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 .
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maekita (2018/0085278) in view of Sugata (2016/0150999) and Takashima (2017/0065478).
Regarding claim 1, Maekita discloses a walking training system comprising: a robot leg (2; fig. 2) attached to one leg of a trainee; a treadmill (31); a load distribution sensor (251) detects a distribution of a load received from a sole of the trainee riding on a belt (311) of the treadmill (31) ([0035]); a walking state determination unit (351) that determines whether the one leg has switched from a standing state to a swinging state (idling) based on a state of increase in a load detected by the load distribution sensor (251) and received from another leg of the trainee performing walking training ([0036] lines 1-12); and a control unit (35) that starts bending control for the swinging state of the one leg by the robot leg when the walking state determination unit (351) determines that the one leg has switched from the standing state to the swinging state ([0022] lines 1-10, [0042] lines 1-10, [00043] lines 1-8).
Maekita substantially teaches the claimed invention except for the load sensor is attached to the treadmill. However, Sugata teaches in fig. 8, the load sensor (47, 47a) attached to the treadmill (41) ([0053] lines 1-5, [0056] lines 1-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the load sensor for Maekita to be located in the treadmill as taught by Sugata to provide the advantage of enhanced determination using both feet(as disclosed by Sugata in [0056]), less need for wireless technology for faster sensing reporting, and reduced robot weight.
The modified Maekita substantially teaches the claimed invention except for the control unit is configured to adjust a rotation speed of the belt of the treadmill based on a detection result of the load distribution sensor. However, Takashima teaches the control unit (5) is configured to adjust a rotation speed of the belt (311) of the treadmill (31) based on a detection result of the load distribution sensor (314) ([0030] lines 1-12, [0031] lines 1-6, [0055] lines 1-6, [0056] lines 1-8 disclose that the control unit starts operation of the treadmill and an initial speed in a prohibition state and based on the signals received from the load sensor, the control unit is configured to adjust the speed by removing the prohibitive state and allowing the training start button the be active to begin training at the training speed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of the modified Maekita to control operation of the belt of the treadmill based on the load sensor as taught by Takashima to provide the advantage of enhanced ease in acclimation and reduction of anxiety as disclosed by Takashima in [0012] last 4 lines.
Regarding claim 2, Maekita discloses the walking state determination unit (351) determines that the one leg has switched from the standing state to the swinging state when the load received from the other leg becomes equal to or more than a predetermined load ([0036]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Maekita discloses the walking state determination unit (351) determines that the one leg has switched from the standing state to the swinging state when the load received from the other leg becomes equal to or more than a predetermined ratio of a maximum value of a load received from the one leg ([0056] lines 1-10, [0057] of Sugata).
Regarding claim 4, Maekita discloses wherein the walking state determination unit (351) determines that the one leg has switched from the standing state to the swinging state when a center-of-gravity position of the load detected by the load distribution sensor (251) comes in a predetermined region including a position of the other leg ([0038] lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 5, Maekita discloses a method for controlling a walking training system, the method comprising: a step of using a load distribution sensor (251) to detect a distribution of a load received from a sole of a trainee riding on a belt of the treadmill (31); a step of determining whether one leg to which a robot leg is attached has switched from a standing state to a swinging state based on a state of increase in a load received from another leg that is different from the one leg )[0036]); and a step of starting bending control for the swinging state of the one leg by the robot leg when determining that the one leg has switched from the standing state to the swinging state ([0022] lines 1-10, [0042] lines 1-10, [00043] lines 1-8).
Maekita substantially teaches the claimed invention except for the load sensor is attached to the treadmill. However, Sugata teaches in fig. 8, the load sensor (47, 47a) attached to the treadmill (41) ([0053] lines 1-5, [0056] lines 1-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the load sensor for Maekita to be located in the treadmill as taught by Sugata to provide the advantage of enhanced determination using both feet(as disclosed by Sugata in [0056]), less need for wireless technology for faster sensing reporting, and reduced robot weight.
.Regarding claim 6, Maekita discloses a control program that causes a computer to execute: a process of using a load distribution sensor (251) to detect a distribution of a load received from a sole of a trainee riding on a belt of the treadmill ([0035]); a process of determining whether one leg to which a robot leg is attached has switched from a standing state to a swinging state based on a state of increase in a load received from another leg that is different from the one leg ([0036]); and a process of starting bending control for the swinging state of the one leg by the robot leg when determining that the one leg has switched from the standing state to the swinging state ([0022] lines 1-10, [0042] lines 1-10, [00043] lines 1-8).
Maekita substantially teaches the claimed invention except for the load sensor is attached to the treadmill. However, Sugata teaches in fig. 8, the load sensor (47, 47a) attached to the treadmill (41) ([0053] lines 1-5, [0056] lines 1-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the load sensor for Maekita to be located in the treadmill as taught by Sugata to provide the advantage of enhanced determination using both feet(as disclosed by Sugata in [0056]), less need for wireless technology for faster sensing reporting, and reduced robot weight.
Regarding claim 7, Maekita discloses a front tensioning unit (34) including a first wire (37) and a rear tensioning unit (33) including a rear wire (36) attached to the robot leg, wherein a coordinated operation of the front tensioning unit (33) and the rear tensioning unit (36) is configured to offset a load of the robot leg ([0027] lines 1-7, [0028] lines 1-12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5 4th paragraph that the references fail to teach the newly added limitations. However, Examiner notes that Takashima is now relied on for this teaching. Thus the combination including Takashima teach this limitation as claimed.
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 LATOYA M LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm - 6:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/LaToya M Louis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights