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 amendments filed 4/23/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-23 are pending in the current application. The amendments to claims 14-15 have overcome the restriction requirements filed 1/22/2026, and therefore the restriction has been withdrawn.
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 “shaft connections” as recited by claim 1, 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 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, and thus its dependent claims, 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 3, 7, and 10 recite the limitation of “shaft connections”, however it is unclear what this component is, as there is no further description in Applicant’s specification and/or Figures. Although Applicant describes a shaft as being element 150 in the specification/drawings, there is no specific mention of “shaft connection” in the specification, nor is there a Figure showing a specific shaft connection extending from the exoskeleton device, as the claim recites.
Claim 1, and thus its dependent claims, 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 claim 1, lines 3, 7, and 10 recite the limitation of “shaft connections”, however it is unclear what this component is, as there is no further description in Applicant’s specification and/or Figures. Although Applicant describes a shaft as being element 150 in the specification/drawings, there is no specific mention of “shaft connection” in the specification, nor is there a Figure showing a specific shaft connection extending from the exoskeleton device, as the claim recites. Therefore, it is unclear what the Applicant is referring to when mentioning the “shaft connection”. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has taken this limitation to be any structure capable of connecting to a shaft.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2018/0193172 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses an interchangeable mounting system on an exoskeletal device for controlling motion of joints of a patient (robotic assembly 100 comprises joint motion modules 109a comprising removable actuator assemblies 132, 134, Paragraph 0109, Abstract and Figure 4a; see Figure 8a showing actuator assemblies in a removable configuration, therefore fully capable of being interchangeable), the system comprising: an exoskeletal device (robotic assembly 100, Figure 1) with shaft connections (primary actuator 132 removably attachable to mounting plate 138a via the output shaft 209 inserted into the respective aperture 114a of mounting plate, see Figure 8a; the Examiner notes the 112a/b rejections presented above with regard to the term “shaft connections”) and mounting pads corresponding to axes of rotation of the joints of the patient (mounting plate 138, Figure 8A and Paragraph 0109); and a motion control module with a housing (joint module comprising a primary actuator assembly 130 with housing actuator housing 132, Paragraph 0105 and Figure 8a) surrounding a shaft-based internal system that provides at least one of resistance or assistance to a motion of the exoskeletal device through a drive shaft (rotation of the carrier 192 causes rotation of the output shaft 209, Paragraph 0118) and is connectable to the shaft connections and each of the mounting pads of the exoskeletal device (the primary actuator 132 comprises housing mounts 140 configured to engage with the fasteners 142 disposed on the mounting plate 138a, Paragraph 0109 and Figure 8a), wherein the motion control module has a locked position on each of the mounting pads when the drive shaft is in communication with the corresponding shaft connections and the housing is fixed relative to each of the mounting pads (the primary actuator 132 comprises housing mounts 140 configured to engage with the fasteners 142 disposed on the mounting plate 138a, to therefore secure the primary actuator 132 onto the mounting plate 138a in a locked manner, Paragraph 0109 and Figure 8a).
Regarding claim 3, Smith further discloses wherein each of the mounting pads (mounting plate 138, Figure 8a) has a docking ledge (fasteners 142, Figure 8a and Paragraph 0109) that engages with a docking slot (housing mounts 140, Paragraph 0109 and Figure 8a) on the housing when the motion control module is in the locked position (housing mounts 140 engage with the fasteners 142 disposed on the mounting plate 138a, Paragraph 0109 and Figure 8a).
Regarding claim 6, Smith further discloses wherein the resistance is provided through mechanical dampers inside the housing of the motion control module (mechanical valve assemblies disposed within each actuator assembly provides controlling damping when the valve is partially opened or closed, Paragraph 0154).
Regarding claim 7, Smith further discloses wherein the resistance is provided in proportion to a speed of the motion (see Paragraphs 0142-0143 regarding motion/speed of the output shaft).
Regarding claim 8, Smith further discloses wherein the assistance is provided through an electrical actuator inside the housing (the primary actuator may comprise an electrical motor that is operable with a planetary drive transmission, Paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 9, Smith further discloses wherein the assistance is provided for a pre-defined portion of the motion (the actuator joint modules may be selectively controlled for a desired duration of time, Paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 10, Smith further discloses wherein the assistance is provided for an entirety of the motion (the actuator joint modules may be selectively controlled for a desired duration of time, Paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 11, Smith further discloses wherein the exoskeletal device includes an arm and shoulder attachment having two of the mounting pads (see Figure 4a-4b showing exoskeleton 101 having arm and shoulder attachments).
Regarding claim 12, Smith further discloses the motion control module is configured to be moved from a first of the mounting pads corresponding to a first axis of rotation to at least one mounting pad corresponding to a second joint (robotic assembly 100 comprises joint motion modules 109a comprising removable actuator assemblies 132, 134, Paragraph 0109, Abstract and Figure 4a; see Figure 8a showing actuator assemblies in a removable configuration, therefore fully capable of being interchangeable and mounted on various locations of the exoskeleton).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 14-15 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2018/0193172 A1) in view of Angold et al. (US 2017/0173783 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Smith teaches interchangeable mounting system of claim 1, and although Smith teaches various attaching mechanisms in which the motion control module is secured to the mounting pads (such as the aperture 114a, fasteners 142, and housing mounts 140 as shown in Figure 8a, Paragraph 0109), Smith does not explicitly state the mounting pad having a locking latch that engages with a locking slot of the motion control module.
However, Angold teaches an exoskeleton device (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a mounting pad (cuff 236, Figure 5 and Paragraph 0031) comprising a spring-loaded locking latch that engages with a locking slot to hold in a fixed position (a spring 515 biases latch 505 to a latched position in which catch 510 is maintained in one of the notches 500, Paragraph 0031 and Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s device by including a spring-loaded locking latch on the mounting pad, and a respective locking slot on the motion control module, as taught by Angold, as providing such a spring-loaded locking mechanism between the two components may further assist in the secure attachment between the two components, while still allowing them to be easily disassembled when needed to be replaced or removed.
Regarding claim 14, Smith discloses a mounting pad motion control module system (joint motion modules 109a comprising actuator assemblies 132, 134, Paragraph 0109, Abstract and Figure 4a), the system comprising: a mounting pad (mounting plate 138, Figure 8A and Paragraph 0109) designed for an exoskeletal device (robotics assembly 100 comprising left and right exoskeleton limbs, Paragraph 0083 and Figure 4a) comprising a docking ledge (fasteners 142, Figure 8a and Paragraph 0109), a mounting pad hole (see aperture 114a, Figure 8a and Paragraph 0109), a motion control module (joint module comprising a primary actuator assembly 130, Paragraph 0105 and Figure 8a) comprising a docking slot (housing mounts 140, Paragraph 0109 and Figure 8a), and a shaft (shaft 209, Figure 8a and Paragraph 0118), wherein the motion control module provides at least one of resistance or assistance to a motion of the shaft (rotation of the carrier 192 causes rotation of the output shaft 209, Paragraph 0118), the motion control module is configured to be removably attached to the mounting pad with its shaft penetrable through the mounting pad hole (primary actuator 132 removably attachable to mounting plate 138a via the output shaft 209 inserted into the respective aperture 114a of mounting plate, see Figure 8a), the docking slot engages with the docking ledge when the motion control module is placed onto the mounting pad (housing mounts 140 engage with the fasteners 142 disposed on the mounting plate 138a, Paragraph 0109 and Figure 8a).
Although Smith teaches various attaching mechanisms in which the motion control module is secured to the mounting pads (such as the aperture 114a, fasteners 142, and housing mounts 140 as shown in Figure 8a, Paragraph 0109), Smith does not explicitly state the mounting pad having a spring-loaded locking latch that engages with a locking slot of the motion control module to hold in a fixed position.
However, Angold teaches an exoskeleton device (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a mounting pad (cuff 236, Figure 5 and Paragraph 0031) comprising a spring-loaded locking latch that engages with a locking slot to hold in a fixed position (a spring 515 biases latch 505 to a latched position in which catch 510 is maintained in one of the notches 500, Paragraph 0031 and Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s device by including a spring-loaded locking latch on the mounting pad, and a respective locking slot on the motion control module, as taught by Angold, as providing such a spring-loaded locking mechanism between the two components may further assist in the secure attachment between the two components, while still allowing them to be easily disassembled when needed to be replaced or removed.
Regarding claim 15, Angold further teaches wherein the spring-loaded locking latch is releasable through a depression of an actuator that enables a user to rotate the motion control module relative to the mounting pad (when latch 505 is depressed, latch 505 pivots about a catch 520, thereby causing catch 510 to exit its notch 500, Paragraph 0056 and Figure 5).
Regarding claim 22, Smith teaches the interchangeable mounting system of claim 1, with Smith further teaching the system further comprising: each of the mounting pads (mounting plate 138, Figure 8A and Paragraph 0109) comprises a docking ledge (fasteners 142, Figure 8a and Paragraph 0109), a mounting pad hole (see aperture 114a, Figure 8a and Paragraph 0109), a docking slot (housing mounts 140, Paragraph 0109 and Figure 8a), and the drive shaft (shaft 209, Figure 8a and Paragraph 0118), the motion control module is configured to be removably attached to each of the mounting pads with its shaft penetrable through the mounting pad hole (primary actuator 132 removably attachable to mounting plate 138a via the output shaft 209 inserted into the respective aperture 114a of mounting plate, see Figure 8a), the docking slot engages with the docking ledge when the motion control module is placed onto each of the mounting pads (housing mounts 140 engage with the fasteners 142 disposed on the mounting plate 138a, Paragraph 0109 and Figure 8a).
Although Smith teaches various attaching mechanisms in which the motion control module is secured to the mounting pads (such as the aperture 114a, fasteners 142, and housing mounts 140 as shown in Figure 8a, Paragraph 0109), Smith does not explicitly state the mounting pad having a spring-loaded locking latch that engages with a locking slot of the motion control module to hold in a fixed position.
However, Angold teaches an exoskeleton device (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a mounting pad (cuff 236, Figure 5 and Paragraph 0031) comprising a spring-loaded locking latch that engages with a locking slot to hold in a fixed position (a spring 515 biases latch 505 to a latched position in which catch 510 is maintained in one of the notches 500, Paragraph 0031 and Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s device by including a spring-loaded locking latch on the mounting pad, and a respective locking slot on the motion control module, as taught by Angold, as providing such a spring-loaded locking mechanism between the two components may further assist in the secure attachment between the two components, while still allowing them to be easily disassembled when needed to be replaced or removed.
Regarding claim 23, Angold further teaches wherein the spring-loaded locking latch is releasable through a depression of an actuator that enables rotation of the motion control module relative to each of the mounting pads when latch 505 is depressed, latch 505 pivots about a catch 520, thereby causing catch 510 to exit its notch 500, Paragraph 0056 and Figure 5).
Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aviles et al. (US 2014/0240109 A1) in view of Smith et al. (US 2018/0193172 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Aviles discloses a method for remounting a motion control module on an exoskeletal system (exoskeleton system 100 comprises modular portable force feedback controllers (PFFCs) that may include interchangeable modules 110-120 comprising respective drive modules 140, 142, 144 that may be quicky and easily connected and disconnected so that the system may be modified for a particular reason, Abstract, Figure 1, Paragraph 0033), the method comprising: unlocking a motion control module from a locked position to an unlocked position on a first mounting pad (modules 110-120 may be fixed/disconnected to respective mating components via locking mechanisms such as pin-and-receptable, set-screw, latching, etc., the mating component being the “first mounting pad”, Paragraph 0054); removing the motion control module from the first mounting pad causing a shaft of the motion control module to be extracted from the exoskeletal system through a first mounting pad hole on the first mounting pad (in the instance of a pin-and-receptable connection, as described in Paragraph 0054, removal of the module 110-120 would involve extracting of the pin/shaft of the module from the respective hole of the mating component); moving the motion control module to a second mounting pad and causing a driveshaft of the motion control module to be inserted into the exoskeletal system through a second mounting pad hole on the second mounting pad (each of the modules 110-120 may be removably connected to an adjacent module, such that each module may be connected to other modules, Paragraph 0030; see also Paragraph 0054 describing the interchangeability of the modules to suit different applications); and locking the motion control module from an unlocked position to a locked position on the second mounting pad (modules 110-120 may be fixed/disconnected to respective mating components via locking mechanisms such as pin-and-receptable, set-screw, latching, etc., the mating components being the “mounting pads”, Paragraph 0054).
However, although Aviles teaches the removal of motion control modules via extraction of a pin/shaft (pin/receptable connection as described in Paragraph 0054), Aviles doesn’t explicitly state wherein the removal of the motion control modules involve the extraction of a drive shaft.
However, Smith teaches a mounting pad motion control module system (joint motion modules 109a comprising actuator assemblies 132, 134, Paragraph 0109, Abstract and Figure 4a), the system comprising: a mounting pad (mounting plate 138, Figure 8A and Paragraph 0109) designed for an exoskeletal device (robotics assembly 100 comprising left and right exoskeleton limbs, Paragraph 0083 and Figure 4a) comprising a motion control module (joint module comprising a primary actuator assembly 130, Paragraph 0105 and Figure 8a) comprising a shaft (shaft 209, Figure 8a and Paragraph 0118), wherein the motion control module is configured to be removably attached to the mounting pad with its shaft penetrable through the mounting pad hole (primary actuator 132 removably attachable to mounting plate 138a via the output shaft 209 inserted into the respective aperture 114a of mounting plate, see Figure 8a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles system such that removal of each respective motion control module involves the removal of a drive shaft, as taught by Smith, as providing a drive shaft in a motion-actuating assembly in an art recognized means of transmitting motion to various system components.
Regarding claim 17, Aviles further teaches further comprising a step of disconnecting electrical connections between the first mounting pad and the motion control module and a step of connecting electrical connections between the motion control module and second mounting pad (see Paragraph 0034 describing the electrical connection between the modular modules 110-120 and the respective mating components).
Regarding claim 18, Aviles further teaches wherein the step of unlocking involves releasing a locking latch from a locking slot and rotating the motion control module (modules 110-120 may be fixed/disconnected to respective mating components via locking mechanisms such as pin-and-receptable, set-screw, latching, etc., the mating component being the “first mounting pad”, Paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 19, Aviles further teaches wherein the step of locking involves rotating the motion control module until a locking slot engages with a locking latch (modules 110-120 may be fixed/disconnected to respective mating components via locking mechanisms such as pin-and-receptable, set-screw, latching, etc., the mating component being the “first mounting pad”, Paragraph 0054).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
Regarding claims 4-5, claims 4-5 both involve the limitation(s) of wherein the locking latch is spring loaded and has a finger joystick extending away from each of the mounting pads, such that the locking latch is biased by the spring into a locked position and must be actuated by the finger joystick to disengage the locking latch. Although Aviles teaches an embodiment in which an ergonomical handle 910 is used as a control stick (Paragraph 0051, Figures 9-10), Aviles is silent wherein the handle is operably attached to the locking latch of the mounting pad, as the claims require. A radical structural modification of Smith’s device would be required in order to result in the structure that is claimed in claims 4-5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al. (US 2020/0188212 A1) and Mooney et al. (US 2020/0016020 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B LEDERER whose telephone number is 571-272-7274. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH B LEDERER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights