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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered. Applicant's remarks about the objection to the drawing are persuasive. Therefore, the previous objection to the drawing is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to cancelled claim 13 have overcome drawing objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed on 09/30/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “nowhere in Greiner nor Simon is there any motivation to replace the batteries with the at least one ultracapacitor as taught in Knopsnyder” the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art at minimum obvious to try modifying Grenier to use ultracapacitor of Knopsnyder. See MPEP 2143(I)(E), citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). As set forth in MPEP 2143(I)(E), per the evidence from Angold (US20070056592), there are limited number of options to provide power for the motor of an exoskeleton and there will be a reasonable expectation of success to using ultracapacitor in place of batteries.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 10-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenier et al. (US20190344429), Knopsnyder et al. (US20170338055) and Simon et al. (US20160213496) with evidence from Angold et al. (US20070056592).
With respect to claim 1, Grenier teaches a powered exoskeleton comprising (see FIG. 1, element 1): a power system (see FIG. 1, element 12), and a first exoskeleton member (see FIG. 1, element 2) and a second exoskeleton member (see FIG. 1, element 5) connected to at least one actuator (see FIGS. 8A and 8B, element 521) at an exoskeleton joint (see FIG. 3, element 52, paragraph 63); wherein the at least one actuator is electrically coupled to and powered by the power system to actuate the exoskeleton joint (see paragraph 48).
Grenier does not teach that including at least one ultracapacitor, wherein the at least one ultracapacitor includes a housing and an electrode assembly and electrolyte within the housing, further the at least one actuator is operatively coupled to a gearbox.
However, Knopsnyder teaches including at least one ultracapacitor (see FIG. 5, element 101), wherein the at least one ultracapacitor includes a housing (see paragraph 35) and an electrode assembly (see FIG. 5, element 102) and electrolyte within the housing (see paragraph 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Grenier to include ultracapacitor of Knopsnyder because it is known in the art that both batteries and capacitors can be use to provide power to exoskeleton. See Angold paragraph 57, noting that batteries and capacitors can be used to power motor of the components. As such it would at least be obvious to at least try an ultracapacitor with the exoskeleton taught in Grenier, as Adgold notes that there are a limited number of options, and further, there is a reasonable expectation of success using any of the limited number of options. See MPEP 2143(I)(E), citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Grenier and Knopsnyder, do not teach wherein the at least one actuator is operatively coupled to a gearbox.
However, Simon teaches wherein the at least one actuator is operatively coupled to a gearbox (see FIG. 1, elements 24, 26, and 27, paragraph 16, noting gearboxes 26 and 27 are coupled to the actuating device).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Grenier, Knopsnyder (as evidenced by Angold) and Simon to form the claimed invention in order to achieved excellent electrical properties even when the ultracapacitor exposed to high temperatures (see Knopsnyder paragraph 14).
With respect to claim 2, Grenier teaches the exoskeleton further comprises a control unit (see FIG. 1, element 13) electrically connected to the power system and the at least one actuator (see paragraph 48).
With respect to claim 3, Grenier teaches the exoskeleton comprises a third exoskeleton member (see FIG. 1, element 6) connected to the second exoskeleton member at a second exoskeleton joint (see FIG. 1, element 62).
With respect to claim 4, Grenier teaches a second exoskeleton joint (see FIG. 1, element 62) is associated with a second actuator (see paragraphs 97 and 98).
With respect to claim 5, Grenier teaches each actuator is electrically coupled to and powered by a respective power system (see paragraph 48).
With respect to claim 6, Grenier teaches the exoskeleton comprises multiple power systems attached at different locations on the exoskeleton (see paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 10, Grenier teaches the exoskeleton further comprises an attachment member to allow the exoskeleton to be operatively attached to a user (see paragraphs 21 and 22).
With respect to claim 11, Grenier teaches the power system further comprises a battery (see paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 12, Grenier teaches the powered exoskeleton (see FIG. 1, element 1) of claim 1.
Grenier and Simon, do not teach that the electrode assembly is in a jellyroll configuration.
However, Knopsnyder teaches the electrode assembly is in a jellyroll configuration (see paragraph 35).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Grenier, Knopsnyder and Simon to form the claimed invention in order to achieved excellent electrical properties even when the ultracapacitor exposed to high temperatures (see paragraph 14).
With respect to claim 14, Grenier teaches the powered exoskeleton (see FIG. 1, element 1) of claim 1.
Grenier and Simon, do not expressly teach that the electrode assembly contains a first electrode that comprises a first current collector electrically coupled to a first carbonaceous coating, a second electrode that comprises a second current collector electrically coupled to a second carbonaceous coating wherein the first current collector and the second current collector each contain a substrate that includes a conductive metal, and a separator positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode.
However, Knopsnyder teaches the electrode assembly contains a first electrode that comprises a first current collector electrically coupled to a first carbonaceous coating (see paragraph 3), a second electrode that comprises a second current collector electrically coupled to a second carbonaceous coating wherein the first current collector and the second current collector each contain a substrate that includes a conductive metal (see paragraph 3), and a separator positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode (see paragraph 3).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Grenier, Knopsnyder and Simon to form the claimed invention in order to achieved excellent electrical properties even when the ultracapacitor exposed to high temperatures (see paragraph 14).
With respect to claim 15, Grenier teaches the powered exoskeleton (see FIG. 1, element 1) of claim 14.
Grenier and Simon, do not teach that the conductive metal is aluminum or an alloy thereof.
However, Knopsnyder teaches the conductive metal is aluminum or an alloy thereof (see paragraph 18).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Grenier, Knopsnyder and Simon to form the claimed invention in order to achieved excellent electrical properties even when the ultracapacitor exposed to high temperatures (see paragraph 14).
With respect to claim 16, Grenier teaches the powered exoskeleton (see FIG. 1, element 1) of claim 14.
Grenier and Simon, do not teach that a plurality of fiber-like whiskers project outwardly from the substrate of the first current collector, the substrate of the second current collector, or both.
However, Knopsnyder teaches a plurality of fiber-like whiskers project outwardly from the substrate of the first current collector, the substrate of the second current collector, or both (see paragraph 19).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Grenier, Knopsnyder and Simon to form the claimed invention in order to achieved excellent electrical properties even when the ultracapacitor exposed to high temperatures (see paragraph 14).
With respect to claim 17, Grenier teaches the powered exoskeleton (see FIG. 1, element 1) of claim 16.
Grenier and Simon, do not teach that the whiskers contain a carbide of the conductive metal.
However, Knopsnyder teaches the whiskers contain a carbide of the conductive metal (see paragraph 19).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Grenier, Knopsnyder and Simon to form the claimed invention in order to achieved excellent electrical properties even when the ultracapacitor exposed to high temperatures (see paragraph 14).
With respect to claim 18, Grenier teaches the powered exoskeleton (see FIG. 1, element 1) of claim 14.
Grenier and Simon, do not teach that the carbonaceous coating of the first electrode, the second electrode, or a combination thereof contains activated carbon particles.
However, Knopsnyder teaches the carbonaceous coating of the first electrode, the second electrode, or a combination thereof contains activated carbon particles (see paragraph 13).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Grenier, Knopsnyder and Simon to form the claimed invention in order to achieved excellent electrical properties even when the ultracapacitor exposed to high temperatures (see paragraph 14).
With respect to claim 19, Grenier teaches the powered exoskeleton (see FIG. 1, element 1) of claim 18.
Grenier and Simon, do not teach that at least 50% by volume of the activated carbon particles have a size of from about 0.01 to about 30 micrometers.
However, Knopsnyder teaches at least 50% by volume of the activated carbon particles have a size of from about 0.01 to about 30 micrometers (see paragraph 23).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Grenier, Knopsnyder and Simon to form the claimed invention in order to achieved excellent electrical properties even when the ultracapacitor exposed to high temperatures (see paragraph 14).
With respect to claim 20, Grenier teaches the powered exoskeleton (see FIG. 1, element 1) of claim 18.
Grenier and Simon, do not teach that the activated carbon particles contain a plurality of pores, wherein the amount of pores having a size of about 2 nanometers or less is about 50 vol.% or less of the total pore volume, the amount of pores having a size of from about 2 nanometers to about 50 nanometers is about 20 vol.% to about 80 vol.% of the total pore volume, and the amount of pores having a size of about 50 nanometers or more is from about 1 vol.% to about 50 vol.% of the total pore volume.
However, Knopsnyder teaches the activated carbon particles contain a plurality of pores, wherein the amount of pores having a size of about 2 nanometers or less is about 50 vol.% or less of the total pore volume, the amount of pores having a size of from about 2 nanometers to about 50 nanometers is about 20 vol.% to about 80 vol.% of the total pore volume, and the amount of pores having a size of about 50 nanometers or more is from about 1 vol.% to about 50 vol.% of the total pore volume (see paragraph 24).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Grenier, Knopsnyder and Simon to form the claimed invention in order to achieved excellent electrical properties even when the ultracapacitor exposed to high temperatures (see paragraph 14).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenier, Knopsnyder and Simon, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Little et al. (US20160067137)
With respect to claim 7, Grenier, Knopsnyder and Simon teaches the powered exoskeleton (see FIG. 1, element 1) of claim 1.
Grenier, Knopsnyder and Simon do not teach that the exoskeleton further comprises a reserve power system for providing power to the at least one actuator.
Little on the other hand, teaches the exoskeleton further comprises a reserve power system for providing power to the at least one actuator (see paragraph 234).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Grenier, Knopsnyder, Simon and Little to form the claimed invention in order to assist in restoring basic mobility to a disabled user (see paragraph 234).
With respect to claim 8, Grenier, Knopsnyder and Simon teaches the powered exoskeleton (see FIG. 1, element 1) of claim 1.
Grenier, Knopsnyder and Simon do not teach that the power system is rechargeable.
Little on the other hand, teaches the power system is rechargeable (see paragraph 231).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Grenier, Knopsnyder, Simon and Little to form the claimed invention in order to assist in restoring basic mobility to a disabled user (see paragraph 234).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenier, Knopsnyder, Simon and Little, as applied to claim 8, further in view of Benmammar et al. (WO2020182955).
With respect to claim 9, Grenier, Knopsnyder and Little teaches the powered exoskeleton (see FIG. 1, element 1) of claim 8.
Grenier, Knopsnyder, Simon and Little do not expressly teach that the rechargeable power system is rechargeable wirelessly.
Benmammar on the other hand, teaches the rechargeable power system is rechargeable wirelessly (see paragraph 85, machine translated version).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Grenier, Knopsnyder, Simon, Little and Benmammar to form the claimed invention in order for user to be able to use the exoskeleton without requiring the presence of a second person for help (see paragraph 86, machine translated version).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER N LIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 5:00 ET.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/ESTHER N LIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2848
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2848