CTFR 17/915,934 CTFR 96164 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 The amendment filed on 02/14/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. No claims have been cancelled nor newly added. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the instant application. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019029914A1 to Polygerinos et al. (hereinafter “Poly”) in view of KR102027069B1 to Kap et al. (hereinafter “Kap”) . Regarding claim 1, Poly discloses a robotic orthosis for a lower extremity for gait rehabilitation training (See generally Fig. 2) , comprising: a knee stretching member which is provided to be installable on a knee so as to enable a knee joint to be stretched in a swing phase and enable a state in which the knee is stretched to be maintained in a stance phase (Fig. 2 knee exosuit 100; See Fig. 8 showing actuator 104 assisting knee straightening during swing phase; Examiner notes that straightening the knee during swing phase naturally enables a state in which the knee is stretched to be maintained in a stance phase), wherein the knee stretching member comprises: a knee sleeve surrounding the knee joint (Fig. 1 knee sleeve 2) ; and a knee supporting chamber which is mounted so as to be connected to the knee sleeve (Fig. 1 actuator 104), and which, when air is introduced therein and is inflated in the swing phase (Paragraph 0053 discloses the actuator is inflated during swing phase (See also Fig. 8)) , enables the knee to be stretched by supporting the knee joint, and enables the state in which the knee is stretched to be maintained in the stance phase (Fig. 2 knee exosuit 100; See Fig. 8 showing actuator 104 assisting knee straightening during swing phase; Examiner notes that straightening the knee during swing phase naturally enables a state in which the knee is stretched to be maintained in a stance phase). Poly does not disclose wherein the knee stretch is maintained by maintain pressuring therein such that an affected leg can support the weight in the stance phase . However, Kap teaches a soft exoskeleton for fall prevention and gait assistance wherein the knee stretch is maintained by maintain pressuring therein such that an affected leg can support the weight in the stance phase (Fig. 3 exoskeleton module 10, pneumatic driver 21, strength assistance module 20; Paragraph 0042 discloses the muscle strength modulator is a soft pneumatic actuator which supports the muscle strength behind the knee that is insufficient when standing). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Poly to further include knee stretch is maintained by maintain pressuring therein such that an affected leg can support the weight in the stance phase, as taught by Kap, in order to provide sufficient muscle strength to the user while they are standing (Paragraph 0042). Regarding claim 2, Poly in view of Kap discloses the robotic orthosis for a lower extremity for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 1 , and Poly further discloses a luggage carrier that generates compressed air and supplies the generated compressed air to the knee stretching member (See Figs. 2 and 15 for carriage; Fig. 15 vacuum pump 168, exhaust valves 172; Paragraph 0068; Examiner notes components are carried on the carriage and thus are luggage (Similar to Applicant Fig. 8)). Regarding claim 4, Poly in view of Kap discloses the robotic orthosis for a lower extremity for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 1 , and Poly further discloses wherein the knee sleeve and the knee supporting chamber are made of a soft material (Paragraphs 0010-0011 discloses the knee exosuit and actuator are made of soft materials; Paragraph 0040 discloses the knee sleeve is made from elastic material) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poly in view of Kap as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US20180001946A1 to Yokoya et al. (hereinafter “Yokoya”) . Regarding claim 3, Poly in view of Kap discloses the robotic orthosis for a lower extremity for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 2 , but does not disclose wherein the luggage carrier is an autonomous driving luggage carrier . However, Yokoya teaches a robot which may drive autonomously with a user (Fig. 1 robot 1; Paragraphs 0095 and 0103 disclose the robot may drive autonomously). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cart of Poly to drive autonomously, as taught by Yokoya, in order to stay close to the user while therapy occurs without the need for a human to move the cart. Examiner notes this modification would allow a clinician to focus on helping the patient/the patient focusing on their gait rather than worrying about positioning the cart during therapy . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5-6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poly in view of Kap as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20110144554A1 to Weaver et al. (hereinafter “Weaver”) and US20220410369A1 to Samlali et al. (hereinafter “Samlali”) . Regarding claim 5, Poly in view of Kap discloses the robotic orthosis for a lower extremity for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 1 , but does not disclose a first ankle supporting member that is installed at an ankle so as to inhibit inversion or eversion bending of the ankle . However, Weaver teaches an ankle support which inhibits inversion and eversion bending of the ankle (Fig. 1B ankle support 10, splint 30; Paragraph 0030 discloses the splint may be an air bladder; Examiner notes that inflation of the splint naturally results in inhibiting inversion and eversion of the ankle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exosuit of Poly to further include an ankle support member, as taught by Weaver, in order to provide stability to the ankle of the user (Paragraph 0026). Poly does not disclose a second ankle supporting member that is installed on at least one of a shin and a calf such that an ankle is flexed toward a dorsum or a sole of a foot . However, Samlali teaches an artificial muscle device which has a support installed on one of a shin and a calf such that an ankle is flexed towards a dorsum or a sole of a foot (Fig. 2 artificial muscle 23; Paragraphs 0336-0337 disclose the muscles actuate to help the gastrocnemius muscles; Examiner notes that actuation of the gastrocnemius muscles naturally results in flexing the ankle toward a dorsum). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exosuit of Poly to further include a second ankle supporting member installed on the shin and the calf, as taught by Samlali, in order to assist with plantarflexion (Paragraphs 0336-0337). Examiner notes that only the calf artificial muscles and connectors to Poly’s exosuit would in included. The pneumatic lines of Poly would also inflate and deflate the artificial muscles. Examiner notes that modifying Poly with Weaver and Samlali provides much greater stability and gait assistance to the user’s low leg and foot when walking. Regarding claim 6, Poly in view of Kap, Weaver, and Samlali discloses the robotic orthosis for a lower extremity for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 5 , and Poly as modified by Weaver further discloses wherein the first ankle supporting member comprises: an ankle sleeve surrounding an ankle joint (Weaver Fig. 1B connector sheet 62), and an ankle supporting chamber which is mounted so as to be connected to the ankle sleeve, and which, when air is introduced therein and is inflated, supports the ankle joint (Fig. 1B splint 30 is connected to connector sheet 62; Paragraph 0030 discloses the splint may be an air bladder; Examiner notes that inflation of the splint naturally results in inhibiting inversion and eversion of the ankle). Regarding claim 10, Poly in view of Kap, Weaver, and Samlali discloses the robotic orthosis for a lower extremity for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 5 , and Poly further discloses a luggage carrier that generates compressed air and is capable of supplying the generated compressed air to at least one of the knee stretching member and the first and second ankle supporting members (See Figs. 2 and 15 for carriage; Fig. 15 vacuum pump 168, exhaust valves 172; Paragraph 0068; Examiner notes that Poly as modified by Weaver and Samlali would provide air to the ankle, shin, and calf supporting members). Regarding claim 11, Poly in view of Kap, Weaver, and Samlali discloses the robotic orthosis for a lower extremity for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 10 , and Poly further discloses an inertial measurement module that is installed on at least one of a patient's thigh, shin, and dorsum of a foot and checks the patient's gait condition and gait pattern in real time based on an angle between ground and at least one of the thigh, the shin, and the dorsum of the foot during the patient's walking so as to control an operation of at least one of the knee stretching member and the first and second ankle supporting members (Fig. 16 IMUs 180 are installed on both the patient’s thigh and shin; Paragraph 0073 discloses the IMU measurements are used to control pressure within the actuator of the exosuit to assist the user during different gait phases). Regarding claim 12, Poly in view of Kap, Weaver, and Samlali discloses the robotic orthosis for a lower extremity for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 11 , and Poly further discloses wherein the inertial measurement module is capable of determining a gait phase as any one of a loading response phase, a mid stance phase, a terminal stance phase, a pre-swing phase, an initial swing phase, a mid swing phase, and a terminal swing phase based on a posture of the patient's both lower extremities and whether the patient's soles is in contact with the ground (Paragraphs 0070-0072 disclose the IMUs track the knee’s angle through all of the gait phases; Paragraph 0073 discloses the IMUs takes measurements from the smart shoes; Examiner notes when the knee angle is straight this would be indicative of the user’s foot being on the ground). Regarding claim 13, Poly in view of Kap, Weaver, and Samlali discloses the robotic orthosis for a lower extremity for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 12 , and Poly as modified by Weaver further discloses wherein the luggage carrier supplies the compressed air to the knee stretching member in the terminal swing phase, the loading response phase, the mid stance phase, and the terminal stance phase (Fig. 15 control unit 152; Paragraph 0068 discloses the controller inflates/deflates the exosuit via solenoid valves during all phases of the gait cycle), and the compressed air to the first ankle supporting member in the terminal swing phase, the loading response phase, and the terminal stance phase (Examiner notes that Poly as modified by Weaver would inflate the ankle actuator during walking as well) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poly in view of Kap, Weaver, and Samlali as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US20190183714A1 to Goto et al. (hereinafter “Goto”) . Regarding claim 7, Poly in view of Kap, Weaver, and Samlali discloses the robotic orthosis for a lower extremity for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 5 , and Poly further discloses guards that are installed at both the shin and the calf (See Annotated Fig. 16 for designation of the shin and calf guards). Poly does not disclose a shin sleeve surrounding a shin . However, Goto teaches an assistive pressurization device which has a shin sleeve surrounding the shin (Figs. 1 & 3A base portion 21, pad 23, first assist force portion 23b, second assist force portion 23c, air cylinders 23e; Paragraphs 0085-0087 and 0092 disclose the air cylinders assist the force application portion to transmit force to the user). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exosuit of Poly to further include a shin sleeve surrounding a shin, as taught by Goto, in order to provide assistance and protection to the user’s shin. Examiner notes that Poly as modified by Samlali and Goto discloses artificial muscle packs that are connected to the respective guards and have a plurality of air chambers inside (Samlali Fig. 1 artificial muscle 23 and Goto Figs. 1 & 3A pad 23, first assist force portion 23b, second assist force portion 23c, air cylinders 23e would be connected to the designated guards of Poly and both have air chambers inside (Samlali Fig. 12 discloses the muscles may be pneumatic actuators)) . PNG media_image1.png 540 668 media_image1.png Greyscale 07-22-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poly in view of Kap, Weaver, Samlali, and Goto , as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US20190343710A1 to Lerner (hereinafter “Lerner”) and US10610398-B2 to Benford (hereinafter “Benford”) . Regarding claim 8, Poly in view of Kap, Weaver, Samlali, and Goto discloses the robotic orthosis for a lower extremity for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 7 , and Poly as modified by Weaver, Samlali, and Goto discloses a button and snap that is installed at a foot accommodating portion which combines artificial muscle packs (Goto Fig. 2 joint shaft 53 attaches to a foot portion; Examiner notes this linkage would be used to connect the base portion including the pad (muscle) of Goto and the artificial muscle of Samlali to the ankle support 10 of Weaver). Modified Poly does not disclose a buckle . However, Benford teaches an ankle support device which uses a buckle couple a foot portion and a calf portion (Fig. 8 strap retaining mechanism 502, strap buckles 503). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the button snap connection of modified Poly to be a buckle, as taught by Benford, in order to provide an alternative means of attaching the foot portion to the calf portion of the device. Modified Poly does not disclose a Velcro tie that surrounds and secures the guards . However, Lerner teaches an exoskeleton device which uses Velcro ties to secure the device to the user (Fig. 1 velcro straps 60; Paragraph 0065 discloses the Velcro straps are used to secure the device to the user at an attachment site, which may be between an ankle and a knee of the user.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Poly to further include a Velcro strap that attaches the device to the user, as taught by Lerner, in order to provide an additional means of securing in place the actuators of the device . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poly in view of Kap, Weaver, Samlali, and Goto , as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US20070167884A1 to Mangrum et al. (hereinafter “Mangrum”) . Regarding claim 9, Poly in view of Kap, Weaver, Samlali, and Goto discloses the robotic orthosis for a lower extremity for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 7, and Poly as modified by Samlali and Goto further discloses wherein the air chambers are installed at both sides of the shin (Goto Figs. 1 & 3a pad 23, first assist force portion 23b, second assist force portion 23c, air cylinders 23e) and the calf (Samlali Fig. 2 artificial muscle 23) , respectively, wherein, in a state in which a sole is in contact with ground, air is injected into the air chamber installed at the side of the calf (Samlali Paragraph 0084 discloses an external air compressor supplies air to the artificial muscles; Paragraph 0186 discloses air is injected as a user’s muscle activates (going from standing to walking)), and wherein, in a state which a sole is separated from the ground air in the air chamber installed at the side of the calf is discharged outside (Samlali Paragraph 0080 discloses air is allowed to escape after reaching a threshold pressure from the muscle). Modified Poly does not disclose wherein in a state in which a sole is in contact with ground, air in the air chamber installed at the side of the shin is discharged outside, and wherein, in a state in which a sole is separated from the ground, air is injected into the air chamber installed at the side of the shin . However, Mangrum teaches a pressure device which uses air chambers that deflate when the sole is in contact with the ground (Fig. 1-3 resilient air chamber 5; Paragraph 0027 discloses air is evacuated when the user steps down and is inflated when the user lifts their foot through recoil). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Poly as modified by Goto to further include discharging air from the air chamber when the foot is in contact with the ground and inflating when the foot lifts from the ground, as taught by Mangrum, in order to provide natural assistance with a user’s gait . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : US-20190283247-A1 to Chang . 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 TYLER RAUBENSTRAW whose telephone number is (571)272-0662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30. 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 571-270-3525. 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. /TYLER A RAUBENSTRAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /BRADLEY H PHILIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 Application/Control Number: 17/915,934 Page 2 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/915,934 Page 3 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/915,934 Page 4 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/915,934 Page 5 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/915,934 Page 6 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/915,934 Page 7 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/915,934 Page 8 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/915,934 Page 9 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/915,934 Page 10 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/915,934 Page 11 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/915,934 Page 12 Art Unit: 3785
Prosecution Insights