DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments, filed 01/22/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites “the combination of states determine a sub-state”, claim 10 recites “determining, by the exoskeleton device based at least in part on the sensor data, a combination of states”. It is unclear how a combination of states determined by the exoskeleton device, is capable of determining a substate. Par. 0080 of the applicant’s disclosure states “there can be a plurality of Walking states, or Walking sub- states that can be determined by the exoskeleton system 100”, therefore, for examination purposes, the sub-state will be interpreted as being determined by the exoskeleton deivce.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lamb et al. (US20190060157), hereafter Lamb.
Regarding Claim 1, Lamb discloses a method of operating an exoskeleton system (system shown in Fig. 1) the method comprising: powering on the exoskeleton system, the exoskeleton system fit to a user (par. 0054, “For example, in some embodiments, a static fit test can be part of an exoskeleton system startup or power-on routine once the exoskeleton system 100 has been coupled to a user 101”; the prior art discloses powering on the exoskeleton which then performs a fit test to the user), comprising: left and right leg actuator units respectively coupled to left and right legs of the user (Fig. 1, par. 0028, “The leg actuator units 110L, 110R can be respectively coupled about the legs 102L, 102R of the user 101”), the left and right leg actuator units each including: an upper arm and a lower arm that are rotatably coupled via a joint (par. 0027, “The leg actuator units 110 can include an upper arm 115 and a lower arm 120 that are rotatably coupled via a joint 125”), the joint positioned at a knee of the user with the upper arm coupled about an upper leg portion of the user above the knee and with the lower arm coupled about a lower leg portion of the user below the knee (par. 0028, Fig. 1, “the joints 125 positioned at the knees 103L, 103R of the user 101 with the upper arms 115 of the leg actuator units 110L, 110R being coupled about the upper legs portions”), and a fluidic bellows actuator that extends between the upper arm and the lower arm (Fig. 1, bellows actuator 130), a plurality of sensors (par. 0040, sensors 513) that include: first and second rotary encoders respectively associated with the joints of the left and right leg actuator units (par. 0057, “the configuration of the actuator unit 110 can be determined based on sensor data… such as one or more rotary encoder”; Fig. 1 shows a left leg and a right leg actuator units 110, therefore, there is an encoder for each of the actuator units), the first and second rotary encoders configured to measure respective joint angles of the left and right leg actuator units (par. 0020, “the device can compare the measurement of the knee angle…”), a GPS sensor (par. 0040, “the exoskeleton system 100 can include a global positioning system (GPS)”), and one or more accelerometers (par. 0057, accelerometer), and an exoskeleton device (Fig. 1, exoskeleton device 100) that includes: a fluidic system (par. 0027, leg actuator units 110), and a processor and memory (par. 0035, “The exoskeleton device 510 comprises a processor 511, a memory 512”), the memory storing instructions (par. 0039, “the memory 512 can include non-transient computer readable instructions”), that if executed by the processor, are configured to control the fluidic system to introduce fluid to the fluidic bellows actuators of the left and right leg actuator units (Claim 1, “a processor configured to execute the static fit test program to control the pneumatic system”); obtaining, at the exoskeleton device, sensor data from the plurality of sensors (par. 0080, "The exoskeleton system 100 can collect sensor data to measure the motion of the exoskeleton device 100 during this actuated configuration"); determining, by the exoskeleton device based at least in part on a first portion of the sensor data, a plurality of states of the exoskeleton system (par. 0057, “For example, the configuration of the actuator unit 110 can be determined based on sensor data from one or more sensors 513 of the actuator unit 110”) including respective joint angles of the left and right leg actuator units (par. 0058, “a change in actuator unit configuration during actuation of the actuator unit 110 is determined… a determined displacement change of the upper arm 115 of θ.sub.D1”); determining, by the exoskeleton device based at least in part on a second portion of the sensor data, at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system (par. 0020, “The device can then compare the behavior of the device under torque to the no torque configuration to determine if the device is sufficiently connected to the user”); determining, by the exoskeleton device based at least in part on a third portion of the sensor data, at least one state of an environment in which the user and exoskeleton system are located (par. 0037, “Similarly, where a user 101 wears the exoskeleton system 100 while skiing, the exoskeleton system 100 can sense movements of the user 101 (e.g., made by the user 101, in response to terrain, or the like)”; Skiing and terrain indicates an environment in which the user is located); determining, by the exoskeleton device, a response (par. 0057, the actuator is adjusted based on sensor data) based at least in part on the determined plurality of states of the exoskeleton system (Fig. 5, par. 0040, “Accordingly, in some examples, sensor data can correspond to a physical state of one or more actuators 130, a physical state of a portion of the exoskeleton system 100, a physical state of the exoskeleton system 100 generally, and the like), the determined at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system (par. 0037, “For example, the exoskeleton device 510 can sense that the user is walking and carrying a load and can provide a powered assist to the user”), and the determined at least one state of the environment in which the user and the exoskeleton system are located (par. 0037, “Similarly, where a user 101 wears the exoskeleton system 100 while skiing… in response to terrain, or the like and can provide a powered assist to the user via the actuators 130)”; par. 0040, “In some embodiments, the exoskeleton system 100 can include a global positioning system (GPS), camera, range sensing system, environmental sensors, or the like.”); the response configured to provide additional support for the user (par. 0037, “…can provide a powered assist to the user via the actuators 130 to enhance or provide an assist to the user while skiing”; the prior art discloses detecting the environment of the user and provide power assist via actuators to provide support) and generating the response by the exoskeleton device at least controlling the fluidic system to introduce the fluid to the fluidic bellows actuators of the left and right leg actuator units (See Fig. 5, Claim 1, “the bellows actuator when pneumatically inflated by introducing pneumatic fluid into the bellows cavity and configured to actuate the upper arm and lower arm”) and adaptively change a configuration of the exoskeleton device to increase a force output to generate the response (See Fig. 5, par. 0057, “For example, the configuration of the actuator unit 110 can be determined based on sensor data from one or more sensors 513 of the actuator unit 110”; Claim 1, “…the determining of the second configuration based at least in part on data obtained from the subset of the plurality of sensors”) (Examiner Notes: The prior art discloses determining a configuration of the actuator based on sensor data, see Fig. 5, par. 0037-0038 for examples wherein the exoskeleton device increases a force output to provide assistance; data from sensors 513 includes all the claimed determined states).
Regarding Claim 10, Lamb discloses a method of operating an exoskeleton system fit to a user (system shown in Fig. 1, par. 0003), the method comprising: obtaining, at an exoskeleton device, sensor data from one or more sensors (par. 0057, “For example, the configuration of the actuator unit 110 can be determined based on sensor data from one or more sensors 513 of the actuator unit 110”); determining, by the exoskeleton device based at least in part on the sensor data, a combination of states (Examiner Notes: Par. 0037-0038 discloses providing powered assistance, par. 0057 discloses adjusting actuator based on sensor data, therefore, the prior art teaches all the claimed states), including: at least one state of the exoskeleton system (par. 0057, “For example, the configuration of the actuator unit 110 can be determined based on sensor data from one or more sensors 513 of the actuator unit 110”); at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system (par. 0020, “The device can then compare the behavior of the device under torque to the no torque configuration to determine if the device is sufficiently connected to the user”); and at least one state of an environment where the user and exoskeleton system are located (par. 0037, “Similarly, where a user 101 wears the exoskeleton system 100 while skiing, the exoskeleton system 100 can sense movements of the user 101 (e.g., made by the user 101, in response to terrain, or the like)”; Skiing and terrain indicates an environment in which the user is located); determining, by the exoskeleton device, a response based at least in part on the determined combination of states, the response configured to provide additional support for the user (Examiner Notes: Par. 0037-0038 discloses providing powered assistance, par. 0057 discloses adjusting actuator based on sensor data, data from sensors 513 includes a combination of the claimed states; par. 0037, “…can provide a powered assist to the user via the actuators 130 to enhance or provide an assist to the user while skiing”; the prior art discloses provide power assist via actuators to provide support); and generating the response by the exoskeleton device causing actuation of the exoskeleton system to adaptively adjust a force output of the exoskeleton device to provide the additional support (See Fig. 5, par. 0057, “For example, the configuration of the actuator unit 110 can be determined based on sensor data from one or more sensors 513 of the actuator unit 110”; Claim 1, “…the determining of the second configuration based at least in part on data obtained from the subset of the plurality of sensors”).
Regarding Claim 11, Lamb discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the exoskeleton system comprises: one or more actuator units that include a fluidic actuator (Fig. 1, bellows actuator 130); and the one or more sensors including one or more of: one or more encoders respectively associated with the one or more actuator units (par. 0057, “the configuration of the actuator unit 110 can be determined based on sensor data… such as one or more rotary encoder”), the one or more encoders configured to measure a joint angle of the one or more actuator units (par. 0020, “the device can compare the measurement of the knee angle…”), a GPS sensor (par. 0040, “global positioning system (GPS)”), or one or more accelerometer (par. 0040, “a plurality of accelerometers”).
Regarding Claim 20, Lamb discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the combination of states determine a sub-state that represents a specific type of movement for which the exoskeleton system can adaptively adjust the force output (par. 0037, “Similarly, where a user 101 wears the exoskeleton system 100 while skiing, the exoskeleton system 100 can sense movements of the user 101 (e.g., made by the user 101, in response to terrain, or the like)”; the prior art uses skiing as an example for adjusting the force output, which is a sub-state that represents a specific type of movement).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb, in view of Mahoney et al. (US20200223071), hereafter Mahoney.
Regarding Claim 2, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the response further includes generating an alert that is presented on an external device that is wirelessly operably connected to the exoskeleton device.
However, Mahoney teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Fig. 2A, Fig. 4), comprising of an alert that is presented on an external device (Fig. 5, personal electronic device 500) that is wirelessly operably connected (par. 0140, “The personal device can be any suitable device that communicates with the exosuit via a wireless or wired connection”) to the exoskeleton device (Fig. 22A-24B). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the external device of Mahoney, to provide warnings to the user and enhance operation of the exoskeleton device as taught by Mahoney (Mahoney, par. 0175-0179).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb, in view of Kornbluh et al. (US20140277739), hereafter Kornbluh.
Regarding Claim 3, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the determined at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system corresponds to at least one of: undesirable chemical, radiological or biological exposure to the user, injury to the user, fatigue of the user, illness of the user, stress level of the user, or consciousness level of the user.
However, Kornbluh teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 1B, exosuit 100), comprising of a determined state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system corresponds to fatigue of the user (par. 0090, “the flexible exosuit could be operated to detect and/or prevent the development of fatigue during extended locomotion by the wearer. The flexible exosuit could act to extract, store, and/or inject energy to/from the legs of the wearer to reduce fatigue.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the fatigue detection of Kornbluh, to detect and minimize effect of fatigue of the user as taught by Kornbluh (Kornbluh, par. 0090).
Regarding Claim 5, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the determined at least one state of the environment in which the user and the exoskeleton system are located corresponds to one or more of: current weather at a location where the user and the exoskeleton system are located; a weather forecast at the location where the user and the exoskeleton system are located; or a terrain of the location where the user and the exoskeleton system are located.
However, Kornbluh teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 1B, exosuit 100), comprising of a determined state of the environment in which where the user and the exoskeleton system are located corresponds to a terrain of the location where the user and the exoskeleton system are located (par. 0302, “the flexible exosuit 1800 could include LIDAR, radar, ultrasonic rangefinders, or other sensors configured to detect that terrain in front of a wearer is uneven. Additionally or alternatively, the flexible exosuit 1800 could receive information from the server 1830 about the terrain in front of the wearer.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the terrain detection of Kornbluh, to avoid injuries to the wearer from dangerous terrain as taught by Kornbluh (Kornbluh, par. 0302).
Regarding Claim 7, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent on further comprising: providing a prompt to the user via an interface that presents an indication of one or more of at least one of the determined plurality of states of the exoskeleton system, the determined at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system, or the determined at least one state of the location where the user and the exoskeleton system are located; providing a feedback mechanism, via the prompt to the user via the interface for the user to evaluate the indicated one or more of: the at least one of the determined plurality of states of the exoskeleton system, the determined at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system, or the determined at least one state of the location where the user and the exoskeleton system are located; obtaining a feedback indication in response to the prompt; and improving a classification program, an inference program, or an operating program of the exoskeleton system based at least in part on the feedback indication.
However, Kornbluh teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 1B, exosuit 100), comprising of providing a prompt to the user via an interface that presents an indication of one or more of at least one of the determined plurality of states of the exoskeleton system (par. 0216, “For example, the interface(s) 970 could include a display screen (possibly a touchscreen additionally configured to accept user input, as described above) configured to indicate a mode or property of the exosuit 900, a component of the exosuit 900, the wearer of the exosuit, or some other information”), providing a feedback mechanism, via the prompt to the user via the interface for the user to evaluate the indicated one or more of: the at least one of the determined plurality of states of the exoskeleton system (par. 0298, “For example, an application being executed by the user interface 1810 could access data from the sensors 1803, calculate an operation (e.g., to apply a torque of 50 newton-meters to the knee of a wearer for 200 milliseconds) of the actuators 1801, and transmit the calculated operation to the flexible exosuit 100.”), obtaining a feedback indication in response to the prompt; and improving a classification program, an inference program, or an operating program of the exoskeleton system based at least in part on the feedback indication (par. 0336, “The controllers could be configured to improve, adapt, or otherwise reconfigure to improve performance according to some metric. Such improvement, adaptations, or reconfiguration could be related to detected or specified changes in properties of the flexible exosuit and/or the wearer, patterns of usage of the flexible exosuit by the wearer, gait patterns or other patterns of physical activity or motion engaged in by the wearer, or other information.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the interface of Kornbluh, to control and improve the operation of the exoskeleton as taught by Kornbluh (Kornbluh, par. 0298).
Regarding Claim 9, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent on further comprising: obtaining, via a wireless network, a set of sensor data from a plurality of exoskeleton systems that are proximate to, but separate from, the exoskeleton system; wherein determining the at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system is further based at least in part on a first portion of the set of sensor data; and wherein determining, the at least one state of the environment in which the user and the exoskeleton system are located is further based at least in part on a second portion of the set of sensor data.
However, Kornbluh teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 1B, exosuit 100), comprising: obtaining, via a wireless network, a set of sensor data from a plurality of exoskeleton systems that are proximate to, but separate from, the exoskeleton system (par. 0311, “more than the two illustrated flexible exosuits 1800, 1840 can be operated in a coordinated manner. In some examples, many flexible exosuits or other mechatronic or other systems could be operated in a coordinated manner to enable some application… The many other exosuits could then apply forces, torques, haptic feedback, or other information to the bodies of respective wearers to enable the wearers to learn the motions or other physical activities modeled by the first wearer.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the plurality of exoskeleton systems of Kornbluh, to have multiple exoskeleton devices communicating with each other to perform operations collaboratively as taught by Kornbluh (Kornbluh, par. 0310).
The modified Lamb further discloses wherein determining the at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system is further based at least in part on a first portion of the set of sensor data; and wherein determining, the at least one state of the environment in which the user and the exoskeleton system are located is further based at least in part on a second portion of the set of sensor data (Examiner Notes: Kornbluh teaches the plurality of exoskeletons operates coordinately, both Lamb and Kornbluh discloses the exoskeleton system determines state of the user and the location, see Lamb par. 0028, 0040; Kornbluh par. 0086, 0090; After the modification, such determination would be based on data from the plurality of exoskeleton system).
Regarding Claim 12, Lamb discloses the method of claim 10, but is silent on wherein the determined at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system corresponds to at least one of: undesirable chemical, radiological or biological exposure to the user, injury to the user, fatigue of the user, illness of the user, stress level of the user, or consciousness level of the user.
However, Kornbluh teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 1B, exosuit 100), comprising of a determined state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system corresponds to fatigue of the user (par. 0090, “the flexible exosuit could be operated to detect and/or prevent the development of fatigue during extended locomotion by the wearer. The flexible exosuit could act to extract, store, and/or inject energy to/from the legs of the wearer to reduce fatigue.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the fatigue detection of Kornbluh, to detect and minimize effect of fatigue of the user as taught by Kornbluh (Kornbluh, par. 0090).
Regarding Claim 14, Lamb discloses the method of claim 10, but is silent on wherein the determined at least one state of the environment in which the user and the exoskeleton system are located corresponds to one or more of: current weather at a location where the user and the exoskeleton system are located; a weather forecast at the location where the user and the exoskeleton system are located; or a terrain of the location where the user and the exoskeleton system are located.
However, Kornbluh teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 1B, exosuit 100), comprising of a determined state of a location where the user and the exoskeleton system are located corresponds to a terrain of the location where the user and the exoskeleton system are located (par. 0302, “the flexible exosuit 1800 could include LIDAR, radar, ultrasonic rangefinders, or other sensors configured to detect that terrain in front of a wearer is uneven. Additionally or alternatively, the flexible exosuit 1800 could receive information from the server 1830 about the terrain in front of the wearer.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the terrain detection of Kornbluh, to avoid injuries to the wearer from dangerous terrain as taught by Kornbluh (Kornbluh, par. 0302).
Regarding Claim 16, Lamb discloses the method of claim 10, but is silent on further comprising: providing a prompt via an interface that presents an indication of one or more of the determined at least one state of the exoskeleton system, the determined at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system, or the determined at least one state of the environment in which the user and the exoskeleton system are located; providing a feedback mechanism via the interface to evaluate the indicated one or more of: the determined at least one state of the exoskeleton system, the determined at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system, or the determined at least one state of the environment in which the user and the exoskeleton system are located; and obtaining a feedback indication in response to the prompt.
However, Kornbluh teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 1B, exosuit 100), comprising of providing a prompt to the user via an interface that presents an indication of one or more of at least one of the determined plurality of states of the exoskeleton system (par. 0216, “For example, the interface(s) 970 could include a display screen (possibly a touchscreen additionally configured to accept user input, as described above) configured to indicate a mode or property of the exosuit 900, a component of the exosuit 900, the wearer of the exosuit, or some other information”), providing a feedback mechanism, via the prompt to the user via the interface for the user to evaluate the indicated one or more of: the at least one of the determined plurality of states of the exoskeleton system (par. 0298, “For example, an application being executed by the user interface 1810 could access data from the sensors 1803, calculate an operation (e.g., to apply a torque of 50 newton-meters to the knee of a wearer for 200 milliseconds) of the actuators 1801, and transmit the calculated operation to the flexible exosuit 100.”), obtaining a feedback indication in response to the prompt (par. 0336, “The controllers could be configured to improve, adapt, or otherwise reconfigure to improve performance according to some metric. Such improvement, adaptations, or reconfiguration could be related to detected or specified changes in properties of the flexible exosuit and/or the wearer, patterns of usage of the flexible exosuit by the wearer, gait patterns or other patterns of physical activity or motion engaged in by the wearer, or other information.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the interface of Kornbluh, to control and improve the operation of the exoskeleton as taught by Kornbluh (Kornbluh, par. 0298).
Regarding Claim 18, Lamb discloses the method of claim 10, but is silent on, further comprising: obtaining a set of sensor data from a plurality of exoskeleton systems that are proximate to the exoskeleton system; and wherein; determining the at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system is further based at least in part on a first portion of the set of sensor data; or determining the at least one state of the environment in which the user and the exoskeleton system are located is further based at least in part on a second portion of the set of sensor data.
However, Kornbluh teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 1B, exosuit 100), comprising: obtaining a set of sensor data from a plurality of exoskeleton systems that are proximate to the exoskeleton system (par. 0311, “more than the two illustrated flexible exosuits 1800, 1840 can be operated in a coordinated manner. In some examples, many flexible exosuits or other mechatronic or other systems could be operated in a coordinated manner to enable some application… The many other exosuits could then apply forces, torques, haptic feedback, or other information to the bodies of respective wearers to enable the wearers to learn the motions or other physical activities modeled by the first wearer.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the plurality of exoskeleton systems of Kornbluh, to have multiple exoskeleton devices communicating with each other to perform operations collaboratively as taught by Kornbluh (Kornbluh, par. 0310).
The modified Lamb further discloses wherein determining the at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system is further based at least in part on a first portion of the set of sensor data; or wherein determining, the at least one state of the environment in which the user and the exoskeleton system are located is further based at least in part on a second portion of the set of sensor data (Examiner Notes: Kornbluh teaches the plurality of exoskeletons operates coordinately, both Lamb and Kornbluh discloses the exoskeleton system determines state of the user and the location, see Lamb par. 0028, 0040; Kornbluh par. 0086, 0090; After the modification, such determination would be based on data from the plurality of exoskeleton system).
Claim(s) 4, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb, in view of Bosscher et al. (US9474632), hereafter Boss.
Regarding Claim 4, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein one or both of the determined at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system and the determined plurality of states of the exoskeleton system correspond to determining that the user and/or the exoskeleton system are in freefall.
However, Boss teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 1, exoskeleton 100), comprising of sensors for measuring overall acceleration (col. 5, line 44-46), and a determined state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system correspond to that the user and/or the exoskeleton system are in freefall (col. 3, line 34-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, and add the acceleration sensor of Boss, to detect fall and absorb shock load upon impact to prevent injury as taught by Boss (Boss, col. 3, line 34-51).
Regarding Claim 13, Lamb discloses the method of claim 10, but is silent on wherein one or both of the determined at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system and the determined at least one state of the exoskeleton system correspond to determining that the user and/or the exoskeleton system are in freefall.
However, Boss teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 1, exoskeleton 100), comprising of sensors for measuring overall acceleration (col. 5, line 44-46), and a determined state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system correspond to that the user and/or the exoskeleton system are in freefall (col. 3, line 34-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, and add the acceleration sensor of Boss, to detect fall and absorb shock load upon impact to prevent injury as taught by Boss (Boss, col. 3, line 34-51).
Claim(s) 6, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb, in view of Mooney et al. (US11234888), here after Mooney.
Regarding Claim 6, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the determined at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system includes a determination that the user has exited a vehicle, the determination that the user has exited the vehicle being based at least in part on: a previous determination that the user was riding in or on the vehicle, made based at least in part on a previous set of sensor data from the plurality of sensors, and a previous set of sensor data obtained from the vehicle; and a current set of sensor data obtained from the vehicle and the sensor data from the plurality of sensors.
However, Mooney teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig, 1, exoskeleton 30), comprising of a determined state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system includes a determination that the user has exited a vehicle (col. 10, line 66 – col. 11, line 13, “ensure that the actuators are in a passive mode so that the operation of the vehicle is not impeded… For example, an RFID tag in a vehicle may instruct the controller to disengage the actuators for reasons discussed above”); the determination that the user has exited the vehicle being based a current set of sensor data obtained from the vehicle (col. 11, line 11, “an RFID tag in a vehicle”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the vehicle sensing method of Mooney, to pause activation of the exoskeleton device while driving to avoid accidents as taught by Mooney (Mooney, col. 10 line 66 – col. 11 line 13).
Regarding Claim 15, Lamb discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the determined at least one state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system includes a determination that the user has exited a vehicle, the determination that the user has exited the vehicle being based at least in part on: a set of vehicle sensor data obtained from the vehicle and the sensor data from the one or more sensors.
However, Mooney teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig, 1, exoskeleton 30), comprising of a determined state of the user wearing the exoskeleton system includes a determination that the user has exited a vehicle (col. 10, line 66 – col. 11, line 13, “ensure that the actuators are in a passive mode so that the operation of the vehicle is not impeded… For example, an RFID tag in a vehicle may instruct the controller to disengage the actuators for reasons discussed above”); the determination that the user has exited the vehicle being based a current set of sensor data obtained from the vehicle (col. 11, line 11, “an RFID tag in a vehicle”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the vehicle sensing method of Mooney, to pause activation of the exoskeleton device while driving to avoid accidents as taught by Mooney (Mooney, col. 10 line 66 – col. 11 line 13).
Claim(s) 8, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb, in view of Zealand (US20220004167), hereafter Zealand.
Regarding Claim 8, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent on further comprising: providing an alert to the user via an interface regarding a fitness test, the alert including instructions for performing one or more actions of the fitness test; obtaining a set of fitness test sensor data generated during the user performing the one or more actions of the fitness test, the set of fitness test sensor data comprising the sensor data from the plurality of sensors; determining a current ability level of the user based at least in part on the set of fitness test sensor data; and comparing the current ability level of the user to a baseline ability level of the user; and wherein determining the response is further based at least in part on the comparison of the current ability level of the user to the baseline ability level of the user.
However, Zealand teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 1), comprising an alert to the user via an interface regarding a fitness test, the alert including instructions for performing one or more actions of the fitness test (par. 0130, “the user may receive instructions through the user device 114 to perform one or more particular actions while wearing the exosuit 102, such as walking a particular distance, standing up, jogging, running, walking up stairs, or walking down stairs.”), obtaining a set of fitness test sensor data generated during the user performing the one or more actions of the fitness test, the set of fitness test sensor data comprising the sensor data from a plurality of sensors (par. 0130, “The exosuit 102 may track the sensor data generated from onboard sensors while the user is performing these predetermined actions”); determining a current ability level of the user based at least in part on the set of fitness test sensor data (par. 0131, “As an example, the sensor data 108a that the user struggled or failed to stand up while wearing the exosuit 102 after attempting to stand up.”); and comparing the current ability level of the user to a baseline ability level of the user (par. 0131, “Prior to customization of the control scheme, the machine learning model 112 may be a base model… the exosuit 102 or the training system 116 can proceed to use the sensor data 108a to update the machine learning model 112.”; During the process of updating sensor data, comparison to the base model is inherently performed); and wherein determining a response is further based at least in part on the comparison of the current ability level of the user to the baseline ability level of the user (par. 0131, “The updated machine learning model 112 may then be used to customize the control scheme by generating the control data 108b that is personalized for the user.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the fitness test procedure of Zealand, to personalize actuator outputs to achieve desired effect for individual users as taught by Zealand (Zealand, par. 0131)
Regarding Claim 17, Lamb disclose the method of claim 10, but is silent on further comprising: providing an alert via an interface regarding a fitness test, the alert including instructions for performing one or more actions of the fitness test; obtaining a set of fitness test sensor data generated during the user performing the one or more actions of the fitness test, the set of fitness test sensor data comprising the sensor data from the one or more sensors; and determining an ability level of the user based at least in part on the set of fitness test sensor data; and wherein determining the response is further based at least in part on the determined ability level of the user.
However, Zealand teaches a method of operating an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 1), comprising providing an alert to the user via an interface regarding a fitness test, the alert including instructions for performing one or more actions of the fitness test (par. 0130, “the user may receive instructions through the user device 114 to perform one or more particular actions while wearing the exosuit 102, such as walking a particular distance, standing up, jogging, running, walking up stairs, or walking down stairs.”), obtaining a set of fitness test sensor data generated during the user performing the one or more actions of the fitness test, the set of fitness test sensor data comprising the sensor data from a plurality of sensors (par. 0130, “The exosuit 102 may track the sensor data generated from onboard sensors while the user is performing these predetermined actions”); determining a current ability level of the user based at least in part on the set of fitness test sensor data (par. 0131, “As an example, the sensor data 108a that the user struggled or failed to stand up while wearing the exosuit 102 after attempting to stand up.”); and comparing the current ability level of the user to a baseline ability level of the user (par. 0131, “Prior to customization of the control scheme, the machine learning model 112 may be a base model… the exosuit 102 or the training system 116 can proceed to use the sensor data 108a to update the machine learning model 112.”; During the process of updating sensor data, comparison to the base model is inherently performed); and wherein determining a response is further based at least in part on the comparison of the current ability level of the user to the baseline ability level of the user (par. 0131, “The updated machine learning model 112 may then be used to customize the control scheme by generating the control data 108b that is personalized for the user.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the fitness test procedure of Zealand, to personalize actuator outputs to achieve desired effect for individual users as taught by Zealand (Zealand, par. 0131)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb, in view of Ikeuchi et al. (US20040158175), hereafter Ikeuchi.
Regarding Claim 19, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein adaptively changing the configuration of the exoskeleton device comprises changing torque references in each of the left and right leg actuator units based at least in part on differential leg strength.
However, Ikeuchi teaches a method for controlling an exoskeleton system (Abstract), comprising of a left and a right leg actuator (Fig. 2, actuator 2), and changing torque references in each of the left and right leg actuator units based at least in part on differential leg strength (par. 0037-0038, “the walker who can walk on the flatland but cannot walk up the stairs because of a drop in muscle strength has difficulty in going up the stairs. To solve the problem, the external torque T.sub.2 is imparted to the leg body so as to assist the walker in walking up the stairs...”; the prior art discloses a leg strength drops when going up the stairs, and therefore increases the torque to assist user’s muscle strength). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known method of Lamb, with the method of Ikeuchi, to provide assistance to the user when higher muscle strength is required as taught by Ikeuchi (Ikeuchi, par. 0037-0038).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant argued that Lam does not teach the determination of a response is based on a combination of each factors. However, the claim merely requires determining a response at least in part on the determined states. The cited portions of Lamb expressly describe that the obtained information are part of the sensor data, and the sensor data is further used to provide powered assistance response. Furthermore, Lamb’s disclosure of the exoskeleton responses to the terrain, and also sensing the user’s motion proves that the exoskeleton device operates in response to a combination of sensed information. Applicant further argues that the previous office action fails to differentiate between sensor data corresponds to a physical state of the system, and the device sensing that a user is walking and carrying a load. However, Lamb explicitly teaches in par. 0058 of detecting a change in actuator angle, which is a physical state of the system. Accordingly, Lamb teaches determining a response based at least in part on the plurality of exoskeleton states, the user state, and the environment state.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRIS HANYU GONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KRIS HANYU GONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
