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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 03/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/19/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the limitation “modules” in claims 1-5, 8, and 10, as well as the limitation “ratchet mechanism” in claims 2 and 4-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: “linking component” in line 2 of claim 4, should read “linkage component”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: “linking component” in line 2 of claim 5, should read “linkage component”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: “drum is configured capture” in line 2 of claim 6, should read “drum is configured to capture”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: “linking component” in lines 7-8 of claim 6, should read “linkage component”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Zistatsis (US 20180161188 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zistatsis (US 20180161188 A1) in view of Papania-Davis (US 20220241131 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zistatsis discloses an appendage work sharing apparatus (FIG. 1B Bilateral leg exoskeleton; 200 comprises a second leg frame 101′ configured for extending along a length of the user's second leg as set forth in [0042], leg brace 101, as described and illustrated by the unilateral exoskeletons in the other embodiments) comprising: a linkage component (FIG. 1A-1B The components affixed on and that make up each leg brace 101 and 101’) comprising at least one pulley, a cable, or both (FIG. 1A-B Exotendon 104 runs the length of the leg frame 101, from a proximal end secured in the energy storage subsystem 102, through a knee pulley 106, and terminating in an ankle pulley 108 as set forth in [0039]; the term pulley referring to the pulley system comprised of both the cable drum and other components contributing to the function of the pulley to interact with the cable), whereby the linkage component has a variable tension (FIG. 1A-3C The energy storage subsystem 101 includes a two-way ratchet that is configured for adjusting tension in the biasing member as set forth in [0047]); a plurality of modules in mechanical communication with the linkage component, wherein each of the plurality of modules is disposed at a predetermined joint of a user (FIG. 1A-1B The modules being each component or group of components arranged adjacent to each joint, in particular, the hip, knee, and ankle joints that all communicate via the rest of the components affixed on and that make up each leg brace 101 and 101’); and wherein at least one module of the plurality of modules is configured to transfer a force at the predetermined joint, via the linkage component, to at least one alternative module of the plurality of modules disposed about at least one alternative joint (FIG. 1A-1B The leg frame 101 includes an energy storage subsystem 102 configured to store and release energy during the walking motion. As part of the energy storage subsystem 102, an exotendon 104 runs the length of the leg frame 101, from a proximal end secured in the energy storage subsystem 102, through a knee pulley 106, and terminating in an ankle pulley 108. During movement of the leg, the exotendon 104 transfers motion of the leg frame 101 into stored energy in the energy storage subsystem 102 when the leg moves posteriorly and releases energy when the leg moves anteriorly as set forth in [0039], the force created from energy released during the walking motion being stored and released to be applied to the leg frame comprising each of the modules corresponding to each joint).
In the alternative, taking the “wherein” clause, “wherein the at least two cables are in mechanical communication with the at least one pulley” from lines 3-4 of claim 1, to be a requirement and not optional, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zistatsis (US 20180161188 A1) in view of Papania-Davis (US 20220241131 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zistatsis discloses an appendage work sharing apparatus (FIG. 1B Bilateral leg exoskeleton; 200 comprises a second leg frame 101′ configured for extending along a length of the user's second leg as set forth in [0042], leg brace 101, as described and illustrated by the unilateral exoskeletons in the other embodiments) comprising: a linkage component (FIG. 1A-1B The components affixed on and that make up each leg brace 101 and 101’) comprising at least one pulley, a cable, or both (FIG. 1A-B Exotendon 104 runs the length of the leg frame 101, from a proximal end secured in the energy storage subsystem 102, through a knee pulley 106, and terminating in an ankle pulley 108 as set forth in [0039]; the term pulley referring to the pulley system comprised of both the cable drum and other components contributing to the function of the pulley to interact with the cable), wherein the cable is in mechanical communication with the at least one pulley (FIG. 1A-1B As set forth in [0039]), whereby the linkage component has a variable tension (FIG. 1A-3C The energy storage subsystem 101 includes a two-way ratchet that is configured for adjusting tension in the biasing member as set forth in [0047]); a plurality of modules in mechanical communication with the linkage component, wherein each of the plurality of modules is disposed at a predetermined joint of a user (FIG. 1A-1B The modules being each component or group of components arranged adjacent to each joint, in particular, the hip, knee, and ankle joints that all communicate via the rest of the components affixed on and that make up each leg brace 101 and 101’); and wherein at least one module of the plurality of modules is configured to transfer a force at the predetermined joint, via the linkage component, to at least one alternative module of the plurality of modules disposed about at least one alternative joint (FIG. 1A-1B The leg frame 101 includes an energy storage subsystem 102 configured to store and release energy during the walking motion. As part of the energy storage subsystem 102, an exotendon 104 runs the length of the leg frame 101, from a proximal end secured in the energy storage subsystem 102, through a knee pulley 106, and terminating in an ankle pulley 108. During movement of the leg, the exotendon 104 transfers motion of the leg frame 101 into stored energy in the energy storage subsystem 102 when the leg moves posteriorly and releases energy when the leg moves anteriorly as set forth in [0039], the force created from energy released during the walking motion being stored and released to be applied to the leg frame comprising each of the modules corresponding to each joint).
Fails to explicitly disclose an additional cable in mechanical communication with the at least one pulley.
However, Papania-Davis teaches an additional cable in mechanical communication with the at least one pulley (FIG. 4B Shows the segment of cable 430 corresponding to pulley 420 and another segment of cable 430 corresponding to pulley 421, wherein pulleys 420 and 421 arranged at the same joint as set forth in [0071]-[0073], the pulleys make up an ‘at least one pulley system’).
Zistatsis and Papania-Davis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of exoskeletons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one pulley of the device of Zistatsis at the center of each ball-and-socket joint to incorporate the teaching of Papania-Davis and include an additional cable in mechanical communication with the at least one pulley system (FIG. 4B Shows the segment of cable 430 corresponding to pulley 420 and another segment of cable 430 corresponding to pulley 421, wherein pulleys 420 and 421 arranged at the same joint as set forth in [0071]-[0073], the pulleys make up an ‘at least one pulley system’). In the Case of Zistatsis as modified, a second cable would be in communication with an additional drum of the pulley system. Doing so would actuate the joint in such a way that the freedom of movement of the joint is preserved (Papania-Davis: As set forth in [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, Zistatsis discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Zistasis as further discloses, wherein the plurality of modules further comprises: a base of each (FIG. 1A-1B The side portions of knee pulley 106, and terminating in an ankle pulley 108 as well as the sides of the energy storage subsystem, including portions of each of the upper and lower leg members corresponding to where the pulleys are fixed); at least one cable drum temporarily affixed to the base (FIG. 1A-4C Between the bases of knee pulley 106 and 108, and where the hip case 162 receives the exotendon 104), wherein the linkage component is disposed about at least a portion of the at least one cable drum (As seen in FIG. 1A-1B); and at least one ratchet mechanism in mechanical communication with the at least one cable drum (FIG. 3C Ratcheting mechanism 150 as set forth in [0051], the exotendon 104 connecting the energy storage subsystem 102 comprising the ratcheting mechanism 150 with each of the cable drums set forth above), wherein the at least one ratchet mechanism is configured to alternate the at least one cable drum from a disengaged stage to an engaged stage, an engaged state to a disengaged state, or both, thereby adjusting the tension of the linkage component (As set forth in [0048] and [0051], the disengaged and engaged state occurring between when the tension is being provided by the mechanism).
Regarding claim 4, Zistatsis discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 2 above.
Zistasis further discloses, wherein when the at least one ratchet mechanism is in the engaged state, the linking component has tension pairing at least one cable drum of at least one module of the plurality of module with the at least one cable drum of at least one alternative module of the plurality of modules (FIG. 3C Ratcheting mechanism 150 as set forth in [0048] and [0051], the exotendon 104 connecting the energy storage subsystem 102 comprising the ratcheting mechanism 150 with each of the cable drums).
Regarding claim 9, Zistatsis discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Zistasis fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the linkage component comprises a motion coupling ratios selected from the group consisting of 1:1, 1.5:1, 2:1, or a combination thereof between the at least one module in mechanical communication with the at least one alternative module.
However, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the motion coupling ratios selected from the group consisting of 1:1, 1.5:1, 2:1, or a combination thereof between the at least one module in mechanical communication with the at least one alternative module in the device of Zistasis as modified because Applicant has not disclosed that the specific coupling ratio provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Specifically, the specification states in [0014] that “the linkage component may comprise a motion coupling ratios may include but is not limited the following group comprising of 1:1, 1.5:1, and/or 2:1 between the at least one module in mechanical communication with the at least one alternative module”. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the ratio of modified Zistasis, the coupling distance between the modules of Zistasis, and Applicant' s ratio, to perform equally well because both mechanisms perform the same function of ensuring the linkage component can transfer force to a predetermined joint.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Zistasis as modified to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9, because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Zistasis.
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.
Claims 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zistatsis (US 20180161188 A1) in view of Papania-Davis (US 20220241131 A1) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Zistatsis as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 2 above.
Zistasis as modified by Papania-Davis further teaches, wherein the plurality of modules further comprises at least one assistance drum temporarily affixed to at least one alternative base (Papania-Davis: Second pulley, either pulleys 420 and 421, the alternative base being the sides of each pully and where they will be fixed on the device of Zistasis at a joint), wherein the at least one assistance drum (The portion of the pulley that receives the second cable as modified for claim 1 above) is disposed about at least a portion of a ball-and-socket joint of the user, whereby a center of the at least one assistance drum is positioned at a center of the ball-and-socket joint (As set forth above for the modification of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Zistatsis as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 3 above.
Zistasis as modified further discloses, wherein when the at least one ratchet mechanism is in the disengaged state, the linking component has minimal tension, thereby unpairing at least one cable drum of at least one module of the plurality of module with the at least one cable drum of at least one alternative module of the plurality of modules (FIG. 3 C The Geneva mechanism for ratcheting the tension with an internal torsional spring for adjusting the exotendon 104 force by the energy storage subsystem as set forth in [0048]; the unpairing of the at least one cable drum of the at least one module being when the on the tension of exotendon 104 at each drum is released).
Regarding claim 6, Zistatsis as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 3 above.
Zistasis as modified by Papania-Davis further teaches, wherein the at least one assistance drum is configured capture abduction, adduction, or both at the ball-and-socket joint of a user (Papania-Davis: The pulleys also work together to actuate an ankle joint in such a way that the freedom of movement of the joint is preserved as set forth in [0071], the freedom of movement would account for abduction, adduction, or both at the ball-and-socket joint of a user, in this case the ankle, and the tension provided at the cable by movement of the user would be transferred into stored energy in the storage subsystem of Zistasis as modified).
Regarding claim 7, Zistatsis as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 6 above.
Zistasis as modified further discloses, wherein the at least one cable drum is configured to capture flexion at the predetermined joint of the user (FIG. 1A-1B During movement of the leg, the exotendon 104 transfers motion of the leg frame 101 into stored energy in the energy storage subsystem 102 when the leg moves posteriorly and releases energy when the leg moves anteriorly as set forth in [0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Zistatsis as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 7 above.
Zistasis as modified further discloses, wherein the at least one cable drum, is in mechanical communication with the at least one cable drum, of at least one alternative module of the plurality of modules, via the linkage mechanism (FIG. 3C Ratcheting mechanism 150 as set forth in [0051], the exotendon 104 connecting the energy storage subsystem 102 comprising the ratcheting mechanism 150 with each of the cable drums of the knee pulley 106, and ankle pulley 108 as set forth in [0039]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zistatsis (US 20180161188 A1) as applied to claim 2, in further view of Barnes (US 10124484 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Zistatsis discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 2 above.
Zistasis fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus further comprising: a computing device having at least one processor communicatively coupled to at least one sensor, the at least one sensor being configured to detect an exertion by at least one muscle in mechanical communication with the predetermined joint, wherein the at least one sensor is disposed about at least one portion of each of the plurality of modules; and at least one motor in mechanical communication with the linking component, the at least one motor being disposed about at least portion of the base of each of the plurality of modules, wherein the at least one motor is communicatively coupled with the at least one processor of the computing device.
However, Barnes teaches a computing device having at least one processor communicatively coupled to at least one sensor, the at least one sensor being configured to detect an exertion by at least one muscle in mechanical communication with the predetermined joint, wherein the at least one sensor is disposed about at least one portion of each of the plurality of modules; and at least one motor, wherein the at least one motor is communicatively coupled with the at least one processor of the computing device (Barnes: As set forth in column 2 lines 1-8; FIG. 2 By using EMG force amplification, however, the exoskeleton control system 200 of FIG. 2 can accurately mimic and track the movement of the human user 204 in real time, and potentially before the human user 204 actually moves or exerts any force against an exoskeleton link 218. As a result, the exoskeleton control system 200 can be calibrated to apply more gain 210 to the actuator command 212, by adding a calibration value to the gain 210 or multiplying the gain 210 by a calibration value for example, in response to the EMG sensor data 206 indicating an electrochemical reaction having a smaller magnitude. In this manner, more torque 216 can be applied to the exoskeleton link 218 in response to a smaller exertion by the human user 204, and with less exertion by the human user 204 against the exoskeleton link 218 itself. This in turn can allow the human user 204 to carry heavier loads with less fatigue over time. It should be understood that while the controller 208 in this example is configured to generate the gain 210 to cause the actuator command 212 to be directly proportional, e.g. linearly proportional, to a magnitude component of the EMG sensor data 206, the gain 210 can be generated using additional criteria as set forth in column 8 lines 34-56; wherein the actuators are electric motors as set forth in column 9 lines 9-10).
Zistatsis and Barnes are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of exoskeletons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of the linking component at the base of each module of Zistatsis to include the teaching of the controller, sensor, and motor structure and relationship of Barnes, specifically, wherein the apparatus comprises a computing device having at least one processor communicatively coupled to at least one sensor, the at least one sensor being configured to detect an exertion by at least one muscle in mechanical communication with the predetermined joint, wherein the at least one sensor is disposed about at least one portion of each of the plurality of modules; and at least one motor, wherein the at least one motor is communicatively coupled with the at least one processor of the computing device (Barnes: As set forth in column 2 lines 1-8; FIG. 2 By using EMG force amplification, however, the exoskeleton control system 200 of FIG. 2 can accurately mimic and track the movement of the human user 204 in real time, and potentially before the human user 204 actually moves or exerts any force against an exoskeleton link 218. As a result, the exoskeleton control system 200 can be calibrated to apply more gain 210 to the actuator command 212, by adding a calibration value to the gain 210 or multiplying the gain 210 by a calibration value for example, in response to the EMG sensor data 206 indicating an electrochemical reaction having a smaller magnitude. In this manner, more torque 216 can be applied to the exoskeleton link 218 in response to a smaller exertion by the human user 204, and with less exertion by the human user 204 against the exoskeleton link 218 itself. This in turn can allow the human user 204 to carry heavier loads with less fatigue over time. It should be understood that while the controller 208 in this example is configured to generate the gain 210 to cause the actuator command 212 to be directly proportional, e.g. linearly proportional, to a magnitude component of the EMG sensor data 206, the gain 210 can be generated using additional criteria as set forth in column 8 lines 34-56; wherein the actuators are electric motors as set forth in column 9 lines 9-10). Doing so would make it so that EMG sensor and the controller can generate and utilize the EMG sensor data to cause the actuator to move, wherein the powered exoskeleton can accurately mimic the actual movements of the human user without the need for conventional reactive or predictive systems, which can lead to fatigue (Barnes: As set forth in column 2 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 11, Zistatsis as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 10 above.
Zistasis as modified by Barnes further teaches, wherein subsequent to the at least one sensor detecting an exertion by at least one muscle in mechanical communication with the predetermined joint, the at least one processor is configured to actuate the at least one motor at the predetermined joint, thereby reducing muscle exertion by the at least one muscle at the predetermined joint, in real-time, simultaneously with the movement of the user (Barnes: As set forth in column 2 lines 1-8; FIG. 2 By using EMG force amplification, however, the exoskeleton control system 200 of FIG. 2 can accurately mimic and track the movement of the human user 204 in real time, and potentially before the human user 204 actually moves or exerts any force against an exoskeleton link 218. As a result, the exoskeleton control system 200 can be calibrated to apply more gain 210 to the actuator command 212, by adding a calibration value to the gain 210 or multiplying the gain 210 by a calibration value for example, in response to the EMG sensor data 206 indicating an electrochemical reaction having a smaller magnitude. In this manner, more torque 216 can be applied to the exoskeleton link 218 in response to a smaller exertion by the human user 204, and with less exertion by the human user 204 against the exoskeleton link 218 itself. This in turn can allow the human user 204 to carry heavier loads with less fatigue over time. It should be understood that while the controller 208 in this example is configured to generate the gain 210 to cause the actuator command 212 to be directly proportional, e.g. linearly proportional, to a magnitude component of the EMG sensor data 206, the gain 210 can be generated using additional criteria as set forth in column 8 lines 34-56; wherein the actuators are electric motors as set forth in column 9 lines 9-10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEIRA EILEEN CALLISON whose telephone number is (571)272-0745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/KEIRA EILEEN CALLISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights