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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 11/22/2023 has been received and considered.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 4 and 17 limitation “a goal moment” has been interpreted according to the specification to mean a targeted or ideal moment for the pelvis at a particular point in the gait cycle ([0016]).
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 16, 17 are objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 3 should be amended to recite: “where in the first controller is configured to map
Claim 4 should be amended to recite: “the second controller is configured to optimize
Claim 16 should be amended to recite “wherein the first controller is configured to map
Claim 17 should be amended to recite “the second controller is configured to optimize
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8, 14, and 19 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.
Claims 8, 14, and 19 recite the limitation "the force and moment profiles that are applied”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of force and moment profiles applied in the parent claims. It appears that this limitation in these claims refers to the coordinated, energized actuators/motors applying force and moments to the pelvis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 3, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed toward a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 3 and 16 are dependent to claims directed toward a machine and thus falls into at least one of the four statutory categories of invention deemed to be appropriate subject matter of a patent (step 1). However, claims 3 and 16 are also directed toward an abstract idea (step 2A, prong one), since “the first controller maps a predicted gait cycle percentage to an applied pelvic moment using the equation” is a step that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of these limitations in the human mind. The mapping of a predicted gait cycle according to the recited equation can reasonably carried out in the mind and/or by pen and paper by a clinician, which under BRI standard also covers “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas, since this limitation recites mathematical calculation to “map a predicted gait cycle percentage to an applied pelvic moment”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (step 2A, prong two). The claimed mapping does not appear to have a practical application in parent claims 1 and 15, respectively, as a part of the timing of energization of the actuators/motors based on the gait predictions made by the first controller. Claims 3 and 16 do not additionally provide an inventive concept as an additional element integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The “first controller” is generally recited and functionalized to perform insignificant pre-solution activity (mapping; see MPEP 2106.05(g)). It does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that precludes the mental performance of the abstract ideas; the mere implementation of abstract ideas on a generally-recited computer component is not indicative of integration of the ideas into a practical application. These additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that precludes the mental performance of the abstract ideas; the mere implementation of abstract ideas on a generally-recited computer component is not indicative of integration of the ideas into a practical application.
Even in combination, the additional elements are routine, conventional, and well known in the art (step 2B). The claim as a whole does not amount to more than the judicial exceptions themselves; thus, the claim lacks inventive concept. As written, the claim is merely outlining mental processes and mathematical calculations that may at most be implemented on or otherwise linked to generic computer hardware components that are well-known, routine and conventional for data acquisition and processing.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, thus it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, dependent claims 4 and 17 do incorporate the abstract idea of claims 3 and 16 into a practical application by using the mapping to optimize tensions of the cables.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claims 3 and 16, the parent claim 12 being directed to a process rather than an apparatus. Claim 13 does not appear to have a dependent claim incorporating the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Agrawal et al. (US 2017/0027803 A1), hereafter Agrawal.
Regarding Claim 12, Agrawal discloses a method for rehabilitating or assisting ambulation of a user (abstract), the method comprising: sensing at least one first pressure beneath the user's right foot (fig. 10, instrumented shoes 171 with pressure insoles 170 are used to sense plantar pressure data [0128]); sensing at least one second pressure beneath the user's left foot (fig. 10, instrumented shoes 171 with pressure insoles 170 are used to sense plantar pressure data; a pair of shoes is used, and so both feet are sensed [0128]); predicting the user's gait based on the sensed at least one first pressure and the sensed at least one second pressure ([0128]); and energizing a plurality of motors (fig. 1B, motors 331 [0081]) at a plurality of times that are synchronized with phases of the user's gait ([0117]) so that the plurality of motors pull on respective cables at respective times in a coordinated sequence ([0124]), wherein each of the cables has a first end affixed to a pelvic belt or harness that is shaped and dimensioned to fit securely on the user's pelvis (fig. 1B, cables 330 connected to hip adapter [0088]), and wherein timing of the energizing is based on the gait predictions (0117]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 11696866 B2), hereafter Matsumoto, in view of Agrawal.
Regarding Claim 1, Matsumoto discloses an apparatus for rehabilitating or assisting ambulation of a user (abstract, walking training apparatus), the apparatus comprising: a walker frame (fig. 1, walker frame includes support rods 180 and hand rails 170, col. 3 line 16); at least one sensor configured to generate data that is indicative of the user's gait (col. 8 lines 27-30); a first controller (col. 8 lines 20-21, the portion of the control unit 160 that obtains the target position of the pelvic harness); a pelvic belt or harness shaped and dimensioned to fit securely on the user's pelvis (fig. 1, harness 200 and frame 201, col. 3 lines 59-62); a plurality of cables (fig. 2, 111, 121, 131, 141, col. 4 lines 7-9), each of which has a first end affixed to the pelvic belt or harness (fig. 2, col. 4 lines 7-9); a plurality of actuators that are mounted with respect to the frame (fig. 2, pulling unit 110, 120, 130, 140, col. 4 line 65, col. 5 line 22, col. 5 line 47, col. 6 line 4), wherein each of the actuators is configured to, when energized, pull on a respective one of the cables (col. 4 line 65 - col. 5 line 4 for pulling unit 110; the other pulling units operate similarly); and a second controller (col. 7 lines 22-24 and 26-31), the portion of the control unit 160 which controls the operation of the pulling units) programmed to control the energization of the plurality of actuators at times that are synchronized with phases of the user's gait so that the plurality of actuators pull on the respective cables at respective times in a coordinated sequence (col. 7 lines 27-37 and col. 8 lines 1-6).
Matsumoto is silent on the first controller being configured to predict the user’s gait based on the data generated by the at least one sensor, and the second controller programmed to control the energization of the actuators based on the gait predictions made by the first controller.
Agrawal teaches a gait therapy device that applies controlled forces to the pelvis (fig. 1, abstract) which also includes a pelvic harness (fig. 1B, 321, 323 [0085]) connected to cables (fig. 1B, 330 [0081] and actuators (fig. 1B, 331 [0081]). The controller predicts phases of the gait cycle ([0117] and [0128]) so that a hip abduction moment can be applied to the user when the foot is not in contact with the ground, which may be detected by a foot sensor ([0117]). The predictions can be used for defining a range of pressure sequences for normal or abnormal gaits to indicate all phases of the walking cycle ([0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Agrawal’s user gait prediction capabilities in Matsumoto’s first controller in order to provide a gait prediction based on pressure sensors throughout the user’s phases of walking in the event of an abnormal gait cycle (Agrawal [0128]), which would refine Matsumoto’s target pattern walking cycle (Matsumoto col. 8 lines 1-9).
Regarding Claim 2, Matsumoto as modified discloses an apparatus of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one pressure-sensitive sensor configured for positioning beneath the user's right foot and at least one pressure-sensitive sensor configured for positioning beneath the user's left foot.
However, Agrawal teaches the use of a pressure sensors positioned beneath both of the user’s feet (fig. 10, pressure sensitive insoles 170 located in instrumented shoes 171 [0128]) which are used to calculate stance time from plantar pressure data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include pressure sensitive sensors under each of the user’s left foot and right foot as taught by Agrawal in order to collect stance data as the means of detecting the timing of the walking cycle in Matsumoto’s disclosed device (col. 8 lines 27-30). The simple substitution of Agrawal’s instrumented shoes for collecting the data instead of Matsumoto’s camera, motion sensor, or the like, would perform equally well at collecting timing data of the walking cycle.
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Matsumoto discloses an apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first controller and the second controller are both implemented using the same hardware (col. 7 lines 22-26, the control unit may be a single physical apparatus).
Regarding Claim 6, Matsumoto discloses an apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the actuators comprises a motor (col. 7 lines 27-31, the actuators 110, 120, 13, 140 may be motors).
Regarding Claim 7, Matsumoto discloses an apparatus of claim 1, but is silent on further comprising a plurality of wheels positioned to support the walker frame.
However, Agrawal discloses a similarly constructed apparatus (abstract; fig. 1A, support 340 [0081]) which may use a wheeled walker frame as an alternative ([0084]).
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 Matsumoto’s rehabilitation apparatus to be a frame fitted with wheels instead of the treadmill, as a known alternative in the art to allow the subject to walk on a fixed floor (Agrawal [0084]).
Regarding Claim 9, Matsumoto discloses an apparatus of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the second controller is further programmed to localize the pelvic center with respect to the frame using a forward kinematics approach that relies on the lengths of the cables.
However, Agrawal teaches a kinematic system that relies on the length of the cables ([0097]) to find the joint torque U (which includes the hip [0096]), which is a vector ([0097]). The applied force moment vector F at the center of the pelvis is shown as being computed coordinates of the cable attachment points ([0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Agrawal’s controller programmed to localize the pelvic center with respect to the frame using a forward kinematics approach that relies on the lengths of the cables in order to determine the required tension of the cables for appropriate manipulation of the pelvis during rehabilitation (Agrawal [0098]).
Regarding Claim 10, Matsumoto discloses an apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second controller is programmed so that the coordinated sequence assists ambulation (col. 7 lines 38-65 describes a coordinated action of the control unit on the pulling forces to assist walking).
Regarding Claim 15, Matsumoto discloses an apparatus for rehabilitating or assisting ambulation of a user (abstract, walking training apparatus), the apparatus comprising: a walker frame (fig. 1, walker frame includes support rods 180 and hand rails 170, col. 3 line 16); a first controller (col. 8 lines 20-21, the portion of the control unit 160 that obtains the target position of the pelvic harness); a pelvic belt or harness shaped and dimensioned to fit securely on the user's pelvis (fig. 1, harness 200 and frame 201, col. 3 lines 59-62); cables (fig. 2, 111, 121, 131, 141, col. 4 lines 7-9), each of which has a first end affixed to the pelvic belt or harness (fig. 2, col. 4 lines 7-9); a plurality of motors that are mounted with respect to the frame (fig. 2, pulling unit 110, 120, 130, 140, col. 4 line 65, col. 5 line 22, col. 5 line 47, col. 6 line 4), wherein each of the motors is configured to, when energized, pull on a respective one of the cables (col. 4 line 65 - col. 5 line 4 for pulling unit 110; the other pulling units operate similarly); and a second controller (col. 7 lines 22-24 and 26-31, the portion of the control unit 160 which controls the operation of the pulling units) programmed to control the energization of the plurality of motors at times that are synchronized with phases of the user's gait so that the plurality of motors pull on the respective cables at respective times in a coordinated sequence (col. 7 lines 27-37 and col. 8 lines 1-6).
Matsumoto is silent on the first controller being configured to predict the user's gait, the second controller programmed to control the energization of the actuators based on the gait predictions made by the first controller, as well as silent on at least one pressure-sensitive sensor configured for positioning beneath the user's right foot and at least one pressure-sensitive sensor configured for positioning beneath the user's left foot, wherein the pressure-sensitive sensors are configured to collectively generate data that is indicative of the user's gait; the gait prediction being based on the data generated by the pressure-sensitive sensors, and at least seven cables.
Agrawal teaches a gait therapy device that applies controlled forces to the pelvis (fig. 1, abstract) which also includes a pelvic harness (fig. 1B, 321, 323 [0085]) connected to cables (fig. 1B, 330 [0081] and actuators (fig. 1B, 331 [0081]). The controller predicts phases of the gait cycle ([0117] and [0128]) so that a hip abduction moment can be applied to the user when the foot is not in contact with the ground, which may be detected by a foot sensor ([0117]). The predictions can be used for defining a range of pressure sequences for normal or abnormal gaits to indicate all phases of the walking cycle ([0128]). Agrawal uses pressure sensors positioned beneath both of the user’s feet (fig. 10, pressure sensitive insoles 170 located in instrumented shoes 171 [0128]) which are used to calculate stance time from plantar pressure data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Agrawal’s user gait prediction capabilities in Matsumoto’s first controller in order to provide a gait prediction based on pressure sensors throughout the user’s phases of walking in the event of an abnormal gait cycle (Agrawal [0128]), which would refine Matsumoto’s target pattern walking cycle (Matsumoto col. 8 lines 1-9) by including pressure sensitive sensors under each of the user’s left foot and right foot as taught by Agrawal in order to collect stance data as the means of detecting the timing of the walking cycle in Matsumoto’s disclosed device (col. 8 lines 27-30). The simple substitution of Agrawal’s instrumented shoes for collecting the data instead of Matsumoto’s camera, motion sensor, or the like, would perform equally well at collecting timing data of the walking cycle.
The now-modified device remains silent on at least seven cables affixed to the pelvic belt or harness (Matsumoto shows 4 cables).
However, Agrawal teaches that additional cable routing points can be added to increase the controlled degrees of freedom, including an example of adding hip cables to generate assistive hip adduction/abduction torques ([0093]). Additionally, Agrawal teaches a 6 degrees of freedom system of actuated cables ([0154]) and that the number of cables should be n+1 for n degrees of freedom ([0155]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select at least seven cables for six degrees of freedom for exerting an external wrench on the human pelvis, as taught by Agrawal ([0154-0155]), in order to generate additional assistive hip torques (Agrawal [0092]).
Regarding Claim 18, Matsumoto discloses an apparatus of claim 15, wherein the first controller and the second controller are both implemented using the same hardware (col. 7 lines 22-26, the control unit may be a single physical apparatus).
Regarding Claim 20, Matsumoto discloses an apparatus of claim 15, but is silent on wherein the second controller is further programmed to localize the pelvic center with respect to the frame using a forward kinematics approach that relies on the lengths of the cables.
However, Agrawal teaches a kinematic system that relies on the length of the cables ([0097]) to find the joint torque U (which includes the hip [0096]), which is a vector ([0097]). The applied force moment vector F at the center of the pelvis is shown as being computed coordinates of the cable attachment points ([0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Agrawal’s controller programmed to localize the pelvic center with respect to the frame using a forward kinematics approach that relies on the lengths of the cables in order to determine the required tension of the cables for appropriate manipulation of the pelvis during rehabilitation (Agrawal [0098]).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Matsumoto and Agrawal, further in view of Walsh et al. (US 2016/0346156 A1), hereafter Walsh.
Regarding Claim 8, Matsumoto discloses an apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cables configured such that two cables route to each of two lateral extremes of the pelvic belt or harness (fig. 1, cables 111 and 121 route to the lateral left side of the pelvic harness 210, and cables 131, 141 route to the lateral right side of the pelvic harness at 210, col. 4 lines 35-41).
However, Matsumoto is silent on the plurality of cables includes seven cables, and three cables route to a posterior extreme of the belt or harness, wherein the seven cables provide control of six degrees of freedom at the pelvis, with the force and moment profiles that are applied being customizable in both magnitudes and force and moment directions.
Agrawal teaches that additional cable routing points can be added to increase the controlled degrees of freedom, including an example of adding hip cables to generate assistive hip adduction/abduction torques ([0093]). Additionally, Agrawal teaches a 6 degrees of freedom system of actuated cables ([0154]) and that the number of cables should be n+1 for n degrees of freedom ([0155]). Agrawal also teaches that treatment regimens may be customizable for individuals with unique functional limitations where a wrench (i.e., force and moment) may be applied selectively ([0076]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select seven cables, wherein the seven cables provide six degrees of freedom at the pelvis, for exerting an external wrench on the human pelvis, as taught by Agrawal ([0154-0155]), in order to generate additional assistive hip torques (Agrawal [0092]). It additionally would have been obvious to include force and moment profiles that are applied being customizable in both magnitudes and force and moment directions as taught by Agrawal in order to customize treatment to an individual’s specific functional limitations to improve treatment (Agrawal [0076]).
The device remains silent on the positioning of three cables route to a posterior extreme of the pelvis belt or harness.
Walsh teaches a pelvic harness for a rehabilitation device (fig. 1B, abstract) having multiple tethers (fig. 1B, 113 [0053]). Three of the tethers are positioned at the posterior extreme of a pelvic belt or harness (fig. 1B, tethers 113 connect to an unlabeled pelvic support).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the additional three cables taught by Agrawal at the posterior extreme of the pelvic belt as taught by Walsh in order to stabilize medial-lateral and anterior-posterior sway as taught by Walsh (Walsh [0053]).
Regarding Claim 19, Matsumoto discloses an apparatus of claim 15, wherein the cables are configured such that two cables route to each of two lateral extremes of the pelvic belt or harness (Matsumoto fig. 1, cables 111 and 121 route to the lateral left side of the pelvic harness 210, and cables 131, 141 route to the lateral right side of the pelvic harness at 210, col. 4 lines 35-41), wherein the cables provide control of six degrees of freedom at the pelvis (as modified by Agrawal, seven cables are needed for six degrees of freedom [0154-155]).
However, Matsumoto, as modified by Agrawal to have seven cables, is silent on the remaining three cables route to a posterior extreme of the belt or harness, with the force and moment profiles that are applied being customizable in both magnitudes and force and moment directions.
Agrawal teaches that treatment regimens may be customizable for individuals with unique functional limitations where a wrench (i.e., force and moment) may be applied selectively ([0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include force and moment profiles that are applied being customizable in both magnitudes and force and moment directions as taught by Agrawal in order to customize treatment to an individual’s specific functional limitations to improve treatment (Agrawal [0076]).
The device remains silent on the positioning of three cables route to a posterior extreme of the pelvis belt or harness.
Walsh teaches a pelvic harness for a rehabilitation device (fig. 1B, abstract) having multiple tethers (fig. 1B, 113 [0053]). Three of the tethers are positioned at the posterior extreme of a pelvic belt or harness (fig. 1B, tethers 113 connect to an unlabeled pelvic support).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the additional three cables taught by Agrawal at the posterior extreme of the pelvic belt as taught by Walsh in order to stabilize medial-lateral and anterior-posterior sway as taught by Walsh (Walsh [0053]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Agrawal in view of Walsh.
Regarding Claim 14, Agrawal discloses a method of claim 12, wherein the cables are configured such that two cables route to each of two lateral extremes of the pelvic belt or harness (fig. 8F, the four winches 130 are shown as attached to the lateral sides of the hip adapter 108 [0115]), but this embodiment is silent on three cables route to a posterior extreme of the belt or harness, wherein the cables provide control of six degrees of freedom at the pelvis, with the force and moment profiles that are applied being customizable in both magnitudes and force and moment directions.
Agrawal teaches a 6 degrees of freedom system of actuated cables ([0154]) and that the number of cables should be n+1 for n degrees of freedom ([0155]). Agrawal also teaches that treatment regimens may be customizable for individuals with unique functional limitations where a wrench (i.e., force and moment) may be applied selectively ([0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that seven cables provide control of six degrees of freedom at the pelvis, as taught by Agrawal ([0154-0155]) and to include force and moment profiles that are applied being customizable in both magnitudes and force and moment directions as taught by Agrawal in order to customize treatment to an individual’s specific functional limitations to improve treatment (Agrawal [0076]).
The device remains silent on the positioning of three cables route to a posterior extreme of the pelvis belt or harness.
Walsh teaches a pelvic harness for a rehabilitation device (fig. 1B, abstract) having multiple tethers (fig. 1B, 113 [0053]). Three of the tethers are positioned at the posterior extreme of a pelvic belt or harness (fig. 1B, tethers 113 connect to an unlabeled pelvic support).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the additional three cables taught by Agrawal at the posterior extreme of the pelvic belt as taught by Walsh in order to stabilize medial-lateral and anterior-posterior sway as taught by Walsh (Walsh [0053]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Matsumoto and Agrawal, further in view of Kang et al. (“Robot-driven downward pelvic pull to improve crouch gait in children with cerebral palsy” Science Robotics 2017), hereafter Kang.
Regarding Claim 11, Matsumoto discloses an apparatus of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the second controller is programmed so that the coordinated sequence applies a force in opposition to a given muscle in order to rehabilitate the given muscle.
Kang teaches the application of a downward force on the pelvis to strengthen extensor muscles, particularly the soleus (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the programming of the second controller the application of a coordinated sequence to apply a force in opposition to a given muscle in order to rehabilitate the muscle, as taught by Kang, in order to strengthen weak muscles which are important for preventing knee collapse in stance phase of walking (Kang, page 2, first full para.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 13, and 16-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 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, as well as to overcome the 101 rejection above.
Regarding Claim 3, the closest prior art of record includes Agrawal. Agrawal teaches optimizing cable tension ([0165]) but does not use the claimed mapping of a predicted gait cycle percentage to an applied pelvic moment. There does not appear to be prior art of record which uses these parameters in the claimed equation to optimize cable tension. Claim 4 would be allowed as dependent upon claim 3.
It is suggested by the examiner to incorporate claim 4 into claim 3 to overcome the 101 rejection above.
Claims 13 and 16-17 would be allowed over the prior art for the same reasons as claim 3, should they be rewritten in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims, as well as incorporated into a practical application as suggested above, to overcome the 101 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pietrusisnki et al. (US 2014/0213951 A1) discloses a robotic gait rehabilitation training system (fig. 1, abstract)
Johnson et al. (US 2016/0166454 A1), figures 21-34
Aryananda et al. (US 2017/0165145 A1) fig. 1
KR 20180056538 A fig. 7
Maggu et al. (US 2019/0216674 A1) figs. 2 and 6
KR 20190136293 A, fig. 1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA K. TOICH whose telephone number is (703)756-1450. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30 am - 4:30 pm, every other F 7:30-3:30 ET.
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 S. Lee can be reached at (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 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.
/SARA K TOICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights