DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 06/08/2023. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-11 were canceled and claims 12-22 were newly added. Thus, claims 12-22 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-17 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 15-16 both recite “the actuators” in the second line. This lacks antecedent basis to parent claim 12 which recites “a first and a second actuator”. It is suggested to amend claims 15-16 to recite “… to control the first and the second actuators” to preserve proper antecedent basis.
It is also recommended to clarify the structural relationship of claim 15 regarding how the control unit controls the actuators to continuously position the thigh attachment structure at a predetermined nonzero distance from the thigh by amending the claim by amending the claim to recite: “…continuously positioned at a predefined distance unequal to 0 from the thigh associated with the thigh attachment structure based on the distance sensor.”
Claim 17 would have improved clarity with the following grammatical changes to ensure that it is clear that there are two operating modes: “…wherein the control unit is arranged to either remain in the first operating mode, or to change from the second to the first operating mode[[,]] when an orientation angle of the upper body connecting structure ranges in between a predetermined angular range with respect to the vertical.” Please also note the 112(b) rejection below for claim 17.
Claim 22 should be amended as follows to improve clarity and antecedent basis, as well as to ensure the claim has proper structural relationships: “A method for controlling an actuator of a channel-and-support structure of an exoskeleton via a control unit, the channel-and-support structure having an attachment for supporting an extremity of a wearer and a distance sensor for measuring a distance between the attachment and the extremity arranged in the attachment, the method comprising: controlling the actuator with the control unit in a first operating mode in such a way that the attachment is kept at a predefined distance from the extremity based on the distance sensor, and controlling the actuator in a second operating mode in such a way that the attachment bears against the extremity in a force-conducting manner, whereby the control unit changes between the first and the second operating modes a second extremity, a rate of change of [[an]] inclination angle of the or [[an]] the second extremity, a comparison of the inclination angle of the extremity with a second inclination angle of [[a]] the second extremity of the wearer, and a torque applied to the actuator, based on an additional sensor.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-22 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 12 and 22 are rejected for the limitation “channel-and-support structure”. It is not clear what this structure entails. The specification does not clearly define the term, and the drawings do not clearly show a channel structure in the “channel-and-support structure”, nor does this appear to be a term in the art. It appears that the channel-and-support structure refers to a structure which connects a thigh support structure to the output of an actuator (figs. 1-3 and page 12). It is not clear what specific, if any, structure is encompassed by the term “channel-and-support”, or if this is a broad term for a structure that links the output of an actuator to a thigh support.
Claims 12-21 are rejected as depending upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the thigh attachment structure" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear which of the two previously recited thigh attachment structure (a first and a second) include the distance sensor, or whether one or both of the thigh attachment structures are required to have a distance sensor arranged therein.
Claim 15 is unclear due to the limitation “in each case”. It is not clear what “each case” refers to. There is no previous recitation of “a case” in the claim or parent claim 12. In order to advance prosecution, the examiner has interpreted this claim to mean that each thigh attachment structure is continuously positioned at a predefined distance as required by the claim.
Claim 16 is rejected for the limitation “a bending movement” being unclear, since it is not clear what is bending, whether it is the user or the exoskeleton. It has been interpreted by the examiner that the user is bending, based on page 5, first para. of the substitute specification.
Claim 17 is rejected as being unclear, since it appears that “inertial unit for detecting an erection angle of the upper body connecting structure with respect to the vertical” may or may not be the same as “an orientation angle of the upper body connecting structure” later recited in the claim, or how these two angles may be related if they are different. It has been interpreted by the examiner that these angles are the same and that the exoskeleton may enter the second operating mode when the inertial unit detects an erection angle of the upper body, and that this is the same as “an orientation angle”.
Claim 18 is rejected for poor antecedent basis for the limitation “the predefined angular range”. A “predefined angular range” has not been previously recited, while a “predetermined angular range” has been recited in claim parent claim 17. However, a “predefined angular range” is recited in claim 19. It is not clear to which of these two angular ranges are referred in the claim. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite: “The exoskeleton of claim 17, wherein the control unit is set up to either remain in the second mode of operation, or to change from the first to the second mode of operation when the angle of orientation of the upper body connecting structure moves outside of the predetermined angular range.”
Claim 19 is rejected, since it is not clear if the angle sensors work in combination with the inertial sensor of claim 17, or are intended to be an alternative option. It has been interpreted by the examiner that the angle sensors may be used by the control unit to determine when to change from the first mode to the second mode based on specification page 7, last full para. The claim is also rejected for the word “substantially”, since this is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is suggested to amend this claim to recite: “The exoskeleton of claim 17, wherein the exoskeleton further comprises two angle sensors, each for detecting an inclination angle[[s]] in the sagittal plane between the upper body connecting structure and each of the channel-and-support structures, wherein the control unit is arranged to change from the first operating mode to the second operating mode when both inclination angles of the channel-and-support structures synchronously enter inclination angle range, and wherein the control unit is additionally set up to change from the second to the first operating mode when both inclination angles of the channel and-support structures exit the predefined inclination angle range substantially synchronously.”
Claim 21 is rejected for the limitation "when one of the torque sensors measures a torque other than 0”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no torque sensor has been recited previously in the claim or the parent claims. It is suggested to amend this claim to depend from claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0375106 A1), hereafter Lee, in view of Cho et al. (US 2018/0177669 A1), hereafter Cho.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses an exoskeleton (fig. 1, wearable robot 100 [0050]) comprising: an upper body connecting structure (see annotated fig. 5); a hip frame fixedly connected to the upper body connecting structure (see annotated fig. 5); a first and a second actuator attached to the hip frame (see annotated fig. 5 [0082] actuator 130 may rotate the joints of the robot 100; one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there is an individual actuator for each joint moved) for supporting a walking or bending movement of a wearer ([0148]); a first and a second thigh attachment structure respectively associated with one of the first and second actuator (see annotated fig. 5); a first and a second channel-and-support structure for transmitting forces between a respective thigh attachment structure and the actuator associated with the respective thigh attachment structure (see annotated fig. 5); and a control unit for controlling the first and second actuators (fig. 2, 110 [0075]), wherein a distance sensor for contactless tracking of a position of a thigh of the wearer relative to the thigh attachment structure is arranged in each thigh attachment structure ([0081] and [0087] the proximity sensor 140 senses the approach of the exoskeleton to the user; [0086] the proximity sensors are contactless).
Lee is silent on the distance sensor specifically tracking the position of the thigh of the user relative to the thigh attachment structure (the proximity sensors 140 are arranged in the robot to sense respective parts of the robot within a set distance of corresponding parts of the user [0084]).
Cho teaches the placement of a sensor in the thigh of a walking assist device (fig. 9, abstract, [0086]) which locates the sensor in the thigh so that the sensor may provide data to a controller to calculate the assistive force needed for the body ([0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange Lee’s distance sensor in the thigh attachment structure as taught by Cho, since the thigh is a known location in the art for placement of sensors to provide data to the controller for calculating assistive force.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Lee discloses an exoskeleton of claim 12, wherein each distance sensor is a capacitive, an optical or an ultrasonic distance sensor ([0086]).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee as modified by Cho discloses an exoskeleton of claim 12, wherein each distance sensor is arranged in a pocket of the thigh attachment structure (Cho figs. 8 and 9, sensor device 800 has sensor 810 and connector 820, which forms a pocket into which the sensor 810 is inserted [0080]), whereby a defined distance between the distance sensor and the thigh is preserved even when the thigh attachment structure is in contact with the corresponding thigh (figs. 8 and 9, the supports 830 maintain a distance of zero, .i.e., contact, between the user and the sensor, regardless of the position of the leg within the frame of the thigh portion, fig. 9 [0082]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Lee discloses an exoskeleton of claim 12, but is silent on wherein the control unit is set up to control the actuators in a first operating mode without supporting a walking movement in such a way that each thigh attachment structure is in each case continuously positioned at a predefined distance unequal to 0 from the thigh associated with the thigh attachment structure.
There does not appear to be prior art of record which discloses, alone or in combination, an operating mode in which a control unit maintains a thigh attachment structure continuously positioned at a non-zero distance from the thigh of a wearer, in particular, by using a distance sensor.
The closest prior art of record is Kim et al. (US 2017/0049658 A1), hereafter Kim. Kim discloses a motion assistance apparatus (fig. 1, abstract) having a thigh attachment structure (fig. 1, 44 [0088]) in which a processor may maintain the supporting module (supporting module 40, fig. 1, includes thigh support 44) to have a distance between the support and the thigh of the user based on whether the user is in an idle state([0097]). However, this is done through determining whether a static elastic force is applied to the support ([0097]). Kim also does not provide a reasonable motivation for configuring the processor to maintain a distance between the thigh and the support, and so any attempt to combine the disclosures of Lee and Kim would be improper hindsight.
Claims 16-21 would also be allowed as dependent upon claim 15. Please refer to the 112(b) rejections and claim objections above for dependent claims 16-21 which require correction prior to allowance.
Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, as well as amended to overcome the claim objections above to clarify the claim language and correct poor antecedent basis issues.
Regarding Claim 22, the closest prior art of record includes Lee and Kim.
Lee discloses a method for controlling an actuator (see annotated fig. 5 [0082]) of a channel-and-support structure of an exoskeleton (see annotated fig. 5 [0050]) via a control unit (fig. 2, 110 [0075]), the channel-and-support structure (see annotated fig. 5) having an attachment for supporting an extremity of a wearer (see annotated fig. 5), a distance sensor for measuring a distance between the attachment and the extremity arranged in the attachment ([0081] and [0087] the proximity sensor 140 senses the approach of the exoskeleton to the user; [0086] the proximity sensors are contactless), the method comprising: controlling the actuator with the control unit in a first operating mode (fig. 6, step S120 [0134] the robot moves toward the user), and controlling the actuator in a second operating mode in such a way that the attachment bears against the extremity in a force-conducting manner ([fig. 6 S140 [0148]), whereby the change between the first and second operating modes takes place as a function of at least one variable of the following group: an erection angle of an upper body of the wearer ([0150] the user must be leaning on a supporting means, i.e., the upper body angle is changed from upright; [0155-0156] the robot checks whether the user is in a safe state, fig. 9, S153), a rate of change of the erection angle, an inclination angle of the or an extremity, a rate of change of an inclination angle of the or an extremity, a comparison of the inclination angle of the extremity with a second inclination angle of a second extremity of the wearer, and a torque applied to the actuator.
However, Lee is silent on the first operating mode in such a way that the attachment is kept at a predefined distance from the extremity.
Kim discloses a motion assistance apparatus (fig. 1, abstract) having a thigh attachment structure (fig. 1, 44 [0088]) in which a processor may maintain the supporting module (supporting module 40, fig. 1, includes thigh support 44) to have a distance between the support and the thigh of the user based on whether the user is in an idle state([0097]). However, this is done through determining whether a static elastic force is applied to the support ([0097]). However, Kim does not provide a reason to keep the thigh support at a predetermined distance from the user’s thigh in an idle state, and thus it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures to form a method of operating an exoskeleton such that a distance sensor is used with a control unit to maintain a distance between an attachment and an extremity of a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson et al. (US 2009/0255531 A1) discloses a distance sensor positioned at the user’s foot to detect increased space between the foot and the bottom of the leg unit ([0151])
Johnson et al. (US 2014/0039371 A1) discloses a spinal orthosis which uses a sensor to allow the controller to monitor the position of the orthosis relative to the pelvis ([0022]).
Friedman (US 2014/0190536 A1) discloses an ambulation device (fig. 1, abstract) which uses a sensor to detect proximity of the user relative to the device ([0029]).
Nagata et al. (US 2016/0242986 A1) discloses an assistive wearable garment (fig. 1, abstract) which uses pressure sensors located in the thigh area of the user to determine whether the user is contacting the surface of the body ([0135] and [0140]).
Lee et al. (US 2017/0065441 A1) discloses a motion assistance apparatus (fig. 1, abstract) that uses sensors to determine the size of the thigh ([0125]), which then uses the controller to determine the driving torque of the device based on the user’s size ([0129]).
Herr et al. (US 2019/0307583 A1) discloses a non-contact sensor located in the toe area or heel area of a shoe of a wearable leg device (fig. 1, abstract) which is used to predict that a user with ascend stairs or clear an obstacle ([0063]).
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