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 03/11/2026 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
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5-12 and 14-20 have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth below which was necessitated by applicant's amendments.
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, 3, 5, 6, 10-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oladeji (US20210335555) in view of Grenier et al. (US20190344429), Knopsnyder et al. (US20170338055) and Simon et al. (US20160213496).
With respect to claim 1, Oladeji teaches a powered exoskeleton comprising (see paragraph 226): a power system including at least one ultracapacitor (see paragraph 226).
Oladeji does not expressly teach that the at least one ultracapacitor includes a housing and an electrode assembly and electrolyte within the housing; a first exoskeleton member, a second exoskeleton member, and a third exoskeleton member powered by the power system; a first actuator electrically coupled to and powered by the power system to actuate a first exoskeleton joint, wherein the first actuator is connected to the first exoskeleton member and the second exoskeleton member, wherein the first exoskeleton joint includes a first gearbox; a second actuator electrically coupled to and powered by the power system to actuate a second exoskeleton joint, wherein the second actuator is connected to the second exoskeleton member and the third exoskeleton member, wherein the second exoskeleton joint includes a second gearbox; and a control unit electrically connected to the power system and the first actuator and the second actuator, wherein the control unit controls power supplied to the first actuator and the second actuator by the at least one ultracapacitor.
Knopsnyder, on the other hand, teaches 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 Oladeji to include ultracapacitor of Knopsnyder because it is known in the art that both batteries and capacitors can be used to provide power to exoskeleton.
Knopsnyder does not expressly teach that a first exoskeleton member, a second exoskeleton member, and a third exoskeleton member powered by the power system; a first actuator electrically coupled to and powered by the power system to actuate a first exoskeleton joint, wherein the first actuator is connected to the first exoskeleton member and the second exoskeleton member, wherein the first exoskeleton joint includes a first gearbox; a second actuator electrically coupled to and powered by the power system to actuate a second exoskeleton joint, wherein the second actuator is connected to the second exoskeleton member and the third exoskeleton member, wherein the second exoskeleton joint includes a second gearbox; and a control unit electrically connected to the power system and the first actuator and the second actuator, wherein the control unit controls power supplied to the first actuator and the second actuator by the at least one ultracapacitor.
Grenier, on the other hand, teaches a power system (see FIG. 1, element 12), and a first exoskeleton member (see FIG. 2, element 2), a second exoskeleton member (see FIG. 1, element 5) and a third exoskeleton member (see FIG. 1, element 6) powered by the power system, a first actuator (see FIG. 8A, element 521, paragraph 63) electrically coupled to and powered by the power system to actuate a first exoskeleton joint (see FIG. 1, element 52), wherein the first actuator is connected to the first exoskeleton member and the second exoskeleton member, a second actuator (see FIG. 8A, element 521, paragraph 97) electrically coupled to and powered by the power system to actuate a second exoskeleton joint (see FIG. 1, element 62), wherein the second actuator is connected to the second exoskeleton member and the third exoskeleton member, and a control unit (see FIG. 1, element 13) electrically connected to the power system and the first actuator and the second actuator, wherein the control unit controls power supplied to the first actuator and the second actuator by the at least one ultracapacitor (see paragraph 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oladeji and Knopsnyder to include exoskeleton of Grenier. 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.
Grenier does not expressly teach that wherein the first exoskeleton joint includes a first gearbox; wherein the second exoskeleton joint includes a second gearbox.
However, Simon teaches wherein the first exoskeleton joint includes a first gearbox (see FIG. 1, elements 24, 26, and 27, paragraph 16, noting gearboxes 26 and 27 are coupled to the actuating device); wherein the second exoskeleton joint includes a second 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 Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier 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 3, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that the third exoskeleton member (see Grenier FIG. 1, element 6) is connected to the second exoskeleton member at the second exoskeleton joint (see Grenier FIG. 1, element 62).
With respect to claim 5, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that the first actuator and the second actuator are electrically coupled to and powered by a respective power system (see Grenier paragraph 48).
With respect to claim 6, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that the exoskeleton comprises multiple power systems attached at different locations on the exoskeleton (see Grenier paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 10, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that the exoskeleton further comprises an attachment member to allow the exoskeleton to be operatively attached to a user (see Grenier paragraphs 21 and 22).
With respect to claim 11, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that the power system further comprises a battery (see Grenier paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 12, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that the electrode assembly is in a jellyroll configuration (see Knopsnyder paragraph 35).
With respect to claim 14, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that the electrode assembly contains a first electrode that comprises a first current collector electrically coupled to a first carbonaceous coating (see Knopsnyder 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 Knopsnyder paragraph 3), and a separator positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode (see Knopsnyder paragraph 3).
With respect to claim 15, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that the conductive metal is aluminum or an alloy thereof (see Knopsnyder paragraph 18).
With respect to claim 16, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon 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 (see Knopsnyder paragraph 19).
With respect to claim 17, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that the whiskers contain a carbide of the conductive metal (see Knopsnyder paragraph 19).
With respect to claim 18, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that the carbonaceous coating of the first electrode, the second electrode, or a combination thereof contains activated carbon particles (see Knopsnyder paragraph 13).
With respect to claim 19, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that at least 50% by volume of the activated carbon particles have a size of from about 0.01 to about 30 micrometers (see Knopsnyder paragraph 23).
With respect to claim 20, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon 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 (see Knopsnyder paragraph 24).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Little et al. (US20160067137)
With respect to claim 7, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that the powered exoskeleton (see Oladeji paragraph 226) of claim 1.
Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier 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 Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier, Simon and Little to form the claimed invention in order to assist in restoring basic mobility to a disabled user (see Little paragraph 234).
With respect to claim 8, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that the powered exoskeleton (see Oladeji paragraph 226) of claim 1.
Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier 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 Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier, Simon and Little to form the claimed invention in order to assist in restoring basic mobility to a disabled user (see Little paragraph 234).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier, Simon and Little, as applied to claim 8, further in view of Benmammar et al. (WO2020182955).
With respect to claim 9, the combined teachings of Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier and Simon teach that the powered exoskeleton (see Oladeji paragraph 226) of claim 8.
Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier, 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 Oladeji, Knopsnyder, Grenier, 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 Benmammar paragraph 86, machine translated version).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 2847
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights