DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “101” has been used to designate “wheelchair”, “back seat”, “upper frame”, “main links”, “user”, “one stance foot”, “sides”, “straight system posture”, “signal generator”, and “motor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “102” has been used to designate “an assistive sit to stand / stand to sit (STS) mechanism”, arm support base”, “joint”, “front seat”, “link”, “electronic box”, “main link”, “process of a human”, “human”, “human support”, “poles”, “support point”, “stability supporting pole”, “swinging forward”, and “motion control”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “103” has been used to designate “motor”, “arm support bar”, “joint”, “front legs”, “stationary link”, “straps”, “user’s torso”, “actuator”, “one auto-pole”, “forward pole”, “the new supporting points”, “one exoskeleton leg”, “step climb”, “lower step”, “DC motor drive”, and “a random human load”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “104” has been used to designate “rear wheels”, “robotic chair frame”, “joint”, “connecting link”, “link”, “frame”, “connecting rod link”, “leg”, “the swinging leg”, “loads”, “cycle”, “step climb”, “step”, “24V/5V linear regulator”, and “the mathematical integral conversion of the resulting chair acceleration to chair velocity and position”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “105” has been used to designate “front wheels”, “joint”, “move”, “a straight system posture”, “the second leg”, “24V battery charging circuit”, and “the static or dynamic model”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “106” has been used to designate “control box”, “electronic box”, “wheels”, “joint”, and “frame”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “107” has been used to designate “lock” and “connecting link”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “108” has been used to designate “part 2”, “upper seat”, and “4-bar linkage”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “110” has been used to designate “supporting arm part of the chair”, “fixed arm support part”, “adjustable back support”, and “seat back safety lock”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “111” has been used to designate “extended arm support part” and “joint”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “112” has been used to designate “part 1” and “4-bar linkage”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “115” has been used to designate “wheel axis” and “joint”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “120” has been used to designate “an articulating seat linkage” and “frame joint”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “122” has been used to designate “safety lock” and “frame joint”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “201” has been used to designate “exoskeleton”, “back seat assembly”, “seat position safety stop”, “pitch axis”, “hip joint”, “revolute joint”, “torso”, “the robotic chair”, “new position”, and “curves”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “202” has been used to designate “auto-poles”, “electronic box”, “front foot plate”, “foot plate”, “front plate”, “front seat”, “pitch axis”, “knee joint”, “revolute joint”, “thigh”, “wheels”, “new position”, and “new supporting point”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “203” has been used to designate “auto-pole”, “exoskeleton links”, “front legs”, “axis”, “ankle joint”, “revolute joint”, “shank”, and “new supporting point”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “204” has been used to designate “auto-pole”, “seat back”, “revolute joint”, “foot”, “ground”, and “supporting point”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “301” has been used to designate “back leg tips”, “feet plate assembly”, “actuator”, “one upper fixed link”, “lock”, “auto pole frames”, “frame”, “body center of gravity (cg)”, “body weight cg”, and “RL Agent”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “302” has been used to designate “front leg supports”, “front leg tips”, “middle link”, “latch”, “thigh links”, “projection”, and “Critic”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “303” has been used to designate “lower link”, “shank link”, and “Neural Network (NN) controller”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “304” has been used to designate “linear actuator” and “2 feet end effectors”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “305” has been used to designate “motor or solenoid” and “yaw axis”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “401” has been used to designate “actuator”, “upper middle links”, “handheld wireless HMI”, and “best fit function”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “402” has been used to designate “lower links” and “best fit function”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “403” has been used to designate “lower links” and “best fit function”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “404” has been used to designate “upper middle links” and “best fit function”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “501” has been used to designate “controller” and “actuator”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “502” has been used to designate “actuator” and “latch”. Appropriate correction is required.
Reference character “503” has been used to designate “linear axis” and “voice command or joystick”. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“207” in Fig. 2
“113” and “109” in Fig. 3A
“701”, “803”, and “704” in Fig. 4
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:
“a torso frame” of claim 1 line 3 and claim 15 line 4
“four articulated robotic chain legs” of claim 1 line 4 and claim 15 line 5
“two exoskeleton chain legs” of claim 1 line 4 and claim 15 line 5
“two auto-pole chain legs” of claim 1 line 4-5 and claim 15 line 5-6
“a motion controller” of claim 1 line 7 and claim 15 line 8
“a user interface” of claim 1 line 7 and claim 15 line 8-9
“an exoskeleton foot link”, “an exoskeleton shank link”, “an exoskeleton thigh link”, and “an exoskeleton torso link” of claim 2 lines 2-3
“an auto-pole shank link”, “an auto-pole thigh link”, and “an auto-pole torso link” of claim 2 line 5
“a rotary actuator” of claim 3 line 5 and 8 and claim 5 line 5, 8, and 11
“a shaft” of claim 5 line 2
“each of the links has a strap or a security belt to a respective body part of a user” of claim 7 lines 1-2
“motors” of claim 9 line 4 and claim 14 line 4
“a front link”, “a back link”, “a third link”, and “a fourth link” of claim 10 lines 4, 10, and 11
“a front standing plate including force sensors” of claim 16 line 3
“a chair controller” of claim 17 line 3
“a clutch” of claim 20 line 4
“a spring-loaded pin” of claim 21 line 2
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. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
From claim 1 and claim 15: “a torso frame”; “four articulated robotic chain legs”; “two exoskeleton chain legs”; “two auto-pole chain legs”; “an assistive stationary robotic chair”
From claim 2: “an exoskeleton foot link”; “an exoskeleton shank link”; “an exoskeleton thigh link”; “an exoskeleton torso link”; “an auto-pole shank link”; “an auto-pole thigh link”; “an auto-pole torso link”
From claim 10: “a front link”; “a back link”; “a third link”; “a fourth link”
From claim 16: “stationary chair legs”; “a front standing plate”
From claim 17: “a chair controller”
From claim 18: “a wireless battery charger”
From claim 20: “A chain leg”; “leg links”; “an additional connecting rod link”; “an exoskeleton chain leg”; “a robotic auto-pole chain leg”
From claim 21: “the connecting rod”; “a spring-loaded pin”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for unlocking motion of an actuator by a clutch when a rotary actuator is used to drive the joint” of claim 20 lines 3-4
The corresponding structure is [0065] “Each auto pole leg has 4 solenoids - one for yaw axis, one for locking it with its nearby exoskeleton leg during STS, and two for the hip and knee for unlocking their associated 4-bar linkage during STS. Each exoskeleton leg has two solenoids, like the auto poles, for the hip and knee to unlock the 4-bar linkage during STS.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-7 and 9-21 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 2 line 3, the claim reads on “an exoskeleton torso link”. Such structure is not described in the specification, nor is it clearly labeled in any Figure. For example, the exoskeleton chain leg structures are shown in Fig. 4, where no reference number shows the “an exoskeleton torso link”. How does the torso link differ from the “upper middle link 404” delineating the thigh link, or the torso straps 103? The specification fails to provide adequate written description about what exact structure is included and able to perform as the “exoskeleton torso link”.
Regarding claim 3 lines 5 and 7, the claims reads on “a rotary or linear actuator” actuating both the connection between the exoskeleton thigh link and exoskeleton shank link, and between the exoskeleton torso link and exoskeleton thigh link. However, it is unclear in the specification and drawings how a linear or rotary actuator could be used in these knee/hip joint locations since a linear actuator versus a rotary actuator perform different types of motion and are for differing mechanical operations. The specification fails to provide adequate written description about the necessary structure able to perform either rotary or linear movement.
Regarding claim 4 lines 1-2, the claim reads on “the exoskeleton shank link and the exoskeleton thigh link have an adjustable length to fit a shank and a thigh of a user”. However, such adjustment requires a structure able to adjust the length of the shank/thigh links, but the specification fails to provide adequate written description about what exact structure is included to perform such adjustment and how to perform the function.
Regarding claim 5 lines 5, 8, and 11, the claim reads on “a rotary or linear actuator” actuating the connections between the auto-pole shank/thigh links, auto-pole thigh/torso link, and the auto-pole torso link/torso frame. However, it is unclear in the specification and drawings how a linear or rotary actuator could be used in these knee/hip joint locations since a linear actuator versus a rotary actuator perform different types of motion and are for differing mechanical operations. The specification fails to provide adequate written description about the necessary structure able to perform either rotary or linear movement.
Regarding claim 6 lines 1-3, the claim reads on “the auto-pole shank link and the auto- pole thigh link have an adjustable length to fit a shank and a thigh length of the exoskeleton chain legs”. However, such adjustment requires a structure able to adjust the length of the shank/thigh links, but the specification fails to provide adequate written description about what exact structure is included to perform such adjustment and how to perform the function. It is also unclear as to how the auto-pole links are able to adjust to the same length specifications as the exoskeleton legs and what connection exists between the two structures to maintain the same length.
Regarding claim 7 lines 1-3, the claim reads on “each of the links has a strap or a security belt to a respective body part of a user with force sensors attached to the links to sense the reaction of dynamic and static loads.” However, it is unclear how each link, comprising seven links between the exoskeleton and auto-pole chain legs, comprises a respective belt. It is unclear in the specification and figures how each link has a strap or belt. The specification fails to provide adequate written description about the necessary structure of straps or security belts, as well as the adequate written description about the necessary structure regarding a force sensor attached to each link.
Regarding claim 9 lines 1-4, the claim reads on “the motion controller is within the electronic box, with Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Reinforcement Learning (RL), proportional- integral-derivative (PID) and Bang-Bang algorithms to sense sensors signals, user command and robotic chair signal and command motors of controlled joints of the exoskeleton system”. However, the specification fails to provide adequate description of motors that control joints within the exoskeleton system. Nowhere in the specification are the joints said to be controlled by a motor within the exoskeleton, and thus the claimed AI, RL, PID, and algorithms are not applied in a way that functions within the system. Additionally, how is the motion controller of the exoskeleton system receiving “a robotic chair signal”? Therefore, the specification fails to provide adequate written description regarding the language.
Regarding claim 10 line 4, 10, and 11, the claim reads on “a front link”, “a back link”, “a third link”, and “a fourth link”. However, the subject matter is not clear in the specification or figures as to which structure constitutes each of the links. The specification fails to provide adequate written description about which structures are able to perform the functions of the “a front link”, “a back link”, “a third link”, and “a fourth link” as are illustrated in the claim.
Regarding claim 11 line 2, the claim reads on “a rotary or linear actuator”. However, it is unclear in the specification and drawings how a linear or rotary actuator could be used to move the robotic chair since a linear actuator versus a rotary actuator perform different types of motion and are for differing mechanical operations. Additionally, it is unclear because the structures of the front and back link actuated by said rotary/linear actuator are not clearly disclosed in the specification or drawings. The specification fails to provide adequate written description about the necessary structure able to perform either rotary or linear movement.
Regarding claim 17 line 4, the claim reads on “a torso strap which signals the chair controller readiness for motion”. However, the specification fails to provide adequate written description about what structure is able to signal to the controller “readiness for motion”, as well as what structure is able to perform a “readiness for motion”. The description does not provide what “readiness for motion” means either. Therefore, the specification fails to provide adequate written description regarding the language.
Regarding claim 18 lines 1-3, the claim reads on “a wireless battery charger for the exoskeleton system”, where the charger is in the assistive stationary robotic chair or the wheelchair. However, specification [0046] states “The back of the robotic chair (101) includes a wireless charger to charge the battery which may be located in the electronic box (202) of the exoskeleton (201)”, but the specification [0050] states “an electronic box (102) may be attached to the frame… for storing components such as… charger”. The specification fails to provide adequate written description about which structure is charging the battery of the exoskeleton. Additionally, both the chair and exoskeleton appear to have a battery system, so the specification is unclear as to which battery is charged where and how. Therefore, the specification fails to provide adequate written description regarding the language.
Regarding claim 20, the claim reads on an unlocking motion of an actuator as done by a four-bar linkage. Fig. 5 appears to attempt at clarifying the four-bar linkage motions, however it is unclear how the sum of parts in Fig. 5 equate to the claim language. For example, the lower figure of Fig. 5 does not include the lock (301), despite being the piece that unlocks/locks actuator (103). How is the four-bar linkage unlocking the motion of actuator 301 if the actuator is included in the four-bar linkage? Additionally, an option for a rotary actuator and an option for a linear actuator are provided, the latter including the four-bar linkage mechanism. No subject matter in the specification provides adequate description of the rotary actuator in relation to the leg links. Additionally, the final line reads “wherein the chain leg is an exoskeleton chain leg or a robotic auto-pole chain leg,” however the specification fails to provide written description regarding which of the exoskeleton or auto-pole links, joints, and actuators are being described. How can the same structure exist on both the exoskeleton link and auto-pole links? Therefore, the specification fails to provide adequate written description regarding the language.
Regarding claim 21 lines 1-2, the claim reads on “the connecting rod of the four-bar linkage is locked to one of the leg links with a spring-loaded pin which is unlatched with a solenoid”. However, the specification fails to provide adequate written description about, firstly, which structure is the connecting rod of the four-bar linkage. Secondly, which structure is the spring-loaded pin able to lock the supposed connecting rod of the four-bar linkage. Thirdly, how any structure is unlatched or related to a solenoid in the description. Claim 21 is about “the chain leg”, but no specification or figure reference number is clear as to what chain leg is being referenced, or the connected structures. Therefore, the specification fails to provide adequate written description regarding the structure and function of claim 21.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-21 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 line 5, the term “the ground” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3 line 8, the term “a rotary or a linear actuator” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a rotary or a linear actuator” of line 5.
Regarding claim 7 line 1-2, the terms “each of the links” and “the links” are unclear as to which links are being referred to.
Regarding claim 9 lines 1-5, the claim language “the motion controller is within the electronic box, with Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Reinforcement Learning (RL), proportional- integral-derivative (PID) and Bang-Bang algorithms to sense sensors signals, user command and robotic chair signal and command motors of controlled joints of the exoskeleton system, independently or in synchronization with motion of the assistive stationary robotic chair” is unclear as to how the “Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Reinforcement Learning (RL), proportional- integral-derivative (PID) and Bang-Bang algorithms” are able to sense signals from the sensors. It is unclear how the aforementioned algorithms and programs “command motors”, and which motor is being referred to within the disclosure.
Regarding claim 10 line 11, the term “the back link is connected on its other hand to a fourth link” is unclear as to what structure is “its other hand” in regards to the back link. Does the back link have two distinct ends? In line 9-10 and 11, the term “a revolute, pitch, joint” and “a revolute pitch joint” are unclear as to if the terms are the same or different than in lines 8-9. In line 14, the term “the ground” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14 line 1-5, the claim language “a motion controller mounted within the electronic box, with AI/RL, PID and Bang-Bang algorithms to sense the sensors signals, user's command and exoskeleton signals and command the motors of the controlled joint of the robotic chair in claim 1” is unclear as to how the AI/RL, PID, and algorithms are able to sense signals from the sensors. It is unclear how the aforementioned algorithms and programs “command motors”, and which motor is being referred to within the disclosure. Additionally, “the robotic chair in claim 1” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 15 line 6-7, the term “the ground” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 17 line 4, the term “a torso strap which signals the chair controller readiness for motion” is unclear as to how the torso strap is able to signal to the chair controller. Is there a sensor? Is the intended structure from the specification “the seatbelt” (specification [0058])?
Regarding claim 19 line 2-3, the term “a frame” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a torso frame” of claim 15 line 4. The term “legs” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “four articulated robotic chain legs”, “two exoskeleton chain legs”, and “two auto-pole chain legs” of claim 15 lines 5-6.
Regarding claim 20 line 2, the term “leg links connected to one another by with joints” is unclear as to what “by with” means. In lines 5-7, the term “which is locked during actuator-driven motion” is unclear as to how the four-bar linkage includes the actuator as part of the “means for unlocking motion” in line 3-4, and then is locked during actuator drive motion. How can the actuator be part of the locking when being used to drive motion? In line 8, the term “the chain leg is an exoskeleton chain leg or a robotic auto-pole chain leg” is unclear as to how the two distinct structures can each apply to the claim language above.
Regarding claim 21 line 1, the term “the connecting rod” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. In line 2, the term “a spring-loaded pin which is unlatched with a solenoid” is unclear as to how a solenoid is able to unlatch the pin.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villarreal Suarez (US 2021/0401644; hereinafter “Suarez”) in view of Sandler et al. (US 2017/0071812; hereinafter “Sandler”), as best understood.
Regarding claim 1, Suarez discloses an exoskeleton system (see Suarez exoskeleton assembly 37 comprising exoskeleton 38) for gait, sit to stand (STS) (see Suarez [0041] “As such, the exoskeleton 38 may be particularly configured in some embodiments to assist the user 16 with a walking motion, a standing motion, and/or a sitting motion”), the exoskeleton system comprising: a torso frame (see Suarez upper body device 44 comprising upper body member 54); four articulated robotic chain legs, including two exoskeleton chain legs (see Suarez leg comprising upper leg device 42, lower leg device 40, and footrest assembly 46; applied to right and left sides) and two auto- pole chain legs (see Suarez armrests 26 into poles such as in Fig. 3, where telescoping means 80 extend as poles; applied to right and left sides), which are connected to the torso frame on one end and touch the ground in their other end (see Suarez Exoskeleton legs: upper leg device 42 connected to upper body device 44 via upper member 98a, and touch the ground at footrest assembly 46. Auto poles legs: Armrests 26 connect to upper body device 44, and touch the ground at stopper 81.); and a motion controller to control the four articulated robotic chain legs (see Suarez control unit 14), with a user interface (see Suarez [0047] “the control unit 14 may be used to receive inputs from the user 16”), and interact with an assistive stationary robotic chair or a wheelchair (see Suarez wheelchair 12) for storage, dressing, STS and rest (see Suarez control unit 14 controls upper, lower leg release mechanisms 58, 56 and upper body release mechanism 60; [0044] wheelchair mode, exoskeleton mode).
Suarez is silent as to an exoskeleton for step climbing assistive motion. However, Sandler teaches an exoskeleton for step climbing assistive motion (see Sandler Figs. 2A-C Wheeled base 200 includes an exoskeleton support 205 to transport exoskeleton 225 Fig. 2D-F. [0059, 0062] describe the exoskeleton’s mobility over stairs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exoskeleton movement abilities of Suarez with the step climbing ability of the exoskeleton as taught by Sandler as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of exoskeleton movement ability for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. the exoskeleton assists the user in movement in climbing.
Regarding claim 2, modified Suarez discloses wherein each exoskeleton chain leg of the two exoskeleton chain legs has four links including, an exoskeleton foot link (see Suarez foot rest assembly 46 comprising foot support 47b), an exoskeleton shank link (see Suarez lower member 99b and elongated member 47a), an exoskeleton thigh link (see Suarez upper member 98b and lower member 99a), and an exoskeleton torso link (see Suarez upper member 98a), and wherein each auto-pole chain leg of the two auto-pole chain legs has three links including an auto-pole shank link, an auto-pole thigh link, and an auto-pole torso link (see Suarez Annotated Fig. 3 to see shank, thigh, and torso links).
PNG
media_image1.png
640
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Suarez Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding claim 3, modified Suarez discloses wherein the exoskeleton foot link has force sensors (see Suarez [0024] “length, width, angle, tilt, and the like of the foot support 47b may adjust… electrically, to accommodate for a plurality of sizes and/or a plurality of weights of users;” meaning electrical sensing is done) and is connected with a spring-loaded, revolute, pitch, ankle joint, to the exoskeleton shank link (see Suarez hinge pivot portion 49, which is adjusted mechanically by tension member, such as a spring, when connected to elongated member 47a),
wherein the exoskeleton shank link is connected to the exoskeleton thigh link at a revolute, pitch, knee joint, and actuated by a rotary or linear actuator, which is mounted on the exoskeleton thigh link (see Suarez second actuator 64; [0035] acts as a knee joint; [0041] actuator 64 assists in moving/rotating the knee joint in a rotary manner),
wherein the exoskeleton thigh link is connected to the exoskeleton torso link at a revolute, pitch, hip joint, and actuated by a rotary or a linear actuator, which is mounted on the exoskeleton torso link (see Suarez first actuator 62; [0033] acts as a hip joint; bending in a rotary manner), and
wherein the exoskeleton torso link is fixed to the torso frame (see Suarez Fig. 3 lower member 98a fixed to upper body device 44).
Regarding claim 7, modified Suarez discloses each of the links has a strap or a security belt to a respective body part of a user (see Suarez [0030] at least one lower leg member 48 may be a strap; [0031] at least one upper leg resilient member 52 may be a strap; [0032] at least one upper body member 54 may be a strap) with force sensors attached to the links to sense the reaction of dynamic and static loads (see Suarez lower leg position sensor 66, an upper leg position sensor 68, and an upper body position sensor 70).
Regarding claim 8, modified Suarez discloses the torso frame is adjustable to a torso size of a user (see Suarez [0032] upper body member 54 may be an elastic band or belt, which would be adjustable), with an electronic box (see Suarez control unit 14 and batter 36), and a user control box mounted to the torso frame (see Suarez [0044] control unit 14 may be a device separate from base 20 such as a device “coupled to or integrated with the pair of armrests 26, the seat 24, the seat back 25, and/or the like”), and wherein the torso frame includes one or more of switches (see Suarez upper body release mechanism 60), force sensors (see Suarez upper body position sensor 70) securely mounted to the torso frame with the user control box that is accessible to the user's hands (see Suarez [0044] control unit 14 accessible to the user’s hands if in the pair of armrests 26, the seat 24, the seat back 25, and/or the like, as discussed above).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez in view of Sandler as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Koren (US 2016/0250093), as best understood.
Regarding claim 4, modified Suarez is silent as to the exoskeleton shank link and the exoskeleton thigh link have an adjustable length to fit a shank and a thigh of a user. However, Koren teaches the exoskeleton shank link and the exoskeleton thigh link have an adjustable length to fit a shank and a thigh of a user (see Koren Fig. 1A two leg braces 14, one on the thigh and one on the shank, with controllable joints 16 on the hip and knee. [0047] each leg brace 14 include an adjustment structure 15 to fit the brace to the user’s leg length). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thigh and shank links of modified Suarez with the addition of an adjustment structure to adjust the length of the thigh and shank links as taught by Koren so as to accommodate each user’s specific leg lengths and sizes, providing a more universal fit.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez in view of Sandler as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2023/0381052; hereinafter “Han”), Huang et al. (US 2025/0352421; hereinafter “Huang”), Almesfer et al. (US 2012/0172770; hereinafter “Almesfer”) and Walsh et al. (US 2023/0241778; hereinafter “Walsh”), as best understood.
Regarding claim 9, modified Suarez the motion controller is within the electronic box (see Suarez control unit 14).
However, modified Suarez is silent as to the motion controller has Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Reinforcement Learning (RL), proportional- integral-derivative (PID) and Bang-Bang algorithms to sense sensors signals, user command and robotic chair signal and
However, Han teaches the motion controller has Artificial Intelligence (AI) (see Han mobility device 100, with walking assistance robot 200, comprising controller 130. [0033] Controller 130 may comprise “artificial intelligence (hereinafter, referred to as AI) processor). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion controller of modified Suarez with the addition of artificial intelligence (AI) as taught by Han so as to provide more functions to the controller and as this would have been an obvious addition of one known type of processing equipment within a controller added to another and would yield predictable results, i.e. control the device.
However, Huang teaches the motion controller has Reinforcement Learning (RL) (see Huang exoskeleton in Fig. 1 controlled by processing circuitry 1000 in Fig. 8. Comprises use of reinforcement learning control [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion controller of modified Suarez with the addition of Reinforcement Learning (RL) as taught by Huang so as to provide more functions to the controller and as this would have been an obvious addition of one known type of processing equipment within a controller added to another and would yield predictable results, i.e. control the device.
However, Almesfer teaches the motion controller has proportional- integral-derivative (PID) (see Almesfer exoskeletons, such as 600, comprising a proportional integral derivative (PID) controller). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion controller of modified Suarez with the addition of proportional- integral-derivative (PID) as taught by Almesfer so as to provide more functions to the controller and as this would have been an obvious addition of one known type of processing equipment within a controller added to another and would yield predictable results, i.e. control the device.
However, Walsh teaches the motion controller has Bang-Bang algorithms (see Walsh wearable robotic system 100 operates under controller 200, which controls actuators based on bang-bang control [0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion controller of modified Suarez with the addition of Bang-Bang algorithms as taught by Walsh so as to provide more functions to the controller and as this would have been an obvious addition of one known type of processing equipment within a controller added to another and would yield predictable results, i.e. control the device.
Modified Suarez discloses command motors of controlled joints of the exoskeleton system, independently of the assistive stationary robotic chair (see Suarez [0042] control unit 14 controls actuators 62, 64 which are controlled by power from motor 45. Control unit 14 modified above to include all electronic algorithms above).
Claims 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenhod Malihi et al. (US 12,440,400; hereinafter “Malihi”) in view of Goldberg et al. (US 2013/0319776) and Condos (US 5,516,197), as best understood.
Regarding claim 10, Malihi discloses a robotic chair (see Malihi system 100 for sitting) comprising:
a seat with a front link supporting thighs of the user (see Malihi right and left thigh supports 110, 112), and a back link supporting the buttocks of the user (see Malihi seat 108),
wherein the back link has a vertical plate supporting the back of the user (see Malihi back rest 106), and horizontal arms supporting the hands of the user during a STS motion (see Malihi lateral units 148 holding chest supports 104),
wherein the front link and the back link are connected to each other with a revolute, pitch, joint (see Malihi Fig. 4a tipping motion. 3d thigh joint 126 moves thigh supports with respect to the frame, such as in Fig. 4A where front and back link are jointed),
wherein the front link is also connected to the frame by a third link with a revolute, pitch, joint (see Malihi frame 101 right-side frame 162; Col. 10 lines 60-64 “seat 108 may be connected to frame 101 via a two or three-dimensional joint (not shown), which may enable movement of seat 108 in substantially full joint rotation capability around the two or three dimensional joint with respect to frame 101”), and the back link is connected on its other hand to a fourth link that is approximately parallel to the front link (see Malihi frame 101 left-side frame 164 such as in Fig. 1 exploded view; Col. 11 lines 18-24 “back rest 106, which may be connected to frame 101 via a two or three-dimensional joint (not shown) such to enable rotational movement of back rest 106 and thereby enable two or three-dimensional movement of the back of a user placed on back rest 106 of system 100, in substantially full joint capability of the back rest joint with respect to frame 101”), and connected to the back link with a revolute pitch joint and adjusted in length to fit the user (see Malihi joint 126 for thigh supports 110, 112), and
wherein the front link, the back link, the third link and the fourth link constitute a four- bar linkage that maintains the seat approximately parallel to the ground during the STS motion (see Malihi Fig. 4A seat 108 stays parallel to the ground during the STS tipping motion of the chair, frame 101 parts with seat 108 and thigh supports 110, 112 form a 4 bar linkage in this movement).
Malihi discloses four ground legs (see Malihi wheels 134 and base 152 on each side), but is silent as to a frame with four legs with force sensors at their bottom, which are adjustable to an approximate length to a shank of a user. However, Goldberg teaches a frame with four legs (see Goldberg chair 20 with four legs 28) with force sensors at their bottom (see Goldberg Fig. 4 load sensor 26 provided to each leg 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ground leg wheels of Malihi with the stationary four legs comprising force sensors as taught by Goldberg so as to provide more stability and another measurement to be taken by the device overall, and as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of base leg system for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. provide the robotic chair with four points of contact with the ground.
However, Condos teaches a frame with four legs which are adjustable to an approximate length to a shank of a user (see Condos chair 1 with legs 2, 3. Col. 1 lines 46-53 “Each leg 4 includes a hollow sleeve 5 and a strut 6 telescopically movable within its sleeve 5 to shorten or lengthen the leg.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chair legs of modified Malihi with the adjustable legs as taught by Condos so as to provide more customizable lengths for the user to provide comfort.
Regarding claim 12, modified Malihi discloses the robotic chair further comprises a four- bar linkage to maintain the back link of the seat approximately parallel to the ground to support the buttocks of the user (see Malihi Fig. 4A seat 108 stays parallel to the ground during the STS tipping motion of the chair, frame 101 parts with seat 108 and thigh supports 110, 112 form a 4 bar linkage in this movement).
Regarding claim 13, modified Malihi discloses the robotic chair further comprises an electronic box (see Malihi controller 132), and a user control box mounted to the frame (see Malihi controller 132 may be manually operated), and wherein the robotic chair further comprises one or more force sensors (see Malihi pressure sensor 166) securely mounted to the robotic chair with the user control box that is accessible to the user's hands (see Malihi controller 132 may be manually operated; “central control computer 132 may be operable through a computer program, which may be operated via voice command, touchscreen, keyboard, joystick and the like.”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malihi in view of Goldberg and Condos as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Maruyama (US 2022/0378644), as best understood.
Regarding claim 11, modified Malihi discloses the front link or the back link of the seat is actuated by a rotary or a linear actuator which is mounted to the frame to produce sit to stand and stand to sit motion for the user and an exoskeleton system that interacts with the robotic chair. However, Maruyama teaches the front link or the back link of the seat (see Maruyama seat 304) is actuated by a rotary or a linear actuator (see Maruyama [0045] “the plurality of legs 308 may be rotatable, foldable, extendable and/or retractable using any number of actuators, mechanically, and/or electromechanically, to aid with seating of an individual along the apparatus 300”) which is mounted to the frame to produce sit to stand and stand to sit motion for the user and an exoskeleton system that interacts with the robotic chair (see Maruyama [0036] Fig. 3A apparatus 300 is for engaging exoskeleton 101; [0016] “sit-to-stand”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor moving the supports of modified Malihi with the actuator for moving the supports as taught by Maruyama as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of mechanical moving structure for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. allow the chair to move from sit to standing positions mechanically. Also, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chair of modified Malihi with the chair adapted for engagement with an exoskeleton as taught by Maruyama as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of person able to sit on the chair for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. sit as a user or non-user of an exoskeleton in the robotic chair.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malihi in view of Goldberg and Condos as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2023/0381052; hereinafter “Han”), Huang et al. (US 2025/0352421; hereinafter “Huang”), Almesfer et al. (US 2012/0172770; hereinafter “Almesfer”) and Walsh et al. (US 2023/0241778; hereinafter “Walsh”), as best understood.
Regarding claim 14, modified Malihi the motion controller mounted within the electronic box (see Malihi controller 132).
However, modified Malihi is silent as to the motion controller has Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Reinforcement Learning (RL), proportional- integral-derivative (PID) and Bang-Bang algorithms to sense sensors signals, user command and robotic chair signal and
However, Han teaches the motion controller has Artificial Intelligence (AI) (see Han mobility device 100, with walking assistance robot 200, comprising controller 130. [0033] Controller 130 may comprise “artificial intelligence (hereinafter, referred to as AI) processor). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion controller of modified Malihi with the addition of artificial intelligence (AI) as taught by Han so as to provide more functions to the controller and as this would have been an obvious addition of one known type of processing equipment within a controller added to another and would yield predictable results, i.e. control the device.
However, Huang teaches the motion controller has Reinforcement Learning (RL) (see Huang exoskeleton in Fig. 1 controlled by processing circuitry 1000 in Fig. 8. Comprises use of reinforcement learning control [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion controller of modified Malihi with the addition of Reinforcement Learning (RL) as taught by Huang so as to provide more functions to the controller and as this would have been an obvious addition of one known type of processing equipment within a controller added to another and would yield predictable results, i.e. control the device.
However, Almesfer teaches the motion controller has proportional- integral-derivative (PID) (see Almesfer exoskeletons, such as 600, comprising a proportional integral derivative (PID) controller). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion controller of modified Malihi with the addition of proportional- integral-derivative (PID) as taught by Almesfer so as to provide more functions to the controller and as this would have been an obvious addition of one known type of processing equipment within a controller added to another and would yield predictable results, i.e. control the device.
However, Walsh teaches the motion controller has Bang-Bang algorithms (see Walsh wearable robotic system 100 operates under controller 200, which controls actuators based on bang-bang control [0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion controller of modified Malihi with the addition of Bang-Bang algorithms as taught by Walsh so as to provide more functions to the controller and as this would have been an obvious addition of one known type of processing equipment within a controller added to another and would yield predictable results, i.e. control the device.
Modified Malihi discloses sense the sensors signals, user's command and exoskeleton signals and command the motors of the controlled joint of the robotic chair in claim 1, independently of an exoskeleton system that interacts with the robotic chair (see Malihi controller 132 operates motor 136, is operated by the user, and accepts signals from sensors to make changes to the movement of chair 100).
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villarreal Suarez (US 2021/0401644; hereinafter “Suarez”) in view of Sandler et al. (US 2017/0071812; hereinafter “Sandler”), as best understood.
Regarding claim 15, Suarez discloses a system for gait, sit to stand (STS) (see Suarez [0041] “As such, the exoskeleton 38 may be particularly configured in some embodiments to assist the user 16 with a walking motion, a standing motion, and/or a sitting motion”), the system comprising:
an exoskeleton system comprising (see Suarez exoskeleton assembly 37 comprising exoskeleton 38):
a torso frame (see Suarez upper body device 44 comprising upper body member 54);
four articulated robotic chain legs, including two exoskeleton chain legs (see Suarez leg comprising upper leg device 42, lower leg device 40, and footrest assembly 46; applied to right and left sides) and two auto- pole chain legs (see Suarez armrests 26 into poles such as in Fig. 3, where telescoping means 80 extend as poles; applied to right and left sides), which are connected to the torso frame on one end and touch the ground in their other end (see Suarez Exoskeleton legs: upper leg device 42 connected to upper body device 44 via upper member 98a, and touch the ground at footrest assembly 46. Auto poles legs: Armrests 26 connect to upper body device 44, and touch the ground at stopper 81.); and
a motion controller to control the four articulated robotic chain legs (see Suarez control unit 14), with a user interface (see Suarez [0047] “the control unit 14 may be used to receive inputs from the user 16”), and
an assistive stationary robotic chair or a wheelchair (see Suarez wheelchair 12) for storage, dressing, STS and rest (see Suarez control unit 14 controls upper, lower leg release mechanisms 58, 56 and upper body release mechanism 60; [0044] wheelchair mode, exoskeleton mode).
Suarez is silent as to a system for step climbing assistive motion. However, Sandler teaches an exoskeleton and wheelchair system for step climbing assistive motion (see Sandler Figs. 2A-C Wheeled base 200 includes an exoskeleton support 205 to transport exoskeleton 225 Fig. 2D-F. [0059, 0062] describe the exoskeleton’s mobility over stairs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exoskeleton movement abilities of Suarez with the step climbing ability of the exoskeleton as taught by Sandler as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of exoskeleton movement ability for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. the exoskeleton assists the user in movement in climbing.
Regarding claim 19, modified Suarez discloses the assistive stationary robotic chair or the wheelchair includes a folding option of at least one of a foot plate (see Suarez pivot portion 49 hinges foot support 47b to fold), a frame, seat, a seat back for storage and shipping (see Suarez frame 22, seat 24, and seat back 25 all fold upwards, Fig. 3).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez in view of Sandler as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of You (US 2017/0312152), as best understood.
Regarding claim 17, modified Suarez discloses the assistive stationary robotic chair or the wheelchair, includes: a chair controller (see Suarez control unit 14), but is silent as to a torso strap which signals the chair controller readiness for motion. However, You teaches a torso strap which signals the chair controller readiness for motion (see You [0092] wheelchair only actuates brake locks in accordance with seat belt automatically sensing if a user sits down and fastens the safety seat belt). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the torso strap of modified Suarez with the safety mechanism in the form of a torso strap signaling readiness as taught by You so as to more safely use the wheelchair when the user is safely secured in the chair.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez in view of Sandler as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2019/0247265; hereinafter “Yu”), as best understood.
Regarding claim 18, modified Suarez is silent as to the assistive stationary robotic chair or the wheelchair includes a wireless battery charger for the exoskeleton system while sitting on the assistive stationary robotic chair or the wheelchair. However, Yu teaches the assistive stationary robotic chair or the wheelchair includes a wireless battery charger for the exoskeleton system while sitting on the assistive stationary robotic chair or the wheelchair (see Yu [0054] Fig. 19 shows exoskeleton A and chair [an adaptive assistive and/or rehabilitative device] B configuration with controller 2’ with charger 217 for battery pack 2a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery and exoskeleton with chair connection of modified Suarez with the connectable wireless charger as taught by Yu so as to charge the exoskeleton and chair battery and not have to replace the battery as often.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velazquez Nino (US 2017/0252254; hereinafter “Nino”) in view of Amundson et al. (US 2016/0250094; hereinafter “Amundson”), as best understood.
Regarding claim 20, Nino discloses a chain leg (see Nino Fig. 1 legs) comprising:
leg links (see Nino pieces 13, 14 and then 21, 22 corresponding to thigh and shank) connected to one another by with joints (see Nino Fig. 4 washers 19 with rings 15, 20),
wherein each joint by which two of the leg links are connected includes means for unlocking motion of an actuator by a four-bar linkage when a linear actuator is used to drive the joint (see Nino microprocessor 43 controls positioning of four bar linkage including actuator 23, i.e. moving vs not moving as unlocked vs locked), and the four-bar linkage includes the actuator (see Nino linear type actuator 23), the two of the leg links (see Nino piece 21 and base of piece 13’s fastening piece 24) and an additional connecting rod link (see Nino second base 25) which is locked during actuator-driven motion (see Nino each link is connected to each other; locked together).
Even if Nino does not disclose the unlocking and locking motions, however, Amundson teaches means for unlocking motion of an actuator when a linear actuator is used to drive the joint (see Amundson [0008] microprocessor can lock a knee at a fixed position with the actuator driven motion; applies to the microprocessor controlling Nino above adding a specific locking movement). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator and controls of Nino with the locking and unlocking of the actuator positioning as taught by Amundson so as to provide a locking function of the actuator in the leg link.
Modified Nino disclose wherein the chain leg is an exoskeleton chain leg or a robotic auto-pole chain leg (see Nino leg for exoskeleton Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Goffer (US 2014/0196757) is cited to show a gait device with crutch.
Jeon et al. (US 2011/0201978) is cited to show a wheelchair type robot and walking aid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Tim Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. 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.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights