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 .
Status of Claims
This present office action is responsive to the Application filed on April 7, 2023. As directed, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings
Regarding Figure 5, photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. See 37 CFR 1.84 (b)(1).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “the gearbox the lower” in ln 5 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the gearbox, the lower--
Claim 1 recites, “the speed and/or the range” in ln 6-7 which Examiner suggest amending to read --a speed and/or a range-- as the limitation has not yet been introduced.
Claims 1-17 are objected by virtue of dependency to claim 1.
Claim 4 recites, “the impedance” in ln 2, “the resistance and/or the motion of a load” in ln 3 which Examiner suggest amending to read --an impedance-- in ln 2 and --a resistance and/or a motion of a load-- as the limitations have not yet been introduced.
Claim 5 recites, “the impedance” in ln 2, “the resistance and/or the motion of a load” in ln 3 which Examiner suggest amending to read --an impedance-- in ln 2 and --a resistance and/or a motion of a load-- as the limitations have not yet been introduced.
Claim 7 recites, “one or more of the other rotating elements” in ln 6 which Examiner suggest amending to read --at least one other rotating element-- for clarity.
Claim 13 recites, “one or more of the other rotating elements” in ln 6 which Examiner suggest amending to read --at least one other rotating element-- for clarity.
Claim 13 recites, “wherein torque” in ln 9 which Examiner suggest amending to read --wherein a toque-- for clarity.
Claim 18 recites, “one or more of the other rotating elements” in ln 8-9 which Examiner suggest amending to read --at least one other rotating element-- for clarity.
Claim 19-20 are objected by virtue of dependency to claim 18.
Claim 18 recites, “wherein torque” in ln 11 which Examiner suggest amending to read --wherein a toque--
Claim 20 recites, “the impedance” in ln 2, “the resistance and/or the motion of a load” in ln 3 which Examiner suggest amending to read --an impedance-- in ln 2 and --a resistance and/or a motion of a load-- as the limitations have not yet been introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 recite, “a magnetic encoder operably affixed to at least one of the motor, the gearbox, the lower leg member, or the drive member” which implies that the “magnetic encoder” is capable of multiple connection to the said components at once. However, the instant application describes the “magnetic encoder” operably affixed to one of said components in ¶0023 in view of Fig 1A, ¶0037, ¶0027 in view of Fig 1C, ¶0037 in view of Fig 3, ¶0038 in view of Fig 4 and ¶0041 in view of Fig 6 or having more than one magnetic encoders in alternate locations, but it does not specifically discloses a magnetic encoder capable of multiple connection to more than one components. Thus, Examiner notes that the claim contains subject matter which was not reasonably described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-17 and 19-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claims 1 and 18 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 20210369533 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al. discloses, a combined testbench type and walking type compliant exoskeleton system (assembly of Fig 1) comprising:
a motor (a motor 154 of the actuator, Fig 6; ¶0057, “each of the HAA joints 100, 108 and HFE joints 104, 112 includes an actuator 150, such as a series elastic actuator);
a gearbox (a harmonic gearbox 158 of the actuator, Fig 6) operably affixed to the motor;
a lower leg member (38, 42, 46 of Fig 1; Fig 3) operably affixed to the gearbox via a drive member (30, 34 support legs, Fig 1); and
a magnetic encoder (204, Fig 4) operably affixed to the motor, the gearbox, the lower leg member, or the drive member, such that the magnetic encoder measures the range of motion of the lower leg member (¶0062, “ a sensor system including an absolute position magnetic encoder 204 for measuring a joint angle of the joint 100, 108, 116, 120…an “interaction torque”, which is the difference between a trajectory of the support leg 30, 34 and the joint 100, 108, 116, 120 associated with that leg”).
Regarding claim 3, Huang et al. discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above.
Huang et al. further discloses, wherein the motor comprises a brushless DC motor (¶0058, “the motor 154 is a flat, brushless motor”) and the gearbox comprises a harmonic drive (158, Fig 6; ¶0057).
Regarding claim 4, Huang et al. discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above.
Huang et al. further discloses, an impedance monitor (¶0062, a spring-based torque sensor 208 and/or a strain-based torque sensor 212) to measure the impedance of the motor which determines a motion of a load imposing a load force against the motor (¶0060-62,0067-70 implies that the motion of the load imposing the load force against the motor as it measures and analyze the interaction torque between the actuator and the human’s leg).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefeber et al. (US 20210122040 A1) in view of Gregg et al. (US 20180325713 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lefeber et al. discloses, a combined testbench type and walking type compliant exoskeleton system (assembly of Fig 21) comprising:
a motor (a motor 171, Fig 21);
a gearbox (‘GB” as shown in Fig 10A) operably affixed to the motor;
a lower leg member (a lower leg 178, Fig 21) operably affixed to a drive member (a mechanical joint 175; ¶0130, “the mechanical joint may be a knee mechanical joint (175) for rotating a lower leg (178) relative to an upper leg”), but the currently relied upon embodiment does not specifically disclose the gearbox with the exoskeleton system.
However, Lefeber et al. further discloses that the preferred embodiment of the transmission system comprises a gearbox in between the distal end of the body and the mechanical joint allows to enlarge the effective stiffness when a gearbox is placed in series after the flexible shaft resulting the effective stiffness multiplied with the square of the reduction ratio of the gearbox (¶0081-0082) in order to increase the output torque (¶0115-0116).
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 system of Lefeber et al. to include a gearbox operably affixed to the motor and the lower leg member to the gearbox in order to increase the output torque (¶0115-0116).
While Lefeber et al. discloses that the encoder is configured for determining a torsional relative angle between the distal end and the proximal end and comprises two rotational encoders or rotational optical encoder to determine relative angle (¶0062) and determining the bending deformation information (¶0064) and the encoder that measures the position at the output of the motor unit (θ.sub.m), which provides information regarding the total deflection angle of the shaft (¶0090), Lefeber et al. is silent on a magnetic encoder.
However, Gregg et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention for a drive system coupling the electric motor and the gear system (abstract) teaches a magnetic encoder to measure the ankle and/or knee angles or providing accurate position feedback (¶0039-0040) as a known device in the gait control system.
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 system of Lefeber et al. to include a magnetic encoder device as both encoders have function known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the magnetic encoder of Gregg et la. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2144.06.II.
Regarding claim 2, Lefeber et al. in view of Gregg et al. discloses the system of claim 1.
Lefeber et al. further discloses, a testbench (Figs 2A-B, and 5A-5C; Examiner notes that testbenches is interpreted as to any type of structure used for the purpose of testing/experiments as BRI), the combined testbench type and walking type compliant exoskeleton system being operably affixable to the testbench such that the combined testbench type and walking type compliant exoskeleton system are operable (¶0086-0106, implies that the experiments/testing were performed while operating the system comprising the motor and gearbox combination and the flexible drive shafts and encoders and further the experiment setup model may include knee joint with a tight, and a shank) when affixed to the testbench or when not affixed to the testbench.
Regarding claim 4, Lefeber et al. in view of Gregg et al. discloses the system of claim 1.
Modified Lefeber et al. further discloses, an impedance monitor to measure the impedance of the motor which determines the motion of a load imposing a load force against the motor (¶0002-0006, 0066-67 implies that the driving information for the motor such as a motor torque, a motor current, a motor position, or a motor velocity is controlled based determined desired output torque at the joint calculated by the torsional and bending deformation information acquired from sensors and encoders; Examiner interprets a load imposing a load force as to assisting force/desirable output torque at joint or body in order to assist moving).
Regarding claim 5, Lefeber et al. in view of Gregg et al. discloses the system of claim 2.
Modified Lefeber et al. further discloses, an impedance monitor to measure the impedance of the motor which determines the motion of a load imposing a load force against the motor (¶0002-0006, 0066-67 implies that the driving information for the motor such as a motor torque, a motor current, a motor position, or a motor velocity is controlled based determined desired output torque at the joint calculated by the torsional and bending deformation information acquired from sensors and encoders; Examiner interprets a load imposing a load force as to assisting force/desirable output torque at joint or body in order to assist moving).
Regarding claim 6, Lefeber et al. in view of Gregg et al. discloses the system of claim 1.
Modified Lefeber et al. further discloses, a series elastic actuator (Lefeber: a flexible shaft 172, Fig 21) operably affixed between the gearbox and the drive member (Lefeber: ¶0081-0082, ¶0115-0116).
Regarding claim 12, Lefeber et al. in view of Gregg et al. discloses the system of claim 2.
Modified Lefeber et al. further discloses, a series elastic actuator (Lefeber: a flexible shaft 172, Fig 21) operably affixed between the gearbox and the drive member (Lefeber: ¶0081-0082, ¶0115-0116).
Regarding claim 16, Lefeber et al. in view of Gregg et al. discloses the system of claim 12.
Lefeber et al. further discloses, wherein the series elastic actuator are removable (¶0086-0106, implies that any components are capable of being removable to be tested in a different type of setup or system) and the gearbox rigidly is affixed to the leg member without otherwise changing the operation of the combined testbench type and walking type compliant exoskeleton system (Examiner interprets the limitation of “without otherwise changing the operation” as to any operation such as merely arrangement of parts, an operation of encoder, an operation of motor, and etc. as the “operation” is not defined; In this case, Examiner notes that the arrangement is maintained even the actuator is removed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 13, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim if applicable and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the subject matter of claims 7, 13, and 18, the closest identified prior art documents of record are Yao et al. (machine translation of CN 110522600).
Yao et al. discloses, a series elastic actuator casing having at least two rotating elements (see annotation below, Fig 3), each rotating element having first and second elastic member interfaces (see annotation below, Fig 3), and at least two elastic members (see annotation below, Fig 3), such that the elastic members operably connect the elastic member interfaces of the rotating elements in purpose of pushing the output connecting ride to drive the orthopedic shoe while avoiding forcible drive force (PG 6, ln 9-24), but Yao et a. does not specifically teach or suggest a torque applied to the exterior of the casing of the series elastic actuator is damped by the elastic members via the rotating members affixed to the interior of the casing and the rotating elements operably affixed to the interior of the casing such that each of the rotating elements are pivotable toward or away from one or more of the other rotating elements.
No other prior arts have been found that teaches or suggest all the claimed features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAEICK JANG whose telephone number is (703)756-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kendra D Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785