DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The present office action is in response to the Arguments/Remarks filed 04/30/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 4-5, 7, 13, 18, and 20 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are presenting pending in this application.
Applicant has amended Figure 5 to address minor informalities in the drawing. Therefore, the previously held drawing objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 4-5, 7, 13, 18, and 20 to address minor informalities. Therefore, the previously held claim objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112. Further, Examiner concurs with Applicant that claim 18 did not have same limitation as claim 1 in the preceding Office action. Therefore, the previously held claim rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Section under rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 of PG 10 filed 04/30/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive as Examiner concurs that the prior art, Huang, does not suggest or teach amended claim 1 which a magnetic encoder that “measures a speed and a range of motion of the lower leg member”. Huang discloses, the method of measuring an acceleration, a velocity, and orientation via the torso module or the foot pad (¶0053-0054), so thus having the encoder to measure the speed would be reductant.
Therefore, previously held claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Section under rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 of PG 10 filed 04/30/2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the modification of Lefeber to include an additional gearbox as proposed would change the Lefeber’s principle of operation and there is no evidence that Gregg’s type would improve accuracy in Lefeber’s setup as the encoder of Gregg is for a rigid, low-ratio transmission while the optical encoder of Lefeber is serving “model-based control without direct torque sensors”.
Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant’s argument. Examiner clarifies that an additional gearbox has not been added. The arrangement of the gearbox and the motor has been added to the embodiment of Figure 21 as Lefeber et al. discloses the gearbox may, for example, be provided in between the distal end of the body and the mechanical joint (¶0057; ¶0067, “…a gearbox is positioned in series in between the distal end of the body and the mechanical joint…a gearbox may have been positioned in series in between the motor and the body) without changing the Lefeber et al.’s principle. Lefeber et al. recognizes the problem of having the motor/gearbox to be close to and inline with the joint rotational axis (¶0003) and provides solution of the decentralization of the motor is to allow the motor to be relocated such as stationary exoskeleton or the waist of the moving exoskeleton (¶0017) which does not prevent the arrangement of the gearbox.
In regards to the argument related to the substitution of an encoder of Gregg, Examiner concurs with Applicant’s argument. Thus, the ground of rejection in view of Gregg has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of claim 1 as necessitated by the amendments.
Examiner notes that encoders are known as one of the many type sensors in the field of exoskeletons to measure the displacement, rotations, angular position or motion of the shaft or axle and the sensed information are processed into such as position, speed and distance. The arrangement of said encoders are in the proximity of a motor or in a rotary joint of the exoskeleton. The benefits are known to be a low-cost approach or in means to accurately monitor the relative motion. Mechanical, optical and magnetic encoders are the most widely used technologies as evidenced by Tiboni et al. (PG 26,32-33). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art would have recognized that the encoders capable of measuring/monitoring the position, displacement, range, or etc. would be also capable of processing speed in the field of exoskeleton without an unexpected result. Looking into other consideration, the speed can be achieved by a simple calculation involving changes in distance (or position) over time.
Since Tiboni et al. teaches that the mechanical, optical and magnetic encoders are the most widely used technologies in the exoskeleton, one of the ordinary skills in the art would have considered it prima facie obvious to try different encoders in order to achieve optimal arrangement without unexpected results.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites, “actuator are” in ln 2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --actuator is-- similar to claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefeber et al. (US 20210122040 A1) in view of Tiboni et al. (“Sensors and Actuation Technologies in Exoskeleton”, PG 26,32-33, June 2022).
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; ¶0028, “a flexible drive shaft indirectly drives a joint via a transmission system”; ¶0057, “A gearbox may, for example, be provided in between the distal end of the body and the mechanical joint”; ¶0067) 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”); and
an encoder (173a, 173b, 174 Fig 21; ¶0062, “the sensor cluster comprises two rotational encoders, preferably rotational optical encoders… Said one or more signals may comprise absolute angle measurements; ¶0063, “an additional rotational encoder for determining the bending deformation information”)
While Lefeber et al. discloses that the rotational encoders or preferably optical encoders, which determined the angle measurement (¶0062) and 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 the rotational encoders are magnetic encoders.
However, Tiboni et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention for the field of endeavor of the exoskeleton, teaches the position feedback with linear or rotational encoders is essential in the functional with control in force or torque of the compliant actuators and device that are becoming increasingly widespread for use in robots interacting with humans, SEAS, Pes, VSAs, and MR brake and for exoskeletons with DC, SEA and Brushless actuators, encoder are the most used sensors (Section 4.2. Sensors - PG 26 of 61). Since mechanical, optical and magnetic are the most widely used technologies with known benefits (Section 4.2.6 Sensors - PG 26 of 61, “In general, mechanical, optical and magnetic are the most widely used technologies. A mechanical encoder can be rotary or linear… a trajectory greater than 360 degrees… An optical encoder…. output pulses per second may be translated directly to the shaft’s rotational speed… Magnetic encoders…. to operate even in disturbed contexts), one of the ordinary skills in the art would have considered it prima facie obvious to try different encoders in order to achieve optimal arrangement without unexpected results.
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 substitute with a magnetic encoder as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (see MPEP 2144.05(II) and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2144.06.II.
Modified Lefeber et al. is silent on the encoder capable of measuring a speed.
However, Tiboni et al. further teaches, the encoders are known as one of the many type sensors in the field of Exoskeletons to measure the displacement, rotations, angular position or motion of the shaft or axle and sensed information are processed into such as position, speed and distance. The arrangement of said encoders are in the proximity of a motor or in a rotary joint of the exoskeleton. The benefits are known to be a low-cost approach or in means to accurately monitor the relative motion (PG 26,32-33).
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 to include the encoder measure a speed as taught Tiboni et al. in order to provide accurate monitoring as the known method (PG 26,32-33).
Regarding claim 2, Lefeber et al. in view of Tiboni et al. and Tiboni 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 Tiboni et al. and Tiboni 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 (Lefeber et al.: ¶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. Tiboni 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 (Lefeber et al.: ¶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 Tiboni 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 10, Lefeber et al. in view of Tiboni et al. discloses the system of claim 1.
Lefeber et al. further discloses, wherein the series elastic actuator is 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).
Regarding claim 12, Lefeber et al. in view of Tiboni 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 Tiboni et al. discloses the system of claim 12.
Lefeber et al. further discloses, wherein the series elastic actuator is 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 3, 7-9, 11, 13-15, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the subject matter of claim 3, the closest identified prior art of documents of record is Huang et al. (US 20210369533 A1).
Huang et al. discloses the motor comprises a blushless DC motor (¶0058) and the gearbox comprises a harmonic drive (¶0057), but the prior art fails to suggest or teach that the magnetic encoder configured to measure the speed of the lower leg member as it already discloses, means to measure the speed.
Regarding the subject matter of claims 7, 13, and 18, the reasons are as discussed below for the same reasoning in the preceding Office action.
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights