force on the lever and the frame, allowing rotational in one direction. The arrangement shown is not understood to provide any torque for a dorsiflexion direction. See Annotated Figure 2, and Collins page 2 column 1, first paragraph),
but is silent with regards to a torque sensor configured to measure the second force,
the torque sensors being affixed to the heel lever.
However, regarding claim 1 Herr teaches a lower limb exoskeleton ([001]) which includes a torque sensor ([0256]; Figure 17e items 1782, 1786) located on a flexible lever (1732; [0257]-[0258] flexural element) configured to measure torque applied to a frame ([0259]). Collins and Herr are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely exoskeleton devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Collins by including a torque sensor on the flexible lever which gives information to the controller of Collins in order to keep track of the torque being applied and allow possible feedback control by estimating timing and trajectory information for the joint, thus improving the user’s experience.
PNG
media_image1.png
737
1290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3 the Collins Herr Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Collins further discloses a motor controller (Collins’ Figure 2 description of figure A “control hardware”) configured for communication with the motor (this is stated as a functional limitation of the motor controller (see the explanation of this limitation above), which Collins’ controller is understood capable of achieving if desired. See Collins page 2, column 2, 3rd paragraph where the orthosis is capable of controlling the ankle joint torque),
and wherein the Combination further teaches the controller configured to send a signal to the motor that designates a magnitude of the torque in real-time and in response to a signal received from the one or more torque sensors (This is stated as an “intended use” of the claimed device. The applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 (II). In this case, the structure of the Collins Herr Combination was considered capable of performing the cited intended use, if it gets programmed to perform this. See also Collins page 2, column 2, 3rd paragraph which indicates the controller controls the ankle torque (e.g. sends a signal), and page 3, the description of figure 2 in which the flexible tether is described as transmitting sensor signals and mechanical power, indicating the sensors’ capability of transmitting information to the controller. See also Herr [0030]).
Regarding claim 5 the Collins Herr Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Herr further teaches the torque sensors comprise a strain gauge ([0258]).
Regarding claim 7 the Collins Herr Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Collins further discloses the heel lever comprises one or more springs being coupled to the cable (Annotated Figure 2 shows the “spring” coupled to the cable).
Regarding claim 8 the Collins Herr Combination teaches the device of claim 7 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Collins further discloses the one or more springs comprise one or more fiberglass leaf springs (see Collins’ Figure 2 description regarding figure C “fiberglass leaf spring”).
Regarding claim 10 the Collins Herr Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Collins further discloses the frame comprises a shank (Annotated Figure 2,
but is silent with regards to the length of shank.
However, regarding claim 10 Collins discloses the subject which was tested (see Figure 2A and 2D), has a leg length of 0.9 m (page 3, column 1 line 2 under “C. Experimental Methods”. As can be seen in Figure 2A and 2D, the shank comes up to about half the length of the person (which in this case would be about 0.45 m). The Examiner notes that while not precise, the actual photograph indicates that this is more accurate than a simple drawing, and as such can be taken to be accurately represented in the photograph and description of Collins. Based on this information, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the length of the shank of Collins (understood to be about 0.45 m), so that it is between 0.4-0.55 m since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the range of acceptable shank lengths would be obviously tailored to correspond to the length of a user’s natural shank.
Regarding claim 16 the Collins Herr Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Collins further discloses the cable is connected to the heel lever inside a cuff that comprises an elastic element (page 2; II.B. “a unilateral Bowden-cable tether”; a Bowden cable is an elastic element located inside a casing or “cuff”).
Regarding claim 23 the Collins Herr Combination teaches the exoskeleton of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Collins further discloses the exoskeleton device is configured to be worn by a user (Annotated Figure 2 (photo D)), and wherein the heel lever wraps around a heel of the user of the exoskeleton device (Annotated Figure 2 (photo C-D).
Regarding claim 22 Collins discloses an exoskeleton device comprising:
a cable (Annotated Figure 2 “cable drive”);
a heel lever connected to the cable (Annotated Figure 2 “spring”);
a shank portion comprising a strut (Annotated Figure 2 “frame”) that directs the cable toward the heel lever (Annotated Figure 2), wherein the shank portion is coupled to the lever by a rotational joint (Annotated Figure 2 “ankle joint”);
a motor that is connected to the cable (Collins’ Figure 2 description of figure A “powerful off-board motor” which is seen to connect to the cable via the transmission attachment) and configured to cause the cable to provide a torque about the rotational joint (This is stated as a functional limitation (see the explanation above). See also Collins Page 3, column 1, lines 2-7), wherein the cable is configured to provide the torque by exerting a first force on the heel lever and a second force on the shank portion, and wherein the cable is further configured to provide the torque in a first rotational direction (plantarflexion) and is prevented from applying the torque in an opposite rotational direction (dorsiflexion) to the first rotational direction (The Examiner notes that this is also recited as “functional language” (please see explanation above). The cable of Collins is understood to be capable of exerting a force on the lever and the frame, allowing rotational in one direction. The arrangement shown is not understood to provide any torque for a dorsiflexion direction. See Annotated Figure 2, and Collins page 2 column 1, first paragraph),
and a motor controller (Collins’ Figure 2 description of figure A “control hardware”),
but is silent with regards to a torque sensor configured to measure the second force,
and the heel lever comprising the torque sensor.
However, regarding claim 22 Herr teaches a lower limb exoskeleton ([001]) which includes a torque sensor ([0256]; Figure 17e items 1782, 1786) located on a flexible lever (1732; [0257]-[0258] flexural element) configured to measure torque applied to a frame ([0259]). Collins and Herr are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely exoskeleton devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Collins by including a torque sensor on the flexible lever which gives information to the controller of Collins in order to keep track of the torque being applied and allow possible feedback control by estimating timing and trajectory information for the joint, thus improving the user’s experience.
Further regarding claim 22, the Combination further teaches the controller to receive a first signal from the torque sensor indicative of a measurement of the second force and send a signal to the motor indicative of the measurement of the second force, where the second signal enables the motor to cause the cable to provide the torque about the rotational joint, where a magnitude of the torque is a function of the measurement of the second force (This is stated as an “intended use” of the claimed device. See MPEP 2111.02 (II). In this case, the structure of the Collins Herr Combination was considered capable of performing the cited intended use, if it gets programmed to perform this. However, the Examiner notes that even if amended to be positively claimed, Herr already teaches a controller which receives the information from sensors and controls the motor of the exoskeleton to move accordingly ([0030]) and, when taken in combination with Collins, who teaches the motor causing the movement of the cable and thus joint rotation (page 2 column 1, first paragraph), the totality of the intended use is actually taught by the Combination at hand.).
Regarding claim 24 the Collins Herr Combination teaches the exoskeleton of claim 22 substantially as is claimed,
Collins further discloses the exoskeleton device is configured to be worn by a user (Annotated Figure 2 (photo D)), and wherein the heel lever wraps around a heel of the user of the exoskeleton device (Annotated Figure 2 (photo C-D).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and Herr as is applied above in view of Weddendorf (US 5314500 A).
Regarding claims 11 the Collins Herr Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the rotational joint’s connection.
However, regarding claim 11, Weddendorf teaches prosthetic joints are known to be designed in double-shear (Column 1 lines 51-58). Collins and Weddendorf are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely prostheses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of the Collins Herr Combination by having the rotational joint have a double sheer connection such as is taught by Weddendorf since double-shear joints are known to be very strong, which would increase the life of the device of Collins.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and Herr as is applied above in view of Rastegar et al. (US 20060046910 A1), hereinafter known as Rastegar.
Regarding claim 12 the Collins Herr Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the device including an optical encoder.
However, regarding claim 12 Rastegar teaches an exoskeleton device which utilizes an optical encoder to measure rotation of a joint angle of the device ([0112]). Collins and Rastegar are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely exoskeleton energy-assist gait devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of the Collins Herr Combination by including an optical encoder such as is taught by Rastegar in order to track the joint angle of the device, allowing feedback to be sent to the controller, thereby allowing the controller to either learn or to incorporate the feedback as a safety mechanism, shutting the motor down in the angle is measured as inappropriate.
Claims 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and Herr as is applied above in view of Caputo et al. “An Experimental Robotic Testbed for Accelerated Development of Ankle Prostheses” (IEEE 2013), hereinafter known as Caputo.
Regarding claim 14 the Collins Herr Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the rotational joint’s flexural limits.
However, regarding claim 14 Caputo teaches an exoskeleton device which includes a rotational joint which is configured to flex between 0-30 degrees in a plantarflexion rotational direction and 0-20 degrees in a dorsiflexion rotational direction relative to a neutral posture position of the rotational joint (page 2647 column 2, last paragraph). Collins and Caputo are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely exoskeleton devices for assisting in walking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of the Collins Herr Combination by having the rotational joint include limits such as is taught by Caputo since these are regular, healthy, expected ranges of motion for a human ankle.
Regarding claim 17 the Collins Herr Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the rotational joint velocity.
However, regarding claim 17 Caputo teaches an exoskeleton device which includes a rotational joint that is configured to rotate at a rotational velocity of up to 1000 degrees per second (page 2648 Column 1 lines 2-3 (7.2 rad/s which equates to about 412 deg/sec). Collins and Caputo are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely exoskeleton devices for assisting in walking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of the Collins Herr Combination by having the rotational joint velocity such as is taught by Caputo since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, discovering a range of velocities to which the exoskeleton works would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and Herr as is applied above in view of Ashihara et al. (US 20060276728 A1), hereinafter known as Ashihara.
Regarding claim 18 the Collins Herr Combination teaches the device of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Collins further discloses the frame includes a sliding strap that allow a yaw ankle rotation and a roll ankle rotation of a user (Annotated Figure 2 shows the “strap”; the Examiner understands the strap to be loostenable and tightenable to allow yaw and roll of an ankle during use),
but is silent with regards to the frame’s struts being “flexibly compliant”.
However, regarding claim 18 Ashihara teaches wherein exoskeleton devices are known to be made of carbon fiber composites ([0101]; the Examiner considers carbon fiber to be flexibly compliant). Collins and Ashihara are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely exoskeleton devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the frame of the Collins Herr Combination by having it made of carbon nanofiber (i.e. compliantly flexible) such as is taught by Ashihara in order to allow the frame to move naturally with the user’s leg, thus maintaining relatively free motion for the user and increasing user comfort and stability. Further, it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacqueline Woznicki whose telephone number is (571)270-5603. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm EST.
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 on 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.
/Jacqueline Woznicki/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 02/27/26