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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 02-17-2026. As directed, claims 1-2, 5, and 10 have been amended, claim 3 has been canceled, and new claims 19-20 have been added. Thus, claims 1-2 and 4-20 are currently pending examination.
Priority
Benefit to each of provisional applications 63/058,825 and 63/030,586 is acknowledged. As previously outlined, the entirety of the subject matter of claims 1-2 and 4-20 are not fully supported by these provisional applications. At least concerning the limitations of claim 1, lines 25-26 and 31-32, claim 10, lines 11-12, and claim 19, lines 45-46, where the exoskeleton device is configured to determine if right/left actuators or one or more of the actuator units are outside of a generated reference target, are not supported by either provisional filing. Thus, at least for these limitations, the effective filing date is considered to be 05-27-2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed page 12, that the potions of claims 1 and 10 which were previously outlined as lacking support in provisional application 63/030,586, are at least inherently or implicitly supported in the provisional filing.
It is of note that Applicant has not provided any accompanying evidence in the form of citations to the specification or the drawings as to how and where these limitations are implicitly or inherently supported. Further, in 63/030,586, the best excerpt for discussing the generated reference targets is paragraph 35. However, this paragraph only nominally mentions that coordinated control may change based on sensor information in order to update the desired operation. There is no disclosure that relates to there being a determination that the exoskeleton device has determined that the actuator(s) are outside of the generated reference target. In provisional application 63/058,825, paragraph 42 describes the generated reference targets, but also fails to describe that the exoskeleton device has determined that the actuator(s) are outside of the generated reference target.
Thus, Examiner maintains the position held in the non-final Office action of 08-26-2025. There does not appear to be express, inherent, or implicit support for the identified limitations. Applicant is encouraged to distinctly point out and explain how either of the provisional filings supports the set of limitations in order to traverse this interpretation and finding as opposed to making conclusory statements regarding their support.
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed bottom of page 12 through the top of page 13, that the previously held 102 rejection of record over claim 1 employing Goldfarb no longer applies based on the amendment to claim 1. Applicant then continues on to argue that the subject matter of amended claim 1 (which has been amended to incorporate the subject matter of previous claim 3) cannot properly be rejected under 35 USC 103 over Goldfarb in view of Unluhisarcikli because Unluhisarcikli does teach applying a corrective torque force on the knee/limb which is at odds with the claimed limitation “where the left and right leg actuator units are configured to work to maintain zero torque on the knees as long as any walking maneuver is detected”.
Examiner concedes that the previous 102 rejection of record is overcome by the amendment, but disagrees as to Applicant’s characterization of instant claim 1 and its rejection over Goldfarb in view of Unluhisarcikli. The claims require that the device be configured to work to maintain zero torque on the knees as long as any walking maneuver is detected. When Unluhisarcikli details that “During gait retraining, the corrective forces are applied in response to deviations from the ideal reference trajectory. It follows that when the patient is walking "correctly" the interaction forces between the human and the robot should be ideally zero”, Unluhisarcikli does in fact teach a configuration where the exoskeleton/gait retraining device is configured to work to maintain a zero-torque condition specifically because under the condition that the user is walking “correctly” the device is configured to output zero torque, thus being configured to work to maintain zero torque on the knees during any “correct” walking maneuver. Claim 1 will therefore be rejected employing the combination of Goldfarb and Unluhisarcikli as previously applied and reasoned with respect to claim 3.
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed bottom of page 13 through the top of page 14, that claim 10 is patentably distinct over the cited references for similar reasons as outlined with respect to claim 1, and because claim 10 has been amended to read “wherein the reference targets are generated in the same way while any walking maneuver is identified as being present”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the subject matter of claim 1 which was previously argued does not appear in claim 10. Further, “wherein the reference targets are generated in the same way while any walking maneuver is identified as being present” is interpreted to mean that the reference targets are generated in response to sensor data and the determined maneuver state. Goldfarb contemplates such a control scheme as angle data from sensors is used to generate desired targets alongside maneuver state detection (see at least paragraphs 60 and 63 for sensor data, and the abstract, paragraph 65, and paragraph 68 for maneuver states). Thus, the rejection employing Goldfarb will be maintained hereinbelow.
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed pages 14-15, that claims 2, 4-9, and 11-18 are allowable over the cited references at least due to their dependence on either of claims 1 or 10. Applicant continues on to argue that, regarding claim 2, that Horst’s teaching of a user-selected amplitude for assistance level (see Horst at paragraph 60) does not coincide with the claimed user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, or skill setting. Applicant additionally argues, regarding claim 5, that Yoon does not contemplate determination of whether the exoskeleton device is on flat ground, going up a slope, or going down a slope as amended.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with each assertion. First, the dependent claims do not incur any deficiencies with respect to either of claims 1 or 10, as each has been addressed previously in this section, and each will be rejected hereinbelow. Next, Horst’s teaching of a user-selected amplitude directly coincides with at least a user-selected ability setting, as the amplitude is of an assistive force. Thus, if a user’s ability requires more assistance or less assistance, it can be selected. Further, with respect to claim 5, Yoon contemplates, at least at paragraph 45, determination/detection of “an even ground, an ascent slope, a descent slope”. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, and each dependent claim will be rejected in turn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, line 3, it is suggested that “a left and right leg” be replaced with “a left leg and a right leg” to provide antecedent basis for each claim term.
At claim 1, lines 4, 5, 13-14, 21-22, 23, 40, and 41, it is suggested that a/the “left and right leg actuator units” be replaced with a/the “left actuator leg unit” and a/the “right leg actuator unit” to provide antecedent basis for each claimed term.
At claim 1, line 10, it is suggested that “the” be added before “lower arm” for clarity.
At claim 1, lines 22-23, it is suggested that “the determined left and right individual leg states” be replaced with “the determined left individual leg state and the determined right individual leg state” for clarity.
At claim 2, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 1, line 1.
At claim 2, lines 2, 5-6, and 6-7, it is suggested that “the left and right leg actuator units” be replaced with “the left leg actuator unit and the right leg actuator unit” for clarity.
At claim 4, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 1, line 1.
At claim 4, line 2, it is suggested that “a walking maneuver” be replaced with “the walking maneuver” as the limitation was introduced in claim 1 at lines 37-38.
At claim 5, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 1, line 1.
At claim 5, lines 4-5, it is suggested that “the left and right leg actuator units” be replaced with “the left leg actuator unit and the right leg actuator unit” for clarity.
At claim 6, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 1, line 1.
At claim 6, lines 5 and 10-11, it is suggested that “the left and right leg actuator units” be replaced with “the left leg actuator unit and the right leg actuator unit” for clarity.
At claim 6, line 9, it is suggested that “to” be added before “determining” for clarity.
At claim 6, line 10, it is suggested that “generating” be eliminated as it is redundant with respect to the iteration of “generating” in line 9.
At claim 7, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 1, line 1.
At claim 7, line 6, it is suggested that “the left and right leg actuator units” be replaced with “the left leg actuator unit and the right leg actuator unit” for clarity.
At claim 7, line 7, it is suggested that “the ground” be replaced with “a ground” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 8, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 1, line 1.
At claim 8, lines 2, 4, and 7, it is suggested that a/the “fall or stumble event” be replaced with “a fall event or a stumble event” or “the fall event or the stumble event” for clarity.
At claim 8, lines 5, 6, and 7, it is suggested that “the left and right leg actuator units” be replaced with “the left leg actuator unit and the right leg actuator unit” for clarity.
At claim 9, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 1, line 1.
At claim 9, line 2, it is suggested that “the left and right legs” be replaced with “the left leg and the right leg” for clarity.
At claim 9, lines 3 and 3-4, it is suggested that “the left and right leg actuator units” be replaced with “the left leg actuator unit and the right leg actuator unit” for clarity.
At claim 9, line 6, it is suggested that “the left and right legs” be replaced with “the left leg and the right leg” for clarity.
At claim 10, line 12, it is suggested that “for the” be added before “one or more actuator units” for clarity.
At claim 11, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 10, line 1.
At claim 12, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 10, line 1.
At claim 12, lines 2, 4, and 6, it is suggested that a/the “walking or running maneuver” be replaced with “a walking maneuver or a running maneuver” or “the walking maneuver or the running maneuver” for clarity.
At claim 13, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 10, line 1.
At claim 13, lines 2 and 4, it is suggested that a/the “walking or running maneuver” be replaced with “a walking maneuver or a running maneuver” or “the walking maneuver or the running maneuver” for clarity.
At claim 14, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 10, line 1.
At claim 15, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 10, line 1.
At claim 15, line 8, it is suggested that “to” be added before “determining” for clarity.
At claim 15, line 9, it is suggested that “generating” be eliminated as it is redundant with respect to the iteration of “generating” in line 8.
At claim 16, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 10, line 1.
At claim 17, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 10, line 1.
At claim 17, lines 2, 4, and 7, it is suggested that a/the “fall or stumble event” be replaced with “a fall event or a stumble event” or “the fall event or the stumble event” for clarity.
At claim 18, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 10, line 1.
At claim 18, lines 2-3, it is suggested that “the locations of one or more actuator units” be replaced with “locations of the one or more actuator units” as “locations” has not been introduced previously, and since the actuator units have been previously introduced.
At claim 19, line 10, it is suggested that “a walking or running maneuver” be replaced with “a walking maneuver or a running maneuver” to provide antecedent basis for each claim term.
At claim 19, line 18, it is suggested that “a fall or stumble event” be replaced with “a fall event or a stumble event” to provide antecedent basis for each claim term.
At claim 19, lines 31 and 33, it is suggested that “the walking or running maneuver” be replaced with “the walking maneuver or the running maneuver” to provide antecedent basis for each claim term.
At claim 19, lines 37, 38, and 39-40, it is suggested that “the fall or stumble event” be replaced with “the fall event or the stumble event” to provide antecedent basis for each claim term.
At claim 19, line 44, the period at the end of the line should be eliminated.
At claim 20, line 1, it is suggested that “an exoskeleton system” be replaced with “the exoskeleton system” as the limitation was introduced in claim 19, line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 21 reads “generating, by the exoskeleton device, coordinated reference targets” and line 26 reads “a generated reference target” which together render the claim indefinite. This is because it is unclear if the “generated reference target” of line 26 is meant to refer back to the “coordinated reference targets” of line 21, or if the two targets are different. Given that the line 26 element is referred to as “generated” and the coordinated reference targets are also identified as being generated in line 21, the two targets will be interpreted as the same. For the same reasons, line 32, which refers to a second “generated reference target” also renders the claim indefinite.
Applicant can overcome the rejection by amending each of lines 26 and 32 to read “the generated coordinated reference target”.
Claims 2 and 4-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, lines 5 and 6 respectively refer to “a first leg” and “the first leg” which render the claim indefinite. This is because, claim 1, line 4 introduces “a left and right leg” of a user, and so it is unclear if a/the “first leg” is one of the left and right legs, or a different limb entirely. It is suggested that “a first leg” be replaced with “a first leg of the left leg and the right leg” and “the first leg” be replaced with “the first leg of the left leg and the right leg” to overcome the rejection.
Regarding claim 10, line 10 recites “the same way” which renders the claim indefinite. This is because the metes and bounds of the claim as presented are indiscernible. Does “the same way” refer to the steps of obtaining sensor data, determining a maneuver state, followed by determining a configuration of the actuator units, and then generating the reference targets? Does the same resultant reference target become generated regardless of the previous steps?
For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as requiring the previously outlined steps to create a reference target for each walking maneuver.
Claims 11-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 10.
Regarding claim 10, lines 11-12 recite “a generated reference target” which renders the claim indefinite. This is because it is unclear whether this generated target is the same or different from the “one or more reference targets” of line 8. It is suggested that “a generated reference target” be replaced with “the one or more generated reference targets” to overcome the rejection. Lines 14 and 15 should be similarly amended for consistency. The limitation will be interpreted in accordance with this suggestion.
Claims 11-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, lines 5 and 6-7 refer to “first and second actuator units” which renders the claim indefinite. This is because it is unclear whether these actuator units are the same or different from the “one or more actuator units” introduced at claim 10, lines 3-4.
It is suggested that “a first and second actuator unit” be replaced with “a first actuator unit and a second actuator unit of the one or more actuator units” to overcome the rejection. Similar amendments are suggested for lines 6-7. The limitations will be interpreted in accordance to this suggestion.
Regarding claim 19, lines 13, 14-15, 16, 18, and 21 each recite “a portion” of the sensor data which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if each iteration is meant to refer back to the same portion of the sensor data, if each represents a different portion of the sensor data, or if some of the recited portions overlap. To overcome the rejection, instead of referring to “a portion” of the sensor data, each iteration can be amended to eliminate “a portion” such that the steps are each carried out “based at least in part on the set of sensor data”. The limitations will be interpreted in accordance with this suggestion.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 19.
Regarding claim 19, line 33 recites “the actuator” which renders the claim indefinite. This is because claim 19, lines 4-5 introduce “one or more actuators”, and thus it is unclear which of the one or more actuators line 33 refers to. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that “the actuator” be replaced with “the one or more actuators”. The limitation will be interpreted as such.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 19.
Regarding claim 19, lines 42-43 refer to “a first and second actuator unit” which renders the claim indefinite. This is because it is unclear whether these actuator units are the same or different from the “one or more actuator units” introduced at claim 19, lines 1-5.
It is suggested that “a first and second actuator unit” be replaced with “a first actuator unit and a second actuator unit of the one or more actuator units” to overcome the rejection. Similar amendments are suggested for lines 6-7. The limitations will be interpreted in accordance to this suggestion.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, line 4 each recites “a portion” of the sensor data which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if this iteration is anew “portion” of the set of sensor data or if this iteration of “a portion” in claim 20 is meant to refer back to one of the “portions” in claim 19, or if this iteration and each in claim 19 are the same portion of the sensor data. To overcome the rejection, instead of referring to “a portion” of the sensor data, claim 20 can be amended to eliminate “a portion” such that the step is carried out “based at least in part on the set of sensor data”. The limitations will be interpreted in accordance with this suggestion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Examiner notes that suggestions for overcoming the 101 rejections of record are found immediately following this section of the Office action.
Regarding claim 10, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claimed invention is directed to a method/process of operating an exoskeleton system, and thus falls under one of the acceptable statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Claim 10 recites:
“determining a maneuver state based at least in part on the set of sensor data;
determining a configuration of the one or more actuator units based at least in part on the set of sensor data;
generating one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units based at least in part on the determined maneuver state, wherein the reference targets are generated in the same way while any walking maneuver is identified as being present;
determining that the one or more actuator units is outside of a generated reference target one or more actuator units; and
causing, in response to determining that the one or more actuator units are outside of the generated reference target for the one or more actuator units, the one or more actuator units to be configured to be within the generated reference target for the one or more actuator units”
As presently drafted, these limitations include process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the human mind (see “determining” and “generating” steps) since the limitations merely recite an analysis of measured signals from sensors, generation of reference targets based on this analysis, and observation of the position of the claimed actuators. The human mind is capable of performing these steps, as the mind is able to observe position, observe and analyze quantitative measurements, determine quantitative measurements, and generate outputs based on this information. At present, nothing precludes the outlined steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these outlined steps recite a mental process-type abstract idea.
Further, some limitations as presently drafted include process steps which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover/are drawn to various methods of directing human activity (see “causing” step). As there is not presently any structure, hardware, or software component recited in the claim for causing the change in actuator position to be within a generated reference target, these steps could reasonably be provided as instruction/direction to a human operator wearing the exoskeleton system to configure the actuators, using their own muscular effort and limbs, to be within a predetermined reference target, or could reasonably be provided as instruction/direction to a clinician who uses their own muscular effort and limbs to move the actuator of the exoskeleton system to be within the generated reference target. As such, this outlined step recites a method of directing human activity which is a second example of an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a practical application
Claim 10 recites the following additional elements:
“an exoskeleton system” and “obtaining a set of sensor data from at least sensors associated with one or more actuator units respectively coupled to a user”.
Reception of signals from the sensors outlined in the claim is a data gathering step that is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity. This does not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Further, each of the exoskeleton system, the sensors, and the actuator units are well-known, routine, and conventional components of an exoskeleton device and method. For example, Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408) outlines an exoskeleton system (see paragraph 37, lines 1-4, and the orthosis 100 described at paragraph 38 and shown in Fig. 1), which includes sensors associated with one or more actuators (see abstract, lines 1-3; see paragraph 60 and note sensor interface module 606 in communication with thigh segments 108L,R and knee joints 104R,L, where paragraph 46 outlines that the knee joints include respective motor actuators). Thus, Goldfarb shows that the additional elements are well-known, routine, and conventional components within established prior art exoskeletons, and the use of these additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because each element is generic in the art, and do not serve to apply the abstract ideas with or by use of a particular machine, effect a transformation, or apply/use the abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment to avoid monopolizing the exception (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As has been outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity, and/or fail to link the pre-solution activity into a practical application by specifically causing a change in the actuator position/state by a structure/component of the exoskeleton system itself. In particular, the additional elements in the claim were shown to be well-known by virtue of the Goldfarb disclosure. Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept and the claim is ineligible (Step 2B: NO).
Each of claims 11-18 is ineligible at least by virtue of dependence on claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claimed invention is directed to a method/process of operating an exoskeleton system, and thus falls under one of the acceptable statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Claim 11 recites:
“wherein generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units is further based at least in part on a user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting, and
wherein generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes scaling a magnitude of the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units based on the user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting”
As presently drafted, these limitations include process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the human mind (see “generating” steps) since the limitations merely recite generation of reference targets based on analysis of sensor data in claim 10. The human mind is capable of performing these steps, as the mind is able to observe position, observe and analyze quantitative measurements, determine quantitative measurements, and generate outputs based on this information. At present, nothing precludes the outlined steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these outlined steps recite a mental process-type abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a practical application
Claim 11 serves to limit the subject matter of claim 10, and does not recite any additional elements that serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 11 is subject to the same analysis given with respect to claim 10 above (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As has been outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 in claim 10, any additional elements merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity, and/or fail to link the pre-solution activity into a practical application by specifically causing a change in the actuator position/state by a structure/component of the exoskeleton system itself. In particular, the additional elements in the claim were shown to be well-known by virtue of the Goldfarb disclosure. Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept and the claim is ineligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding claim 12, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claimed invention is directed to a method/process of operating an exoskeleton system, and thus falls under one of the acceptable statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Claim 12 recites:
“wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a walking or running maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and
wherein, in response to identifying the walking or running maneuver, generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units including generating one or more reference targets that cause the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque at the actuator as long as the walking or running maneuver is identified as being present”
As presently drafted, these limitations include process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the human mind (see “determining”, “identifying”, and “generating” steps) since the limitations merely recite generation of reference targets based on analysis of sensor data in claim 10. The human mind is capable of performing these steps, as the mind is able to observe position, observe and analyze quantitative measurements, determine quantitative measurements, and generate outputs based on this information. Because the claim is only written such that the generated reference targets can merely “cause” the actuators to maintain zero torque rather than specifically controlling the actuators to perform such a step, the claim still recites an abstract idea. At present, nothing precludes the outlined steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these outlined steps recite a mental process-type abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a practical application
Claim 12 serves to limit the subject matter of claim 10, and does not recite any additional elements that serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 12 is subject to the same analysis given with respect to claim 10 above (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As has been outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 in claim 10, any additional elements merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity, and/or fail to link the pre-solution activity into a practical application by specifically causing a change in the actuator position/state by a structure/component of the exoskeleton system itself. In particular, the additional elements in the claim were shown to be well-known by virtue of the Goldfarb disclosure. Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept and the claim is ineligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding claim 13, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claimed invention is directed to a method/process of operating an exoskeleton system, and thus falls under one of the acceptable statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Claim 13 recites:
“wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a walking or running maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data; and
further comprising, in response to identifying the walking or running maneuver, identifying a plurality of phases of a walking gait of the user including a stance phase and a swing phase”
As presently drafted, these limitations include process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the human mind (see “determining” and “identifying” steps) since the limitations merely recite determination of maneuver state based on identifying walking/running patterns. The human mind is capable of performing these steps, as the mind is able to observe position, observe and analyze quantitative measurements, determine quantitative measurements, and generate outputs based on this information. At present, nothing precludes the outlined steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these outlined steps recite a mental process-type abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a practical application
Claim 13 serves to limit the subject matter of claim 10, and does not recite any additional elements that serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 13 is subject to the same analysis given with respect to claim 10 above (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As has been outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 in claim 10, any additional elements merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity, and/or fail to link the pre-solution activity into a practical application by specifically causing a change in the actuator position/state by a structure/component of the exoskeleton system itself. In particular, the additional elements in the claim were shown to be well-known by virtue of the Goldfarb disclosure. Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept and the claim is ineligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding claim 14, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claimed invention is directed to a method/process of operating an exoskeleton system, and thus falls under one of the acceptable statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Claim 14 recites:
“determining a slope value associated with terrain that the exoskeleton system is on, the determining based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and
wherein generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units is further based at least in part on the determined slope value”
As presently drafted, these limitations include process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the human mind (see “determining” and “generating” steps) since the limitations merely recite determination of slope value in generating the reference targets. The human mind is capable of performing these steps, as the mind is able to observe position, observe and analyze quantitative measurements, determine quantitative measurements, and generate outputs based on this information. At present, nothing precludes the outlined steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these outlined steps recite a mental process-type abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a practical application
Claim 14 serves to limit the subject matter of claim 10, and does not recite any additional elements that serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 14 is subject to the same analysis given with respect to claim 10 above (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As has been outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 in claim 10, any additional elements merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity, and/or fail to link the pre-solution activity into a practical application by specifically causing a change in the actuator position/state by a structure/component of the exoskeleton system itself. In particular, the additional elements in the claim were shown to be well-known by virtue of the Goldfarb disclosure. Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept and the claim is ineligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding claim 15, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claimed invention is directed to a method/process of operating an exoskeleton system, and thus falls under one of the acceptable statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Claim 15 recites:
“wherein determining the maneuver state includes:
identifying a first maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data, generating, in response to identifying the first maneuver, a first set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a first level of maneuver support to the user;
determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least a threshold duration; and
generating, in response determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least the threshold duration, generating a second set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a second level of maneuver support to the user, which is greater, or less than the first level of maneuver support”
As presently drafted, these limitations include process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the human mind (see “determining”, “identifying”, and “generating” steps) since the limitations merely recite determination of specific maneuvers and elapsed time in generating the reference targets. The human mind is capable of performing these steps, as the mind is able to observe position, observe and analyze quantitative measurements, determine quantitative measurements, and generate outputs based on this information. It is of note, that the generated reference targets are not specifically carried out in claim 15, rather the particular targets are essentially configured to/capable of enacting actuator motion. Thus, at present, nothing precludes the outlined steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these outlined steps recite a mental process-type abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a practical application
Claim 15 serves to limit the subject matter of claim 10, and does not recite any additional elements that serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 15 is subject to the same analysis given with respect to claim 10 above (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As has been outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 in claim 10, any additional elements merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity, and/or fail to link the pre-solution activity into a practical application by specifically causing a change in the actuator position/state by a structure/component of the exoskeleton system itself. In particular, the additional elements in the claim were shown to be well-known by virtue of the Goldfarb disclosure. Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept and the claim is ineligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding claim 16, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claimed invention is directed to a method/process of operating an exoskeleton system, and thus falls under one of the acceptable statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Claim 16 recites:
“wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a jump maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and further including:
identifying a flight phase of the jump maneuver, and identifying a landing phase of the jump maneuver”
As presently drafted, these limitations include process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the human mind (see “determining” and “identifying” steps) since the limitations merely recite determination/identification of phases of a jump. The human mind is capable of performing these steps, as the mind is able to observe position, observe and analyze quantitative measurements, determine quantitative measurements, and generate outputs based on this information. At present, nothing precludes the outlined steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these outlined steps recite a mental process-type abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a practical application
Claim 16 serves to limit the subject matter of claim 10, and does not recite any additional elements that serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 16 is subject to the same analysis given with respect to claim 10 above (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As has been outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 in claim 10, any additional elements merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity, and/or fail to link the pre-solution activity into a practical application by specifically causing a change in the actuator position/state by a structure/component of the exoskeleton system itself. In particular, the additional elements in the claim were shown to be well-known by virtue of the Goldfarb disclosure. Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept and the claim is ineligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding claim 17, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claimed invention is directed to a method/process of operating an exoskeleton system, and thus falls under one of the acceptable statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Claim 17 recites:
“wherein determining the maneuver state includes
identifying a fall or stumble event based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and
wherein, in response to identifying the fall or stumble event, generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes generating one or more reference targets that configure the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque on the one or more actuator units for a duration of the fall or stumble event”
As presently drafted, these limitations include process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the human mind (see “determining”, “identifying”, and “generating” steps) since the limitations merely recite determination of specific maneuvers in generating the reference targets. The human mind is capable of performing these steps, as the mind is able to observe position, observe and analyze quantitative measurements, determine quantitative measurements, and generate outputs based on this information. It is of note, that the generated reference targets are not specifically carried out in claim 15, rather the particular targets are essentially configured to/capable of enacting actuator motion. Thus, at present, nothing precludes the outlined steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these outlined steps recite a mental process-type abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a practical application
Claim 17 serves to limit the subject matter of claim 10, and does not recite any additional elements that serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 17 is subject to the same analysis given with respect to claim 10 above (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As has been outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 in claim 10, any additional elements merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity, and/or fail to link the pre-solution activity into a practical application by specifically causing a change in the actuator position/state by a structure/component of the exoskeleton system itself. In particular, the additional elements in the claim were shown to be well-known by virtue of the Goldfarb disclosure. Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept and the claim is ineligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding claim 18, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claimed invention is directed to a method/process of operating an exoskeleton system, and thus falls under one of the acceptable statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Claim 18 recites:
“wherein generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes scaling reference targets for at least one of a first and second actuator unit based at least in part on the indicated differential needs at the locations of the first and second actuator units being worn by the user”
As presently drafted, these limitations include process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the human mind (see “generating” and “scaling” steps) since the limitations merely recite mathematically scaling outputs associated with the reference targets. The human mind is capable of performing these steps, as the mind is able to observe position, observe and analyze quantitative measurements, determine quantitative measurements, and generate outputs based on this information. At present, nothing precludes the outlined steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these outlined steps recite a mental process-type abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a practical application
Claim 18 recites he following additional elements:
“receiving an indication of differential needs of the user at the locations of one or more actuator units being worn by the user”. Reception of signals from the sensors outlined in the claim is a data gathering step that is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity. This does not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Further, each of the exoskeleton system, the sensors, and the actuator units are well-known, routine, and conventional components of an exoskeleton device and method, as addressed by Goldfarb in the rejection of claim 10 above. Thus, claim 18 is subject to the same analysis given with respect to claim 10 above (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As has been outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 in claim 10, any additional elements merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity, and/or fail to link the pre-solution activity into a practical application by specifically causing a change in the actuator position/state by a structure/component of the exoskeleton system itself. In particular, the additional elements in the claim were shown to be well-known by virtue of the Goldfarb disclosure. Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept and the claim is ineligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding claim 19, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claimed invention is directed to a method/process of operating an exoskeleton system, and thus falls under one of the acceptable statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Claim 19 recites:
“determining a slope value associated with terrain that the exoskeleton system is on, the determining of the slope value based at least in part on the set of sensor data;
determining a plurality of maneuver states based at least in part on the set of sensor data;
wherein determining at least one of the plurality of maneuver states includes identifying a walking or running maneuver based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data,
wherein determining at least one of the plurality of maneuver states includes identifying a jump maneuver based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data, identifying a flight phase of the jump maneuver based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data, and identifying a landing phase of the jump maneuver based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data,
wherein determining at least one of the plurality of maneuver states includes identifying a fall or stumble event based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data;
determining one or more configurations of the one or more actuator units based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data;
generating a plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units based at least in part on one or more of the plurality of maneuver states, wherein generating one or more of the plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units is further based at least in part on a user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting,
wherein generating one or more of the plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes scaling a magnitude of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units based on the user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting,
wherein, in response to identifying the walking or running maneuver, generating one or more reference targets that cause the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque at the actuator as long as the walking or running maneuver is identified as being present,
wherein generating one or more of the plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units is further based at least in part on the determined slope value,
wherein, in response to identifying the fall or stumble event, generating one or more reference targets that configure the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque on the one or more actuator units for a duration of the fall or stumble event,
wherein generating one or more of the plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes scaling reference targets for at least one of a first and second actuator unit based at least in part on the indicated differential needs of the user at the one or more locations;
determining that the one or more actuator units are outside of one or more of the plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units; and
causing, in response to determining that the one or more actuator units are outside of one or more of the plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units, the one or more actuator units to be configured to be within the generated reference target for the one or more actuator units”.
As presently drafted, these limitations include process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the human mind (see “determining” and “generating” steps) since the limitations merely recite an analysis of measured signals from sensors, generation of reference targets based on this analysis, and observation of the position of the claimed actuators with respect to walking/running maneuvers, fall/stumble events, jumping maneuvers, or determination that the actuators are outside of the reference targets. The human mind is capable of performing these steps, as the mind is able to observe position, observe and analyze quantitative measurements, determine quantitative measurements, and generate outputs based on this information. At present, nothing precludes the outlined steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these outlined steps recite a mental process-type abstract idea.
Further, limitations as presently drafted include process steps which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover/are drawn to various methods of directing human activity (see “causing” step). As there is not presently any structure, hardware, or software component recited in the claim for causing the change in actuator position to be within a generated reference target, these steps could reasonably be provided as instruction/direction to a human operator wearing the exoskeleton system to configure the actuators, using their own muscular effort and limbs, to be within a predetermined reference target, or could reasonably be provided as instruction/direction to a clinician who uses their own muscular effort and limbs to move the actuator of the exoskeleton system to be within the generated reference target. As such, this outlined step recites a method of directing human activity which is a second example of an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a practical application
Claim 19 recites the following additional elements:
“an exoskeleton system”, “receiving an indication of differential needs of a user at one or more locations;”, and “obtaining a set of sensor data from at least sensors associated with one or more actuator units respectively coupled to the user”.
and “obtaining a set of sensor data from at least sensors associated with one or more actuator units respectively coupled to a user”.
Reception of signals from the sensors outlined in the claim is a data gathering step that is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity. This does not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Further, each of the exoskeleton system, the sensors, and the actuator units are well-known, routine, and conventional components of an exoskeleton device and method. For example, Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408) outlines an exoskeleton system (see paragraph 37, lines 1-4, and the orthosis 100 described at paragraph 38 and shown in Fig. 1), which includes sensors associated with one or more actuators (see abstract, lines 1-3; see paragraph 60 and note sensor interface module 606 in communication with thigh segments 108L,R and knee joints 104R,L, where paragraph 46 outlines that the knee joints include respective motor actuators). Thus, Goldfarb shows that the additional elements are well-known, routine, and conventional components within established prior art exoskeletons, and the use of these additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because each element is generic in the art, and do not serve to apply the abstract ideas with or by use of a particular machine, effect a transformation, or apply/use the abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment to avoid monopolizing the exception (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As has been outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity, and/or fail to link the pre-solution activity into a practical application by specifically causing a change in the actuator position/state by a structure/component of the exoskeleton system itself. In particular, the additional elements in the claim were shown to be well-known by virtue of the Goldfarb disclosure. Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept and the claim is ineligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 20 is ineligible at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claimed invention is directed to a method/process of operating an exoskeleton system, and thus falls under one of the acceptable statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Claim 20 recites:
“wherein determining the maneuver state includes:
identifying a first maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data, generating, in response to identifying the first maneuver, a first set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a first level of maneuver support to the user;
determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least a threshold duration; and
generating, in response determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least the threshold duration, generating a second set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a second level of maneuver support to the user, which is greater, or less than the first level of maneuver support”
As presently drafted, these limitations include process steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the human mind (see “determining”, “identifying”, and “generating” steps) since the limitations merely recite determination of specific maneuvers and elapsed time in generating the reference targets. The human mind is capable of performing these steps, as the mind is able to observe position, observe and analyze quantitative measurements, determine quantitative measurements, and generate outputs based on this information. It is of note, that the generated reference targets are not specifically carried out in claim 15, rather the particular targets are essentially configured to/capable of enacting actuator motion. Thus, at present, nothing precludes the outlined steps from being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these outlined steps recite a mental process-type abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a practical application
Claim 20 serves to limit the subject matter of claim 19, and does not recite any additional elements that serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 20 is subject to the same analysis given with respect to claim 19 above (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As has been outlined with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 in claim 19, any additional elements merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity, and/or fail to link the pre-solution activity into a practical application by specifically causing a change in the actuator position/state by a structure/component of the exoskeleton system itself. In particular, the additional elements in the claim were shown to be well-known by virtue of the Goldfarb disclosure. Therefore, the claim does not include an inventive concept and the claim is ineligible (Step 2B: NO).
These rejections can be overcome by amending claims 10 and 19 in a manner similar as to what is presented in claim 1. In claim 1, the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application by reciting that “the exoskeleton device” is responsible for the various obtaining, determining, generating, and causing steps. This differs from what is presented in claims 10 and 19, because there is not presently any specific device that is tied to the progression of the method steps throughout the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408).
Regarding claim 10, Goldfarb discloses a method of operating an exoskeleton system (100) (paragraph 8, lines 1-10; paragraph 38, lines 1-4; Fig. 1), the method comprising:
obtaining a set of sensor data from at least sensors associated with one or more actuator units respectively coupled to a user (paragraph 60, lines 1-16, see “sensors” and the sensor interface module 606, note that the sensors are applied at thigh links and/or knee modules; note that the left and right actuator units include knee joints 104, shank segments 106, thigh segments 108, and connectors 112 described in paragraph 39 and shown in Fig. 2);
determining a maneuver state based at least in part on the set of sensor data (abstract, lines 1-4 and 10-15, see “intent”; paragraph 68, lines 1-18; Fig. 9);
determining a configuration of the one or more actuator units based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 63, lines 1-10; paragraph 60, lines 1-16);
generating one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units based at least in part on the determined maneuver state, wherein the reference targets are generated in the same way while any walking maneuver is identified as being present (abstract, lines 1-4 and 10-15; paragraph 63, lines 1-10; paragraph 65, lines 1-13, see “trajectory commands”; note the claim interpretation under the 112b section above, “the same way” is taken to mean that sensor data and intent are used in various walking maneuvers to generate the reference targets);
determining that the one or more actuator units is outside of a generated reference target for the one or more actuator units (paragraph 60, lines 1-5; paragraph 63, lines 1-10; paragraph 65, lines 1-13, see “trajectory commands”, and note that the joints of the exoskeleton would be directed through the desired trajectory at least after an initial value/state outside of the desired trajectory); and
causing, in response to determining that the one or more actuator units are outside of the generated reference target for the one or more actuator units, the one or more actuator units to be configured to be within the generated reference target for the one or more actuator units (paragraph 60, lines 1-5; paragraph 63, lines 1-10; paragraph 65, lines 1-13, see “trajectory commands”, and note that the joints of the exoskeleton would be directed through the desired trajectory at least after an initial value/state outside of the desired trajectory).
Regarding claim 13, Goldfarb discloses the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
Goldfarb further discloses wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a walking or running maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 60, lines 1-5; paragraph 63, lines 1-10; paragraph 65, lines 1-13); and
further comprising, in response to identifying the walking or running maneuver, identifying a plurality of phases of a walking gait of the user including a stance phase and a swing phase (paragraph 65, lines 5-8; Fig. 8B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Horst (US 2004/0102723).
Regarding claim 11, Goldfarb discloses the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
While Goldfarb discloses generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units, Goldfarb fails to disclose wherein this step is achieved further based at least in part on a user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting, and
wherein generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes scaling a magnitude of the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units based on the user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting.
However, Horst teaches an active muscle support system (paragraph 25, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) wherein setting an assistance mode is based at least in part on a user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting (paragraph 46, lines 1-5; paragraph 60, lines 9-12), and
wherein generating the assistance force includes scaling a magnitude of the force based on the user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting (paragraph 46, lines 1-5; paragraph 60, lines 9-12, see “setting the amplitude”), in order to allow the user to control the assistive and/or resistive force applied by the muscle support system (paragraph 46, lines 1-3; paragraph 60, lines 9-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Goldfarb such that generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units is further based at least in part on a user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting, and wherein generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes scaling a magnitude of the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units based on the user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting, as taught by Horst, in order to allow the user of the exoskeleton system to control the amount of assistance/resistance applied by the exoskeleton device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Unluhisarcikli (US 2013/0226048).
Regarding claim 12, Goldfarb discloses the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
Goldfarb discloses determining the maneuver state includes identifying a walking or running maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data (abstract, lines 1-4 and 10-14; paragraph 60, lines 1-16; paragraph 65, lines 1-9).
Goldfarb fails to disclose wherein, in response to identifying the walking or running maneuver, generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units including generating one or more reference targets that cause the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque at the actuator as long as the walking or running maneuver is identified as being present.
However, Unluhisarcikli teaches an active knee orthotic for gait retraining (paragraph 48, lines 1-4; paragraph 98, lines 1-3; Fig. 3) wherein the device is configured to work to maintain zero torque as long as the walking or running maneuver is identified as being present, in order to create a zero interaction force between the user and the device when the user follows an ideal trajectory (paragraph 98, lines 1-7, note that torque/force is applied to ideal reference trajectory walking, but no force/torque is applied if the user walks correctly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified then device and method of Goldfarb such that in response to identifying the walking or running maneuver, generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units including generating one or more reference targets that cause the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque at the actuator as long as the walking or running maneuver is identified as being present, as taught by Unluhisarcikli, in order to create a zero interaction force between the user and the device when the user follows an ideal trajectory.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Yoon (US 2015/0197008).
Regarding claim 14, Goldfarb discloses the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
Goldfarb fails to disclose the method further comprising determining a slope value associated with terrain that the exoskeleton system is on, the determining based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and
wherein generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units is further based at least in part on the determined slope value.
However, Yoon teaches a walking assist robot (1) wherein a slope value associated with terrain that the system is on is determined, the determination based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 45, lines 1-8; paragraph 101, lines 1-11; paragraph 118, lines 1-13), and
wherein generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units is further based at least in part on the determined slope value (paragraph 45, lines 1-8; paragraph 118, lines 1-13), in order to alter the control of the device based on various terrain the user may encounter (paragraph 45, lines 1-8; paragraph 118, lines 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Goldfarb to include determining a slope value associated with terrain that the exoskeleton system is on, the determining based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and wherein generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units is further based at least in part on the determined slope value, as taught by Yoon, in order to alter the control of the device based on various terrain the user may encounter.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Kim (US 2021/0121729).
Regarding claim 15, Goldfarb discloses the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
Goldfarb fails to disclose identifying a first maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data,
generating, in response to identifying the first maneuver, a first set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a first level of maneuver support to the user;
determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least a threshold duration; and
generating, in response determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least the threshold duration, a second set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a second level of maneuver support to the user, which is greater, or less than the first level of maneuver support.
However, Kim teaches an exercise assist device (paragraph 43, lines 1-3) wherein a first maneuver is identified based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 81, lines 1-3; paragraph 93, lines 1-3, see “change a bending or lowering to a standing posture”),
generating, in response to identifying the first maneuver, a first set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a first level of maneuver support to the user (paragraph 93, lines 1-17);
determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least a threshold duration (paragraph 93, lines 18-23, see points A to B in Fig. 8A); and
generating, in response determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least the threshold duration, a second set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a second level of maneuver support to the user, which is greater, or less than the first level of maneuver support (paragraph 93, lines 13-23, see support level M2 and its decrease to zero following point B in Fig. 8A), wherein the series of steps helps guide the user to the standing posture (paragraph 93, lines 1-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Goldfarb to include identifying a first maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data,
generating, in response to identifying the first maneuver, a first set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a first level of maneuver support to the user; determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least a threshold duration; and generating, in response determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least the threshold duration, a second set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a second level of maneuver support to the user, which is greater, or less than the first level of maneuver support, as taught by Kim, in order to guide the user from a bending/lowering stature to a standing posture.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Lamb (US 2018/0296425).
Regarding claim 16, Goldfarb discloses the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
Goldfarb fails to disclose wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a jump maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and further including:
identifying a flight phase of the jump maneuver, and
identifying a landing phase of the jump maneuver.
However, Lamb teaches an exoskeleton system (100) wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a jump maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 67, lines 14-23), and further including:
identifying a flight phase of the jump maneuver (paragraph 67, lines 14-23, see “jumping”), and
identifying a landing phase of the jump maneuver (paragraph 67, lines 14-23, see “landing”) for configuring the actuators selectively in real time based on the detected state of the device (paragraph 67, final 5 lines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Goldfarb to include identifying a jump maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and further including: identifying a flight phase of the jump maneuver, and identifying a landing phase of the jump maneuver, as taught by Lamb, in order to configure the actuators selectively in real time based on the detected state of the device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Aoki (US 2012/0071797).
Regarding claim 17, Goldfarb discloses the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
Goldfarb fails to disclose wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a fall or stumble event based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and
wherein, in response to identifying the fall or stumble event, generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes generating one or more reference targets that configure the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque on the one or more actuator units for a duration of the fall or stumble event.
However, Aoki teaches a leg assist device (10) (paragraph 29, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a fall or stumble event based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 65, lines 1-9; paragraph 66, lines 1-8), and
wherein, in response to identifying the fall or stumble event, generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes generating one or more reference targets that configure the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque on the one or more actuator units for a duration of the fall or stumble event in order to allow the external force from the fall to naturally move the user’s limb to prevent excessive load to the joint (paragraph 66, lines 6-13, see “passive” and “releases”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Goldfarb to include determining the maneuver state includes identifying a fall or stumble event based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and wherein, in response to identifying the fall or stumble event, generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes generating one or more reference targets that configure the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque on the one or more actuator units for a duration of the fall or stumble event, as taught by Aoki, in order to allow the external force from the fall to naturally move the user’s limb to prevent excessive load to the joint.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Lee (US 10,322,015).
Regarding claim 18, Goldfarb discloses the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
Goldfarb fails to disclose receiving an indication of differential needs of the user at the locations of one or more actuator units being worn by the user, and
wherein generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes scaling reference targets for at least one of a first and second actuator unit based at least in part on the indicated differential needs at the locations of the first and second actuator units being worn by the user.
However, Lee teaches a motion assistance apparatus (10) (Col. 7, lines 10-11; Fig. 1) and an indication of differential needs of the user at the locations of one or more actuator units being worn by the user (Col. 17, lines 18-20), and
wherein generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes scaling reference targets for at least one of a first and second actuator unit based at least in part on the indicated differential needs at the locations of the first and second actuator units being worn by the user (Col. 17, lines 18-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Goldfarb to include receiving an indication of differential needs of the user at the locations of one or more actuator units being worn by the user, and wherein generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes scaling reference targets for at least one of a first and second actuator unit based at least in part on the indicated differential needs at the locations of the first and second actuator units being worn by the user, as taught by Lee, in order to provide varying levels of control and assistance to each leg as needed.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (S 2013/0197408) in view of Unluhisarcikli (US 2013/0226048).
Regarding claim 1, Goldfarb discloses a method of operating an exoskeleton system (paragraph 8, lines 1-10; paragraph 38, lines 1-4; Fig. 1), the method comprising:
obtaining, at an exoskeleton device (100), a set of sensor data from at least sensors associated with a left and right leg actuator unit respectively coupled to a left and right leg of a user (paragraph 60, lines 1-16, see “sensors” and the sensor interface module 606, note that the sensors are applied at thigh links and/or knee modules; note that the left and right actuator units include knee joints 104, shank segments 106, thigh segments 108, and connectors 112 for left and right legs as described in paragraph 39 and shown in Fig. 2), the left and right leg actuator units each including:
an upper arm (108R,L) and a lower arm (106R,L) that are rotatably coupled via a joint (104R,L), the joint (104R,L) positioned at a knee of the user with the upper arm (108R,L) coupled about an upper leg portion of the user above the knee and with the lower arm (106R,L) coupled about a lower leg portion of the user below the knee (paragraph 39, lines 1-20; Fig. 2, and see device in use at Fig. 1), and
an actuator that extends between the upper arm (108R,L) and lower arm (106R,L) (paragraph 38, lines 1-7; paragraph 46, lines 1-7; Fig. 5A);
determining, by the exoskeleton device (100), an intended maneuver state of the user based at least in part on the set of sensor data (abstract, lines 1-4 and 10-15, see “intent”; paragraph 68, lines 1-18; Fig. 9);
determining, by the exoskeleton device (100), a configuration of the left and right leg actuator units based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 63, lines 1-10; paragraph 60, lines 1-16);
determining, by the exoskeleton device (100), a left individual leg state for the left leg actuator unit based at least in part on the set of sensor data and the determined intended maneuver of the user;
determining, by the exoskeleton device (100), a right individual leg state for the right leg actuator unit based at least in part on the set of sensor data and the determined intended maneuver of the user (paragraph 65, lines 1-9);
generating, by the exoskeleton device (100), coordinated reference targets for the left and right leg actuator units based at least in part on the determined left and right individual leg states of the left and right leg actuator units and based at least in part on the determined intended maneuver state (abstract, lines 1-4 and 10-15; paragraph 63, lines 1-10; paragraph 65, lines 1-13, see “trajectory commands”);
determining, by the exoskeleton device (100), that the left leg actuator unit is outside of a generated reference target for the left leg actuator unit (paragraph 60, lines 1-5; paragraph 63, lines 1-10; paragraph 65, lines 1-13, see “trajectory commands”, and note that the joints of the exoskeleton would be directed through the desired trajectory at least after an initial value/state outside of the desired trajectory);
causing, by the exoskeleton device (100), in response to determining that the left leg actuator unit is outside of the generated reference target for the left leg actuator unit, actuation of the actuator to cause the left leg actuator unit to be within the generated reference target for the left leg actuator unit (paragraph 60, lines 1-5; paragraph 63, lines 1-10; paragraph 65, lines 1-13, see “trajectory commands”, and note that the joints of the exoskeleton would be directed through the desired trajectory at least after an initial value/state outside of the desired trajectory);
determining, by the exoskeleton device (100), that the right leg actuator unit is outside of a generated reference target for the right leg actuator unit (paragraph 60, lines 1-5; paragraph 63, lines 1-10; paragraph 65, lines 1-13, see “trajectory commands”, and note that the joints of the exoskeleton would be directed through the desired trajectory at least after an initial value/state outside of the desired trajectory); and
causing, by the exoskeleton device (100), in response to determining that the right leg actuator unit is outside of the generated reference target for the right leg actuator unit, actuation of the actuator to cause the right leg actuator unit to be within the generated reference target for the right leg actuator unit (paragraph 60, lines 1-5; paragraph 63, lines 1-10; paragraph 65, lines 1-13, see “trajectory commands”, and note that the joints of the exoskeleton would be directed through the desired trajectory at least after an initial value/state outside of the desired trajectory),
wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a walking or running maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data (abstract, lines 1-4 and 10-14; paragraph 60, lines 1-16; paragraph 65, lines 1-9).
Goldfarb fails to disclose wherein, in response to identifying the walking or running maneuver, generating the one or more reference targets for the left and right actuator units including generating free reference targets where the left and right actuator units are configured to work to maintain zero torque on the knees as long as the walking or running maneuver is identified as being present.
However, Unluhisarcikli teaches an active knee orthotic for gait retraining (paragraph 48, lines 1-4; paragraph 98, lines 1-3; Fig. 3) wherein the device is configured to work to maintain zero torque on the knees as long as the walking or running maneuver is identified as being present, in order to create a zero interaction force between the user and the device when the user follows an ideal trajectory (paragraph 98, lines 1-7, note that torque/force is applied to ideal reference trajectory walking, but no force/torque is applied if the user walks correctly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified then device and method of Goldfarb such that in response to identifying the walking or running maneuver, generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units including generating free reference targets where the left and right actuator units are configured to work to maintain zero torque on the knees as long as the walking or running maneuver is identified as being present, as taught by Unluhisarcikli, in order to create a zero interaction force between the user and the device when the user follows an ideal trajectory.
Regarding claim 4, Goldfarb in view of Unluhisarcikli disclose the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 1, as discussed above.
Goldfarb further discloses wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a walking or running maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 60, lines 1-5; paragraph 63, lines 1-10; paragraph 65, lines 1-13); and
further comprising, in response to identifying the walking or running maneuver, identifying a plurality of phases of a walking gait of the user including a stance phase and a swing phase (paragraph 65, lines 5-8; Fig. 8B).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408) in view of Unluhisarcikli (US 2013/0226048), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Horst (US 2004/0102723).
Regarding claim 2, Goldfarb in view of Unluhisarcikli disclose the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
While Goldfarb discloses generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units, Goldfarb fails to disclose wherein this step is achieved further based at least in part on a user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting, and
wherein generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes scaling a magnitude of the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units based on the user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting.
However, Horst teaches an active muscle support system (paragraph 25, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) wherein setting an assistance mode is based at least in part on a user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting (paragraph 46, lines 1-5; paragraph 60, lines 9-12), and
wherein generating the assistance force includes scaling a magnitude of the force based on the user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting (paragraph 46, lines 1-5; paragraph 60, lines 9-12, see “setting the amplitude”), in order to allow the user to control the assistive and/or resistive force applied by the muscle support system (paragraph 46, lines 1-3; paragraph 60, lines 9-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Goldfarb such that generating coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units is further based at least in part on a user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting, and wherein generating the coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units includes scaling a magnitude of the coordianted reference targets for the left and right actuator units based on the user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting, as taught by Horst, in order to allow the user of the exoskeleton system to control the amount of assistance/resistance applied by the exoskeleton device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408) in view of Unluhisarcikli (US 2013/0226048), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Yoon (US 2015/0197008).
Regarding claim 5, Goldfarb in view of Unluhisarcikli disclose the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
Goldfarb fails to disclose the method further comprising determining a slope value associated with terrain that the exoskeleton system is on, the determining based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and
wherein generating the coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units is further based at least in part on the determined slope value.
However, Yoon teaches a walking assist robot (1) wherein a slope value associated with terrain that the system is on is determined, the determination based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 45, lines 1-8; paragraph 101, lines 1-11; paragraph 118, lines 1-13), and
wherein generating the coordinated reference targets for the actuator units is further based at least in part on the determined slope value (paragraph 45, lines 1-8; paragraph 118, lines 1-13), in order to alter the control of the device based on various terrain the user may encounter (paragraph 45, lines 1-8; paragraph 118, lines 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Goldfarb to include determining a slope value associated with terrain that the exoskeleton system is on, the determining based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and wherein generating the coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units is further based at least in part on the determined slope value, as taught by Yoon, in order to alter the control of the device based on various terrain the user may encounter.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408) in view of Unluhisarcikli (US 2013/0226048), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kim (US 2021/0121729).
Regarding claim 6, Goldfarb in view of Unluhisarcikli disclose the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
Goldfarb fails to disclose identifying a standing maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data,
generating, in response to identifying the standing maneuver, a first set of coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units to provide a first level of maneuver support to the user;
determining that the standing maneuver has lasted at least a threshold duration; and
generating, in response determining that the standing maneuver has lasted at least the threshold duration, a second set of coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units to provide a second level of maneuver support to the user, which is greater, or less than the first level of standing support.
However, Kim teaches an exercise assist device (paragraph 43, lines 1-3) wherein a standing maneuver is identified based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 81, lines 1-3; paragraph 93, lines 1-3, see “change a bending or lowering to a standing posture”),
generating, in response to identifying the standing maneuver, a first set of coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units to provide a first level of standing support to the user (paragraph 93, lines 1-17);
determining that the standing maneuver has lasted at least a threshold duration (paragraph 93, lines 18-23, see points A to B in Fig. 8A); and
generating, in response determining that the standing maneuver has lasted at least the threshold duration, a second set of coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units to provide a second level of maneuver support to the user, which is greater, or less than the first level of standing support (paragraph 93, lines 13-23, see support level M2 and its decrease to zero following point B in Fig. 8A), wherein the series of steps helps guide the user to the standing posture (paragraph 93, lines 1-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Goldfarb to include identifying a standing maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data,
generating, in response to identifying the standing maneuver, a first set of coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units to provide a first level of standing support to the user; determining that the standing maneuver has lasted at least a threshold duration; and generating, in response determining that the standing maneuver has lasted at least the threshold duration, a second set of coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units to provide a second level of maneuver support to the user, which is greater, or less than the first level of standing support, as taught by Kim, in order to guide the user from a bending/lowering stature to a standing posture.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408) in view of Unluhisarcikli (US 2013/0226048), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lamb (US 2018/0296425).
Regarding claim 7, Goldfarb in view of Unluhisarcikli disclose the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
Goldfarb fails to disclose wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a jump maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and further including:
identifying a flight phase of the jump maneuver, and
identifying a landing phase of the jump maneuver; and
in response generating coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units to provide landing support to the user contacting the ground after the flight phase.
However, Lamb teaches an exoskeleton system (100) wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a jump maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 67, lines 14-23), and further including:
identifying a flight phase of the jump maneuver (paragraph 67, lines 14-23, see “jumping”), and
identifying a landing phase of the jump maneuver (paragraph 67, lines 14-23, see “landing”); and
in response generating coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units to provide landing support to the user contacting the ground after the flight phase for configuring the actuators selectively in real time based on the detected state of the device (paragraph 67, final 5 lines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Goldfarb to include identifying a jump maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and further including: identifying a flight phase of the jump maneuver, and identifying a landing phase of the jump maneuver; and in response generating coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units to provide landing support to the user contacting the ground after the flight phase, as taught by Lamb, in order to configure the actuators selectively in real time based on the detected state of the device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408) in view of Unluhisarcikli (US 2013/0226048), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Aoki (US 2012/0071797).
Regarding claim 8, Goldfarb in view of Unluhisarcikli disclose the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
Goldfarb fails to disclose wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a fall or stumble event based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and
wherein, in response to identifying the fall or stumble event, generating the coordinated targets for the left and right actuator units includes generating free reference targets that configure the left and right actuator units to work to maintain zero torque on the left and right actuator units for a duration of the fall or stumble event.
However, Aoki teaches a leg assist device (10) (paragraph 29, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a fall or stumble event based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 65, lines 1-9; paragraph 66, lines 1-8), and
wherein, in response to identifying the fall or stumble event, generating the coordinated reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes generating free reference targets that configure the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque on the one or more actuator units for a duration of the fall or stumble event in order to allow the external force from the fall to naturally move the user’s limb to prevent excessive load to the joint (paragraph 66, lines 6-13, see “passive” and “releases”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Goldfarb to include determining the maneuver state includes identifying a fall or stumble event based at least in part on the set of sensor data, and wherein, in response to identifying the fall or stumble event, generating the coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units includes generating free reference targets that configure the left and right actuator units to work to maintain zero torque on the left and right actuator units for a duration of the fall or stumble event, as taught by Aoki, in order to allow the external force from the fall to naturally move the user’s limb to prevent excessive load to the joint.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb (US 2013/0197408) in view of Unluhisarcikli (US 2013/0226048), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lee (US 10,322,015).
Regarding claim 9, Goldfarb in view of Unluhisarcikli disclose the method of operating the exoskeleton of claim 10, as discussed above.
Goldfarb fails to disclose receiving an indication of differential needs of the user at the locations of one or more actuator units being worn by the user, and
wherein generating the coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units includes scaling reference targets for at least one of a first and second actuator unit based at least in part on the indicated differential needs at the locations of the first and second actuator units being worn by the user.
However, Lee teaches a motion assistance apparatus (10) (Col. 7, lines 10-11; Fig. 1) and an indication of differential needs of the user at the locations of one or more actuator units being worn by the user (Col. 17, lines 18-20), and
wherein generating the coordinated reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes scaling reference targets for at least one of a first and second actuator unit based at least in part on the indicated differential needs at the locations of the first and second actuator units being worn by the user (Col. 17, lines 18-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Goldfarb to include receiving an indication of differential needs of the user at the locations of left and right actuator units being worn by the user, and wherein generating the coordinated reference targets for the left and right actuator units includes scaling reference targets for at least one of a first and second actuator unit based at least in part on the indicated differential needs at the locations of the first and second actuator units being worn by the user, as taught by Lee, in order to provide varying levels of control and assistance to each leg as needed.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb (US 2018/0296425) in view of Aoki (US 2012/0071797) and Unluhisarcikli (US 2013/0226048).
Regarding claim 19, Lamb discloses a method of operating an exoskeleton system (100) (paragraph 32, lines 1-3; Fig. 1), the method comprising:
receiving an indication of differential needs of a user at one or more locations (paragraph 31, lines 3-11; paragraph 67, lines 17-30; in each excerpt note “selectively” actuated bellows portions);
obtaining a set of sensor data from at least sensors associated with one or more actuator units respectively coupled to the user (paragraph 35, lines 1-15, note one or more actuators 130; paragraph 67, lines 17-30);
determining a slope value associated with terrain that the exoskeleton system is on, the determining of the slope value based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 35, lines 1-15; paragraph 67, lines 17-30, see “ascending” and “descending” stairs);
determining a plurality of maneuver states based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 35, lines 1-15; paragraph 67, lines 17-30, see each of the states detailed at lines 20-23);
wherein determining at least one of the plurality of maneuver states includes identifying a walking or running maneuver based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data (paragraph 35, lines 1-15; paragraph 67, lines 17-30, see “walking” and “running”),
wherein determining at least one of the plurality of maneuver states includes identifying a jump maneuver based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data, identifying a flight phase of the jump maneuver based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data, and identifying a landing phase of the jump maneuver based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data (paragraph 35, lines 1-15; paragraph 67, lines 17-30, see “jumping” and “landing”),
determining one or more configurations of the one or more actuator units based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data (paragraph 35, lines 1-15; paragraph 67, lines 17-30);
generating a plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units based at least in part on one or more of the plurality of maneuver states (paragraph 31, lines 1-10; paragraph 32, lines 1-14; paragraph 33, lines 1-3 and 7-10),
wherein generating one or more of the plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units is further based at least in part on a user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting (paragraph 32, lines 1-5; paragraph 32, lines 3-5),
wherein generating one or more of the plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes scaling a magnitude of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units based on the user-selected maneuver style setting, ability setting, desired assistance setting, or skill setting (paragraph 31, lines 1-13, note manual control and that inflation and deflation of the bellows enacts movement; paragraph 32, lines 1-5; paragraph 32, lines 3-5; see paragraph 41 for increasing and decreasing pressure/volume in the bellows),
wherein generating one or more of the plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units is further based at least in part on the determined slope value (paragraph 35, lines 1-15; paragraph 67, lines 17-30, note “ascending” and “descending” stairs),
wherein generating one or more of the plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes scaling reference targets for at least one of a first and second actuator unit based at least in part on the indicated differential needs of the user at the one or more locations (paragraph 31, lines 1-13, note selective inflation and deflation of the bellows; see paragraph 41 for increasing and decreasing pressure/volume in the bellows);
determining that the one or more actuator units are outside of one or more of the plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units (paragraph 35, lines 1-15; paragraph 67, lines 17-30, note that the “various states” can change based on sensor and/or environmental data in real time, and as such the actuators are controlled through a series of transitions where an initial position can reasonably differ from a desired position for any of the various states); and
causing, in response to determining that the one or more actuator units are outside of one or more of the plurality of reference targets for the one or more actuator units, the one or more actuator units to be configured to be within the generated reference target for the one or more actuator units (paragraph 35, lines 1-15; paragraph 67, lines 17-30, note that the “various states” can change based on sensor and/or environmental data in real time, and as such the actuators are controlled through a series of transitions where an initial position can reasonably differ from a desired position for any of the various states).
Lamb fails to disclose:
wherein determining at least one of the plurality of maneuver states includes identifying a fall or stumble event based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data;
wherein, in response to identifying the walking or running maneuver, generating one or more reference targets that cause the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque at the actuator as long as the walking or running maneuver is identified as being present,
wherein, in response to identifying the fall or stumble event, generating one or more reference targets that configure the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque on the one or more actuator units for a duration of the fall or stumble event.
However, Aoki teaches a leg assist device (10) (paragraph 29, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) wherein determining the maneuver state includes identifying a fall or stumble event based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data (paragraph 65, lines 1-9; paragraph 66, lines 1-8), and
wherein, in response to identifying the fall or stumble event, generating one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units includes generating free reference targets that configure the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque on the one or more actuator units for a duration of the fall or stumble event in order to allow the external force from the fall to naturally move the user’s limb to prevent excessive load to the joint (paragraph 66, lines 6-13, see “passive” and “releases”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Lamb to include determining the maneuver state includes identifying a fall or stumble event based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data, and wherein, in response to identifying the fall or stumble event, generating one or more reference targets for the actuator units includes generating free reference targets that configure the actuator units to work to maintain zero torque on the actuator units for a duration of the fall or stumble event, as taught by Aoki, in order to allow the external force from the fall to naturally move the user’s limb to prevent excessive load to the joint.
Now modified Lamb still fails to disclose:
wherein, in response to identifying the walking or running maneuver, generating one or more reference targets that cause the one or more actuator units to work to maintain zero torque at the actuator as long as the walking or running maneuver is identified as being present.
However, Unluhisarcikli teaches an active knee orthotic for gait retraining (paragraph 48, lines 1-4; paragraph 98, lines 1-3; Fig. 3) wherein the device is configured to work to maintain zero torque on the knees as long as the walking or running maneuver is identified as being present, in order to create a zero interaction force between the user and the device when the user follows an ideal trajectory (paragraph 98, lines 1-7, note that torque/force is applied to ideal reference trajectory walking, but no force/torque is applied if the user walks correctly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified then device and method of Lamb such that in response to identifying the walking or running maneuver, generating the one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units including generating reference targets where the actuator units are configured to work to maintain zero torque on the knees as long as the walking or running maneuver is identified as being present, as taught by Unluhisarcikli, in order to create a zero interaction force between the user and the device when the user follows an ideal trajectory.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb (US 2018/0296425) in view of Aoki (US 2012/0071797) and Unluhisarcikli (US 2013/0226048), as applied to claim 19 above, in further view of Kim (US 2021/0121729).
Regarding claim 20, Lamb in view of Aoki and Unluhisarcikli disclose the method of operating the exoskeleton system of claim 19, as discussed above.
Modified Lamb fails to disclose identifying a first maneuver based at least in part on a portion of the set of sensor data,
generating, in response to identifying the first maneuver, a first set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a first level of maneuver support to the user;
determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least a threshold duration; and
generating, in response determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least the threshold duration, a second set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a second level of maneuver support to the user, which is greater, or less than the first level of maneuver support.
However, Kim teaches an exercise assist device (paragraph 43, lines 1-3) wherein a first maneuver is identified based at least in part on the set of sensor data (paragraph 81, lines 1-3; paragraph 93, lines 1-3, see “change a bending or lowering to a standing posture”),
generating, in response to identifying the first maneuver, a first set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a first level of maneuver support to the user (paragraph 93, lines 1-17);
determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least a threshold duration (paragraph 93, lines 18-23, see points A to B in Fig. 8A); and
generating, in response determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least the threshold duration, a second set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a second level of maneuver support to the user, which is greater, or less than the first level of maneuver support (paragraph 93, lines 13-23, see support level M2 and its decrease to zero following point B in Fig. 8A), wherein the series of steps helps guide the user to the standing posture (paragraph 93, lines 1-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of modified Lamb to include identifying a first maneuver based at least in part on the set of sensor data, generating, in response to identifying the first maneuver, a first set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a first level of maneuver support to the user; determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least a threshold duration; and generating, in response determining that the first maneuver has lasted at least the threshold duration, a second set of one or more reference targets for the one or more actuator units to provide a second level of maneuver support to the user, which is greater, or less than the first level of maneuver support, as taught by Kim, in order to guide the user from a bending/lowering stature to a standing posture.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lamb (US 2019/0060157) is cited for its bellows-based leg actuators as shown in Fig. 1.
Swift (US 2019/0060156) is cited for its bellows-based leg actuators as shown in Fig. 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights