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
This Action is in response to the amendment filed on May 15, 2026.
As directed by the amendment: Claims 22-24 and 27-29 were amended. Claims 1-21, 25-26 and 30-31 have been cancelled. Claims 22-24, 27-29, and 32 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28, line 2 recites “a gait parameter” and the Examiner suggests --the gait parameter-- to clarify the antecedent basis from claim 27, line 16.
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 24 and 29 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 24, line 4 recites “a following step” which is confusing because claim 22 already recites “a next step” (see the penultimate line). It is unclear whether the “following step” is meant to be distinct from the “next step,” and it is unclear whether the “following step” would be after the “next step.”
Claim 29, line 4 recites “a following step” which is confusing because claim 27 already recites “a next step” (see the penultimate line). It is unclear whether the “following step” is meant to be distinct from the “next step,” and it is unclear whether the “following step” would be before or after the “next step.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 22-24, 27-29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai (2006/0211956) in view of Aoki et al. (2012/0071797).
Regarding claim 22, Sankai discloses a walking assistance apparatus (Figs. 1-2, Fig. 15) comprising:
a torque generator (driving current generating unit 5, Fig. 15 and hip actuator(s) 201a, Fig. 2; see the last sentence of [0095]) configured to generate an assistive torque for assisting a walk of a user wearing the walking assistance apparatus (“actuator 201 generates a torque … [and] is driven in accordance with the wearer’s intention” see para. [0105] and Fig. 10-11 showing the device assist with a walking task A);
a sensor (physical quantity sensor 13, Fig. 15) configured to measure a right and left hip joint angle information of the user (sensor 13 “detects rotation angle and angular velocity of each joint,” see the second sentence of [0134] and see Fig. 11b which shows that the hip (waist) joint angles θ are measured, see the second sentence of [0134] and see Fig. 11b which shows that the hip (waist) joint angles are measured), and
a processor, including a processing circuit (computer executing the program of control device 20C, Fig. 15; thus performing processing functions as part of a circuit by receiving sensor signals, communicating with database 6, and generating command signals to drive the walking assist device, and the computer will execute the method of Fig. 16, see lines 1-7 of [0017], the first sentence of [0119], and the last sentence of [0119]) configured to:
control the torque generator (driving current generating unit 5, Fig. 15 and hip actuator(s) 201a, Fig. 2) to generate the assistive torque based on the right and left hip joint angle information (see control device 20C in Fig. 15 and see steps ST803-ST811, Fig. 16; the control device 20C detects physical quantities from sensor 13, which includes measurements of right and left hip joint angle information in ST803, compares the measured physical quantities to a standard parameter of a task/phase such as a walking task/phase in the database 6 in ST805, and once a number of matches reaches a reference number in ST806-ST807, corresponding hybrid ratio and power assist rate(s) are determined in ST808, an autonomous command signal is generated in ST809, the total command signal is generated by combining optional command signal 24, d1, Fig. 15, and autonomous command signal 17, d2, Fig. 15 and ST810, and the driving of the actuator is performed by supplying current according to the total command signal in ST811. Thus, the controller controls the torque based at least partially on the right and left hip joint angle information indicating a match with a given walking task/phase),
determine a walking state of the user based at least on the right and left hip joint angle information (see steps ST803-ST808, Fig. 16; the measured physical quantity from sensor 13, which detects rotation angle of each joint including waist angle θ as seen in Fig. 11b, and the joint angles are compared to database 6 of standard task/phase data to determine a walking state of the user such as phase A1, phase A2, phase A3, phase A4, see Figs. 10-11 and paragraphs [0124], [0131]), the walking state being any one of walking states included in a gait cycle (such as phase A1, phase A2, phase A3, phase A4, see Figs. 10-11 and para. [0124]),
update, in response to the walking state being determined to be changed, a current walking state of the user to a changed walking state (the measured joint angles are repeatedly measured and compared to the database 6 such as at times t1, t2, t3, Fig. 11b, see ST806-ST807, Fig. 16, and this comparison continues so that the controller will update the identified walking state as the user proceeds through phases A1, A2, A3, A4, see para. [0124]. As the user moves through each phase of the walking cycle, this will be detected and a current walking state of the user will be changed/updated), and
determine whether a transition between consecutive walking states within the gait cycle is performed based on the right and left hip joint angle information (the measured joint angles are repeatedly measured and compared to the database 6 such as at times t1, t2, t3, Fig. 11b, see ST806-ST807, Fig. 16. The hip joint angles in the end portion of Phase A1 in Fig. 11b will be indicative of a transition between consecutive walking states Phase A1, A2, see Figure 10. For example, when the hip joint angles are measured at the end of Phase A1 and compared to the database 6 to determine a match for the end of Phase A1, a transition has been detected because the end portion of Phase A1 is a transition to Phase A2 within the gait cycle. See Figures 10-11b), and
determine, for a next step whether the walking state is changed (the measured joint angles are repeatedly measured and compared to the database 6 such as at times t1, t2, t3, Fig. 11b, see ST806-ST807, Fig. 16, and this comparison continues so that the controller will update the identified walking state as the user proceeds through phases A1, A2, A3, A4, see para. [0124]. As the user moves through each phase of the walking cycle, this will be detected and a current walking state of the user will be changed/updated).
Sankai is silent regarding determining that the changed walking state is not a normal walking state based on first determining that the changed walking state is not an exceptional walking state and then determining that the transition between the consecutive walking states is not being performed, reset a gait parameter for the changed walking state, and not apply the assistive torque to a corresponding step, and determine, for a next step of the corresponding step, whether the walking state is changed.
Aoki teaches a related walking assistance device (Fig. 1) including a processor and processing circuit (controller 40, Fig. 5, which is a CPU that executes software functions, see para. [0042]) configured to detect changed walking states (abnormality management process including “Detect Abnormality” S52, see Fig. 7, and see Figs 7-10 generally. The abnormality management process is “repeatedly execute[d] … for every predetermined cycle” see the last sentence of [0050] and thus would be configured to repeatedly evaluate the changed walking states determined by Sankai). Aoki determines that the changed walking state is not a normal walking state (see “Not Normal Walking State” in annotated Figure A below. When an abnormality has been detected, and the controller proceeds to the second abnormality management process and determines the lower link is not swinging, this is considered to be a “not normal” walking state because it is a state with an abnormality, and a state where the lower link is not swinging) based on first determining that the changed walking state is not an exceptional walking state (see “NO” at S58, Figure 7. This is a determination that the walking state is not an “exceptional walking state.” An “exceptional walking state” is considered a state where the abnormality relates to the control system or the power supply system because such an abnormality is substantial enough to require shutting torque transmission off immediately, see annotated Figure A below) and then (after S58, Fig. 7, the process proceeds to “NO” at S102, Fig. 8, and then to “NO” at S202, Fig. 9) determining that the transition between the consecutive walking states is not being performed (see “NO” at S202, Figure 9. This is a determination that the lower link is not swinging and thus no transition between walking states is being performed), reset a gait parameter for the changed walking state (the torque for the changed walking state is “reset” to zero by shutting off torque transmission at S204, Fig. 9), and not to apply the assistive torque to a corresponding step (the torque transmission is shut off at S204 and the One-way Clutch (OWC) is engaged at S206 to “prohibit[] the backward swing of the lower link”, and then the abnormality process reaches its “END” see Fig. 9 and see the first sentence of [0010] and see all of para. [0054]), determining, for a next step of the corresponding step, whether the walking state is changed (“The safety module 46 repeatedly executes the above processes for every predetermined cycle” see the last sentence of [0050]. Thus, the controller of the modified device will repeat the determination of walking state(s) disclosed by Sankai and also evaluate whether each walking state has an abnormality when the user takes another step). The safety module (46) thus detects abnormalities and shuts off torque “immediately” for exceptional walking states (abnormalities related to the control system or power supply system, see S56, S58, S60, Fig. 7; see also lines 5-10 of [0051], and the first two sentences of [0052]), while allowing the device to finish certain movements in less exceptional situations (see the First through Fourth abnormality management processes, see Figs. 7-11 and para. [0051]-[0057]).
PNG
media_image1.png
541
929
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A (from Figures 7-9 of Aoki): Aoki determines a changed walking state is not a normal walking state (not “Normal” is considered the rectangular box after “NO” in S202 at the bottom right of the Figure) based on first determining that the changed walking state is not an exceptional walking state (see S56, S58, “NO”. An “exceptional walking state” is considered a state where the abnormality relates to the control system or the power supply system) and then determining that the transition between the consecutive walking states is not being performed (see S102 “NO.” This is a determination that the lower link is not swinging and thus no transition between walking states is being performed), and Aoki resets a gait parameter for the changed walking state (the torque for the changed walking state is “reset” to zero by shutting off torque transmission at S204), and not to apply the assistive torque to a corresponding step (the torque transmission is shut off at S204 and the One-way Clutch (OWC) is engaged at S206 to “prohibit[] the backward swing of the lower link”, and then the abnormality process reaches its “END”, the first sentence of [0010] and see all of para. [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor and processing circuit of Sankai to determining that the changed walking state is not a normal walking state based on first determining that the changed walking state is not an exceptional walking state and then determining that the transition between the consecutive walking states is not being performed, reset a gait parameter for the changed walking state, and not apply the assistive torque to a corresponding step, and determine, for a next step of the corresponding step, whether the walking state is changed as taught by Aoki because this provides a safety protocol that detects abnormalities, and prioritizes whether to immediately shut off torque for exceptional states (such as for overheating motor, see lines 5-10 of [0051], and the first two sentences of [0052] of Aoki), or determine if the abnormality would allow the walking assistance device to complete a movement that is already in progress (via the First through Fourth abnormality management processes, see Figs. 7-11 and para. [0051]-[0057] of Aoki). Repeatedly executing this abnormality detection process for each changed walking state would provide an expected benefit that each changed walking state is evaluated for safety/malfunction.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Sankai/Aoki device discloses wherein the processor (computer executing program of 20C of Sankai, as modified by controller 40 of Aoki) is further configured to reset the gait parameter for the changed walking state to zero, in response to the changed walking state being the exceptional walking state (the torque parameter for the changed walking state is “reset” to zero by shutting off torque transmission, see S60 in Figure 7 of Aoki. This step is considered an “exceptional walking state” as seen in Figure. A above because this is a state where the abnormality relates to the control system or the power supply system, S56, S58, see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Sankai/Aoki device discloses wherein the processor (computer executing program of 20C of Sankai, as modified by controller 40 of Aoki) is further configured not to use the gait parameter for the changed walking state to generate the assistive torque applied to a following step, in response to the changed walking state being the exceptional walking state (if there is an abnormality detected relating to the control system, or relating to the power supply system as seen in S56-S58 in Fig. 7 of Aoki, this is considered an exceptional walking state and results in an applied torque of zero at S60. A following walking step would not rely on the applied torque of zero because the safety module “repeatedly executes the above processes for every predetermined cycle” see the last sentence of [0050]. Thus, the following walking step of a current walking step would essentially start over and not be using the gait parameter of zero torque from the exceptional walking state).
Regarding claim 27, Sankai discloses a method (Fig. 16) of controlling a walking assistance apparatus (Figs. 1-2, Fig. 15), the method comprising:
measuring (ST803, Fig. 16), using a sensor (physical quantity sensor 13, Fig. 15), right and left hip joint angle information of a user wearing the walking assistance apparatus (sensor 13 detects “rotation angle and angular velocity of each joint,” see the second sentence of [0134] and see Fig. 11b which shows that the hip (waist) joint angles θ are measured);
controlling (by control computer executing the program of control device 20C, Fig. 15; thus performing processing functions as part of a circuit by receiving sensor signals, communicating with database 6, and generating command signals to drive the walking assist device, and the computer will execute the method of Fig. 16, see lines 1-7 of [0017], the first sentence of [0119], and the last sentence of [0119]) a torque generator (driving current generating unit 5, Fig. 15 and hip actuator(s) 201a, Fig. 2; see the last sentence of [0095]) to generate an assistive torque for assisting a walk of the user (assist torque is generated by actuator(s) such as 201a, Fig. 2 driven by driving current generating unit 5, Fig. 15, as seen in steps ST808-ST811, Fig. 16) based on the right and left hip joint angle information (see control device 20C in Fig. 15 and see steps ST803-ST811, Fig. 16; the control device 20C detects physical quantities from sensor 13, which includes measurements of right and left hip joint angle information in ST803, compares the measured physical quantities to a standard parameter of a task/phase such as a walking task/phase in the database 6 in ST805, and once a number of matches reaches a reference number in ST806-ST807, corresponding hybrid ratio and power assist rate(s) are determined in ST808, an autonomous command signal is generated in ST809, the total command signal is generated by combining optional command signal 24, d1, Fig. 15, and autonomous command signal 17, d2, Fig. 15 and ST810, and the driving of the actuator is performed by supplying current according to the total command signal in ST811. Thus, the controller controls the torque based at least partially on the right and left hip joint angle information indicating a match with a given walking task/phase),
determining a walking state of the user based at least on the right and left hip joint angle information (see steps ST803-ST808, Fig. 16; the measured physical quantity from sensor 13, which detects rotation angle of each joint including waist angle θ as seen in Fig. 11b, and the joint angles are compared to database 6 of standard task/phase data to determine a walking state of the user such as phase A1, phase A2, phase A3, phase A4, see Figs. 10-11 and paragraphs [0124], [0131]), the walking state being any one of walking states included in a gait cycle (such as phase A1, phase A2, phase A3, phase A4, see Figs. 10-11 and para. [0124]),
updating, in response to the walking state being determined to be changed, a current walking state of the user to a changed walking state (the measured joint angles are repeatedly measured and compared to the database 6 such as at times t1, t2, t3, Fig. 11b, see ST806-ST807, Fig. 16, and this comparison continues so that the controller will update the identified walking state as the user proceeds through phases A1, A2, A3, A4, see para. [0124]. As the user moves through each phase of the walking cycle, this will be detected and a current walking state of the user will be changed/updated),
determining whether a transition between consecutive walking states within the gait cycle is performed based on the right and left hip joint angle information (the measured joint angles are repeatedly measured and compared to the database 6 such as at times t1, t2, t3, Fig. 11b, see ST806-ST807, Fig. 16. The hip joint angles in the end portion of Phase A1 in Fig. 11b will be indicative of a transition between consecutive walking states Phase A1, A2, see Figure 10. For example, when the hip joint angles are measured at the end of Phase A1 and compared to the database 6 to determine a match for the end of Phase A1, a transition has been detected because the end portion of Phase A1 is a transition to Phase A2 within the gait cycle. See Figures 10-11b), and
determining, for a next step whether the walking state is changed (the measured joint angles are repeatedly measured and compared to the database 6 such as at times t1, t2, t3, Fig. 11b, see ST806-ST807, Fig. 16, and this comparison continues so that the controller will update the identified walking state as the user proceeds through phases A1, A2, A3, A4, see para. [0124]. As the user moves through each phase of the walking cycle, this will be detected and a current walking state of the user will be changed/updated).
Sankai is silent regarding determining that the changed walking state is not a normal walking state based on first determining that the changed walking state is not an exceptional walking state and then determining that the transition between the consecutive walking states is not being performed, resetting a gait parameter for the changed walking state, and not applying the assistive torque to a corresponding step, and determining, for a next step of the corresponding step, whether the walking state is changed.
Aoki teaches a related walking assistance device (Fig. 1) including a processor and processing circuit (controller 40, Fig. 5, which is a CPU that executes software functions, see para. [0042]) configured to detect changed walking states (abnormality management process including “Detect Abnormality” S52, see Fig. 7, and see Figs 7-10 generally. The abnormality management process is “repeatedly execute[d] … for every predetermined cycle” see the last sentence of [0050] and thus would be configured to repeatedly evaluate the changed walking states determined by Sankai). Aoki determines that the changed walking state is not a normal walking state (see “Not Normal Walking State” in annotated Figure A above. When an abnormality has been detected, and the controller proceeds to the second abnormality management process and determines the lower link is not swinging, this is considered to be a “not normal” walking state because it is a state with an abnormality, and a state where the lower link is not swinging) based on first determining that the changed walking state is not an exceptional walking state (see “NO” at S58, Figure 7. This is a determination that the walking state is not an “exceptional walking state.” An “exceptional walking state” is considered a state where the abnormality relates to the control system or the power supply system because such an abnormality is substantial enough to require shutting torque transmission off immediately, see annotated Figure A above) and then (after S58, Fig. 7, the process proceeds to “NO” at S102, Fig. 8, and then to “NO” at S202, Fig. 9) determining that the transition between the consecutive walking states is not being performed (see “NO” at S202, Figure 9. This is a determination that the lower link is not swinging and thus no transition between walking states is being performed), resetting a gait parameter for the changed walking state (the torque for the changed walking state is “reset” to zero by shutting off torque transmission at S204, Fig. 9), and not applying the assistive torque to a corresponding step (the torque transmission is shut off at S204 and the One-way Clutch (OWC) is engaged at S206 to “prohibit[] the backward swing of the lower link”, and then the abnormality process reaches its “END” see Fig. 9 and see the first sentence of [0010] and see all of para. [0054]), determining, for a next step of the corresponding step, whether the walking state is changed (“The safety module 46 repeatedly executes the above processes for every predetermined cycle” see the last sentence of [0050]. Thus, the controller of the modified device will repeat the determination of walking state(s) disclosed by Sankai and also evaluate whether each walking state has an abnormality when the user takes another step). The safety module (46) thus detects abnormalities and shuts off torque “immediately” for exceptional walking states (abnormalities related to the control system or power supply system, see S56, S58, S60, Fig. 7; see also lines 5-10 of [0051], and the first two sentences of [0052]), while allowing the device to finish certain movements in less exceptional situations (see the First through Fourth abnormality management processes, see Figs. 7-11 and para. [0051]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor and processing circuit of Sankai to determining that the changed walking state is not a normal walking state based on first determining that the changed walking state is not an exceptional walking state and then determining that the transition between the consecutive walking states is not being performed, reset a gait parameter for the changed walking state, and not apply the assistive torque to a corresponding step, and determine, for a next step of the corresponding step, whether the walking state is changed as taught by Aoki because this provides a safety protocol that detects abnormalities, and prioritizes whether to immediately shut off torque for exceptional states (such as for overheating motor, see lines 5-10 of [0051], and the first two sentences of [0052] of Aoki), or determine if the abnormality would allow the walking assistance device to complete a movement that is already in progress (via the First through Fourth abnormality management processes, see Figs. 7-11 and para. [0051]-[0057] of Aoki). Repeatedly executing this abnormality detection process for each changed walking state would provide an expected benefit that each changed walking state is evaluated for safety/malfunction.
Regarding claim 28, the modified Sankai/Aoki method discloses wherein the controlling further comprises resetting a gait parameter for the changed walking state to zero, in response to the changed walking state being the exceptional walking state (the torque parameter for the changed walking state is “reset” to zero by shutting off torque transmission, see S60 in Figure 7 of Aoki. This step is considered an “exceptional walking state” as seen in Figure. A above because this is a state where the abnormality that relates to the control system or the power supply system, S56, S58, see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Sankai/Aoki method discloses wherein the controlling further comprises not using the gait parameter for the changed walking state to generate the assistive torque applied to a following step, in response to the changed walking state being the exceptional walking state (if there is an abnormality detected relating to the control system, or relating to the power supply system as seen in S56-S58 in Fig. 7 of Aoki, this is considered an exceptional walking state and results in an applied torque of zero at S60. A following walking step would not rely on the applied torque of zero because the safety module “repeatedly executes the above processes for every predetermined cycle” see the last sentence of [0050]. Thus, the following walking step of a current walking step would essentially start over and not be using the gait parameter of zero torque from the exceptional walking state).
Regarding claim 32, the modified Sankai/Aoki method of claim 27 (see the claim 27 rejection statement above, incorporated herein) discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor (computer executing the program of control device 20C of Sankai, as modified by controller 40 of Aoki in the claim 27 rejection statement above), cause the processor to perform the method of claim 27 (a controlling program for causing the computer to execute the method is stored in a storage device of the control device, see the first sentence of [0119] of Sankai).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Sankai does not disclose the claimed sequence in which, after a current walking state is updated to a changed walking state, the processor determines whether a transition between consecutive walking states within the gait cycle is performed, determines that the changed walking state is not a normal walking state when the changed walking state is not an exceptional walking state and the transition is not performed, resets a gait parameter for the changed walking state, refrains from applying the assistive torque to a corresponding step, and then determines, for a next step of the corresponding step, whether the walking state is changed (see the last paragraph of page 5 of the Remarks, through the first paragraph of page 6), this argument is not persuasive.
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the determination of a transition being “after a current walking state is updated to a changed walking state”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Although Sankai is silent regarding determining that the changed walking state is not a normal walking state based on first determining that the changed walking state is not an exceptional walking state and then determining that the transition between the consecutive walking states it not being performed, it is noted that Aoki was relied upon to teach this feature.
Regarding the argument that the instant invention is materially different from Aoki, as Aoki is concerned with device or control abnormalities such as motor heating, excessive deviation between detected and target swing angle, communication loss, and low battery, rather than “walking states” of the user, much less changed walking states determined from right/left hip joint information (see the second and third paragraphs of page 6 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive.
First, Sankai is the primary reference, and already discloses the limitation of determining changed walking states based on right and left hip joint angle information within a gait cycle. It is reiterated that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Id.
Second, the instant invention is also managing “abnormalities” (i.e., “exceptional” walking states and “not normal” walking states).
Third, Aoki determines different types of abnormalities that may occur in a walking cycle, and the identification of certain abnormalities reads on an “exceptional walking state” (see “Exceptional Walking State” in annotated Figure A above. An “exceptional walking state” is considered a state where the abnormality relates to the control system or the power supply system because such an abnormality is substantial enough to require shutting torque transmission off immediately, see S60, Fig. 7) or a “not normal walking state” (see “Not Normal Walking State” in annotated Figure A above. When an abnormality has been detected, and the controller proceeds to the second abnormality management process and determines the lower link is not swinging, this is considered to be a “not normal” walking state because it is a state with an abnormality, and a state where the lower link is not swinging).
Regarding the argument that there is no support for the Office Action equating claim 22’s “exceptional walking state” with Aoki’s detected abnormality, because in Applicant’s disclosure the exceptional walking state is treated within the gait-state control logic as a walking state that does not correspond to a normal gait motion, and is evaluated within the same gait-state framework used to determine whether gait parameters should be updated or reset (see the third paragraph of page 6 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the exceptional walking state is treated within the gait-state control logic as a walking state that does not correspond to a normal gait motion, and is evaluated within the same gait-state framework…”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The phrases “exceptional” and “not normal” are quite broad, and the Aoki abnormality classifier reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation as described above.
Regarding the argument that Aoki does not disclose determining whether a transition occurs between consecutive walking states within the gait cycle, as Aoki’s determination of the lower link swinging is made within an abnormality-management routine after an abnormality has already been detected, therefore being a motion-status inquiry rather than a gait-state transition determination within a gait-cycle finite state machine (see the last paragraph of page 6 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive.
First, Sankai is the primary reference, and already discloses the limitation of determining whether a transition occurs between consecutive walking states within the gait cycle (For example, when the hip joint angles are measured at the end of Phase A1 and compared to the database 6 to determine a match for the end of Phase A1, a transition has been detected because the end portion of Phase A1 is a transition to Phase A2 within the gait cycle. See Figures 10-11b). It is reiterated that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Second, the claim language does not preclude Aoki’s transition detection to occur within an abnormality-management routine after an abnormality has already been detected. Nevertheless, it is noted that Aoki specifically states the “safety module 46 repeatedly executes the above processes for every predetermined cycle” (see the last sentence of [0050]). Thus, the controller of the modified Sankai/Aoki device will repeat the determination of walking state(s) and evaluate whether each walking state has an abnormality when the user takes another step.
Regarding the argument that Aoki states that after an abnormality has been detected after outputting commands, the safety module determines whether the lower link is currently swinging, and this is not a determination of whether a transition between consecutive walking states within a gait cycle has occurred, as the present specification ties the transition between consecutive walking states to state transitions in the gait finite machine itself … not merely an observation of whether a mechanical link is swinging during a safety shutdown sequence (see the first paragraph of page 7 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive.
First, Sankai is the primary reference, and already discloses the limitation of determining whether a transition occurs between consecutive walking states within the gait cycle (For example, when the hip joint angles are measured at the end of Phase A1 and compared to the database 6 to determine a match for the end of Phase A1, a transition has been detected because the end portion of Phase A1 is a transition to Phase A2 within the gait cycle. See Figures 10-11b). It is reiterated that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Second, Aoki’s determination that the lower link is not swinging is also a determination that there is no transition occurring. For every walking cycle transition within a gait cycle (i.e., phases A1, A2, A3, A4, Figs. 10-11 of Sankai), the lower link will need to swing. When Sankai is modified by Aoki, the lack of a swinging motion is also indicative of a lack of transition.
Regarding the argument that the claimed conditional logic is absent from the prior art, such as “in response to the changed walking state not being an exceptional walking state and in response to the transition between the consecutive walking states not being performed, the processor determines that the changed walking state is not a normal walking state, resets a gait parameter for the changed walking state, and does not apply the assistive torque to a corresponding step” (see the second paragraph of page 7 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive.
First, it is noted that some of the conditional logic language that Applicant refers to has been removed from amended claim 22 (i.e., “in response to” … “in response to”).
Second, as illustrated in annotated Figure A above, Aoki’s abnormality management process reads on the claim language. Aoki first determines that the changed walking state is not an exceptional walking state (see “NO” at S58, Figure 7. This is a determination that the walking state is not an “exceptional walking state.” An “exceptional walking state” is considered a state where the abnormality relates to the control system or the power supply system because such an abnormality is substantial enough to require shutting torque transmission off immediately, see annotated Figure A above) and then (after S58, Fig. 7, the process proceeds to “NO” at S102, Fig. 8, and then to “NO” at S202, Fig. 9) determining that the transition between the consecutive walking states is not being performed (see “NO” at S202, Figure 9. This is a determination that the lower link is not swinging and thus no transition between walking states is being performed), reset a gait parameter for the changed walking state (the torque for the changed walking state is “reset” to zero by shutting off torque transmission at S204, Fig. 9), and not to apply the assistive torque to a corresponding step (the torque transmission is shut off at S204 and the One-way Clutch (OWC) is engaged at S206 to “prohibit[] the backward swing of the lower link”, and then the abnormality process reaches its “END” see Fig. 9 and see the first sentence of [0010] and see all of para. [0054]).
Regarding the argument that Aoki’s statement that the safety module repeatedly executes the process for every predetermined cycle is not the same as “determin[ing], for a next step of the corresponding step, whether the walking state is changed” where gait parameters are updated for each step … and contains no compatible teaching of next-step gait-state reassessment in the claimed sense (see the third paragraph of page 7 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive.
First, Sankai is the primary reference, and already discloses the limitation of determining whether a next step of the walking state is changed (the measured joint angles are repeatedly measured and compared to the database 6 such as at times t1, t2, t3, Fig. 11b, see ST806-ST807, Fig. 16, and this comparison continues so that the controller will update the identified walking state as the user proceeds through phases A1, A2, A3, A4, see para. [0124]. As the user moves through each phase of the walking cycle, this will be detected and a current walking state of the user will be changed/updated). It is reiterated that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
When Sankai was modified by Aoki, the controller of the modified device repeats the determination of walking state(s) disclosed by Sankai and also evaluates whether each walking state has an abnormality when the user takes another step (because Aoki states the safety module repeatedly executes the process for every predetermined cycle, para. [0050]).
Regarding the argument that the rejection of claim 27 suffers from the same deficiencies as claim 22 for the same reasons (see the penultimate paragraph of page 7 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 22.
Regarding the argument that Sankai does not disclose the claimed method steps of: determining whether a transition between consecutive walking states within the gait cycle is performed; determining, in response to the changed walking state not being an exceptional walking state and in response to the transition not occurring, not to apply the assistive torque to a corresponding step; and determining, for a next step of the corresponding step, whether the walking state is changed (see the last paragraph of page 7 of the Remarks, through the first paragraph of page 8 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive.
First, it is noted that some of the language that Applicant refers to has been removed from amended claim 27 (i.e., “in response to” … “in response to”).
Second, Sankai does disclose at least some of the limitations referred to. Sankai determines whether a transition between consecutive walking states within the gait cycle is performed (the measured joint angles are repeatedly measured and compared to the database 6 such as at times t1, t2, t3, Fig. 11b, see ST806-ST807, Fig. 16. The hip joint angles in the end portion of Phase A1 in Fig. 11b will be indicative of a transition between consecutive walking states Phase A1, A2, see Figure 10. For example, when the hip joint angles are measured at the end of Phase A1 and compared to the database 6 to determine a match for the end of Phase A1, a transition has been detected because the end portion of Phase A1 is a transition to Phase A2 within the gait cycle. See Figures 10-11b), and determining, for a next step, whether the walking state is changed (the measured joint angles are repeatedly measured and compared to the database 6 such as at times t1, t2, t3, Fig. 11b, see ST806-ST807, Fig. 16, and this comparison continues so that the controller will update the identified walking state as the user proceeds through phases A1, A2, A3, A4, see para. [0124]. As the user moves through each phase of the walking cycle, this will be detected and a current walking state of the user will be changed/updated). The remaining limitations are taught by Aoki, as described in the 103 rejection(s) above.
Regarding the argument that as discussed above, Aoki’s teachings instead concern abnormality management following detection of control-system or device-related abnormalities, such as overheating, excessive deviation from target angle, communication loss, or low battery (see the second paragraph of page 8 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 22.
Regarding the argument that as discussed above, Aoki’s determination whether the lower link is swinging is not a determination of a transition between consecutive walking states within a gait cycle (see the second paragraph of page 8 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 22.
Regarding the argument that Aoki’s shutoff logic is not the claimed method logic based on a changed walking state, a non-exceptional condition, and a non-occurring state transition (see the second paragraph of page 8 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive.
As stated above, Sankai discloses logic such as detecting changed walking states and whether state transitions occur. Additionally, Aoki teaches determining a non-exceptional condition (see Figure A above) and a non-occurring state transition (if the lower link is not swinging at S202, Fig. 9, there is no transition occurring between consecutive walking states).
Regarding the argument that claims 22 and 27 have been amended to clarify that the claimed control is a gait-state transition irregularity determination based on gait-state logic, not an abnormality management shutdown routine … and the cited prior art does not teach or suggest that when a transition between consecutive walking states is not performed, the changed walking state is determined not to be a normal walking state, the gait parameter for that changed walking state is reset, and assistive torque is not applied to the corresponding step (see the third paragraph of page 8 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive.
First, it is noted that Applicant’s invention is also an “abnormality management shutdown routine” as the claims are detecting “exceptional” or “not normal” walking states (i.e., abnormal) and then preventing torque from being transmitted to the corresponding step.
Second, the Sankai/Aoki combination still reads on amended claims 22 and 27 as seen in the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) above. For example, Aoki teaches that when a transition between consecutive walking states is not performed (if the lower link is not swinging at S202, Fig. 9, there is no transition occurring between consecutive walking states), the changed walking state is determined not to be a normal walking state (see “not normal walking state” in annotated Figure A above), the gait parameter for that changed walking state is reset (the torque for the changed walking state is “reset” to zero by shutting off torque transmission at S204, Fig. 9), and assistive torque is not applied to the corresponding step (the torque transmission is shut off at S204 and the One-way Clutch (OWC) is engaged at S206 to “prohibit[] the backward swing of the lower link”, and then the abnormality process reaches its “END” see Fig. 9 and see the first sentence of [0010] and see all of para. [0054]). It is maintained that the modified Sankai/Aoki device satisfies each claim limitation as stated in the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) above.
Regarding the argument that the amended claims now recite that the processor determines that the changes walking state is not a normal walking state based on first determining that the changed walking state is not an exceptional walking state and then determining that the transition between the consecutive walking states is not being performed … to make explicit that “not normal” and “exceptional” are not coextensive concepts (see the last paragraph of page 8 of the Remarks, through the first paragraph of page 9), this explanation has been considered.
The terms “not normal” and “exceptional” are understood to not be coextensive concepts. However, the terms are still relatively broad and the modified Sankai/Aoki device reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language as stated in the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) above.
Regarding the argument that the specification expressly treats the exceptional walking state as one branch of the control logic and expressly supports the separate non-exceptional /not-normal branch now clarified in claims 22 and 27 … and therefore do not add new matter (see the second paragraph of page 9 of the Remarks through the fourth paragraph of page 9), this argument has been considered.
The Examiner agrees that claims 22 and 27 have support in the specification and drawings.
Regarding the argument that claim 23 additionally is allowable because Aoki’s shutoff of torque transmission does not “reset” the torque to zero, as Applicant’s disclosure has a gait parameter as part of the gait-state-based per-step control framework (see the first paragraph of page 10 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive.
Aoki shutting off the torque transmission reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “resetting” the gait parameter (i.e., the torque parameter) to zero. The claims do not specify how this gait parameter relates to any “per-step control framework.” Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument that claim 24 additionally is allowable because Aoki does not disclose, within a gait-state framework, a gait parameter for a changed walking state that is selectively withheld from use in generating assistive torque for a following step (see the second paragraph of page 10 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive.
Sankai is the primary reference and already discloses a gait-state framework for identifying different gait phases (see Figs. 10-11, as discussed above), and providing assistance torque corresponding to the identified phase (see control device 20C in Fig. 15 and see steps ST803-ST811, Fig. 16; the control device 20C detects physical quantities from sensor 13, which includes measurements of right and left hip joint angle information in ST803, compares the measured physical quantities to a standard parameter of a task/phase such as a walking task/phase in the database 6 in ST805, and once a number of matches reaches a reference number in ST806-ST807, corresponding hybrid ratio and power assist rate(s) are determined in ST808, an autonomous command signal is generated in ST809, the total command signal is generated by combining optional command signal 24, d1, Fig. 15, and autonomous command signal 17, d2, Fig. 15 and ST810, and the driving of the actuator is performed by supplying current according to the total command signal in ST811. Thus, the Sankai controller controls the torque based at least partially on the right and left hip joint angle information indicating a match with a given walking task/phase).
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a gait parameter for a changed walking state that is selectively withheld from use in generating assistive torque for a following step”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The modified Sankai/Aoki device reads on the actual claim language of claim 24, as shown in the 35 USC 103 rejection above.
Regarding the argument that claim 28 is additionally allowable for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 23 (see the third paragraph of page 10 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 23.
Regarding the argument that claim 29 is additionally allowable for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 24 (see the fourth paragraph of page 10 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 24.
Regarding the argument that claim 32 is allowable for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 27 (see the last paragraph of page 10 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive because claim 27 is not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Endo (2011/0288453) discloses a related walking assistance device with a protocol that determines whether an “operation termination condition” is satisfied, and if the determination result is negative, the series of processes are repeated.
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 CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 (Eastern).
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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights