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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 5: “store the time instant” should read “store a time instant”.
Claim 4 line 4: “the left and right push buttons” should read “left and right push buttons”.
Claim 4 line 5: “the timing for initiating a knee flexion-extension trajectory” should read “a timing for initiating a knee flexion-extension trajectory”.
Claim 6 line 8: “to swing a user’s leg forward” should read “to swing the user’s leg forward”.
Claim 7 line 1: “they system” should read “the system”.
Claim 11 line 3: Shank segments mentioned twice, delete repeated mention.
Claim 12 line 2: “a powered-knee joint” should read “the powered knee joint”.
Claim 13 line 4: “each one including a thigh segment, a shank segment, and a powered knee joint and left and right foot modules each one including a foot segment and a bar” should read “each one including the thigh segment, the shank segment, and the powered knee joint and left and right foot modules each one including a foot segment and a bar”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The term “fast connection means” in claim 19 is being interpreted as general coupling structure that allows for the modules to be coupled together, based on what is shown in figure 6A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfarb et al 2015/0142130 and Kim et al. 2017/0049658
Regarding claim 1, Goldfarb teaches a powered-knee exoskeleton system (100), comprising: a pair of shank segments (106L and 106R), a pair of thigh segments (108R and 108L), a pair of powered knee joints connecting respectively a shank segment and a thigh segment (104R and 104L, figure 4c), to produce a flexion and extension motion between the shank and thigh segments (Figure 4 c depicts this movement), a lumbar segment (hip segment 110), a pair of hip joints connecting the lumbar segment with the thigh segments (102R and 102L), a pair of foot sole segments connected respectively with the shank segments (0088 states “an exoskeleton in accordance with the various embodiments can be configured to be used in conjunction with a standard ankle foot exoskeleton (AFO) 115 to provide stability for the ankle and/or to preclude foot drop during the swing phase of gait.”), at least a pair of sensors suitable to measure or calculate angular velocity of each of the thigh or shank segments (0094 states “these sensors can be embedded within each of embedded control systems 116R and 116L. In one configuration of exoskeleton 100, physical sensing consists of Hall-effect-based angle and angular velocity sensing in each hip joint 104R, 104L and each knee joint 102R, 102L, and 3-axis accelerometers and single-axis gyroscopes disposed elsewhere in each of thigh segments 108R and 108L.”), a system controller adapted for processing angular velocity sensor readings and for controlling the operation of the powered knee joints based on the angular velocity of the sensors readings (0010 states “the preferred embodiment for the control approach is to determine the joint-level energy gradient, using the sign and potentially magnitude of the product of the joint control torque and joint angular velocity to determine whether the gradient is positive or negative.” 0068 and 0069 further describe the use of the angular velocity to determine an applied torque assist to the powered joints.), wherein the system controller is further adapted to detect a user's hip thrust gesture indicating a user's intention to initiate a step forward, by detecting an increase in the forward velocity of a hip joint in the direction of walking (0017 states “the transition from the single-support phase and the double-support phase is detected when the measurement indicate a change in the direction of the angular velocity of the shank segment of the swing leg”) wherein the system controller is adapted to determine the increase in the forward velocity of a hip joint in the direction of walking (0015 states “the method can include computing the first control torque for a swing leg of the lower limbs to at least partially compensate for the weight of the swing leg relative to a hip of the use”), by detecting a local minimum value of the thigh or shank segment angular velocity, and comparing the detected local minimum value with subsequent measured angular velocity values (0064 states “the transition from stance to swing can be indicated using a gyroscope to indicate a substantial change in the angular velocity of leg segments”).
Goldfarb fails to teach detecting when the difference between the compared values is higher than a predefined threshold and resetting the user's hip thrust gesture detection every time the thigh or shank angle becomes negative. Kim teaches an analogous motion assistance apparatus that does teach detecting when the difference between the compared values is higher than a predefined threshold (0022 states “determining the motion of the user to be an extension motion when the angular velocity is greater than or equal to the second set value.”), and resetting the user's hip thrust gesture detection every time the thigh or shank angle becomes negative (0111 states “In response to the controller 90 determining in operation 1200 that the motion of the user corresponds to the extension motion, in operation 1330, the controller 90 may determine the necessary torque T_N as “0”. The supporting module supports the rear surface of the thigh of the user. Thus, when the leg of the user rotates backward, the close contact between the supporting module and the thigh may be maintained by a self-load of the supporting module although a separate torque is not provided.” 0109 states “in response to the controller 90 determining in operation 1200 that a motion of the user corresponds to a flexion motion, in operation 1310, the controller 90 may set the necessary torque T_N as a motion assistance torque.” The procedure between 0108-0113 depicts a torque being applied once the user is in flexion mode, and is stopped once the user’s leg is in extension. The torque being set to zero is a reset as it is resetting the supplying of torque via controller 90 once it is detected that the user is in extension. Controller 90 will once again reactivate to supply torque once it detects the motion of a user corresponding to a flexion motion as stated in 0107-0108.).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goldfarb with the teachings of Kim and include detecting when the difference between the compared values is higher than a predefined threshold and resetting the user's hip thrust gesture detection every time the thigh or shank angle becomes negative as this allows for the system to determine the specific type of motion that the user is performing and determine the appropriate type of driving torque to apply based on the current motion of the user (0034).
Regarding claim 2, Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the system controller is further adapted to operate the respective powered knee joint (0059 states “These torques can be used to determine how much torque needs to be applied at the hip and knee joints in order to compensate of the gravitational dynamics of the user. That is, to compensate for the forces of gravity operating against a user during walking.”) to perform a knee flexion-extension trajectory (0063 states “the control methodology can compensate (or partially compensate) for the weight of the swing leg relative to the hip during the swing phase of gait, while the control methodology compensates (fully or partially) for the weight of the stance leg, body, and swing leg relative to the ground during stance “), allowing the user’s leg to swing forward to carry out a step, when an increase in the velocity of a hip joint has been detected (0064 states “the transition from stance to swing can be indicated using a gyroscope to indicate a substantial change in the angular velocity of leg segments.”).
Regarding claim 5, Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 1, further comprising orientation sensors arranged to measure each thigh or shank segment angle (0064 states “In some embodiments, these sensor-based signals can be used in association with changes in the internal configuration of the exoskeleton, such as the knee angle, hip angle, or differential hip angle. “) with respect to the vertical to the ground (Figure 1 depicts the angles being measured with respect to the vertical).
Regarding claim 7, Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the powered-knee joints are adapted to obtain readings of flexion angles (Figure 1 depicts a flexion angle), between the shank and thigh segments to which are connected (0094 states “physical sensing consists of Hall-effect-based angle and angular velocity sensing in each hip joint 104R, 104L and each knee joint 102R, 102L, and 3-axis accelerometers and single-axis gyroscopes disposed elsewhere in each of thigh segments 108R and 108L.”).
Regarding claim 8, Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 7, wherein the system controller is additionally adapted to disable the operation of the powered-knee joints to swing a user's leg forward, when any one of the powered-knee joints is executing a step movement (0062 states “in order to preserve a ballistic swing phase, one can provide gravity compensation only in the case the joint is working against gravity, which can be determined by the sign of each element of the inner product of the gravity compensation torque vector and the respective joint angular velocity vector. When the respective element is positive, the exoskeleton is performing work (movement is against the gravity field), and the gravity compensation component should be retained. When the respective element is negative, movement is with the gravitational field, and the gravity compensation component can be turned off, in order to facilitate the ballistic portions of swing phase.”).
Regarding claim 9, Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the pair of hip joints are: passive joints or active joints (0072 states “the exoskeleton 100 shown in these figures incorporates four motors, which impose sagittal plane torques at each hip joint 102R, 102L and knee joint 104R, 104L.” The joints are active as they require assistance to be moved.).
Regarding claim 14, Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the lumbar segment has a casing with a battery component (0076 states “a battery 111 for the exoskeleton can be located within in hip segment housing 113”) and an Electronic Control Unit, ECU, both enclosed within the casing (0090 states “To form the DES 600 the embedded control systems 116R and 116L can be communicatively coupled via wired communications links in the hip segment 110”).
Regarding claim 15, Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 5, wherein the system further comprises at least one inertial measuring unit enclosed within the thigh segments, for measuring acceleration, angular velocity and absolute angle of orientation of the thigh segments (0094 states “In one configuration of exoskeleton 100, physical sensing consists of Hall-effect-based angle and angular velocity sensing in each hip joint 104R, 104L and each knee joint 102R, 102L, and 3-axis accelerometers and single-axis gyroscopes disposed elsewhere in each of thigh segments 108R and 108L.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Goldfarb in view of Kazerooni et al. 2013/0237884
Regarding claim 3, modified Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising left and right push buttons for a therapist to manually indicate the system when to initiate the right and left knee flexion extension trajectory, allowing the user’s leg to swing forward to carry out a step, and wherein the system is further adapted to store the time instant indicated by the therapist to initiate right and left knee extension trajectory. Kazerooni teaches an analogous walking assist system that does teach further comprising a push button for a therapist to manually indicate the system when to initiate the right and left knee flexion extension trajectory, allowing the user’s leg to swing forward to carry out a step (0018 states “The simplest "sensor" set (215, 216) is a set of buttons, which can be operated by a second person. In the typical case, the second person would be a physical therapist. These buttons may be located on a "control pad" (not shown) and used to select desired states. In some embodiments a single button could be used to trigger the next state transition”), and wherein the system is further adapted to store the time instant indicated by the therapist to initiate right and left knee extension trajectory (0039 states “This mode could be entered after the user had indicated a few consistent steps in a row, thereby indicating a desire for steady walking. In a "steady walking" mode the exoskeleton would do a constant gait cycle just as an ordinary person would walk without crutches. The essential difference in this part of the state machine would be that the state transitions would be primarily driven by timing, for instance at time=x+0.25 start swing, at time=x+0.50 start double stance, etc. However, for this to be safe, the state machine also needs transitions which will exit this mode if the user is not keeping up with the timing, for example, if a crutch is not lifted or put down at the proper time.”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goldfarb with the teachings of Kazerooni and include a push button as this would allow for the therapist to manually regulate the timing of a walking cycle (0018). Although the push button is a single button, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to install a duplicate button and have an individual left-right configuration to regulate walking timing as this would perform the same action as the user pushing one button multiple times to regulate walking.
Claim 4, 6, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Goldfarb in view of Strausser et al. 2015/0045703
Regarding claim 4, modified Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the system controller is further adapted to carry out a calibration process to personalize the detection of the hip thrust gesture to each user, by varying the predefined angular velocity threshold, based on the manual activation of the left and right push-buttons and the readings of the thigh or shank segments angular velocity, such that the timing for initiating a knee flexion-extension trajectory substantially match the timing indicated by the therapist.
Strausser does teach an analogous walking assist system wherein the system controller is further adapted to carry out a calibration process to personalize the detection of the hip thrust gesture to each user, by varying the predefined angular velocity threshold (0059 states “the threshold may be adjusted based on the velocity of the shank angle. For example, if the user is moving quickly over his foot, the controller can initiate a step earlier utilizing the forward momentum to complete a safe step in time. Likewise, if the user is moving slowly, the controller will initiate the step later to ensure that the user's weight is over his foot.”), based on the manual activation of the left and right push-buttons (0066) and the readings of the thigh or shank segments angular velocity (0004 states “changes in shank movement are measured, such as changes in shank angle, angular velocity, and absolute positions.”), such that the timing for initiating a knee flexion-extension trajectory substantially match the timing indicated by the therapist (0066 states “The exoskeleton can utilize the "ideal" step initiation time (the one determined by the methods discussed above) and create a score based on when the user pushes the button in relation to the "ideal" trigger. When the user is getting proficient, there will be a very small time difference between the step initiation time determined by the system, and the actual time that they push the button.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Goldfarb with the teachings of Strausser and include wherein the system controller is further adapted to carry out a calibration process to personalize the detection of the hip thrust gesture to each user, by varying the predefined angular velocity threshold, based on the manual activation of the left and right push-buttons and the readings of the thigh or shank segments angular velocity, such that the timing for initiating a knee flexion-extension trajectory substantially match the timing indicated by the therapist as this allows for an assistance to be tailored to the profile and timing of the user, optimizing the rehab process.
Regarding claim 6, modified Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the system controller is further adapted to perform a safety control to enable or disable the operation of the powered knee joints to swing a user’s leg and wherein the system controller is further adapted to calculate the difference between the angles of both thigh or shank segments with respect to the vertical, such that only when that difference is higher than a redefined safety threshold and for more than a predefined time the system controller enables the operation of the powered knee joints to swing a user’s leg forward. Strausser teaches an analogous walking assist system that does teach wherein the system controller is further adapted to perform a safety control to enable or disable the operation of the powered knee joints to swing a user’s leg and wherein the system controller is further adapted to calculate the difference between the angles of both thigh or shank segments with respect to the vertical (0057 states “the controller 220 may check other variables in order to determine that it is safe to take the step. For example, the step should not be taken if the user has fallen too far forward. Therefore, a forward threshold can be set such that the step is no longer taken if the person has progressed that far forward. In principal, this forward threshold may be set on any of the metrics (shank angle, foot center of pressure, etc.) discussed above.”), such that only when that difference is higher than a redefined safety threshold and for more than a predefined time the system controller enables the operation of the powered knee joints to swing a user’s leg forward (0037 states “when the leg support shank 301 of the forward leg (during double stance) is leaned forward sufficiently, this indicates the desire to take a step and the powered orthotics controller initiates a step. One skilled in the art will note that there are many ways to measure the leg support shank angle with respect to the ground.” 0057 states “The result is, in effect, that the step is initiated when the metric is not simply larger than a threshold, but that it is within an acceptable range.” There is a predefined time that the angle would be above a threshold before the controller enables motion.). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goldfarb with the teachings of Strausser and include a safety threshold as this allows for a termination of operation should the user be putting themselves in an unsafe position (0064).
Regarding claim 16, modified Goldfarb in view of Strausser teaches the system according to claim 6, wherein the predefined time is greater than or equal to zero. 0042 of Strausser states “The exoskeleton will transition into a state that corresponds to taking a step (e.g., the right swing state 401 in FIG. 3) when the angle of the line exceeds a threshold.” There is a brief time period (greater than 0) in which the angle would exceed the provided threshold before activation of the powered knee joint form the controller occurs.
Regarding claim 17, modified Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 7, but fails to teach wherein the system controller is additionally adapted to calculate the difference between the angular orientation between both shank segments, as the sum of the angular orientation of each thigh segment and the flexion of the powered knee joint. Strausser does teach wherein the system controller is additionally adapted to calculate the difference between the angular orientation between both shank segments, as the sum of the angular orientation of each thigh segment and the flexion of the powered knee joint (0036 states “It was found that one reliable indication of a desired step was the shank angle of the forward leg during double stance with respect to the ground. FIG. 4 shows a leg support 212 of a human exoskeleton 100 with a leg support shank 311. The leg support shank angle with respect to the gravity vector is indicated at 312. The shank angle is a consistent indicator of when the user is prepared to take a step; therefore, in one embodiment of the invention, when the leg support shank 301 of the forward leg (during double stance) is leaned forward sufficiently, this indicates the desire to take a step and the powered orthotics controller initiates a step”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Goldfarb with the teachings of Strausser and include wherein the system controller is additionally adapted to calculate the difference between the angular orientation between both shank segments, as the sum of the angular orientation of each thigh segment and the flexion of the powered knee joint as this provides a method of determining when to initiate a step based on a measured angle (0028).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Goldfarb in view of Teng et al. 2020/0281803
Regarding claim 10, modified Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the pair of foot sole segments are connected respectively with the shank segments by means of: a passive joint or by means of a fixed joint that constrains the ankle joint to remain fixed at its anatomical configuration to impede user's ankle movement. Teng teaches an analogous exoskeleton that does teach wherein the pair of foot sole segments (20R and 20L, Figure 1A) are connected respectively with the shank segments (16) by means of: a passive joint (ankle joint 17) or by means of a fixed joint that constrains the ankle joint to remain fixed at its anatomical configuration to impede user's ankle movement. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Goldfarb with the teachings of Teng and include foot sole segments coupled with the shank segments for the purpose of providing foot support to the user.
Claim 11, 13, and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Goldfarb in view of Teng2 et al. 9,687,409
Regarding claim 11, modified Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the position of foot sole segments is longitudinally adjustable with respect to the shank segments length of the thigh and shank segments, and the width of the lumbar segment is telescopically adjustable, and/or wherein the position of each adjustment can be changed manually by means of quick-release locking pins. Teng2 teaches an analogous walking assist device that does teach wherein the position of foot sole segments is longitudinally adjustable with respect to the shank segments length of the thigh and shank segments (Column 4 line 44 states “the shank stand 220 and the sole 230 may relatively rotate therebetween via the hip joint 240, the knee joint 250 and the ankle joint 260, and the length of each stand may also be adjusted to match the user.”), and the width of the lumbar segment is telescopically adjustable, and/or wherein the position of each adjustment can be changed manually by means of quick-release locking pins (Column 4 line 36 states “the shank stand 220 and the sole 230 may relatively rotate therebetween via the hip joint 240, the knee joint 250 and the ankle joint 260, and the length of each stand may also be adjusted to match the user.”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Goldfarb with the teachings of Teng2 and include wherein the position of foot sole segments is longitudinally adjustable with respect to the shank segments length of the thigh and shank segments, and the width of the lumbar segment is telescopically adjustable, and/or wherein the position of each adjustment can be changed manually by means of quick-release locking pins, as this would allow for an optimization of comfort based on the user’s body type.
Regarding claim 13, modified Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach further comprising five couplable modules, namely: a lumbar module formed by the lumbar segment and the passive free joints each one coupled to an end of the lumbar segment, left and right leg modules each one including a thigh segment a shank segment and a powered-knee joint, and left and right foot modules each one including a foot segment and a bar. Teng2 discloses an analogous walking assist device that does teach five couplable modules (Figure 7), namely: a lumbar module (waist assembly 100) formed by the lumbar segment (hip reaction plate 110) and the passive free joints (Movable members 140) each one coupled to an end of the lumbar segment (Depicted in figure 8), left and right leg modules each one including a thigh segment (210), a shank segment (220) and a powered-knee joint (250), and left and right foot modules each one including a foot segment (230) and a bar (262). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Goldfarb with the teachings of Teng2 and include five couplable modules as this could allow for the ability to take apart the assembly and store the apparatus.
Regarding claim 19, modified Goldfarb in view of Teng2 teaches the system according to claim 13, wherein the system further comprises fast connection means for coupling the modules together (Figure 7 of Teng2 depict quick connections involving the coupling of pieces through insertable means), and wherein the fast connection means for connecting the lumbar module with the left and right module, includes an electrical connection (Column 5 line 39 states “The waist assembly 100 includes a battery 150 electrically connected to the hip joint motion combination 290 and the knee joint motion combination 295”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Goldfarb in view of Campbell et al. 2013/0296754
Regarding claim 12, modified Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the system controller is adapted to operate a powered-knee joint to keep a user's leg straight when it is detected that the foot is in contact with the ground. Campbell discloses an analogous lower body orthotic device that does teach wherein the system controller is adapted to operate a powered-knee joint to keep a user's leg straight when it is detected that the foot is in contact with the ground (010 states “the leg straightens out just before the heel makes contact with the ground. In this position, the cable returns to its original position (the same one shown in FIG. 4), and the knee again cannot flex unless the ankle is dorsiflexed. In FIG. 9. the knee joint is locked, and the heel is on the ground”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Goldfarb with the teachings of Campbell and include wherein the system controller is adapted to operate a powered-knee joint to keep a user's leg straight when it is detected that the foot is in contact with the ground as this allows for completion of the gait cycle to occur (0101).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Goldfarb in view of Harding et al. 2018/0264642
Regarding claim 20, modified Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 14, but fails to teach wherein the casing has a pair of hand holders for a therapist to help a user to maintain balance, and push-buttons associated with the Electronic Control Unit. Harding teaches an analogous exoskeleton that does disclose wherein the casing has a pair of hand holders for a therapist to help a user to maintain balance (Figure 2 200) and push-buttons associated with the Electronic Control Unit (0019 states “In one embodiment, user interface 175 includes a plurality of buttons (collectively labeled 190), at least one of which must be pressed in order for exoskeleton 100 to perform a desired movement, such as walking. Buttons 190 can be physical or digital.”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Goldfarb with the teachings of Harding and include a pair of hand holders to allow the therapist to help guide the user.
Regarding claim 21, modified Goldfarb in view of Harding teaches the system according to claim 14, wherein the lumbar module includes a belt or strap for attaching the same to the user's lumbar area (0074 of Goldfarb states “To attach the exoskeleton to the user, the exoskeleton 100 can include fastening points 101 for attachment of the exoskeleton to the user via belts, loops, straps, or the like.”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Goldfarb in view of Kazerooni2 et al. 20150173929
Regarding claim 18, modified Goldfarb teaches the system according to claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the pair of hip joints are passive joints, that allow free flexion and extension relative movement between the thigh segments and the lumbar segment, and restrict the hip abduction-adduction and the hip internal-external rotation. Kazerooni2 discloses an analogous artificial knee that does teach wherein the pair of hip joints (Figure 21, hip joints) are passive joints, that allow free flexion and extension relative movement between the thigh segments and the lumbar segment (0065 states “exoskeleton trunk 350 further comprises a leg abduction-adduction joint 357 allowing for abduction and adduction rotation of trunk thigh link 351 relative to torso link 353'.”), and restrict the hip abduction-adduction and the hip internal-external rotation (0064 states “In some embodiments of the invention, the hip abduction-adduction axis can be locked for applications where the abduction and adduction movements in the frontal plane are not encouraged.”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Goldfarb with the teachings of Kazerooni2 and include wherein the pair of hip joints are passive joints as the use of a hip joint can also allow for the placement of sensor measurements to measure flexion and extension of the thigh and torso link, while also restricting specific movements of the hip (0043).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bereziy et al 2018/0141206
Ohta et al. 2018/0092792
Yasuhara et al. 2009/0131839
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROHAN DEEP PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 5:30 AM - 3:00 PM PST.
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) 2707410. 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.
/ROHAN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785