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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the air chambers, Velcro tie, foot accommodating portion and buckle must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4: To avoid improperly claiming human body parts, claim 4 should be read as follows:
---The robotic leg orthosis for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 1, wherein the orthosis comprises a second ankle supporting member that is configured to be 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, and wherein the second ankle supporting member is configured to comprise: a shin sleeve surrounding the shin; guards that are installed at both the shin and the calf, respectively; and artificial muscle packs that are connected to the respective guards and have one or more air chambers inside.---
Claim 7: To avoid improperly reciting method steps in a device claim and improperly claiming human body parts, claim 7 should be read as follows:
---The robotic leg orthosis for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 1, wherein the orthosis further comprises a knee stretching member which is provided to be installable on a knee so as to provide assisting strength for enabling a knee to be stretched, and wherein the knee stretching member is configured to comprise: a knee sleeve surrounding a knee joint; and knee supporting chambers which are air chambers mounted to be connected to the knee sleeve, and which, when air is introduced therein to inflate the air chambers, are also configured to enable the knee to be stretched by supporting the knee joint.---
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2 and 4-7 are 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.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 6, and 7, with the recitation of “ankle supporting members which are air chambers”, in claim 2, it is unclear as to whether the air chambers (ankle supporting members) here are the same air chambers from claim 1 or different air chambers. Under broadest reasonable interpretation without sufficient description of the air chambers, it is interpreted that the air chambers here are the same air chambers as in claim 1.
Similarly in claim 4, with the recitation of “artificial muscle packs that are connected to the respective guards and have one or more air chambers inside”, it is unclear as to whether the air chambers are the same structure as the air chambers in claim 1 or are different air chambers. It is interpreted to be that the air chambers here are the same as the artificial muscle packs that are connected to the guards at the shin and the calf.
Similarly in claim 6, with the recitation of “air chambers”, it is unclear as to whether the air chambers are the same structure as the air chambers in claim 1 or are different air chambers. It is interpreted to be that the air chambers here are the same as the artificial muscle packs that are connected to the guards at the shin and the calf.
Similarly in claim 7, with the recitation of “knee supporting chambers which are air chambers” and “when air is introduced therein to inflate the air chambers”, it is unclear as to whether the air chambers are the same structure as the air chambers in claim 1 or are different air chambers. It is interpreted to be that the air chambers here are the same as the knee supporting chambers of the knee stretching member.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of both “Velcro tie” and “buckle”, it is unclear as to what structure they correspond to. Under broadest reasonable interpretation without sufficient description of the Velcro tie and the buckle, it is interpreted that the Velcro tie is a portion of the guards that attaches the guards to the shin sleeve and is made of Velcro and/or the Velcro tie can be the Velcro that surrounds the calf and the shin for adjusting, and that the buckle is also an attachment means (i.e. buckle, loop rings) for the guards at the region between the foot and the ankle.
Additionally, with the recitation of the “foot accommodating portion”, it is unclear as to what structure this portion is. Under broadest reasonable interpretation without sufficient description of the foot accommodating portion, it is interpreted to be the region between the ankles and the foot where the buckle is attached to.
Additionally regarding claim 6, with the recitation of “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 air is injected into the air chamber installed at the side of the calf, 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, and air in the air chamber installed at the side of the calf is discharged outside”, as per MPEP 2173.05(p), a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. It is unclear as to whether the claim is drawn to the robotic leg orthosis, or the process of using the robotic leg orthosis where there are states of a sole in contact with the ground or when the sole is separated from the ground. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the claim is drawn towards just the robotic leg orthosis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding claim 6, as per MPEP 2105 III, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, currently, claim 6 is directed towards a sole, a shin, and a calf, indicating direction toward a human organism and is therefore non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polygerinos (US 20190336315 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Polygerinos discloses a robotic leg orthosis for gait rehabilitation training (Polygerinos [0008]; a soft robotic orthosis for gait restoration (gait rehabilitation training) for an ankle – which is part of the leg), comprising:
an orthosis that is installed on at least one of a knee, an ankle joint, a shin, and a calf of an affected leg which is a rehabilitation target (Polygerinos [0008]; where the orthosis is for rehabilitation of an ankle and [0049] where the ankle joint is encompassed by the device);
wherein the orthosis comprises: an air chamber which is mounted so as to be connected to a sleeve (Figure 1 below; where one of the (air chambers) ‘18’ are side actuators that inflate to provide support and stability to the patient (air chamber) that are mounted so as to be connected to the sleeve ‘14’, the other air chambers including ‘22’, and ‘70’, ‘74’ of Polygerinos Figure 4c that are connected to the sleeve ‘14’);
and provides assisting strength to at least one of the knee, the ankle joint, the shin, and the calf (Polygerinos [0007]; soft robotics can be used to strengthen the user and [0047]; device is for rehabilitation to an ankle).
PNG
media_image1.png
685
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Figure 2 of Polygerinos.
Regarding claim 2, Polygerinos further discloses the robotic leg orthosis for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 1, wherein the orthosis comprises a first ankle supporting member that is installed at an ankle so as to inhibit inversion or eversion bending of the ankle and wherein the first ankle supporting member comprises: an ankle sleeve surrounding an ankle joint (Figure 1 above; where there is a first ankle supporting member that is installed at the ankle and that comprises an ankle sleeve ‘14’ and would help to inhibit inversion or eversion of the ankle and Polygerinos [0049]; specifically where the (side actuators) air chambers ‘18’ help to prevent inversion or eversion of the ankle);
and ankle supporting chambers which are air chambers mounted to be connected to the ankle sleeve and which, when air is introduced therein to inflate the air chambers, support the ankle joint so as to inhibit inversion or eversion bending of the ankle (Figure 1 above; where ‘18’ are side actuators (air chambers) that are mounted/connected to the ankle sleeve ‘14’ and inhibit inversion or eversion to the ankle by inflating and are placed across the ankle joint for support and can be on either side of the ankle: Polygerinos [0049]);
Regarding claim 3, Polygerinos further discloses the robotic leg orthosis for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 2, wherein air chambers surround both inversion and eversion sides of an ankle, respectively (Figure 1 above; where the side actuators ‘18’ (air chambers) can be on either sides of the ankle and act as an ankle wrap brace (air chamber surrounds), and inhibit inversion and eversion of the ankle Polygerinos [0049] – thereby surrounding inversion and eversion sides of the ankle by being on the inner or outer side, additionally the other side actuators ‘70’ (air chambers) of Polygerinos Figure 4c, are provided on both inversion and eversion sides (left/right) of an ankle);
wherein air is injected into the air chambers before the affected leg reaches ground (Polygerinos [0055]; the front actuator array ‘22’ (air chamber as previously described) is inflated at push off of a gait cycle and maintains its inflated state while in a swing state (inflation before the affected reaches the ground);
and the air chambers are inflated to provide assisting strength so as to inhibit inversion or eversion bending of the ankle (Figure 1 above; where ‘18’ are side actuators (air chambers) that are mounted/connected to the ankle sleeve ‘14’ and inhibit inversion or eversion to the ankle by inflating and are placed across the ankle joint for support and can be on either side of the ankle: Polygerinos [0049]);
and wherein the air chambers maintain pressure therein in a stance phase to provide assisting strength so as to inhibit inversion or eversion bending of the ankle and maintain a stretched state (Polygerinos [0055]; where during the stance phase, the side actuators ‘18’ (air chambers) maintain their inflated state (maintain pressure) and [0049] where the side actuators ‘18’ (air chambers) inhibit either inversion or eversion of the ankle – the side actuators ‘18’ (air chambers) would allow the ankle to maintain a stretched state as will because they maintain pressure).
Regarding claim 10, Polygerinos further discloses the robotic leg orthosis for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 1, wherein the sleeve is made of an elastic material, and wherein the air chambers are made of a soft material (Polygerinos [0048]; where the sleeve is made of an elastic material and [0008]; where the actuators may be made from a soft material, where actuators are the air chambers (‘18’,’22’,70’,’74’)).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Polygerinos (US 20190336315 A1) in view of Shorter et al. (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6104405)[1], hereinafter, Shorter.
Regarding claim 4, Polygerinos discloses the robotic leg orthosis for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 1.
Polygerinos fails to disclose a second ankle supporting member, a shin sleeve, guards, and artificial muscle packs connected to the guards.
Shorter discloses a leg orthosis,
wherein the orthosis comprises 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 (Figure 2 below; where there is a second ankle supporting member that is installed on a shin and the ankle is flexed toward the dorsum/ sole of a foot with the device on);
and wherein the second ankle supporting member comprises: a shin sleeve surrounding the shin (Figure 2 below; shin sleeve surrounding the shin);
guards that are installed at both the shin and the calf, respectively (Figure 2 below; where there is guard on the shin (shin guard) side and a guard on the calf (calf guard) side);
and artificial muscle packs that are connected to the respective guards and have one or more air chambers inside (Figure 3 below; where there are artificial muscle packs (artificial dorsiflexor and artificial plantar flexor) that are connected to the guards (Figure 2 below; guards) and the artificial muscles are powered by pneumatics (air) – (Figure 6 Description), making the artificial muscles air chambers with air inside).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the robotic leg orthosis of Polygerinos to include a second ankle supporting member with guards and artificial muscles as taught by Shorter, since, this configuration further allows for net power to be provided to the ankle to help restore normal walking function (Shorter 2. Active AFOs for Patient Diagnosis and Rehabilitation [01]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Polygerinos (US 20190336315 A1) in view of Shorter et al. (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6104405)[1], and further in view of Walsh (US20160107309A1).
Regarding claim 5, Polygerinos in view of Shorter further discloses the robotic leg orthosis for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 4.
Polygerinos fails to disclose a second ankle supporting member comprising guards, a buckle and a Velcro tie.
Shorter discloses the leg orthosis wherein,
the second ankle supporting member further comprises: a member that surrounds and secures the guards (Figure 3 below; second ankle supporting member has a steel bracket surrounding the top of the guards that secures the guards);
and a buckle that is installed at a foot accommodating portion and combines the artificial muscle packs (Figure 3 below; where there are loop ring buckles that are installed at the foot (foot accommodating portion) that secures and attaches the artificial muscle packs to them (combines the artificial muscle packs)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the robotic leg orthosis of Polygerinos to include a second ankle supporting member with buckles and a member that secures the guard to the shin as taught by Shorter, since, this configuration further allows for net power to be provided to the ankle to help restore normal walking function and because the buckle and the member that secures the guard allows for the device to be used as a daily-wear device because it is a simple design that is durable and compact, for easy every day wear (Shorter 2. Active AFOs for Patient Diagnosis and Rehabilitation [01], Discussion Section IV [01]).
Polygerinos in view of Shorter fails to disclose a Velcro tie that surrounds and secures the guards as part of the second ankle supporting member.
Walsh discloses a soft exosuit comprising:
a Velcro tie (Walsh [0061]; where the connection elements ‘107’ of Figure 1 are looped webbing through a buckle and using Velcro for attachment (Velcro tie)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the robotic leg orthosis of Polygerinos in view of Shorter by replacing the steel plate member that surrounds and secures the guards with a Velcro tie to surround and secure as taught by Walsh, since a Velcro tie helps with the adjustments for different lengths as preferred, and it allows for a more tailored tension to the joints, by allowing a user to selectively adjust their tension in the exosuit by loosening or tightening the Velcro ties respectively (Walsh [0061]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Polygerinos (US 20190336315 A1) in view of Shorter (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6104405)[1], and further in view of Blumensohn (WO 2010146593 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Polygerinos in view of Shorter further discloses the robotic leg orthosis for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 4.
Shorter discloses the leg orthosis wherein,
wherein the air chambers are installed at both sides of the shin and the calf, respectively (Figure 3 below; where the artificial muscles are air chambers and they are installed at both sides of the shin and the calf, respectively).
Polygerinos in view of Shorter is silent to the state in which a sole is on the ground or separated from the ground, where air is either injected into the calf or the shin’s air chamber.
Blumensohn discloses a control unit for generating time dependent pressure of a shin region based on a calf region wherein,
in a state in which a sole is in contact with ground, air installed at the side of the shin is discharged outside, and air is injected at the side of the calf (Blumensohn Detailed description of embodiments [06]; where during walking the device allows for a periodically fluctuating pressure to the limb that is synchronized with the pump and Figure 3; where ‘30’ describes the sole touching the ground, and the processor activated the actuating unit to relax the shin region – air injected towards shin is deflated, a band ‘15’ of Blumensohn Figure 1 is configured around the calf and can inflate/deflate based on the timing of the state of the limb Detailed description of embodiments [01], Summary of invention [02]);
and wherein, in a state in which a sole is separated from the ground, air is injected at the side of the shin, and air installed at the side of the calf is discharged outside (Blumensohn Detailed description of embodiments [06]; where during walking the device allows for a periodically fluctuating pressure to the limb that is synchronized with the pump and Figure 3; where ‘40’ describes the sole not touching the ground, and the processor activated the actuating unit to increase pressure to the shin region – air injected towards shin inflates, a band ‘15’ of Blumensohn Figure 1 is configured around the calf and can inflate/deflate based on the timing of the state of the limb - Detailed description of embodiments [01], Summary of invention [02]).
Although Blumensohn does not explicitly disclose where when the shin region deflates, that the calf region inflates or vice versa, Blumensohn does disclose the shin deflating/inflating based on the gait cycle as respectively described before and time dependency of the actuating unit to deliver a pressure in the band of air to a respected region of the lower leg (calf/shin). It would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that, using the actuation unit with the processor could also be configured to deflate the shin region while the calf region is inflated or vice versa based on the gait cycle positions as seen in Blumensohn Figure 3, because it is understood that the calf region can inflate and/or deflate based on the timing of the state of the limb in Detailed description of embodiments [01] and Summary of invention [02].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the air chambers of Polygerinos in view of Shorter to include a control unit that activates an actuating unit to generate time dependent pressure of a shin region based on a calf region as taught by Blumensohn, since, such units help with monitoring the state of the limb continuously and varying the amount of pressure applied to the limb based on the current state of the limb muscles (Blumensohn Summary of the invention [01]).
PNG
media_image2.png
398
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated Figure D of Shorter.
PNG
media_image3.png
469
882
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Annotated Figures A/B of Shorter.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Polygerinos (US 20190336315 A1) in view of Mann (US 5462517 A).
Regarding claim 7, Polygerinos discloses the robotic leg orthosis for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 1.
Polygerinos is silent to a knee stretching member.
Mann discloses a functional knee brace wherein,
a knee stretching member which is provided to be installable on a knee so as to provide assisting strength for enabling a knee to be stretched (Figure 4 below; where there is a knee stretching member that is installable on the knee for assisting in providing strength, Mann [09]; where the support elements are flexible to provide a means to set the knee in fixed positions – enables the knee to be stretched);
and wherein the knee stretching member comprises: a knee sleeve surrounding a knee joint (Figure 4 below; where there is a knee sleeve);
and knee supporting chambers which are air chambers mounted to be connected to the knee sleeve (Figure 4 below; where ‘30’ and ‘32’ are pockets for the air chambers ‘34’ that are mounted to be connected to the knee sleeve);
and which, when air is introduced therein to inflate the air chambers, enable the knee to be stretched by supporting the knee joint (Figure 4 below; where air is introduced into the air chambers by ‘58’ and this to support the patient’s knee in a designated position – Mann [05]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the robotic leg orthosis of Polygerinos to include a knee stretching member with a knee sleeve and knee supporting chambers as taught by Mann, since the knee stretching member allows the knee to be supported in multiple positions and still be flexible, thereby helping with the stretching of a leg (Mann [06],[08],[09]).
PNG
media_image4.png
819
690
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4: Annotated Figures 10-13 of Mann.
Regarding claim 8, Polygerinos in view of Mann further discloses the robotic leg orthosis for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 7, wherein the air chambers are located at both sides of a rear surface portion of the knee joint, respectively (Figure 4 above; where the air chambers ‘34’ inside of pockets ‘30’ and ‘32’ are on a rear surface (as indicated by the arrows) of both sides of the knee joint).
Regarding claim 9, Polygerinos in view of Mann further discloses the robotic leg orthosis for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 7, wherein the knee stretching member enables the knee joint to be stretched in a swing phase and enables a state in which the knee is stretched to be maintained in a stance phase (Figure 4 above; where the knee stretching member enables the knee joint to be stretched and support while walking through the knee supporting chambers (‘34’ inside of ‘30’ and ‘32’) on the back of the knee, during walking there would be a swing phase and a stance phase – so by wearing the knee stretching member, it is enabling the knee to stretched in both the stance and the swing phase).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Polygerinos (US 20190336315 A1) in view of Clark (WO 2012167205 A1) and further in view of Chen (CN 113301828 A).
Regarding claim 11, Polygerinos discloses the robotic leg orthosis for gait rehabilitation training according to claim 1.
Polygerinos fails to disclose a luggage carrier comprising an air tank, air compressor, pressure regulator, camera, and a laser distance sensor.
Clark discloses a portable ventilator with an oxygen generator, further comprising:
a luggage carrier that generates compressed air and is capable of supplying the generated compressed air to the air chambers (Clark [0061]; where the portable ventilation system is capable of being in a rolling suitcase (luggage carrier), [0065]; where the air compressor pump ‘204’ that is within the portable ventilation system generates the compressed air and is capable of supplying air to the patient [0005], which would have the air chambers on them);
wherein the luggage carrier comprises: an air compressor which generates compressed air (Clark [0065]; where the air compressor pump ‘204’ compresses air and Figure 7A; portable ventilation system capable of being in a rolling suitcase (luggage carrier) – [0061]);
an air tank which stores the generated compressed air (Clark [0036]; where the pressure accumulator ‘214’ accumulates compressed air, and the pressure accumulator ‘214’ may comprise a tank);
and a pressure regulator which regulates pressure of the compressed air (Clark [0036]; where the air pressure regulator ‘208’ regulates air pressure and [0047]; where the ventilator receives an oxygen supply of compressed air and the air pressure regulator regulates the air pressure of the air).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the robotic leg orthosis of Polygerinos to include a luggage carrier with an air tank, pressure regulator and an air compressor as taught by Clark, since this would house the source of air to a patient and because a luggage carrier provides a more portable and cost-effective system for the patient to gain access to the compressed air (Clark [0005], [0024]).
Polygerinos in view of Clark fails to disclose wherein the luggage carrier comprises a camera and a laser distance sensor.
Chen discloses an intelligent luggage system wherein,
the luggage carrier comprises a laser distance sensor which is capable of sensing a distance between a patient (Chen Contents of the invention [02]; a laser emitter and proximity sensor ‘45’, ‘50’ (laser distance sensor) helps move the luggage in a given direction to ovoid the obstacle (sensing a distance), Specific implementation examples [04]; the sensor can detect targets such as the user);
and a camera that is capable of imaging a location of the patient such that the luggage carrier is capable of performing autonomous driving so as to follow the patient by recognizing the location of the patient (Chen Specific implementation examples [06]; the camera ‘40’ is coupled to the top part of the pull rod ‘31’ and [02]; the smart luggage system ‘100’ can perform autonomous driving and follow a user).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the robotic leg orthosis of Polygerinos in view of Clark to include a camera and a laser distance sensor within the luggage carrier, since this system allows for target (user) tracking to maintain the movement of the luggage with respect to a user when they are moving (Chen Target tracking system based on ultra-wideband [04]).
References Cited
[1] K. A. Shorter, J. Xia, E. T. Hsiao-Wecksler, W. K. Durfee and G. F. Kogler, "Technologies for Powered Ankle-Foot Orthotic Systems: Possibilities and Challenges," in IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 337-347, Feb. 2013, doi: 10.1109/TMECH.2011.2174799.
Conclusion
The following prior art were considered but not used on a 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103 rejection:
Luis (WO 2019132677 A2): device for aiding plantar flexor muscles.
Sutti (US 20190192327 A1): stretch cord assembly.
Wang (CN 107042504 A) Jump assisting mechanical exoskeleton system.
McBride (GB 2514314 A): air bladders in an array to be used with knees, shins etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AISLINN MOIRA JONES whose telephone number is 571-272-3835. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EO Friday 8am-4pm 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, 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.
/AISLINN M JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785