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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to an amendment filed on 11/13/2025. As directed by the amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 18 were amended, and no new claims were added. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending for this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more sidewalls integrally disposed within and defined by a portion of a boot or shoe” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claims 1, 5, and 11 recite “the one or more sidewalls integrally disposed within and defined by a portion of a boot or shoe”, and while the original specification recites “a portion of the lower-leg exoskeleton 100 can be disposed in, comprise, or be integrally coupled with a boot, shoe, or the like” in paragraph [0018] and “the removable flat base portion 117 integrally disposed within and extending through the sole of a footwear article 109” in paragraph [0021.1], there is a lack of written description of the one or more sidewalls being “integrally” disposed within/defined bya portion of a boot or shoe. Nnote paragraph [0018] also states “the sidewalls 112,base 114,base strap 120,heel strap 130, or the like, can be disposed in or be defined by a portion of a shoe or boot”, however this statement does not state whether the side wall is integrally disposed/defined.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lateral side of the lower leg of the user" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the knee" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the lateral side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the lateral side" in line 3, “the knee” in line 3, “the foot” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the shin" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durfee (US 2013/0333368) in view of Hsaio-Wecksler (US 2011/0112447, hereinafter Hsaio-Wecksler ‘447), Barber (US 4,523,582) and Hsaio-Wecksler (US 2012/0289870, hereinafter Hsaio-Wecksler ‘870).
Regarding claim 1, Durfee discloses (Fig. 1-7) a lower-leg exoskeleton comprising:
a single degree-of-freedom (DOF) ankle actuator (linear motion actuator 10, having single degree of freedom in vertical direction, see Fig. 6-7 Durfee) that is configured to be worn over a portion of a foot of a user and configured to be worn disposed adjacent to an ankle of the foot of the user at least on the lateral side of the lower leg of the user (see positioning in Fig. 2);
a foot structure (foot structure in Annotated Fig. 1) coupled to a first actuator end of the actuator (see coupling to firs end in Annotated Fig. 1), the rigid foot structure configured to surround a portion of the foot of the user (shown in Fig. 2), wherein the rigid foot structure comprises:
one or more sidewalls (see sidewalls in Annotated Fig. 1) including first and second sidewall attachment points (see Annotated Fig. 1) for connecting to a base portion (bottom portion that receives sole of foot, see Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 1), and
the base portion (portion that receives sole shown in Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 1), the base portion configured to reside at a base of the foot of the user; and
a shin structure (shin structure that mounts actuator 10 in Fig. 1) coupled at a second actuator end of the actuator (see Annotated Fig. 1), the shin structure configured to couple and engage with a shin of the user (shown in Fig. 2) wherein, the actuator and rigid foot structure are configured to generate a moment that forces the rigid shin structure toward the shin of the user such that the rigid shin structure engaging the shin of the user opposes the actuator such that the moment generated by the actuator results in flexion of the foot of the user (see flexion in Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Durfee is silent regarding the foot structure and shin structure being rigid.
However, Hsaio-Wecksler ‘447 teaches (Fig. 1-2) a lower leg exoskeleton comprising a foot structure (24) and shin structure (22), both being rigid (paragraphs [0037] and [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot and shin structures of Durfee to be rigid, as taught by Hsaio-Wecksler ‘447, for the purpose of improving the stability of the device by preventing the support structures of the device from deforming during use, which could result in user losing balance.
Modified Durfee does not disclose the one or more sidewalls extend around the foot of the user, the base portion integrally built into a rigid sole of a boot or shoe and including exposed external first and second base attachment points coupling with the first and second sidewall attachment points; and the actuator and rigid foot structure are configured to, when worn by the user, receive and transmit an actuator load generated by the actuator around the foot of the user to a load contact point of the lower-leg exoskeleton configured to be disposed at a bottom of the foot of the user defined by the rigid foot structure.
However, Barber teaches (Fig. 1-9) a modified footwear article comprising a rigid foot structure (including plates 21,22 and U-shaped member 30) having a pair of sidewalls (shown in Annotated Fig. 4 of Barber below) configured to extend a foot of the user and sidewall attachment points (lower ends 31, 32) and a base portion (plates 21,22) integrally built into a sole of a boot or shoe (because the removable flat base portion 21,22 of Barber has an inner portion 2 within shoe and exterior portion 21 external to sole and are connected via rivets, the flat portion would be integrally disposed within and extending through the sole of the footwear article due to the rivets disposed within and pass through the sole of the footwear article) and having exposed external first and second base attachment points coupling with the first and second sidewall attachment points (see upwardly extending ends of base 21,22 that connect with sidewall connection points 31,32). Regarding the limitation “receive and transmit an actuator load generated by the actuator around the foot of the user to a load contact point of the lower-leg exoskeleton configured to be disposed at a bottom of the foot of the user defined by the rigid foot structure”, this limitation is met by Barber due to stirrup of Barber that has sloping section that extends above foot so the stirrup does not contact top portion of foot and therefore load generated around the foot and to the bottom of the foot, see Fig. 4 Barber.
PNG
media_image2.png
542
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note that while Barber is used for patients undergoing inversion therapy, and therefore not in the same field of endeavor of lower leg exoskeletons, Barber is analogous art because it is pertinent to a similar problem, that being redistributing weight that is applied to the ankle/sole of a user around the top area of the foot/shoe for the purpose of reducing trauma to the hell, ankle or instep that would otherwise occur (Col. 1 lines 33-68 and Col. 2 lines 1-5 Barber). See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot structure of modified Durfee such that the one or more sidewalls extend around the foot of the user, the base portion integrally built into a rigid sole of a boot or shoe and including exposed external first and second base attachment points coupling with the first and second sidewall attachment points; and the actuator and rigid foot structure are configured to, when worn by the user, receive and transmit an actuator load generated by the actuator around the foot of the user to a load contact point of the lower-leg exoskeleton configured to be disposed at a bottom of the foot of the user defined by the rigid foot structure, as taught by Barber, for the purpose of improving securement of device to user by enclosing the foot within the sidewalls to prevent vertical dislodgement of the foot, and for allowing for redistribution of the load from the sole of the user in order to reduce possible damage to heel, ankle and instep (Col. 1 lines 33-68 Barber).
Modified Durfee does not disclose the one or more sidewalls are integrally disposed within and defined by a portion of a boot or shoe.
However, Hsiao-Wecksler ‘870 teaches (Fig. 1-3) a lower body exoskeleton comprising one or more sidewalls (extensions 54,55) integrally disposed within and defined by a portion of a boot or shoe (foot bed 24, which includes extensions 54, 55, disclosed as being fit inside a running/walking shoe so that the sole 49 is provided by the sole of the shoe and the extensions 54,55 extending out of the shoe, paragraph [0048]).
It appears based on the description in paragraph [0048] of Hsaio-Wecksler ‘870 that the at least one sidewall is integrally disposed within the shoe, however in the case that it is not, it has been held, outside evidence of criticality, that making separate parts integrally attached has been held to be a matter of design consideration and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Durfee such the one or more sidewalls are integrally disposed within and defined by a portion of a boot or shoe, as taught by Hsaio-Wecksler ‘870, for the purpose of allowing a user’s shoe to incur environmental/operation damage of walking instead of the exoskeleton, thus extending life of user of the exoskeleton.
Regarding claim 2, modified Durfee discloses wherein the base portion is integrally built into the rigid sole of the boot or shoe (because the removable flat base portion 21,22 of Barber has an inner portion 2 within shoe and exterior portion 21 external to sole and are connected via rivets, the flat portion would be integrally disposed within and extending through the sole of the footwear article due to the rivets disposed within and pass through the sole of the footwear article) and allows force to be transmitted directly through the rigid sole of the boot or shoe without using the foot of the user as part of a load path for the moment generated by the actuator that results in flexion of the foot of the user (this limitation is met by Barber due to stirrup of Barber that has sloping section that extends above foot so the stirrup does not contact top portion of foot and therefore load generated around the foot and to the bottom of the foot, see Fig. 4 Barber).
Regarding claim 3, modified Durfee discloses wherein the rigid foot structure is coupled to a first actuator end of the actuator (see Annotated Fig. 1 of Durfee above) and comprises a heel structure in a heel of the shoe or boot (see heel portion of 21,22 Barber) configured to provide a load path for force generated by the actuator that results in the flexion of the foot of the user (see Fig. 1 Barber and Fig. 2 Durfee).
Regarding claim 5, Durfee discloses (Fig. 1-7) a lower-leg exoskeleton comprising:
an ankle actuator (linear motion actuator 10) that is configured to be worn above a foot of a user and configured to be worn disposed below the knee of the user and configured to be worn disposed on the lateral side of a lower leg of the user above the foot of the user and below the knee of the user (see positioning in Annotated Fig. 2), the ankle actuator configured to support the user while walking (“support” interpreted to mean “assist” in this context, and the actuator 10 is disclosed to assist user in walking, paragraph [0030] and Fig. 2);
a foot structure (food structure in Annotated Fig. 1) coupled to a first actuator end of the actuator (see coupling in Annotated Fig. 1), the rigid foot structure configured to surround a portion of the foot of the user (shown in Fig. 2), wherein the rigid foot structure is configured to support the user while walking (“support” interpreted to mean “assist” in this context, and the actuator 10 is disclosed to assist user in walking, paragraph [0030] and Fig. 2) and comprises:
one or more sidewalls (sidewalls in Annotated Fig. 1) configured to support the user while walking and including first and second sidewall attachment points (shown in Annotated Fig. 1) for connecting to a base portion (bottom portion that receives sole of foot, shown in Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 1) to support the user while walking, and
a base portion (base portion shown in Annotated Fig. 1) configured to reside at a base of the foot of the user (Fig. 2) to support the user while walking (Fig. 2); and
a shin structure (shin structure mounted to actuator 10 in Fig. 1) coupled at a second actuator end of the actuator (see Annotated Fig. 1), the shin structure configured to engage with a shin of the user and to support the user while walking (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Durfee is silent regarding the foot structure and shin structure being rigid.
However, Hsaio-Wecksler ‘447 teaches (Fig. 1-2) a lower leg exoskeleton comprising a foot structure (24) and shin structure (22), both being rigid (paragraphs [0037] and [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot and shin structures of Durfee to be rigid, as taught by Hsaio-Wecksler ‘447, for the purpose of improving the stability of the device by preventing the support structures of the device from deforming during use, which could result in user losing balance.
Modified Durfee does not disclose the one or more sidewalls extend around the foot of the user, the base portion including exposed external first and second base attachment points coupling with the first and second sidewall attachment points.
However, Barber teaches (Fig. 1-9) a modified footwear article comprising a rigid foot structure (including plates 21,22 and U-shaped member 30) having a pair of sidewalls (shown in Annotated Fig. 4 of Barber below) configured to extend a foot of the user and sidewall attachment points (lower ends 31, 32) and a base portion (plates 21,22) having exposed external first and second base attachment points coupling with the first and second sidewall attachment points (see upwardly extending ends of base 21,22 that connect with sidewall connection points 31,32). Regarding the limitation “receive and transmit an actuator load generated by the actuator around the foot of the user to a load contact point of the lower-leg exoskeleton configured to be disposed at a bottom of the foot of the user defined by the rigid foot structure”, this limitation is met by Barber due to stirrup of Barber that has sloping section that extends above foot so the stirrup does not contact top portion of foot and therefore load generated around the foot and to the bottom of the foot, see Fig. 4 Barber.
PNG
media_image2.png
542
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note that while Barber is used for patients undergoing inversion therapy, and therefore not in the same field of endeavor of lower leg exoskeletons, Barber is analogous art because it is pertinent to a similar problem, that being redistributing weight that is applied to the ankle/sole of a user around the top area of the foot/shoe for the purpose of reducing trauma to the hell, ankle or instep that would otherwise occur (Col. 1 lines 33-68 and Col. 2 lines 1-5 Barber). See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot structure of modified Durfee such that the one or more sidewalls extend around the foot of the user, the base portion including exposed external first and second base attachment points coupling with the first and second sidewall attachment points, as taught by Barber, for the purpose of improving securement of device to user by enclosing the foot within the sidewalls to prevent vertical dislodgement of the foot, and for allowing for redistribution of the load from the sole of the user in order to reduce possible damage to heel, ankle and instep (Col. 1 lines 33-68 Barber).
Modified Durfee does not disclose the one or more sidewalls are integrally disposed within and defined by a portion of a boot or shoe.
However, Hsiao-Wecksler ‘870 teaches (Fig. 1-3) a lower body exoskeleton comprising one or more sidewalls (extensions 54,55) integrally disposed within and defined by a portion of a boot or shoe (foot bed 24, which includes extensions 54, 55, disclosed as being fit inside a running/walking shoe so that the sole 49 is provided by the sole of the shoe and the extensions 54,55 extending out of the shoe, paragraph [0048]).
It appears based on the description in paragraph [0048] of Hsaio-Wecksler ‘870 that the at least one sidewall is integrally disposed within the shoe, however in the case that it is not, it has been held, outside evidence of criticality, that making separate parts integrally attached has been held to be a matter of design consideration and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Durfee such the one or more sidewalls are integrally disposed within and defined by a portion of a boot or shoe, as taught by Hsaio-Wecksler ‘870, for the purpose of allowing a user’s shoe to incur environmental/operation damage of walking instead of the exoskeleton, thus extending life of user of the exoskeleton.
Regarding claim 6, modified Durfee discloses wherein the actuator is a single degree-of-freedom (DOF) actuator that provides no more than one DOF (linear motor actuator 10 of Durfee has a single degree of freedom in vertical direction that causes flexion/extension of ankle, see Fig. 6-7 Durfee).
Regarding claim 7, modified Durfee discloses wherein the base portion is integrally built into a rigid sole of a boot or shoe (because the removable flat base portion 21,22 of Barber has an inner portion 2 within shoe and exterior portion 21 external to sole and are connected via rivets, the flat portion would be integrally disposed within and extending through the sole of the footwear article due to the rivets disposed within and pass through the sole of the footwear article).
Regarding claim 8, modified Durfee discloses wherein, the actuator and rigid foot structure are configured to, when worn by the user to support the user while walking, receive and transmit an actuator load generated by the actuator around the foot of the user to a load contact point of the lower-leg exoskeleton configured to be disposed at a bottom of the foot of the user defined by the rigid foot structure (this limitation is met by Barber due to stirrup of Barber that has sloping section that extends above foot so the stirrup does not contact top portion of foot and therefore load generated around the foot and to the bottom of the foot, see Fig. 4 Barber).
Regarding claim 9, modified Durfee discloses wherein, the actuator is configured to generate a moment that forces the rigid shin structure toward the shin of the user such that the rigid shin structure engaging the shin of the user opposes the actuator (portion of shin structure on lateral portion of leg moves toward shin when foot flexion generated by the moment as shown in Fig. 2) such that the moment generated by the actuator results in movement of the foot of the user (Fig. 2 Durfee shows the progression of moving the user by the device which provides for the functions claimed as shown).
Regarding claim 10, modified Durfee discloses wherein the base portion is integrally built into a rigid sole of a boot or shoe (because the removable flat base portion 21,22 of Barber has an inner portion 2 within shoe and exterior portion 21 external to sole and are connected via rivets, the flat portion would be integrally disposed within and extending through the sole of the footwear article due to the rivets disposed within and pass through the sole of the footwear article) and allows force to be transmitted directly through a heel structure in a heel of the rigid sole of the boot or shoe without using the foot of the user as part of a load path for a moment generated by the actuator that results in flexion of the foot of the user to support the user while walking (stirrup has sloping section that extends above foot so the stirrup does not contact top portion of foot and therefore load generated around the foot and to the bottom of the foot, see Fig. 4 Barber, which results in support while walking, see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0030] Durfee).
Claims 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durfee (US 2013/0333368) in view of Barber (US 4,523,582) and Hsaio-Wecksler ‘870 (US 2012/0289870).
Regarding claim 11, Durfee discloses (Fig. 1-7) a lower-leg exoskeleton comprising:
an actuator (actuator 11) configured to be worn disposed on a lateral side of a lower leg of the user that is below the knee (see below knee in Fig. 2);
and a foot structure (see structure in Annotated Fig. 1), the foot structure configured to surround a portion of the foot of the user (Fig. 1) and support the user during ambulatory activity (“support” interpreted to mean “assist” in this context, and the actuator 10 and foot structure are disclosed to assist user in walking, an ambulatory activity. See Abstract).
wherein the foot structure comprises:
one or more sidewalls (see sidewalls in Annotated Fig. 1) and including a first and second sidewall attachment points for connecting to a base portion (see attachment of sidewall points to base in Annotated Fig. 1), and
a base portion (base portion that receives sole shown in Fig. 2) configured to reside at a base of the foot of the user.
PNG
media_image1.png
492
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Durfee does not disclose the actuator is configured to support a user during an ambulatory activity.
However, Hsaio-Wecksler ‘447 teaches (Fig. 2) an actuator (actuator 26) configured to support user during an ambulatory activity (“support” interpreted to mean “assist” in this context, and the actuator 26 is disclosed to assist user in walking, an ambulatory activity. See Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator of Durfee to support user during an ambulatory activity, as taught by Hsaio-Wecksler ‘447, for the purpose of allowing user to utilize device when on the move.
Regarding the limitations that the foot structure and associated components are configured to support user during an ambulatory activity, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that because the modified device of Durfee is usable for walking, the foot structure would be user to support weight of user therefore the limitation is met.
Modified Durfee does not disclose that the one or more sidewalls extend around the foot of the user (Durfee only discloses sidewalls that extend along a side of user foot and not “around” user’s foot), and the base portion including exposed external first and second base attachment points coupling with the first and second sidewall attachment points.
However, Barber teaches (Fig. 1-9) a modified footwear article comprising a rigid foot structure (comprising plates 21,22 and U-shaped member 30) having a pair of sidewalls (shown in Annotated Fig. 4 of Barber) configured to extend around foot of user wherein the sidewalls comprise attachment points (lower ends 31,32) and a base portion (plates 21,22) having exposed external first and second base attachment points (see upwardly extending ends of base that connect with the side wall connecting points).
PNG
media_image2.png
542
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sidewalls and base of modified Abramowitz so that one or more sidewalls extend around the foot of the user, and the base portion including exposed external first and second base attachment points coupling with the first and second sidewall attachment points, as taught by Barber, for the purpose of improving securement of device to user by enclosing the foot within the sidewalls to prevent vertical dislodgement of the foot, and for allowing for redistribution of the load from the sole of the user in order to reduce possible damage to heel, ankle and instep (Col. 1 lines 33-68 Barber).
Modified Durfee does not disclose the one or more sidewalls are integrally disposed within and defined by a portion of a boot or shoe.
However, Hsiao-Wecksler ‘870 teaches (Fig. 1-3) a lower body exoskeleton comprising one or more sidewalls (extensions 54,55) integrally disposed within and defined by a portion of a boot or shoe (foot bed 24, which includes extensions 54, 55, disclosed as being fit inside a running/walking shoe so that the sole 49 is provided by the sole of the shoe and the extensions 54,55 extending out of the shoe, paragraph [0048]).
It appears based on the description in paragraph [0048] of Hsaio-Wecksler ‘870 that the at least one sidewall is integrally disposed within the shoe, however in the case that it is not, it has been held, outside evidence of criticality, that making separate parts integrally attached has been held to be a matter of design consideration and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Durfee such the one or more sidewalls are integrally disposed within and defined by a portion of a boot or shoe, as taught by Hsaio-Wecksler ‘870, for the purpose of allowing a user’s shoe to incur environmental/operation damage of walking instead of the exoskeleton, thus extending life of user of the exoskeleton.
Regarding claim 12, modified Durfee discloses the actuator is configured to be worn disposed adjacent to an ankle of the foot of the user (see adjacent to ankle Fig. 2 Durfee).
Regarding claim 13, modified Durfee discloses a shin structure (see shin structure that mounts the actuator in Fig. 1 Durfee) coupled at a second actuator end of the actuator (see second end coupled in Annotated Fig. 1 Durfee), the shin structure configured to engage with a shin of the user (see Fig. 2 Durfee).
Regarding claim 14, modified Durfee discloses the actuator is a single degree-of-freedom (DOF) actuator that provides no more than one DOF (linear motion actuator therefore degree of freedom in vertical direction, see Fig. 6-7 Durfee).
Regarding claim 15, modified Durfee discloses wherein the base portion is integrally built into a sole of a boot or shoe (because the removable flat base portion 21,22 of Barber has an inner portion 2 within shoe and exterior portion 21 external to sole and are connected via rivets, the flat portion would be integrally disposed within and extending through the sole of the footwear article due to the rivets disposed within and pass through the sole of the footwear article).
Regarding claim 16, modified Drufee discloses the actuator and foot structure are configured to, when worn by the user, receive and transmit an actuator load generated by the actuator around the foot of the user to a load contact point of the lower-leg exoskeleton configured to be disposed at a bottom of the foot of the user defined by the foot structure (stirrup of Barber has sloping section that extends above foot so the stirrup does not contact top portion of foot and therefore load generated around the foot and to the bottom of the foot, see Fig. 4 Barber).
Regarding claim 17, modified Durfee discloses the actuator is configured to generate a moment that forces the shin structure toward the shin of the user such that the shin structure engaging the shin of the user opposes the actuator (portion of shin structure on lateral portion of leg moves toward shin when foot flexion generated by the moment as shown in Fig. 2) such that the moment generated by the actuator results in movement of the foot of the user (Fig. 2 Durfee shows the progression of moving the user by the device which provides for the functions claimed as shown).
Regarding claim 18, modified Durfee discloses wherein the base portion is integrally built into a sole of a boot or shoe (because Barber discloses the removable flat base portion has an inner portion within shoe and exterior portion 21 external to sole and are connected via rivets, the flat portion would be integrally disposed within and extending through the sole of the footwear article due to the rivets disposed within and pass through the sole of the footwear article) and allows force to be transmitted directly through a heel structure in a heel of the sole of the boot or shoe without using the foot of the user as part of a load path for a moment generated by the actuator that results in movement of the foot of the user (stirrup has sloping section that extends above foot so the stirrup does not contact top portion of foot and therefore load generated around the foot and to the bottom of the foot, see Fig. 4 Barber).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durfee (US 2013/0333368) in view of Hsaio-Wecksler ‘447 (US 2011/0112447) and Barber (US 4,523,582) and Hsaio-Wecksler ‘870 (US 2012/0289870), and further in view of Smith (US 2013/0289452).
Regarding claim 4, modified Durfee discloses a robotic exoskeleton system comprising: a first lower-leg exoskeleton of claim 1 coupled to a left leg of the user (see Fig. 2 of Durfee and rejection of claim 1 above); and a control system (paragraph [0041] Durfee).
Durfee does not disclose a second lower-leg exoskeleton of claim 1 coupled to a right leg of the user the control system configured to sense conditions associated with the first and lower-leg exoskeletons via one or more sensors and provide feedback control for the robotic exoskeleton system by selectively actuating the respective actuators of the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons in response to the sensed conditions, the feedback control generating a walking gait for the user wearing the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons by the selective actuation of the respective actuators, wherein sensing conditions associated with the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons includes determining a position, movement, rotation and orientation of the left and right legs of the user and/or a position, movement, rotation and orientation of the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons.
However, Smith teaches (Fig. 1) an exoskeleton comprising a first lower leg exoskeleton and a second lower leg exoskeleton (skeletal joint system 102 on each leg), one or more sensors (sensor system 110 having sensors 114) and a control system (112); and the control system is configured to provide feedback control for the first and second lower-leg exoskeleton based on data from the one or more sensors by selectively actuating the respective actuators of the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons in response to the sensed conditions (paragraphs [0032]-[0033] and [0057]), the feedback control generating a walking gait for the user wearing the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons by the selective actuation of the respective actuators (paragraph [0032]-[033]), wherein sensing conditions associated with the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons includes determining a position, movement, rotation and orientation of the left and right legs of the user and/or a position, movement, rotation and orientation of the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons (paragraph [0032]-[0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Durfee to include a second lower-leg exoskeleton of claim 1 coupled to a right leg of the user the control system configured to sense conditions associated with the first and lower-leg exoskeletons via one or more sensors and provide feedback control for the robotic exoskeleton system by selectively actuating the respective actuators of the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons in response to the sensed conditions, the feedback control generating a walking gait for the user wearing the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons by the selective actuation of the respective actuators, wherein sensing conditions associated with the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons includes determining a position, movement, rotation and orientation of the left and right legs of the user and/or a position, movement, rotation and orientation of the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons, as taught by Smith, for the purpose of facilitating rehabilitation therapy for both legs, as well as to provide a way for the control system to adjust operation based on sensed information of each lower leg exoskeleton, thereby optimizing operation of the system.
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durfee (US 2013/0333368) in view of Barber (US 4,523,582) and Hsaio-Wecksler ‘870 (US 2012/0289870), and further in view of Smith (US 2013/0289452).
Regarding claim 19, modified Durfee discloses a robotic exoskeleton system comprising: a first lower-leg exoskeleton of claim 11 coupled to a left leg of the user (see rejection of claim 11 above), and a control system (paragraph [0041] Durfee), but does not disclose a second lower-leg exoskeleton of claim 11 coupled to a right leg of the user; one or more sensors; and the control system is configured to provide feedback control for the first and second lower-leg exoskeleton based on data from the one or more sensors.
However, Smith teaches (Fig. 1) an exoskeleton comprising a first lower leg exoskeleton and a second lower leg exoskeleton (skeletal joint system 102 on each leg), one or more sensors (sensor system 110 having sensors 114) and a control system (112); and the control system is configured to provide feedback control for the first and second lower-leg exoskeleton based on data from the one or more sensors (paragraphs [0032]-[0033] and [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Durfee to include a second lower-leg exoskeleton of claim 11 coupled to a right leg of the user; one or more sensors; and the control system is configured to provide feedback control for the first and second lower-leg exoskeleton based on data from the one or more sensors, as taught by Smith, for the purpose of facilitating rehabilitation therapy for both legs, as well as to provide a way for the control system to adjust operation based on sensed information of each lower leg exoskeleton, thereby optimizing operation of the system.
Regarding claim 20, modified Durfee discloses the control system is configured to sense conditions associated with the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons via the one or more sensors and provide feedback control for the robotic exoskeleton system by selectively actuating the respective actuators of the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons in response to the sensed conditions (paragraphs [0032]-[0033] and [0057]) , the feedback control generating a walking gait for the user wearing the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons by the selective actuation of the respective actuators (paragraph [0033]), wherein sensing conditions associated with the first and second lower-leg exoskeletons includes determining at least one of a position, movement, rotation and orientation of the left and right legs of the user (paragraph [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding rejection of claims 1, 5, 11 and 17 under 35 USC 112(b), applicant argued (page 10 paragraphs 4-7 and page 11 paragraph 1-3 Remarks) that the terms “the lateral side of the lower leg”, “the knee”, “the shin” and “the foot” are not unclear because a lower leg of a user, previously recited in the claim, inherently has a knee, shin and foot, equating this to the decision of Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 98 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D. Mass. 2000) discussed in MPEP 2173.05(e), and thus there is no lack of antecedent basis for the terms “the lateral side of the lower leg”, “the knee”, “the shin” and “the foot”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the anatomical terms lower leg, foot, knee, shin and lateral side are commonly known in the anatomy and biomechanical parts and thus do not require antecedent basis, applicant has not provided any section in MPEP to support this claim.
Furthermore, applicant appears to be under the assumption that the lower leg of a user inherently includes a knee, a shin and a foot, however this is not the case for a user who lost one or more of these components through amputation or birth. Thus, a lower leg of a user does not inherently include the portions as applicant appears to suggest, thus the claim is unclear due to lack of antecedent basis for the terms.
Regarding “the lateral side”, applicant is reminded that a leg inherently includes two lateral sides, therefore reciting “the lateral side” is unclear via lack of antecedent basis because it is not clear which lateral side the limitation is directed to. This is dissimilar to the case cited because there is only one outer surface of a sphere, not multiple possible outer surfaces. This issue in clarity would not exist for “a lateral side” because it is open ended to either left or right sides.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 USC 103 with respect to claim(s) 1, 5 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on one or more new references not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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 Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785