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 .
Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/18/25. As directed by the amendment: claims 31-34, 36-40, 46 and 49-50 have been amended, claims 1-30 have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 31-50 are presently pending in the application.
Specification
The amendment filed 12/18/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “(e.g., motor configured to output torque)”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 31-50 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 claims contain 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.
Claim 31 recites “a sensor configured to generate sensed data by obtaining an angle of the thigh frame relative to the main frame,” which is language not found in the original disclosure filed on 1/28/22.
Claim 31 recites “a motor configured to output torque to the thigh frame, the motor positioned between at least the main frame and the thigh frame; and at least one processor configured to control the motor based at least on the sensed data, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: …control the motor according to the determined target gait task and the sensed data,” which is language not found in the original disclosure filed on 1/28/22. There is no mention of a motor, torque or that the motor is positioned between at least the main frame and the thigh frame in the original disclosure.
Claim 46 recites “obtaining, by the one or more processors, sensed data representing an angle of a thigh frame relative to a main frame worn on a hip of a user,” which is language not found in the original disclosure filed on 1/28/22.
Claim 46 recites “a motor positioned between the main frame and the thigh frame,” which is language not found in the original disclosure filed on 1/28/22.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Priority
Based on the new matter added to independent claims 31 and 46, the earliest available priority date for claims 31-50 is currently 1/24/24, which is the filing date of the claims filed 1/24/24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 31-35 and 43-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldfarb et al. (2014/0142475).
Regarding claim 31, in fig. 1 Goldfarb discloses a walking assistance apparatus comprising: a main frame 110 configured to be mounted on a hip of a user; a thigh frame 108R connected to the main frame; a sensor configured to generate sensed data by obtaining an angle of the thigh frame relative to the main frame (hip angle, fig. 9 and 12A [0064][0075][0086]), the sensor positioned between at least the main frame and the thigh frame ([0064][0075] located between the main frame and at least a portion of the thigh frame); a motor configured to output torque to the thigh frame [0042][0046], the motor positioned between at least the main frame and the thigh frame ([0042][0046] located between the main frame and at least a portion of the thigh frame); and at least one processor 604 configured to control the motor based at least on the sensed data [0064], wherein the at least one processor 604 is further configured to: identify at least one gait feature (the state of the exoskeleton based at least in part on the sensed hip angles, see claim 11) from the sensed data corresponding to movement of the thigh frame (see claim 11), determine a target gait task among a plurality of gait tasks based on the identified gait feature (the next state of the exoskeleton is the target gait task, see claim 11), and control the motor based on the target gait task and the sensed data (Claims 1 and 12).
Regarding claim 32, Goldfarb discloses that the at least one processor is further configured to: generate a current gait pattern based on the sensed data ([0097] claim 11), identify the gait feature corresponding to the generated current gait pattern based on databases corresponding to the plurality of gait tasks ([0097] angle threshold databases are compared against in order to determine the intended movement of the user, see claim 11), determine the target gait task among the plurality of gait tasks based on the identified gait feature ([0097] see claim 11).
Regarding claim 33, Goldfarb discloses that the at least one processor is further configured to search the databases corresponding to the plurality of gait tasks [0097], respectively, for similar gait patterns for the current gait pattern ([0097] which leg steps up first in stair ascent, for example), the identified gait feature is to be generated by generating the identified gait feature corresponding the current gait pattern based at least on similarities between the current gait pattern and the similar gait patterns (by comparing sensed angles to database angle thresholds [0097]).
Regarding claim 34, Goldfarb discloses that the identified gait feature is a vector having dimensions of a number of the plurality of gait tasks (the angle is a vector corresponding to various gait tasks [0097]), and each of the dimensions of the vector represents a similarity between the current gait pattern and a portion of the similar gait patterns of each of the plurality of gait tasks (the sensed angles are compared to the threshold angles of the stored gait tasks [0097]).
Regarding claim 35, Goldfarb discloses that the at least one processor is further configured to sense a heel strike indicating a state in which a sole of the user touches a ground from the sensed data [0079], and detect the current gait pattern based on a basic unit of one of a step including a single heel strike [0079] or a stride including two steps.
Regarding claim 43, Goldfarb discloses that a communication interface 602 configured to communicate with an external device (display [0061][0082]).
Regarding claim 44, Goldfarb discloses that the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit information about the target gait task to the external device [0082].
Regarding claim 45, Goldfarb discloses that the external device is a wearable device [0061][0082] and/or a mobile terminal.
Regarding claim 46, in fig. 1 Goldfarb discloses a method, performed by an apparatus including one or more processors 604, for recognizing a gait task [0064][0070] and driving a walking assistance apparatus (Claims 1 and 11-12), the method comprising: obtaining, by the one or more processors, sensed data representing an angle of a thigh frame relative to a main frame worn on a hip of a user (hip angle, fig. 9 and 12A [0064][0075][0086]); identifying, from the sensed data, a gait feature corresponding to movement of the thigh frame (the state of the exoskeleton is the gait feature based at least in part on the sensed hip angles, see claim 11); determining, by the one or more processors 604, a target gait task among a plurality of gait tasks based at least on the identified gait feature (the next state of the exoskeleton is the target gait task, see claim 11); and driving, by the one or more processors 604, a motor positioned between the main frame and the thigh frame ([0042][0046] located between the main frame and at least a portion of the thigh frame) to output assistive torque based at least on the target gait task and the sensed data (Claims 1 and 12).
Regarding claim 47, Goldfarb discloses that transmitting, by the one or more processors 604, information about the target gait task to an external device (display [0061][0082]) using a communication interface 602.
Regarding claim 48, Goldfarb discloses that the external device is a wearable device [0061][0082] or a mobile terminal.
Regarding claim 49, Goldfarb discloses that the target gait task comprises a walking environment based on at least one of slope [0070], incline, or lack thereof (sitting to pre-standing, claim 11).
Regarding claim 50, Goldfarb discloses that the gait task comprises a walking environment based on at least one of slope [0070], incline, or lack thereof (sitting to pre-standing, claim 11).
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.
Claims 36-37are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb, as applied to claims 31 and 34, respectively, in further view of Agrawal et al. (2017/0027803).
Regarding claim 36, Goldfarb is silent regarding that the at least one processor is further configured to normalize the current gait pattern with respect to at least one of a time axis or a data axis. However, Agrawal teaches at least one processor that is configured to normalize a current gait pattern with respect to at least one of a time axis [0173] or a data axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goldfarb’s at least one processor with at least one processor that is configured to normalize a current gait pattern with respect to at least one of a time axis, as taught by Agrawal, for the purpose of organizing the data to ensure proper control is provided by the motor.
Regarding claim 37, Goldfarb is silent regarding that the at least one processor is further configured to normalize the vector of the identified gait feature. However, Agrawal teaches at least one processor that is configured to normalize a vector of a gait feature [0173]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goldfarb’s at least one processor with at least one processor that is configured to normalize a vector of a gait feature, as taught by Agrawal, for the purpose of organizing the data to ensure proper control is provided by the motor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 7 that the newly added language of a motor has support in the original disclosure.
Examiner disagrees since a drive is not necessarily a motor.
Applicant argues on page 8 that Goldfarb fails to teach a “target gait task among a plurality of gait tasks using an identified gait feature.”
Examiner disagrees since Goldfarb discloses a target gait task being a next state of a plurality of gait states (sitting, pre-standing and standing for examiner) using an identified gait feature, the identified gait feature being the current state (see claim 11 of Goldfarb).
Applicant argues on page 8 that Goldfarb is not dynamically modified based on features extracted from sensor data.
Examiner disagrees since the state of the exoskeleton is moved based upon extracted sensor data, including joint angle data (see claims 1 and 11-12 of Goldfarb).
Applicant argues on page 9 that Goldfarb fails to teach that the motor and sensor are not located between the main frame and the thigh frame.
Examiner disagrees since the motor and sensor are located between the main frame and at least a portion of the thigh frame [0042][0046][0064][0075] l.
Applicant argues on page 9 that Goldfarb fails to teach an angle of the thigh frame relative to a hip-mounted main frame.
Examiner disagrees since Goldfarb teaches measuring a hip angle, which is the angle between the thigh frame and the main frame (fig. 9 and 12A [0064][0075][0086]).
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 RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785