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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding section A, pertaining to independent claim 1, it is stated that Saindon and Stokes does not teach an “inextensible… sheet of woven fabric… tube configuration” or the “non-linear equilibrium state… mechanical stop at the maximum inflation configuration.”
Regarding Saindon, Examiner does argue that Saindon does still teach a fluid impermeable membrane in the abstract with no fluid permeability in Saindon, a tube configuration shown in figure 10. However, as the new reference of Stokes better teaches details of the membrane, Stokes is relied upon to teach some of these elements in view of the new amendments. Examiner does note that Saindon still teaches a tubular configuration as per figure 10 of Saindon with equilibrium details present as the membrane of Saindon accommodates a certain amount of fluid as the membrane maintains a constant or near constant total volume in [0040]. As the volume is constant, as presented in the arguments under section A part a, the zero volume change argued in this section satisfies the definition of non-linear. From here under section b under part A, Stokes was relied upon to further teach material details as the abstract involves “products using or incorporating surface modified or functionalized polymeric and textile materials.” While a predetermined geometry is not explicitly taught in Stokes, Stokes does teach materials like the cited polyolefin textiles in [0121] that has a predetermined geometry as per the chemical formula of polyolefin known in the art.
Regarding section 3 (on page 12 of 24) it is stated that Saindon does not teach a tube that has its central axis is a longitudinal axis. Examiner disagrees. While Saindon’s joint may be disposed around a joint center, examiner argues that the central axis of the device is longitudinal when the joint is not flexing, and that a central axis can be defined such that it does not change with respect to a movement of the joint as the joint moves with respect to the central axis. From here, Piercy in paragraph 16 teaches where the inflation would have to be about a central longitudinal axis of the inflation member as per the arrangement of it in [0016]. Said longitudinal axis is coincident with a tibial axis as per the placement of part 14 in figure 1.
Regarding section 4 (on page 12 of 24 to page 14 of 24), it is stated that Saindon does not teach planar interfaces and support elements. Examiner disagrees. Saindon was cited to teach flexible bellows as part 12 in [0037] with support elements including parts 32 and 36 in figure 2, where the figures show a circumferential coupling. While a specific “three-way” interface is not disclosed, a three-way connection as per page 13 of 24 was not specifically required in independent claim 1. As such, Saindon still teaches this limitation.
In response to applicant's argument in section II that Saindon is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Piercy is disclosed as being a lower-leg exoskeleton with Saindon teaching details for a flexible joint with disclosure to a use in an exoskeleton in [0005]. While Saindon focuses on a joint, the joint for an exoskeleton and a lower leg exoskeleton device is in the same field of endeavor. Saindon is also reasonably pertinent to the particular problem as both Piercy and the present invention deal with exoskeleton/exosuit devices with actuated joints. As Saindon teaches an actuatable joint, Saindon is pertinent to the pending device.
In response to applicant's argument under the second section II that Stokes is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Piercy in view of Saindon teach an exoskeleton device where Stokes teaches details with respect to a surface-modified polymeric and/or textile material. As Stokes teaches a use in an exoskeleton device in [0089] with Piercy teaching an inflatable actuator in the abstract with inflatable structures in [0012], examiner argues that, as a material is present in Piercy that holds a fluid during ai inflation of an actuator, the material details taught in Stokes will be analogous to the material details in Piercy (as well as for the materials present in Saindon), where teaching material details with respect to the inflatable actuator will also be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem that the pending invention is teaching.
In response to applicant’s argument in section III that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references as the references would change the prior art and render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is stated that the membrane of Stokes, as it teaches a breathability, will teach away from the device of Piercy in view of Saindon. However, Saindon teaches that the joint that does not require a working fluid in [0006]. As a working fluid is not required in Saindon, the breathability of Stokes will not impede the device of Saindon as there is not a fluid that will be leaking out of Saindon. From here, the membrane of Saindon will not impede the device of Piercy as the part of Saindon incorporated into Piercy as Saindon does not teach a folding/buckling behavior as recited by the arguments. Here, examiner did not find any evidence of a folding/buckling behavior provided for in Saindon, but a citation of Saindon doing so in Saindon would overcome the rejection in view of Saindon.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is stated that, with respect to the combination involving Stokes, motivations involving a fouling resistance or a waterproof/breathable. As stated above, it was argued that incorporating Stokes into Saindon and Piercy would not break the invention of Saindon. From here, it was stated that incorporating the flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy provides axial support about a joint (as per the abstract), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated, where Piercy creates a waterproof/breathable membrane with an improved “fouling resistance” as per [0051] of Saindon, with polyolefin textiles having benefits known to the art including significant tensile strengths.
With respect to section B, as the stated arguments and prior art used are similar, said arguments are addressed in section A.
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) 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piercy (US Pub No.: 2016/0278948) in view of Saindon (US Pub No.: 2016/0297504) and Stokes (US Pub No.: 2014/0206251).
Regarding claim 1, Piercy (US Pub No.: 2016/0278948) discloses an exoskeleton system (in the abstract) comprising: an inflatable actuator configured to be worn over a front portion of a foot of a user (disclosed in the abstract and shown in figure 2) and configured to be disposed directly adjacent to and surrounding an ankle of the foot of the user (shown in figure 1 and [0020], where the actuator is part 140), the inflatable actuator including: a fluid-impermeable member that defines a fluid chamber at least in part by a fluid-impermeable membrane material (while a membrane per se is not disclosed, a fluid-impermeable member would be required in [0027] as a fluid flows into and out of the actuator to generate a movement. This membrane would be used to create the bladder in [0022]-[0024] of the actuator. As such, the actuator would need a fluid-impermeable member to contain the fluid in the actuator), a rigid foot structure coupled to a first actuator end of the inflatable actuator, configured to surround a top portion of the foot of the user (being the foot structure 110 that is a rigid structure in [0020]), and a rigid shin structure coupled to a second actuator end of the inflatable actuator (being part 150 in [0020] and figure 1), configured to surround a portion of a shin of the user (disclosed in [0020]), wherein, the rigid foot structure and rigid shin structure are configured to, when worn by the user, receive and transmit an actuator load generated by the inflatable actuator to the foot and shin of the user (transmission of a load from an actuator 140 to an ankle joint in [0020]); based on expansion of the fluid-impermeable member along the central longitudinal axis of the fluid-impermeable member (in [0016], the inflatable structures would surround portions of the foot and/or metatarsals, where the inflation would have to be about a central longitudinal axis of the inflation member as per the arrangement of it in [0016]. Said longitudinal axis is coincident with a tibial axis as per the placement of part 14 in figure 1) that generates the actuator load applied to the rigid foot structure and the rigid shin structure (generation of an inflation load in the abstract with a moment about an ankle disclosed. The disclosure in the abstract and [0016] indicate that a load would be applied to an ankle and shin structure in order to impart said moment) and wherein the inflation of the inflatable actuator and the expansion of the fluid-permeable member along the central longitudinal axis of the fluid-impermeable member generates a moment about the ankle of the user to cause flexion of the foot of the user (generation of a moment in [0020], inflation of an actuator to generate a moment in the abstract).
However, while Piercy does teach a tube configuration for an actuator (being actuator part 140) and a first and second planar interface that each define sidewalls (being in Piercy, with the sidewalls 112 in [0014] and figure 1), the internal face of the fluid-impermeable membrane material coupled circumferentially around the sidewalls of the first and second planar interfaces (as the first and second planar interface of Piercy are circular as per part 112 in figure 10, a membrane coupled to the sidewalls will be circumferentially coupled), Piercy does not teach specific details regarding the membrane in recited claim 1. From here, Saindon (US PUB No.: 2016/0297504) teaches a flexible joint system including a fluid-impermeable membrane (being the membrane in the abstract. The device is fluid-impermeable as no fluid is disclosed as passing through the membrane itself) material comprising a flexible sheet of woven fabric folded in a tube configuration (a fabric composite material is disclosed in [0048] with a tube-like configuration shown in figure 10), the tube configuration having a first and second end and internal and external faces (the first and second ends being the being the top and bottom parts of figure 10, with the internal and external faces being the front and back end of the device with respect to figure 10), the tube configuration defining a central longitudinal axis that extends proximally along the anterior aspect of the lower leg from a foot of the user to a shin of the user and coincident with the tibial axis of the lower leg of the user (while a placement along a foot to a shin of a user coincident with the tibial axis of the lower leg of the user is not present in Saindon, the actuator of Saindon can be implemented along the foot and shin of the user such that the actuator’s central longitudinal axis would be coincident with the tibial axis of the lower leg of the user), the internal face of the fluid-impermeable membrane material coupled circumferentially around the sidewalls of the first and second planar interfaces (the membrane of Saindon is circumferentially couplable to a sidewall of a device as the membrane is about bends in a joint in [0040], where the planar interfaces are the portions where the flexible bellows membrane (part 12 in [0037]) contacts the rest of the device, appearing to be part 36 in figure 2), with the first and second planar interfaces disposed respectively at the first and second ends of the tube configuration (Saindon teaches this configuration where the first and second planar interfaces will be at the ends of figure 2 to where part 12 extends to. The first and second ends of the tube configuration are the left and right portions of figure 2 ), at least one of the first and second planar interfaces defining a manifold configured to allow a fluid to flow into and out of the fluid chamber to inflate and deflate the fluid chamber (The planar interfaces of Saindon do not restrict a fluid flow to a fluid actuator 140 or a membrane), with inflation of the fluid chamber applying a force to the first and second planar interfaces (the application of force with the membrane of Saindon applies a force to the planar interfaces of Saindon), a shape of the fluid-impermeable membrane material defining a non-linear equilibrium state at a maximum inflation configuration of the fluid chamber that generates a mechanical stop at the maximum inflation configuration (as the membrane of Saindon accommodates a certain amount of fluid (as the membrane maintains a constant or near constant total volume in [0040]), the maximum inflation of the actuator and membrane would generate a stop as a maximum inflation implies that no further fluid could be placed in the actuator and membrane combo), and a first and second support element respectively coupled circumferentially around the sidewalls of the first and second planar interfaces and engaging a circumferential coupling between the fluid-impermeable membrane material and the sidewalls of the first and second planar interfaces to support the circumferential coupling between the fluid-impermeable membrane material and the sidewalls (as Saindon discloses a coupling of a flexible membrane across a joint in [0008], the membrane of Saindon is couplable to the support elements including parts 32 and 36 in figure 2). 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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (as per the abstract), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
However, Piercy in view of Saindon does not teach details with respect to the fluid-impermeable membrane material comprising a substantially inextensible textile
Instead, Stokes (US Pub No.: 2014/0206251) the fluid-impermeable membrane material comprising a substantially inextensible textile envelope (being a modified polyolefin textile that is comprising a membrane in [0051] and [0103], where polyolefin is an inextensible textile. Membrane is waterproof in [0051], which implies that the membrane will keep out water or similar fluids) having a predetermined geometry and a non-linear equilibrium state (it is known in the art that polyolefin textiles are manufactured in a non-equilibrium state, with the type of polyolefin textiles disclosed in [0121] are known in the art to have a predetermined geometry when manufactured) at a displacement that generate the mechanical stop upon pressurization of the fluid chamber at the maximum inflation configuration that prevents excessive outward displacement and bulging of the inflatable actuator (as polyolefin is known to have a high tensile strength, after enough internal pressurization from a fluid chamber, said tensile strength would resist an outward displacement), the predetermined geometry of the substantially inextensible textile envelope producing displacement primarily via a change in the geometry between an uninflated shape and the predetermined geometry of the non-linear equilibrium state due to displacement of the textile envelope rather than via stretching of the inflatable actuator during a relative increase in pressure inside the fluid chamber (as the polyolefin textile is used in a membrane, the textile membrane presented in Stokes will expand due to the change in geometry caused by the fluid of an inflatable actuator). 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 textile details of the membrane of Stokes into the membrane of Piercy in view of Saindon for the purpose of creating a waterproof/breathable membrane with an improved “fouling resistance” as per [0051] of Saindon, with polyolefin textiles having benefits known to the art including significant tensile strengths.
Regarding claim 2, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 1, wherein Piercy discloses the fluid-impermeable membrane material defines a first side and second side with the first side being shorter than the second side (bladder of Piercy extends in figure 2 with parts 210 and 220, with 220 being shorter than 210), wherein the fluid chamber is configured to assume a first configuration where the first and second sides are in a collapsed configuration that causes the fluid-impermeable membrane material on the first and second sides to bulge outward (when the bladder segments are deflated, parts 210 and 220 would still be bulging outward with respect to the rear portion part 240 defined in [0023]), wherein the fluid chamber is configured to assume a second configuration where the first side has reached a first maximum length and the second side has not reached a maximum length (as parts 210 generate a uniform expansion in [0024], a second configuration may occur as parts 210 expand to their maximum length), and wherein the fluid chamber is configured to assume a third configuration where the first and second sides have reached a respective first and second maximum length such that the first and second planar interfaces are disposed at an angle relative to each other as a result of the first maximum length being smaller than the second maximum length (parts 210 and 220 could be configured into a third configuration as parts 210 are extended with parts 220 interfaced with 210. Here, parts 210 and 220 would be disposed relative to each other at a certain angle).
Regarding claim 4, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teaches the exoskeleton system of claim 1, wherein Piercy discloses the fluid chamber defines a plurality of sub-chambers (plural chambers disclosed in [0034] with a plurality of bladders 210 (disclosed [0022]-[0024]) to drive an actuation in figure 2), including a first and second sub-chamber (being the different parts 210 closer to the front 230 and rear 240 portions), wherein the inflation of the fluid chamber applying the force to the first and second planar interfaces comprises maintaining the first sub-chamber at a static pressure and dynamically pressurizing the second sub-chamber (as the actuator may be “configured for larger expansion at the front portion 230 relative to the rear portions 240” in [0023], the sub-chamber by part 230 may be dynamically pressured over a certain time at the front portion).
Regarding claim 5, Piercy (US Pub No.: 2016/0278948) discloses an exoskeleton system (in the abstract) comprising: an inflatable actuator configured to be worn about a joint a limb of a user (shown in figure 2, where an inflation of an actuator is disclosed in [0020]), the inflatable actuator including: a fluid-impermeable member that defines a fluid chamber (being the bladders part 210 in [0022]) and defining a central longitudinal axis that extends proximally along the anterior, posterior, or lateral aspect of the limb of the user (the actuator of Piercy is implemented along the foot and shin of a user as per figure 1 and paragraph [0020] that defines an inflatable actuator part 140, where the central longitudinal axis would be coincident with the tibial axis of the lower leg of the user), and a first and second planar interface that each define sidewalls (the sidewalls 112 in [0014] and figure 1) a rigid first structure coupled to a first actuator end of the inflatable actuator (being the rigid passive components like the foot structure part 110 in figure 1 and [0020]), and a rigid second structure coupled to a second actuator end of the inflatable actuator (being the other rigid passive components like the shin structure 150 in figure 1 and [0020]), wherein the rigid first and second structure are configured to, when worn by the user, receive and transmit an actuator load generated by the inflatable actuator to opposing sides of the joint of the user (as the inflatable actuator 140 is at an ankle in figure 1 and [0020], and as the passive components would transfer a torque to a user in [0020], parts 110 and 150 would actuate an ankle); and wherein inflation of the inflatable actuator is configured to generate a moment about the joint of the user (generation of a moment about an ankle in [0020]).
However, Piercy does not teach an instance wherein a fluid-impermeable member that defines a fluid chamber at least in part by a fluid-impermeable membrane material, the fluid-impermeable membrane material comprising a flexible sheet, and defining a central longitudinal axis that extends proximally along the anterior, posterior, or lateral aspect of the limb of the user, and a first and second planar interface that each define sidewalls, the fluid-impermeable membrane material coupled circumferentially around the sidewalls of the first and second planar interfaces.
Instead, Saindon (US PUB No.: 2016/0297504) teaches a fluid-impermeable member that defines a fluid chamber at least in part by a fluid-impermeable membrane material (the fluid-impermeable membrane of Saindon in [0048]), the fluid-impermeable membrane material comprising a flexible sheet (a fabric composite material is disclosed in [0048] with a tube-like configuration shown in figure 10), and a first and second planar interface that each define sidewalls, the fluid-impermeable membrane material coupled circumferentially around the sidewalls of the first and second planar interfaces ((the membrane of Saindon is circumferentially couplable to a sidewall of a device as the membrane is about bends in a joint in [0040], where the planar interfaces are the portions where the flexible bellows membrane (part 12 in [0037])).
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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (via the membrane as per the abstract), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
However, Piercy in view of Saindon does not teach details with respect to the fluid-impermeable membrane material comprising a substantially inextensible textile
Instead, Stokes (US Pub No.: 2014/0206251) discloses surface modifying agents for polymeric and/or textile materials and teaches the membrane material comprising a substantially inextensible textile envelope (being a modified polyolefin textile that is comprising a membrane in [0051] and [0103], where polyolefin is an inextensible textile) having a predetermined geometry (it is known in the art that polyolefin textiles are manufactured in a non-equilibrium state, with the type of polyolefin textiles disclosed in [0121] are known in the art to have a predetermined geometry when manufactured) that generates a mechanical stop of the fluid chamber at a maximum inflation configuration that prevents excessive outward displacement and bulging of the inflatable actuator (as polyolefin is known to have a high tensile strength, after enough internal pressurization from a fluid chamber, said tensile strength would resist an outward displacement and prevent a further bulging).
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 textile details of the membrane of Stokes into the membrane of Piercy in view of Saindon for the purpose of creating a waterproof/breathable membrane with an improved “fouling resistance” as per [0051], with polyolefin textiles having benefits known to the art including significant tensile strengths.
Regarding clam 6, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 5, wherein Saindon teaches the fluid-impermeable membrane material is folded in a tube configuration (tube-like configuration shown in figure 10), the tube configuration having a first and second end and internal and external faces (the first and second ends being the being the leftmost and rightmost parts of figure 10, with the internal and external faces being the front and back end of the device with respect to figure 10). 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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (via the membrane as per the abstract of Saindon), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
Regarding claim 7, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 6, wherein Saindon teaches that the first and second planar interfaces are disposed respectively at the first and second ends of the tube configuration (Saindon teaches this configuration where the first and second planar interfaces will be at the ends of figure 2 to where part 12 extends to. The first and second ends of the tube configuration are the left and right portions of figure 2 in Saindon). 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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (as per the abstract of Saindon), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
Regarding claim 8, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 5, wherein Piercy teaches at least one of the first and second planar interfaces defines a manifold configured to allow a fluid to flow into the fluid chamber to inflate the fluid chamber (the sidewalls of Piercy are shown as being hollow in figure 1. As such, the planar interfaces would not restrict a fluid flow to a fluid actuator 140 or a membrane). 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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (as per the abstract), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
Regarding claim 9, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 5, wherein Piercy discloses that the inflation of the fluid chamber is configured to apply a force to the first and second planar interfaces (as the actuator of Piercy would apply a force to an ankle in [0020]). 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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (as per the abstract), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
Regarding claim 10, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 5, wherein both art teach a shape of the fluid-impermeable membrane material defines a non-linear equilibrium state at a maximum inflation configuration of the fluid chamber that generates a mechanical stop at the maximum inflation configuration (as the actuator of Piercy is actuated by a fluid, and as a membrane like the one in Saindon would only be able to accommodate a certain amount of fluid, that the maximum inflation of the actuator and membrane would generate a stop as a maximum inflation implies that no further fluid could be placed in the actuator and membrane combo). 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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (as per the abstract of Saindon), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
Regarding claim 11, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 5, with Saindon further comprising a first and second support element respectively coupled circumferentially around the sidewalls of the first and second planar interfaces and engaging a circumferential coupling between the fluid-impermeable membrane material and the sidewalls of the first and second planar interfaces to support the circumferential coupling between the fluid-impermeable membrane material and the sidewalls (as Saindon discloses a coupling of a flexible membrane across a joint in [0008], the membrane of Saindon would be couplable to the support elements of Piercy).
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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (as per the abstract), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
Regarding claim 12, Piercy discloses an exoskeleton system (in the abstract) comprising: an inflatable actuator configured to be worn by a user (in the abstract) with the inflatable actuator including: a fluid-impermeable member that defines a fluid chamber (while a membrane per se is not disclosed, a fluid-impermeable member would be required in [0027] as a fluid flows into and out of the actuator to generate a movement. This membrane would be used to create the bladder in [0022]-[0024] of the actuator. As such, the actuator would need a fluid-impermeable member to contain the fluid in the actuator), and defining a central longitudinal axis that extends proximally along a limb of the user when the inflatable actuator is worn by the user (in [0016], the inflatable structures would surround portions of the foot and/or metatarsals, where the inflation would have to be about a central longitudinal axis of the inflation member as per the arrangement of it in [0016]. Said longitudinal axis is coincident with a tibial axis as per the placement of part 14 in figure 1) and a first and second interface that each define sidewalls (the sidewalls 112 in [0014] and figure 1).
However, Piercy does not disclose an instance wherein the inflatable actuator including: a fluid-impermeable member that defines a fluid chamber at least in part by a membrane material, and defining a central longitudinal axis that extends proximally along a limb of the user when the inflatable actuator is worn by the user, and a first and second interface that each define sidewalls, the membrane material coupled to the sidewalls of the first and second interfaces.
Instead, Saindon (US PUB No.: 2016/0297504) teaches the inflatable actuator including: a fluid-impermeable member that defines a fluid chamber at least in part by a membrane material (being the membrane in the abstract), the membrane material coupled to the sidewalls of the first and second interfaces (the membrane of Saindon is circumferentially couplable to a sidewall of a device as the membrane is about bends in a joint in [0040], where the planar interfaces are the portions where the flexible bellows membrane (part 12 in [0037]). 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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (as per the abstract), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
Regarding claim 13, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 12, wherein Saindon teaches the membrane material comprises an inextensible and flexible sheet (a fabric composite material is disclosed in [0048] with a tube-like configuration shown in figure 10. Here, a fabric is taken to be inextensible). 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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (as per the abstract of Saindon), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
Regarding claim 14 Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 12, wherein Piercy discloses that inflation of the inflatable actuator is configured to generate a moment about a joint of the user when the inflatable actuator is worn by the user (in [0020] of Piercy).
Regarding claim 15, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 12, wherein Saindon teaches that the membrane material is coupled circumferentially around the sidewalls of the first and second interfaces (the membrane material of Saindon can be coupled circumferentially around the sidewalls of the first and second interfaces as Saindon discloses a coupling of a flexible membrane across a joint in [0008]). 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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (as per the abstract of Saindon), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
Regarding claim 16, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 12, wherein Saindon teaches that the membrane material is folded in a tube configuration (a fabric composite material is disclosed in [0048] with a tube-like configuration shown in figure 10), the tube configuration having a first and second end and internal and external faces (the first and second ends being the being the leftmost and rightmost parts of figure 10, with the internal and external faces being the front and back end of the device with respect to figure 10), and wherein the first and second interfaces are disposed respectively at the first and second ends of the tube configuration (the first and second planar interfaces of Saindon are disclosed along the the first and second ends of the tube configuration of Saindon in figure 2).
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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (as per the abstract of Saindon), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
Regarding claim 17, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 12, wherein Piercy teaches at least one of the first and second interfaces defines a manifold configured to allow a fluid to flow into the fluid chamber to inflate the fluid chamber (the sidewalls of Piercy are incorporated in are shown as being hollow in figure 1. As such, the planar interfaces would not restrict a fluid flow to a fluid actuator 140 or a membrane).
Regarding claim 18, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 12, wherein Saindon teaches a shape of the membrane material defines a non-linear equilibrium state at a maximum inflation configuration of the fluid chamber that generates a mechanical stop at the maximum inflation configuration (as a membrane like the one in Saindon would only be able to accommodate a certain amount of fluid, it stands to reason that the maximum inflation of the actuator and membrane would generate a stop as a maximum inflation implies that no further fluid could be placed in the actuator and membrane combo). 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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (as per the abstract of Saindon), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
Regarding claim 19, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 12, with Saindon further comprising a first and second support element respectively coupled circumferentially around the sidewalls of the first and second interfaces and engaging a circumferential coupling between the membrane material and the sidewalls of the first and second interfaces to support the circumferential coupling between the membrane material and the sidewalls (as Saindon discloses a coupling of a flexible membrane across a joint in [0008], the membrane of Saindon is couplable to support elements, such as the rigid retainer rings 22 shown in figures 1, 4, and paragraph [0038] of Saindon).
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 flexible membrane of Saindon into Piercy for the purpose of providing an axial support about a joint (as per the abstract of Saindon), in which Piercy would involve a joint that is being actuated.
Regarding claim 20, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 12, wherein Piercy discloses the membrane material defines a first side and second side with the first side being shorter than the second side (the bladder of Piercy in figure 2 with parts 210 and 220, with 220 being shorter than 210. As per the structure of a bladder, the bladder wall will be a membrane), wherein the fluid chamber is configured to assume a first configuration where the first and second sides are in a collapsed configuration that causes the membrane material on the first and second sides to bulge outward (when the bladder segments of Piercy are deflated, parts 210 and 220 would still be bulging outward with respect to the rear portion part 240 defined in [0023]), wherein the fluid chamber is configured to assume a second configuration where the first side has reached a first maximum length and the second side has not reached a maximum length (as parts 210 generate a uniform expansion in [0024] of Piercy, a second configuration may occur as parts 210 expand to their maximum length), and wherein the fluid chamber is configured to assume a third configuration where the first and second sides have reached a respective first and second maximum length such that the first and second interfaces are disposed at an angle relative to each other as a result of the first maximum length being smaller than the second maximum length (parts 210 and 220 could be configured into a third configuration as parts 210 are extended with parts 220 interfaced with 210. Here, parts 210 and 220 would be disposed relative to each other at an angle).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piercy (US Pub No.: 2016/0278948) in view of Saindon (US Pub No.: 2016/0297504) in further view of Walsh (US Pub No.: 2022/0047444).
Regarding claim 3, Piercy in view of Saindon and Stokes teach the exoskeleton system of claim 1.
However, said combination does not teach an instance wherein the inflation of the fluid chamber applying the force to the first and second planar interfaces operates at greater than 5 psi relative to the surrounding atmosphere.
Instead, Walsh would teach an actuator wherein the inflation of the fluid chamber applying the force to the first and second planar interfaces operates at greater than 5 psi relative to the surrounding atmosphere (referred to as gage pressure) (in [0161] and [0186], a pneumatic actuator that could apply up to 29 psi in [0161] and is disclosed to apply 20 psi in [0186]).
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 pressure applied by the actuator of Walsh into Piercy and Saindon as said combination does not teach a specific pressure to be applied to the body, and the pressure of Walsh is disclosed as being “the pressure limit of many small electric compressors,” in [0161] which provides the benefit of detailing an actuator used to drive a joint of a user in a small actuator that can be worn on the body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Polygerinos (US Pub No.: 2019/0336315) teaches a leg based exosuit that actuates an ankle in the abstract. Hsiao-Wecksler (US Patent No.: 9,480,618) considered for an ankle orthosis with a rotary actuator that can output up to 50 psi in column 18 lines 28-50).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 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.
/AREN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/YASHITA SHARMA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774