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 .
Abstract Objections
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the inclusion of legal phraseology, “comprises” in line 1 and “comprising” in line 6.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figure 10 contains different views. See 37 CFR 1.84(u).
Figures 11A-12B each contains English alphabet, i.e. “A”, … “J”. English alphabet must be used for letters except where another alphabet is customarily used, such as the Greek alphabet to indicate angles, wavelengths, and mathematical formulas. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(2). In addition, reference characters must not be enclosed with outlines. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
The English alphabets miss lead lines. See 37 CFR 1.84(q)
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“load cell assembly” of line 1 of claim 9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farris et al (US 20210228430 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
1185
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1 and 13, Farris discloses an exosuit (knee-ankle-foot orthotic device 150 of Fig. 24) comprising: a proximal portion (see annotated Farris Fig. 24 showing a “proximal portion”), a distal portion (see annotated Farris Fig. 24 showing a “distal portion”), and a joint (see annotated Farris Fig. 24 showing a “joint”) coupling the proximal and distal portion (Annotated Farris Fig. 24 shows joint 80 coupling the proximal and distal portions through first joint bar 160 and second joint bar 162. Lines 16-22 of para. 0072 further disclosing, “The actuator system 10 further is connected to the brace components by connecting the first joint bar 160 of the frame to the second attachment recess 114 (not visible in this view) of the driven joint member 80, and by connecting the second joint bar 162 of the frame to the first attachment recess 100 of the driven joint member 80 such that the driven joint member 80 is positioned at the user's knee during use.”), wherein the joint enables rotation of the distal portion about an axis with respect to the proximal portion (lines 5-8 of para 0072 disclosing, “whereby operation of the driven joint member rotates the first attachment recess relative to the second attachment recess to operate a joint of the orthotic device,” in which the first attachment recess is coupled to the proximal portion and the second attachment recess is coupled to the distal portion as seen in annotated Farris Fig. 24); a motor (motor 18 of Fig. 8) coupled to the proximal portion (motor 18 located within the actuator assembly 12 of annotated Farris Fig. 24 which is part of the proximal portion), and a transmission (transmission system 20 of Fig. 5) configured to apply force from the motor to actuate the joint (lines 6-11 of para 0046 disclosing, “Generally, the actuator assembly components include a motor 18 and a transmission system 20 that operates to drive the joint member 16. As described in more detail below, in exemplary embodiments the actuator assembly is configured as a high torque, low profile actuator with the motor 18.”), the transmission including multiple stages of reduction (lines 11-13 of para 0046 disclosing, “the transmission system 20 being configured as a two-stage speed reduction drive transmission.”), including: a first stage (Para 0048-0049 disclosing a first stage) comprising a belt (first transmission member 26 of Fig. 9) that couples the motor to a drive pulley (Fig. 5 showing large second sprocket 24 being the drive pulley; Lines 4-6 of Para 0048 discloses, “first sprocket 22 that is attached to an output shaft 23 of the flat profile brushless motor 18,” as seen in Fig. 8-9, further wherein belt 26 couples the first sprocket 22 attached to motor 18 to the drive pulley 24), and a second stage (Para 0050-0051 disclosing a second stage) comprising a winch (shaft 40 of Fig. 5) having a spool (third sprocket 42 of Fig. 5) configured to rotate with the drive pulley (Lines 1-4 of Para 0051 disclosing, “the relatively large diameter second sprocket 24… is attached to a shaft 40. The shaft 40 is commonly attached to a rotating member,”) and a cord (roller chain 44 of Fig. 9) that couples the spool to the distal portion (spool 42 of Fig 5 is coupled to distal portion as cord 44 connects to joint 16 as seen in Fig. 6, wherein distal portion of the annotated Farris Fig. 24 attaches to joint 16 at first attachment recess 100 with second joint bar 162) such that rotation of the spool applies a force to actuate the joint (Lines 9-14 of Para 0051 discloses, “The teeth of the third sprocket 42 interact with a second roller chain 44 having opposing ends that are fitted with respective fittings 46 and 48, which may be configured as crimp fittings. The crimp fittings 46 and 48 are attached to respective ends of the roller chain 44.” Lines 23-26 of Para 0060 further discloses, “As the cable portions are pulled in the flexion or extension direction, the crimp fitting 94 operates as a driving mechanism that rotates the lateral cap 82 relative to the medial cap 84.”)
Regarding claim 2 and 14, Farris discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 13 and further discloses the exosuit is configured to provide powered support for a leg of a wearer of the exosuit (see Fig. 24 wherein the knee-ankle-foot orthotic (KAFO) device is used on the leg of the wearer. Para 0072 further disclosing, “In the example of a KAFO device, the actuator system 10 operates as a powered knee joint), the proximal portion being configured to be placed along an upper portion of the leg (see annotated Farris Fig. 24 wherein the proximal portion is used on the thigh of the user, including thigh support 156) and the distal portion being configured to be placed along a lower portion of the leg (see annotated Farris Fig. 24 wherein the distal portion is used on the calf of the user, including calf support 154), with the joint being configured to be located at a knee of the leg (Lines 21-22 of Para 0072 disclosing, “driven joint member 80 is positioned at the user's knee during use,” as seen in Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 3, Farris discloses the limitations of claim 2 and further discloses wherein the first and second stage of the transmission are coupled to the proximal portion (Lines 5-10 of Para 0045 discloses, “actuator assembly includes a first stage of speed reduction of the transmission assembly… and an input portion of a second stage of speed reduction of the transmission assembly linked to an output of the first stage of speed reduction.” Lines 10-11 of Para 0072 further discloses, “The actuator system 10 is attached with the actuator assembly 12 mounted to the thigh support 156,” seen in annotated Farris Fig. 24, wherein the thigh support 156 is part of the proximal portion).
Regarding claim 4 and 15, Farris discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 13 and further discloses wherein the cord has a first portion (first transmission cable portion 50 of Fig. 9) and a second portion (second transmission cable portion 51 of Fig. 9) that extend from the spool to different regions of the distal portion (Fig. 5 shows the first and second portion 50 and 51, attached to cord 44 extending from spool 42), the cord being arranged such that rotating the spool in a first direction winds cord of the first portion onto the spool and winds cord of the second portion off of the spool (Lines 12-15 of Para 0051 discloses, “crimp fittings 46 and 48 are attached to respective ends of the roller chain 44 and receive respective ends of transmission cable portions 50 and 51. Lines 9-13 of Para 0052 further discloses, “cable portion 50… winds around the cable pulley 56 during joint extension, and cable portion 51… winds around the cable pulley 56 during joint flexion.” Given how the cord is arranged to be coupled to the cable pulley 56 and spool 42, rotation of the cable pulley 56 also indicates rotation of the spool 42, which winds off one of the cable portions from the spool) and vice versa.
Regarding claim 6 and 17, Farris discloses the limitations of claim 4 and 13 and further discloses wherein a central portion of the cord is anchored to the spool (Lines 9-10 of Para 0051 discloses, “The teeth of the third sprocket 42 interact with a second roller chain 44” wherein the cord encompasses second roller chain 44 being the central portion of the cord).
Regarding claim 11, Farris discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the motor is a brushless outrunner motor (Lines 18-19 of Para 0046 discloses, “motor 18 may be a brushless DC motor”)
Regarding claim 12, Farris discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the motor is coupled to a plate (actuator housing 14 of Fig. 1) of the proximal portion (see the embodiments of Fig. 1 and Fig. 6 wherein motor 18 of Fig. 6 is located within actuator housing 14 of Fig. 1), and wherein the motor has a dimension in a plane parallel to the plate (see Fig. 6 wherein motor 18 is parallel to plate 42) that is larger than the dimension of the motor in a direction perpendicular to the plate (Lines 10-12 of Para 0046 discloses, “the actuator assembly is configured as a high torque, low profile actuator with the motor 18 configured as a flat electric motor,” wherein Fig. 5 shows the diameter of the motor 18 being longer than the width of the motor).
Regarding claim 19, Farris discloses the limitations of claim 13 and further discloses wherein the transmission provides a speed ratio of between 20:1 and 200:1 (Lines 11-13 of Para 0056 discloses, “In an exemplary embodiment, the actuator system has a total transmission ratio of approximately 62.21:1”).
Regarding claim 20, Farris discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses wherein operating the exosuit (knee-ankle-foot orthotic device 150 of Fig. 24) comprises providing powered support for movement of a knee (Lines 8-10 of Para 0072 discloses, “In the example of a KAFO device, the actuator system 10 operates as a powered knee joint.”) of a wearer of the exosuit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5, 7, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lerner (US 20210378904 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
1161
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5 and 16, Farris discloses a first portion 50 and a second portion 51 of the cord 44. Farris fails to disclose wherein the first and second portion of the cord are anchored to the distal portion.
However, Lerner discloses wherein the first (contraction cable 48 of annotated Lerner Fig. 4) and second (extension cable 46 of annotated Lerner Fig. 4) portion of the cord are anchored to the distal portion (annotated Lerner Fig. 4 shows the distal portion. Lines 2-3 of Para 0056 discloses, “the extension cables 46 and the contraction cables 48 may couple to the sprockets 64,” specifically at the lower hinged assembly 16 of Fig. 4. Fig. 4 further shows bearing 62 which anchors the distal portion 66 of annotated Lerner Fig. 4 to sprocket 64, which extension cable 46 and contraction cable 48 are attached to).
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 distal portion of Farris, replacing the joint 80 and first recess attachment 100 of Fig. 24 with the sprocket 64 and bearing 62 of Fig. 4 of Lerner to anchor the cord (including first portion 48 and second portion 46 of Fig. 2-3 of Lerner) to the distal portion. Lines 5-10 of Para 0067 discloses that, “this arrangement reduces torsional forces on the rigid member when the lower hinged assembly 516 is actuated by one the cables 546, 548. This arrangement also permits the bearing-pulley assembly to resist torsional forces tending to deflect it with respect to the member,” so as to be able to be able to allow, “the upright member to be lighter and/or less obstructive to the wearer and less susceptible to failure,” see abstract.
Regarding claim 7 and 18, the modified Farris/Lerner invention of claim 5 has everything as claimed and further includes wherein the cord is formed of aramid fibers (Lines 9-11 of Para. 0050 discloses, “The extension cables and contraction cables may be formed from any suitable material, with examples including metal, Kevlar, and nylon.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gregg et al (US 20180325713 A1) and Witte et al (US 20190015287 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Farris discloses a motor 18 and a joint in annotated Farris Fig. 24. Farris fails to disclose a first encoder coupled to the motor.
However, Gregg teaches in Lines 15-17 of Para 0035, “The actuator, in the embodiment of FIGS. 4a and 4b, includes a motor encoder 410, a motor stator 420, a motor rotor 30,” in which Fig. 4a shows the motor encoder 410 coupled to the motor stator 420 and motor rotor 430.
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 motor of Farris to include an encoder coupled to the motor as taught by Gregg. Gregg discloses in lines 9-12 of para 0040 the benefit of being able, “to obtain accurate absolute position feedback for the field oriented motor controller.”
The modified Farris’ reference further lacks a second encoder coupled to the joint.
However, Witte teaches encoder 508 of Fig. 5 wherein lines 6-7 of para 0017 further discloses, “the joint includes an encoder.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Farris’s joint with an encoder coupled to the joint as taught by Witte so as to be able to, “measure an amount of rotation of the joint,” see Para. [0014] lines 3-6 of Witte.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walsh et al (CN 105263448 A).
Regarding claim 9, Farris discloses a cord 44. Farris fails to disclose a load cell assembly coupled to one or more pulleys to engage the cord.
However, Walsh teaches a load cell assembly (force sensor 234 of Fig. 8) coupled to one pulley (Lines 4 of Para. 209 teaches, “the pulley module 224 of the force sensor 234.” Further shown in Fig. 8 pulley module 224 coupled to force sensor 234) that are arranged to engage the cord (Bowden cable 142 of Fig. 8. Lines 4-5 of Para 165 teaches, “Bowden cable 142 is connected to the pulley module 225 in the pulley 224,” and Line 3 of Para. 175 further teaches “force sensor 234 (e.g., see FIG. 8) for sensing the cable 142 tension.”).
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 cord of Farris to be engaged with the load cell assembly as taught by Walsh so as to be able to provide data recording, pre-tensioning, and automatic tensioning of the soft machine to a proper level prior to walking, see Para. [0175] and [0209] of Walsh.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Di Pardo (US 20210282956 A1) - See Fig. 7 to read on the motor, belt, and drive pulley
Patton et al (US 20080000317 A1) - See Fig. 5a, 5b, 6 for the use of cable
Julin (US 20180085277 A1) - See Fig 4A and 4B where the wires are attached to 421 on distal portion at point 421
Farris et al (US 20210228430 A1) - has a transmission system, motor 18 (brushless DC motor), transmission ratio discussed too
Choi et al (US 20180008501 A1) - Similar structure to application
Herr et al (US 20150209214 A1) - Fig 21 and 23 for cord being attached to the distal portion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN-LUNG BRENDAN WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Justine Yu can be reached at (571) 272-4835. 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.
/YIN-LUNG BRENDAN WONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JUSTINE R YU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785