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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments pertaining to claim 1, modifications to the rejection in view of Herr to cite an evaluation of shank parameters is present. Examiner argues that as Herr ‘587 states that “the ankle joint is a rolling bearing design joining a lower foot structure to an upper leg shank structure topped with a prosthetic pyramid fixture for attachment to the amputee's socket” in [0102], a shank and a shank angle does depend on the evaluated ankle joint.
With respect to Goldfarb, it is argued that Goldfarb does not teach a volitional controller as Goldfarb does teach a classification of EMG signals for input to an impedance controller. As per [0030] of Goldfarb, EMG measured from the residual limp controls a locking and a gait recognition to control motion. A classification is disclosed in [0030], but the gait recognition is disclosed independent of said classification). The volitional control structure is also not disclosed as having classification within said structure in [0034]-[0036]). With respect to claim 2, Herr ‘235 discloses above knee amputee in column 15 lines 47-57. Herr ‘235 also discloses a below knee amputee, but, as both are disclosed, Herr does teach an above knee amputee using the provided device.
With respect to claim 3, Zealand was used to teach a knee torque determination as per the limitation “except whether the powered joint system of limb of the user is in contact with the ground.” As such, Zealand was used to teach a classification occurring when a limb is in contact with the ground. Zealand teaches classification of a motion transition in [0015]-[0016] and [0045]-[0047], where examiner argues that said motion transition requires a ground contacting for certain transitions). As Zealand is not required to teach the entirety of claim 3, Zealand is still viewed as reading upon the limitation it is required to teach. With respect to claim 6, Examiner argues that a “controller relationship” is not explicitly claimed in the claim language of 09/01/2026. However, Examiner suggests that incorporating that language will overcome Herr as the prior rejection states that a higher knee torque is required to actuate a knee to a higher joint angle. Regarding claim 21, the rejection in view of Herr is modified in view of other limitations of Herr to teach the new limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herr (US Patent No.: 11,278,235).
Regarding claim 21, Herr discloses a method for modifying existing control of powered joint movement (as a feedback mechanism is present in column 10 lines 27-58, a modifying of existing powered joint movement via said feedback is present), comprising: receiving an EMG signal from one or more EMG sensors (in column 3 lines 65-67 into column 4 lines 1-5), the EMG signal being representative of muscle activation of a residual limb of a user EMG on a residual limb for a sensing in column 9 lines 20-45); determining, independently of the EMG signal, a target joint behavior using a powered prosthesis controller (closed-loop feedback electronic controller in column 13 lines 43-50. Said closed-loop feedback controller measures a joint torque via a load cell or a measured spring deflection in column 13 lines 43-50, where said evaluation is not disclosed with an EMG sensing), the target joint behavior being selected from the group consisting of joint position, joint torque, a value which is multiplied to a desired output, or a parameter within the powered prosthesis controller (determination of joint behavior via sensors in column 3 lines 65-67 to column 4 lines 1-5); and modifying the target joint behavior by adding to or multiplying the target joint behavior with a term proportionally derived from the EMG signal (as the EMG signals are used for a “proportional control” system as per column 28 lines 60-67 into column 29 lines 1-18, an adding or multiplying a joint behavior is present in Herr as a result of the disclosed “proportional control”) representative of the muscle activation from the residual limb of the user (control of a prosthesis via EMG sensing in column 9 lines 20-45, torque generation in column 23 lines 1-19, actuator about a joint that is defined as a knee in column 15 lines 47-58), the target joint behavior being modified without explicit classification of user movement or user activity (no “explicit classification” of a user movement or activity in Herr).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr (US Patent No.: 11,278,235) in view of Lerner (US Pub No.: 2019/0343710), Herr (US Pub No.: 2017/0049587) and Goldfarb (US PUB No.: 2012/0004736).
Regarding claim 1, Herr (US Patent No.: 11,278,235) discloses a powered joint system (in the abstract) configured to provide volitional control of joint movement (joints in column 3 lines 20-27, actuators in column 3 lines 37-56), the powered joint system comprising: a knee joint (column 3 lines 20-27 discloses a knee, further knee details in column 15 lines 47-57); one or more electromyography (EMG) sensors (in column 3 lines 65-67 into column 4 lines 1-5), the one or more EMG sensors being adapted for placement on skin of a limb of a user to detect EMG signals from the limb (EMG on a residual limb for a sensing in column 9 lines 20-45); and a controller communicatively coupled to the one or more EMG sensors (control via EMG signals in column 9 lines 20-45, control modules in column 8 lines 65-67 into column 9 lines 1-19), the controller comprising one or more processors (micro-processor disclosed in column 14 lines 10-15) receive an EMG signal from the one or more EMG sensors (column 9 lines 20-45) to configure the controller to: the EMG signal being representative of muscle activation at limb of the user (column 9 lines 20-45 discloses sEMG sensing of a residual limb); and in a stance state, determine a target knee torque proportional to the EMG signal representative of the muscle activation at the limb of the user in the stance state; (control of a prosthesis via EMG sensing in column 9 lines 20-45, where the EMG signal incorporating a neural control in column 9 lines 20-45 implying that a proportional response to the EMG is present. torque generation in column 23 lines 1-19. While load cells are disclosed to monitor a user during a stance with the EMG used to measure during a swing state in column 23 lines 54-67 to column 24 lines 1-3, as the sEMG is also disclosed to measure a muscle activation in the same paragraph, it will monitor a user in a stance phase when there is muscle activation) and output a knee joint signal to the knee joint (as figure 1 and 2A-2C in view of column 15 lines 47-57 show a knee configuration, an output of signal at a knee joint is provided. Prosthetic knee device in claims 21 and 24 of Herr).
However, Herr does not teach one or more hardware storage devices storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors.
Instead, Lerner (US Pub No.: 2019/0343710) teaches one or more hardware storage devices storing instructions (in [0090]-[0091]) that are executable by the one or more processors (in [0090]-[0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hardware storage with stored instructions to operate a powered joint system as presented in Lerner into the device of Herr for the purpose of providing a system that stores instructions “for carrying out various steps and processes” in [0090]. Additionally, paragraph [0091] of Lerner also teaches a server with a storage means to store instructions that can be modified with a feedback modality to allow for said instructions to be implemented to the device of Lerner.
Herr in view of Lerner also does not teach a utilizing of a finite-state machine comprising a stance state and a swing state or a control of the knee joint using an indirect volitional controller in the swing state; and transition from the stance state to the swing state in response to determining that shank position, shank velocity and the knee joint position satisfy predetermined thresholds.
From here, Herr (US Pub No.: 2017/0049587) teaches a utilizing and transition from the stance state to the swing state when in response to determining shank position, shank velocity. and the knee joint position satisfy predetermined thresholds (a state transition is determined via sensor inputs that include ankle angle and motor velocity in [0111]. The sensors of [0043] and [0111] that include additional angular joint displacement sensors in [0043] determine a shank position, velocity, and knee position, where the ankle angle includes a lower foot structure and an upper leg shank in [0102]. Shank evaluation also in [0104]. While a threshold is not explicitly disclosed, as a velocity is being continuously monitored to determine a state transition, it stands to reason that a threshold velocity to indicate said transition is present).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the “top level state machine control” of Herr 2017 into Herr and Lerner for the purpose of providing a finite state machine used to control a robotic leg that is “configured to receive the feedback data from the at least one sensor to determine a gait phase of the robotic leg” as per [0022].
With respect to, in a swing state, control the knee joint using an indirect volitional controller in the swing state, Goldfarb (US PUB No.: 2012/004736) teaches joint using an indirect volitional controller in the swing state (volitional control in [0026], where an “artificial manipulation should not be required for volitional movement of the knee joint” in [0026]), the indirect volitional controller configured to control the knee joint based on movement of the residual limb independently of classification of a user activity (in [0030], EMG measured from the residual limp controls a locking and a gait recognition to control motion. A classification is disclosed in [0030], but the gait recognition is disclosed independent of said classification, with classification not disclosed in the volitional control structure in [0034]-[0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the volitional control details of Goldfarb into Lerner for the purpose of providing a control of a joint without significant physical input from the amputee or user of a device (in [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, and Goldfarb teach the powered joint system of claim 1, wherein: the powered joint system comprises a powered prosthesis (prosthetic device in the abstract of Herr); the limb of the user comprises a residual limb of the user (residual limb in column 9 lines 20-45) following above-knee amputation (above knee amputee disclosed in column 15 lines 47-57); and the EMG signal is representative of muscle activation of a biceps femoris of the residual limb of the user (as the sEMG sensing is on the musculature of the residual limb in column 9 lines 20-45, a sensing of the biceps femoris which is a muscle about the knee of a user occurs. A “below-knee prosthesis” is disclosed in column 11 lines 25-47 implies that the residual limb in column 9 lines 20-45 is above the knee).
Regarding claim 19, Herr discloses a method for providing volitional control of joint system joint movement (in the abstract), comprising: operating a finite state-machine that comprises a stance state and a swing state; in the stance state, receiving an EMG signal from one or more EMG sensors (in column 3 lines 65-67 into column 4 lines 1-5), the EMG signal being representative of muscle activation at a posterior side of a residual limb of a user (EMG on a residual limb for a sensing in column 9 lines 20-45); and determining a target knee torque proportional to the EMG signal representative of the muscle activation at the posterior side of the residual limb of the user (control of a prosthesis via EMG sensing in column 9 lines 20-45, torque generation in column 23 lines 1-19, actuator about a joint that is defined as a knee in column 15 lines 47-58), the target knee torque being determined without explicit classification of user movement or user activity (no “explicit classification” of a user movement or activity in Herr) transitioning from the stance state to the swing state upon determining that a shank position, shank velocity and knee position satisfy predetermined thresholds; and in the swing state, controlling the knee joint using an indirect volitional controller.
Herr in view of Lerner also does not teach a utilizing of a finite-state machine comprising a stance state and a swing state or a control of the knee joint using an indirect volitional controller in the swing state; and transition from the stance state to the swing state when it is determined shank velocity and the knee joint position are below predetermined thresholds.
From here, Herr (US Pub No.: 2017/0049587) teaches a utilizing of a finite-state machine comprising a stance state and a swing state (a finite state machine to recognize a swing and stance phase in [0111]) and transition from the stance state to the swing state when it is determined shank velocity and the knee joint position are below predetermined thresholds (a state transition is determined via sensor inputs that include ankle angle and motor velocity in [0111]. While a threshold is not explicitly disclosed, as a velocity is being continuously monitored to determine a state transition, it stands to reason that a threshold velocity to indicate said transition is present). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the “top level state machine control” of Herr 2017 into Herr and Lerner for the purpose of providing a finite state machine used to control a robotic leg that is “configured to receive the feedback data from the at least one sensor to determine a gait phase of the robotic leg” as per [0022].
With respect to control the knee joint using an indirect volitional controller in the swing state, wherein the volitional controller is configured to control the knee joint based on movement of the residual limb independently of classification of a user activity, Goldfarb (US PUB No.: 2012/004736) teaches joint using an indirect volitional controller in the swing state (volitional control in [0026], where an “artificial manipulation should not be required for volitional movement of the knee joint” in [0026]) wherein the volitional controller is configured to control the knee joint based on movement of the residual limb independently of classification of a user activity (in [0030], EMG measured from the residual limp controls a locking and a gait recognition to control motion. A classification is disclosed in [0030], but the gait recognition is disclosed independent of said classification. with classification not disclosed in the volitional control structure in [0034]-[0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the volitional control details of Goldfarb into Lerner for the purpose of providing a control of a joint without significant physical input from the amputee or user of a device (in [0026]).
Regarding claim 20, Herr discloses one or more hardware storage devices storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a controller to configure the controller to: operating the joint system a finite state-machine that comprises a stance state and a swing state; in the stance state, receive an EMG signal from one or more EMG sensors (in column 3 lines 65-67 into column 4 lines 1-5), the EMG signal being representative of muscle activation at a posterior side of a residual limb of a user (EMG on a residual limb for a sensing in column 9 lines 20-45); and determine a target knee torque based on the EMG signal representative of the muscle activation at the posterior side of the residual limb of the user (control of a prosthesis via EMG sensing in column 9 lines 20-45, torque generation in column 23 lines 1-19, actuator about a joint that is defined as a knee in column 15 lines 47-58), the target knee torque being determined without explicit classification of user movement or user activity (no “explicit classification” of a user movement or activity in Herr).
However, Herr does not teach one or more hardware storage devices storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a controller to configure the controller Instead, Lerner (US Pub No.: 2019/0343710) teaches one or more hardware storage devices storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a controller to configure the controller (in [0090]-[0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hardware storage with stored instructions to operate a powered joint system as presented in Lerner into the device of Herr for the purpose of providing a system that stores instructions “for carrying out various steps and processes” in [0090]. Additionally, paragraph [0091] of Lerner also teaches a server with a storage means to store instructions that can be modified with a feedback modality to allow for said instructions to be implemented to the device of Lerner.
Herr in view of Lerner also does not teach a utilizing of a finite-state machine comprising a stance state and a swing state or a control of the knee joint using an indirect volitional controller in the swing state; and transition from the stance state to the swing state when it is determined shank position, shank velocity and the knee joint position are below predetermined thresholds.
From here, Herr (US Pub No.: 2017/0049587) teaches a utilizing of a finite-state machine comprising a stance state and a swing state (a finite state machine to recognize a swing and stance phase in [0111]) and transition from the stance state to the swing state when it is determined shank position, shank velocity and the knee joint position are below predetermined thresholds (a state transition is determined via sensor inputs that include ankle angle and motor velocity in [0111]. While a threshold is not explicitly disclosed, as a velocity is being continuously monitored to determine a state transition, it stands to reason that a threshold velocity to indicate said transition is present). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the “top level state machine control” of Herr 2017 into Herr and Lerner for the purpose of providing a finite state machine used to control a robotic leg that is “configured to receive the feedback data from the at least one sensor to determine a gait phase of the robotic leg” as per [0022].
With respect to control the knee joint using an indirect volitional controller in the swing state, Goldfarb (US PUB No.: 2012/004736) teaches joint using an indirect volitional controller in the swing state (volitional control in [0026], where an “artificial manipulation should not be required for volitional movement of the knee joint” in [0026]) wherein the volitional controller is configured to control the knee joint based on movement of the residual limb independently of classification of a user activity (in [0030], EMG measured from the residual limp controls a locking and a gait recognition to control motion. A classification is disclosed in [0030], but the gait recognition is disclosed independent to said classification. with classification not disclosed in the volitional control structure in [0034]-[0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the volitional control details of Goldfarb into Lerner for the purpose of providing a control of a joint without significant physical input from the amputee or user of a device (in [0026]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr (US Patent No.: 11,278,235) in view of Lerner (US Pub No.: 2019/0343710), Herr (US Pub No.: 2017/0049587) and Goldfarb (US Pub No.: 2012/0004736) in further view of Zealand (US Pub No.: 2021/0349445).
Regarding claim 3, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, and Goldfarb teaches the powered joint system of claim 1, wherein the target knee torque is determined without explicit classification of user movement or user activity (no classification of knee torque is present. A classifier is mentioned in column 34 lines 3-8, but said classifier is used for terrain prediction),
However, Herr does not teach a classification of a user movement or user activity whether the powered joint system or limb of the user is in contact with the ground
Instead, Zealand (US Pub No.: 2021/0349445) teaches a classification of a user movement or user activity whether the powered joint system or limb of the user is in contact with the ground (classification of sensor data in the in the abstract, where the sensors are in [0014]. The classification is of a movement as per [0016]-[0017]. As an evaluation of a motion transition is present in [0015]-[0016] and [0045]-[0047] requires a ground contacting for certain transitions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the classification means of Zealand into Herr for the purpose of providing a transition control structure (in the abstract) that controls a transition movement in [0004] that allow for an increased stability as per [0003].
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr (US Patent No.: 11,278,235) in view of Lerner (US Pub No.: 2019/0343710), Herr (US Pub No.: 2017/0049587) and Goldfarb (US Pub No.: 2012/0004736) in further view of Yang (US Pub No.: 2018/0256079).
Regarding claim 4, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, and Goldfarb teach the powered joint system of claim 2, wherein determining the target knee torque comprises normalizing the EMG signal based on an average peak EMG value.
Instead, Yang (US Pub No.: 2018/0256079) does teach wherein determining the target knee torque comprises normalizing the EMG signal based on an average peak EMG value (normalizing EMG signals in [0041] and [0052], Knee joints in [0039] and [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the normalizing of an EMG sensing presented in Yang into Herr to allow for the EMG signal to be “amplified and digitalized” as per [0052] based on a maximum EMG value (in [0041]), where the digitalizing of an EMG signal allows for a signal processing in [0013]-[0014].
Regarding claim 5, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, Goldfarb and Yang teach the powered joint system of claim 4, wherein Herr discloses the average peak EMG value is determined based on measurements associated with the user walking with a passive prosthesis (Herr discloses a walking gait in column 1 lines 66-67 into column 2 lines 1-14 and column 5 lines 44-61, real time evaluation in column 9 lines 20-45 and column 25 lines 63-67 to column 26 lines 1-11).
Claim(s) 6 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr (US Patent No.: 11,278,235) in view of Lerner (US Pub No.: 2019/0343710), Herr (US Pub No.: 2017/0049587) and Goldfarb (US Pub No.: 2012/0004736) in further view of Koginov (US Pub No.: 2022/0226182).
Regarding claim 6, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, and Goldfarb teach the powered joint system of claim 1, wherein the target knee torque is determined based on a knee angle position such that higher knee target torque is obtained at higher knee angle positions for a same EMG signal (angle sensing in column 19 lines 25-49. As the device rotates about a knee in column 3 lines 20-27, a sensing of a knee is implied. A torque on a knee will be higher at a higher knee angle).
However, Herr does not explicitly disclose that the angle sensor is monitoring a knee. Instead, Koginov (US Pub No.: 2022/0226182) teaches wherein the target knee torque is determined based on a knee angle position such that higher knee target torque is obtained at higher knee angle positions for a same EMG signal (torque and angle sensing in [0013] with respect to a knee). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the knee sensing of Koginov into Herr for the purpose of evaluating a knee angle and a knee moment (in [0108]-[0109] of Koginov) that allows for an evaluation of a swinging about a joint for a control of a device (swing evaluation in [0109], use in a control mechanism in [0118]).
Regarding claim 11, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, Goldfarb and Koginov teach the powered joint system of claim 6, with Herr further comprising an ankle joint (in column 10 lines 27-57), wherein the controller is further configured to control the ankle joint as a function of the knee angle position (control of an ankle with respect to an orientation of a shank in column 10 lines 27-57, wherein the angle of a shank is dependent on a knee. Microcontroller also in column 10 lines 27-57).
Regarding claim 12, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, Goldfarb and Koginov teach the powered joint system of claim 11, wherein Herr discloses the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to further configure the controller to determine a target ankle equilibrium position based on the knee angle position (control of an ankle with respect to an orientation of a shank in column 10 lines 27-57, wherein the angle of a shank is dependent on a knee. Microcontroller and spring equilibrium details in column 10 lines 27-57. spring equilibrium to adjust and target a joint equilibrium in column 25 lines 63-67 to column 26 lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 13, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, Goldfarb and Koginov teach the powered joint system of claim 12, wherein Herr discloses the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to configure the controller to, in response to determining that the knee angle position is greater than or equal to zero, define the ankle equilibrium position following a negative linear relationship between the knee angle position and the ankle equilibrium position (column 10 lines 27-57, as a shank angle influences an ankle angle, and as sensors are used to control an equilibrium position as per the abstract, a knee angle does influence the adjusting of an ankle joint equilibrium in column 25 lines 63-67 to column 26 lines 1-11. Examiner argues that, depending on the terrain in column 33 lines 54-62, a negative linear relationship is possible between the knee and ankle is possible as per the terrain and as per the observed angles in figures 29-30).
Regarding claim 14, Herr in view of Lerner, , Herr 2017, Goldfarb, and Koginov teach the powered joint system of claim 12, wherein Herr discloses the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to configure the controller to, in response to determining that the knee angle position is less than zero, define the ankle equilibrium position as zero (as the device of Herr does teach a standing in column 10 lines 27-57, and as an adjusting of an ankle equilibrium angle is present in column 25 lines 63-67 to column 26 lines 1-11, an a knee angle being zero and an ankle equilibrium position as zero is required to allow for said standing stance).
Regarding claim 15, Herr in view of Lerner, , Herr 2017, Goldfarb and Koginov teach the powered joint system of claim 12, wherein Herr discloses the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to further configure the controller to output a second signal configured to cause application of torque at the ankle joint to configure the ankle joint according to the target ankle equilibrium position (joint equilibrium in column 25 lines 63-67 to column 26 lines 1-11, sections 1 and 2 in columns 27-28 and figure 30 detail a torque application to adjust an ankle based off of an equilibrium angle).
Regarding claim 16, Herr in view of Lerner, , Herr 2017, Goldfarb and Koginov teach the powered joint system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to further configure the controller to output a signal configured to cause application of torque at the knee joint in accordance with the target knee torque (actuator about a joint that is defined as a knee in column 15 lines 47-58, with a torque control in column 13 lines 43-50. The controller (with a processor in the abstract) determines a target torque that the actuator in column 15 lines 47-57 outputs to the joint).
Regarding claim 17, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, Goldfarb and Koginov teach the powered joint system of claim 16, wherein Herr discloses the controller is configured to cause application of torque at the knee joint in accordance with the target knee torque (actuator about a joint that is defined as a knee in column 15 lines 47-58, with a torque control in column 13 lines 43-50. The controller (with a processor in the abstract) determines a target torque that the actuator in column 15 lines 47-57 outputs to the joint) when the stance state is determined to be active (when the actuator actuates the knee of the device, the stance of the device is active as an active stance is required during said actuation).
Regarding claim 18, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, Goldfarb and Koginov teach the powered joint system of claim 17, wherein Herr discloses the powered joint system is configured to activate the stance state in response to detecting a ground reaction force that satisfies a threshold (ground contact sensing to control a movement in column 9 lines 46-67 to column 10 lines 1-2 as well as column 10 lines 27-58).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr (US Patent No.: 11,278,235 in view of Lerner (US Pub No.: 2019/0343710), Herr (US Pub No.: 2017/0049587) and Goldfarb (US Pub No.: 2012/0004736) in further view of Einarsson (US Pub No.: 2016/0302686).
Regarding claim 7, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, and Goldfarb teach the powered joint system of claim 6. However, Herr does not teach wherein determining the target knee torque comprises multiplying the EMG signal by a position-dependent gain.
Instead, Einarsson (US Pub No.: 2016/0302686) does teach determining the target knee torque comprises multiplying the EMG signal by a position-dependent gain (multiplication of a muscle signal by a gain in [0130]-[0132] to determine a direction of a flex of joint. While torque is not explicitly disclosed here, a flexion of a joint requires a torque applied to the joint). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the equation of [0130]-[0132] of Einarsson for the purpose of providing a means to determine the direction of a joint flexion and providing a control loop that relies upon a muscle signal to control operation of a joint actuator. While paragraph [0132] discloses an actuation of an ankle joint, application of this feedback control can be incorporated about a knee joint as a muscle signal is being evaluated about the knee of the user of Herr.
Regarding claim 8, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, Goldfarb and Einarsson teach the powered joint system of claim 7, with Herr comprising one or more knee angle position sensors configured to detect the knee angle position associated with the knee joint (column 10 lines 27-57 discloses “swing phase ankle angle” being adjusted based off of sensor values that detect orientation of a shank and a ground contact).
Regarding claim 9, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, Goldfarb and Einarsson teach the powered joint system of claim 8, wherein Einarsson teaches that the position-dependent gain is based on the knee angle position detected by the one or more knee angle position sensors (position in to influence a gain in [0044], with position sensors disclosed in [0068] to act as feedback sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the equation of [0130]-[0132] of Einarsson for the purpose of providing a means to determine the direction of a joint flexion and providing a control loop that relies upon a muscle signal to control operation of a joint actuator. While paragraph [0132] discloses an actuation of an ankle joint, application of this feedback control can be incorporated about a knee joint as a muscle signal is being evaluated about the knee of the user of Herr.
Regarding claim 10, Herr in view of Lerner, Herr 2017, Goldfarb and Einarsson teach the powered joint system of claim 7, wherein the position-dependent gain comprises a product of the knee angle position and a multiplication factor, the product being modified by an offset value (offset value in [0130]-[0132] of Einarsson). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the equation of [0130]-[0132] of Einarsson for the purpose of providing a means to determine the direction of a joint flexion and providing a control loop that relies upon a muscle signal to control operation of a joint actuator. While paragraph [0132] discloses an actuation of an ankle joint, application of this feedback control can be incorporated about a knee joint as a muscle signal is being evaluated about the knee of the user of Herr.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jang (US Pub No.: 2018/0235831) considered for a walking assistance apparatus in the abstract with joint motion sensors in [0047]. Instead, Herr (US Pub No.: 2011/0295385) considered for a prosthetic ankle foot in the abstract with stance and swing phase details in figure 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AREN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0144. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:30 M-Th.
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, Jerrah C. Edwards can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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.
/AREN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/YASHITA SHARMA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
