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 in response to the amendment filed on 07/08/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 4 and 14 were canceled, claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15-17, and 19 were amended, and no claims were newly added. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the steps reciting “(c) verifying a controllability that represents whether control of a target body motion is performable based on the characteristic data of the human model and the characteristic data of the exoskeleton” [claim 1 lines 5-7], “(d) performing the target body motion based on a verification result of the controllability and acquiring simulation data generated during the performing of the target body motion” [claim 1 lines 8-9], “(e) analyzing the simulation data to evaluate a performance of the control logic” [claim 1 line 11-12], “modeling an integrated system of the exoskeleton and the human model to derive a state space equation” [claim 1 lines 14-15], and “determining controllability and observability in an available range of the exoskeleton and the human model through the state space equation” [claim 1 lines 16-17] are not enabled within the disclosure without explanation, details, or how to run an algorithm. It is not clear how to make and use the claimed invention to include each of the step limitations (c), (d), and (e).
Turning now to the Wands factors, no provided guidance from the Applicant enables the claims in view of the Wands factors. The examiner notes the Wands factors with a specific emphasis on the breadth of the claims, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the amount of direction provided by the inventor. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See also MPEP § 2164.01(a) and § 2164.04.
In regards to the breadth of the claims, the claim 1 as a whole is broad. The steps of “verifying”, “performing”, “analyzing”, “modeling”, and “determining” are merely the use of a technique used to perform the claimed function without any substantial structure. No specific program, algorithm, or equation is provided beyond the generic statements of “an integrated system” in line 14 and “a state space equation” in line 14-15. There are an infinite number of integrated systems and equations that could perform the claimed functions. The claims and specification fail to provide a specific system or state space equation representative of how the method is performed beyond the broad language.
In regards to the nature of the invention, the steps of the control logic are complex. However, no specific algorithm, equations, or other math is provided indicating how to make the present inventions. As indicated above, the broad claiming to “verifying”, “performing”, and “analyzing” is complex in that there are an infinite number of ways to perform the functions. Additionally, the “integrated system” and “state space equation” are complex in that there are an infinite number of ways to form a system or equation that could perform a method of evaluating control logic of an exoskeleton, and not one specific inventive way is provided in the disclosure.
In regards to the state of the prior art, the invention as a whole is not enabled to be understood. As indicated in the art rejection below, the claims are rejected as best understood. The guidance provided by the disclosure is not clear as to details on how to run an algorithm, program, or equation to receive results.
In regards to the amount of direction provided by the inventor, as is explained in the factors above, the inventor fails to provide adequate explanation of how to make the invention as claimed. There is no indication in the specification as to a specific equation, algorithm, or program that is run by the invention to achieve such results.
Therefore, due to the broadness of the claims, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the amount of direction provided by the inventor, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make or use the invention in its entire scope without undue experimentation because no explanation or guidance has been disclosed as to how to make and use the invention.
As the dependent claims fail to identify any characteristic specifically limiting the step limitations recited from claim 1 above, the dependent claims 2-3 and 5-10 are non-enabled.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation of steps within “verify a controllability that represents whether control of a target body motion is performable based on the characteristic data of the human model and the characteristic data of the exoskeleton” [claim 11 line 8-10], “perform the target body motion based on a verification result of the controllability to acquire simulation data” [claim 11 line 11-12], “analyze the simulation data to evaluate a performance of the control logic” [claim 11 line 14-15], “modeling an integrated system of the exoskeleton and the human model to derive a state space equation” [claim 11 lines 17-18], and “determining controllability and observability in an available range of the exoskeleton and the human model through the state space equation” [claim 11 lines 19-20] are not enabled within the disclosure without explanation, details, or how to run an algorithm. It is not clear how to make and use the claimed invention to include limitations highlighted above.
Turning now to the Wands factors, no provided guidance from the Applicant enables the claims in view of the Wands factors. The examiner notes the Wands factors with a specific emphasis on the breadth of the claims, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the amount of direction provided by the inventor. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See also MPEP § 2164.01(a) and § 2164.04.
In regards to the breadth of the claims, the claim 11 as a whole is broad. The action steps of the claim limitations as recited above merely the use of a technique used to perform the claimed function without any substantial structure. No specific program, algorithm, or equation is provided, and there are an infinite number of programs that could perform the claimed functions. No specific program, algorithm, or equation is provided beyond the generic statements of “an integrated system” and “a state space equation”. There are an infinite number of integrated systems and equations that could perform the claimed functions. The claims and specification fail to provide a specific system or state space equation representative of how the method is performed beyond the broad language.
In regards to the nature of the invention, the action steps of the claim limitations as recited above of the control logic are complex. However, no specific algorithm, equations, or other math is provided indicating how to make the present inventions. As indicated above, the broad claiming to these limitations is complex in that there are an infinite number of ways to perform the functions. Additionally, the “integrated system” and “state space equation” are complex in that there are an infinite number of ways to form a system or equation that could perform a method of evaluating control logic of an exoskeleton, and not one specific inventive way is provided in the disclosure.
In regards to the state of the prior art, the invention as a whole is not enabled to be understood. As indicated in the art rejection below, the claims are rejected as best understood. The guidance provided by the disclosure is not clear as to details on how to run an algorithm, program, or equation to receive results.
In regards to the amount of direction provided by the inventor, as is explained in the factors above, the inventor fails to provide adequate explanation of how to make the invention as claimed. There is no indication in the specification as to a specific equation, algorithm, or program that is run by the invention to achieve such results.
Therefore, due to the broadness of the claims, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the amount of direction provided by the inventor, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make or use the invention in its entire scope without undue experimentation because no explanation or guidance has been disclosed as to how to make and use the invention.
As the dependent claims fail to identify any characteristic specifically limiting the step limitations recited from claim 11 above, the dependent claims 12-13 and 15-20 are non-enabled.
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 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 line 16, the term “controllability” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a controllability” of line 5.
Regarding claim 11 line 19, the term “controllability” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a controllability” of line 8.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category? Yes.
The claims 1-3 and 5-10 recite a method of evaluating control logic of an exoskeleton. Thus, the claim is a process, which falls into one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claims 11-13 and 15-20 recite an apparatus for evaluating control logic of an exoskeleton. Thus, the claim is a machine, which falls into one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicial exception? Yes.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “(c) verifying a controllability that represents whether control of a target body motion is performable based on the characteristic data of the human model and the characteristic data of the exoskeleton” [claim 1 lines 5-7] is an abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The limitation “(d) performing the target body motion based on a verification result of the controllability and acquiring simulation data generated during the performing of the target body motion” [claim 1 lines 8-9] is an abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The limitation “(e) analyzing the simulation data to evaluate a performance of the control logic” [claim 1 line 11-12] is abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The limitation “modeling an integrated system of the exoskeleton and the human model to derive a state space equation” [claim 1 line 14-15] is an abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and it encompasses mathematical calculations and relationships.
The limitation “determining controllability and observability in an available range of the exoskeleton and the human model through the state space equation” [claim 1 line 16-17] is an abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and it encompasses mathematical calculations and relationships.
Regarding claims 2-3, the claims are an abstract idea because they merely further define the abstract idea from claim 1 with no tool to perform the otherwise mental processes.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “receiving the control logic” is abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The limitation “performing a simulation corresponding to the target body motion based on the control logic to be evaluated” is abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The limitation “acquiring interaction information between the human model and the exoskeleton as the simulation is performed” is abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “acquiring data over time of a state variable related to an interaction that occurs when the simulation is performed” is an abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and it encompasses mathematical calculations and relationships.
Regarding claim 7-10, the claims recite mathematical calculations and relationships, which an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “verify a controllability that represents whether control of a target body motion is performable based on the characteristic data of the human model and the characteristic data of the exoskeleton” [claim 11 line 8-10] is an abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The limitation “perform the target body motion based on a verification result of the controllability to acquire simulation data” [claim 11 line 11-12] is an abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The limitation “analyze the simulation data to evaluate a performance of the control logic” [claim 11 line 14-15] is an abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The limitation “modeling an integrated system of the exoskeleton and the human model to derive a state space equation” [claim 11 line 17-18] is an abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and it encompasses mathematical calculations and relationships.
The limitation “determining controllability and observability in an available range of the exoskeleton and the human model through the state space equation” [claim 11 line 19-20] is an abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and it encompasses mathematical calculations and relationships.
Regarding claims 12-13, the claims are an abstract idea because they merely further define the abstract idea from claim 11 with no tool to perform the otherwise mental processes.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “receiving control logic to be evaluated; performing a simulation corresponding to the target body motion based on the control logic to be evaluated; and acquiring interaction information between the human model and the exoskeleton as the simulation is performed” is abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “acquiring data over time of a state variable related to an interaction that occurs when the simulation is performed” is an abstract idea because it is an act that could be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and it encompasses mathematical calculations and relationships.
Regarding claims 17-20, the claims recite mathematical calculations and relationships, which an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application? No.
Claim 1 recites the additional element “an exoskeleton. Additional element “an exoskeleton” is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic rehabilitation exoskeleton. Using an exoskeleton to provide body motion for rehabilitation through use of a control logic is no more than providing a particular technological environment or field of use. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not qualified as integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation practicing the abstract idea. Thus, this claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-3 and 5-10 recite no additional elements. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites the same additional elements as claim 1 above. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, the analysis will not be repeated.
Claims 12-13 and 15-20 recite no additional elements. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? No.
As discussed in Step 2A Prong two, the additional steps/elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In addition, regarding claim 1 and claim 11, the additional element “an exoskeleton” is well known in the art. See present specification “A conventional exoskeleton is a wearable robot developed to assist a person’s muscular strength or help to generate greater power” [specification pg. 1 lines 19-20]. Accordingly, this additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Since the additional limitations do not provide improvements to any other technical field, applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of the respiratory therapy apparatus, device, sensor unit, or processor to a different state, nor applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, they do not integrate the Judicial Exception into practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lerner (US 2019/0344433), as best understood.
Regarding claim 1, Lerner discloses a method of evaluating control logic of an exoskeleton (Fig. 10 method 106 of defining a musculoskeletal model to design assistive device, including computer generation [0097]), the method comprising the steps of:
(a) acquiring characteristic data of a human model (Fig. 10 step 108 “collect biomechanical data”; including [0072] acquired data may include step/stride length, posture position, etc. and [0097] a measurement of muscle activity through electromyography, neuromuscular assessment device, etc.);
(b) acquiring characteristic data of the exoskeleton (Fig. 10 step 108 “collect biomechanical data”; exoskeleton includes sensors such as 74 measuring joint angle, and including [0098] data collected with individual wearing the exoskeleton meaning gait and motion of the exoskeleton is captured);
(c) verifying a controllability that represents whether control of a target body motion is performable based on the characteristic data of the human model and the characteristic data of the exoskeleton (see Fig. 10 steps 110, 112. [0099] In step 110, the collected data is developed to the individual and in step 112, the deficits compared to other healthy individuals are analyzed, determining what is performable by the individual);
(d) performing the target body motion based on a verification result of the controllability to acquire simulation data (see Fig. 10 step 114 creating a predictive simulation to model the effects of exoskeleton assistance such as forecast of individual gait [0100]); and
(e) analyzing the simulation data to evaluate a performance of the control logic (see Fig. 10 step 116 where the predictions of step 114 are implemented, followed by monitoring in step 118 to evaluate if the simulation data correctly assisted the individual [0101-0102]),
wherein the step (c) includes:
modeling an integrated system of the exoskeleton and the human model to derive a state space equation (In step 118 “monitor movement” [0102] “the movement of an individual may be monitored to determine if appropriate assistance is being provided”. And, [0103] the monitoring may be done over time to increase/decrease need. All models would be equated according to the variable of time); and
determining controllability and observability in an available range of the exoskeleton and the human model through the state space equation ([0103] user may improve mobility or strength over time, thus needing less assistance over time. Accordingly, controller changes the level of assistance in at least one data point).
Regarding claim 2, Lerner discloses the characteristic data of the human model includes at least one of a joint range of motion ([0097] “ one or more of wearable sensors (joint encoders for angle measurement)”), a maximum muscle strength, and a minimum muscle strength ([0097] “a measurement device for monitoring muscle activity (electromyography, EMG, wireless electromyography electrodes)”).
Regarding claim 3, Lerner discloses the characteristic data of the exoskeleton includes at least one of a type of sensor (torque sensor 74), and information about a target body motion ([0098] data collected with individual wearing the exoskeleton meaning gait and motion of the exoskeleton is captured).
Regarding claim 5, Lerner discloses the step (d) includes:
Receiving the control logic (see Fig. 10 steps 110, 112 information received at step 114 for “create” step);
performing a simulation corresponding to the target body motion based on the control logic (step 114 creates a predictive simulation based on data from 108-112 corresponding to the gait motion [0100]); and
acquiring interaction information between the human model and the exoskeleton as the simulation is performed ([0101] predictive simulation in step 114 provides optimized design parameters, which is information found between the human and exoskeleton models).
Regarding claim 6, Lerner discloses the acquiring of the interaction information between the human model and the exoskeleton includes acquiring data over time of a state variable related to an interaction that occurs when the simulation is performed ([0102] step 118 of monitoring movement includes sensors monitoring the exoskeleton; and [0103] the user may need more/less assistance over time where real time sensor measurements as collected in step 118 effect changes to the system).
Regarding claim 7, Lerner discloses the step (e) includes performing at least one of a motion delay analysis ([0017] “ the measurement device is a motion capture camera configured to detect movement and force gait analysis” occurs during step 118 Fig. 10. Additionally, Claim 5 discusses comparing the individual’s gait deficits to the results of individualized simulations such as in Fig. 11 method 120) based on an interaction between the human model and the exoskeleton occurring when a simulation is performed.
Regarding claim 9, Lerner discloses the motion delay analysis is an operation of evaluating whether the target body motion is delayed as much as a delay intended by a user (Rejection to claim 7 above, where Claim 5 and method 120 [executed by processor 80 like method 106] discusses comparing the individual’s gait deficits to the results of individualized simulations. A deficit can include not improving by at least a threshold level [0108]).
Regarding claim 11, Lerner discloses an apparatus for evaluating control logic of an exoskeleton (Fig. 10 method 106 of defining a musculoskeletal model to design assistive device, including computer generation [0097]), the apparatus comprising:
a memory (control unit 12 with memory 82); and
a processor (control unit 12 with processor 80; processes method such as described in Fig. 10 [0074]);
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire characteristic data of a human model (Fig. 10 step 108 “collect biomechanical data”; including [0072] acquired data may include step/stride length, posture position, etc. and [0097] a measurement of muscle activity through electromyography, neuromuscular assessment device, etc.);
acquire characteristic data of the exoskeleton (Fig. 10 step 108 “collect biomechanical data”; exoskeleton includes sensors such as 74 measuring joint angle, and including [0098] data collected with individual wearing the exoskeleton meaning gait and motion of the exoskeleton is captured);
verify a controllability that represents whether control of a target body motion is performable based on the characteristic data of the human model and the characteristic data of the exoskeleton (see Fig. 10 steps 110, 112. [0099] In step 110, the collected data is developed to the individual and in step 112, the deficits compared to other healthy individuals are analyzed, determining what is performable by the individual);
perform the target body motion based on a verification result of the controllability to acquire simulation data (see Fig. 10 step 114 creating a predictive simulation to model the effects of exoskeleton assistance such as forecast of individual gait [0100]); and
analyze the simulation data to evaluate a performance of the control logic (see Fig. 10 step 116 where the predictions of step 114 are implemented, followed by monitoring in step 118 to evaluate if the simulation data correctly assisted the individual [0101-0102]),
wherein the verifying of the controllability includes:
modeling an integrated system of the exoskeleton and the human model to derive a state space equation (In step 118 “monitor movement” [0102] “the movement of an individual may be monitored to determine if appropriate assistance is being provided”. And, [0103] the monitoring may be done over time to increase/decrease need. All models would be equated according to the variable of time); and
determining controllability and observability in an available range of the exoskeleton and the human model through the state space equation ([0103] user may improve mobility or strength over time, thus needing less assistance over time. Accordingly, controller changes the level of assistance in at least one data point).
Regarding claim 12, Lerner discloses the characteristic data of the human model includes at least one of a joint range of motion ([0097] “ one or more of wearable sensors (joint encoders for angle measurement)”), a maximum muscle strength, and a minimum muscle strength ([0097] “a measurement device for monitoring muscle activity (electromyography, EMG, wireless electromyography electrodes)”).
Regarding claim 13, Lerner discloses the characteristic data of the exoskeleton includes at least one of a type of sensor (torque sensor 74), and information about the target body motion ([0098] data collected with individual wearing the exoskeleton meaning gait and motion of the exoskeleton is captured).
Regarding claim 15, Lerner discloses the performing of the target body motion includes:
receiving the control logic (see Fig. 10 steps 110, 112 information received at step 114 for “create” step);
performing a simulation corresponding to the target body motion based on the control logic (step 114 creates a predictive simulation based on data from 108-112 corresponding to the gait motion [0100]); and
acquiring interaction information between the human model and the exoskeleton as the simulation is performed ([0101] predictive simulation in step 114 provides optimized design parameters, which is information found between the human and exoskeleton models).
Regarding claim 16, Lerner discloses acquiring of the interaction information between the human model and the exoskeleton includes acquiring data over time of a state variable related to an interaction that occurs when the simulation is performed ([0102] step 118 of monitoring movement includes sensors monitoring the exoskeleton; and [0103] the user may need more/less assistance over time where real time sensor measurements as collected in step 118 effect changes to the system).
Regarding claim 17, Lerner discloses analyzing of the simulation data includes performing at least one of a motion delay analysis ([0017] “ the measurement device is a motion capture camera configured to detect movement and force gait analysis” occurs during step 118 Fig. 10. Additionally, Claim 5 discusses comparing the individual’s gait deficits to the results of individualized simulations such as in Fig. 11 method 120) based on an interaction between the human model and the exoskeleton occurring when a simulation is performed.
Regarding claim 19, Lerner discloses the motion delay analysis is an operation of evaluating whether the target body motion is delayed as much as a delay intended by a user (Rejection to claim 17 above, where Claim 5 and method 120 [executed by processor 80 like method 106] discusses comparing the individual’s gait deficits to the results of individualized simulations. A deficit can include not improving by at least a threshold level [0108]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-8, 10, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dariush et al. (US 2005/0102111; hereinafter “Dariush”), as best understood.
Regarding claim 7, Lerner discloses a form of simulation torque control (see Lerner [0084] “The current state is then used to determine the timing of the actuator 30 activation, in order to provide torque assistance to the user with appropriate timing and intensity”), but is silent as to the step (e) includes performing at least one of a joint trajectory analysis and a motion torque analysis based on an interaction between the human model and the exoskeleton occurring when a simulation is performed. However, Dariush teaches performing at least one of a motion torque analysis based on an interaction between the human model (see Dariush Fig. 3 “human sensorimotor control system” to physical system human) and the exoskeleton (see Dariush Fig. 3 “exoskeleton actuation, sensing, and control system” to physical exoskeleton) occurring when a simulation is performed (see Dariush Fig. 3 [0091] The control system takes a desired assist torque that is calculated using the controller and attempts to generate a desired torque at the output; see Fig. 6 flowchart of torque analysis). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control logic of Lerner with the motion torque analysis as taught by Dariush so as to involve another analysis to the human model and exoskeleton system, including a torque analysis, to further modeling of more variable to increase depth of the system capabilities.
Additionally, Dariush teaches performing at least one of a joint trajectory analysis based on an interaction between the human model and the exoskeleton (see Dariush Claim 1 “A simulation system for a combined musculoskeletal and augmentation device system”) occurring when a simulation is performed (see Dariush [0080-0083] simulations of the system track the reference trajectory, Fig. 7. The desired and simulated joint trajectories of the musculoskeletal and augmentation device are monitored). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control logic of Lerner with the joint trajectory monitoring and analysis as taught by Dariush so as to involve another analysis to the human model and exoskeleton system, including a joint trajectory analysis, to further modeling of more variable to increase depth of the system capabilities.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lerner discloses an operation of comparing an acquired joint trajectory graph with a predetermined value to evaluate whether the acquired joint trajectory graph maintains a certain deviation from a previously determined trajectory graph and whether the acquired joint trajectory graph smoothly continues (see Dariush Fig. 7 “desired” and “simulated” joint trajectories, monitoring if the two follow the same path or deviate from each other).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lerner discloses the motion torque analysis is an operation of evaluating whether a torque of acquired torque information is constant (see Dariush Fig. 3 and 6 iterative calculation to determine the torque is outputting a constant value if the same conditions exist) and whether the acquired torque information exceeds a specific limit value (see Dariush Fig. 6 controller flow chart step S620 where the computed desired torque must overcome a value corresponding to the gravitational forces).
Regarding claim 17, Lerner discloses a form of simulation torque control (see Lerner [0084] “The current state is then used to determine the timing of the actuator 30 activation, in order to provide torque assistance to the user with appropriate timing and intensity”), but is silent as to the analyzing of the simulation data includes performing at least one of a joint trajectory analysis and a motion torque analysis based on an interaction between the human model and the exoskeleton occurring when a simulation is performed. However, Dariush teaches performing at least one of a motion torque analysis based on an interaction between the human model (see Dariush Fig. 3 “human sensorimotor control system” to physical system human) and the exoskeleton (see Dariush Fig. 3 “exoskeleton actuation, sensing, and control system” to physical exoskeleton) occurring when a simulation is performed (see Dariush Fig. 3 [0091] The control system takes a desired assist torque that is calculated using the controller and attempts to generate a desired torque at the output; see Fig. 6 flowchart of torque analysis). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control logic of Lerner with the motion torque analysis as taught by Dariush so as to involve another analysis to the human model and exoskeleton system, including a torque analysis, to further modeling of more variable to increase depth of the system capabilities.
Additionally, Dariush teaches performing at least one of a joint trajectory analysis based on an interaction between the human model and the exoskeleton (see Dariush Claim 1 “A simulation system for a combined musculoskeletal and augmentation device system”) occurring when a simulation is performed (see Dariush [0080-0083] simulations of the system track the reference trajectory, Fig. 7. The desired and simulated joint trajectories of the musculoskeletal and augmentation device are monitored). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control logic of Lerner with the joint trajectory monitoring and analysis as taught by Dariush so as to involve another analysis to the human model and exoskeleton system, including a joint trajectory analysis, to further modeling of more variable to increase depth of the system capabilities.
Regarding claim 18, modified Lerner discloses an operation of comparing an acquired joint trajectory graph with a predetermined value to evaluate whether the acquired joint trajectory graph maintains a certain deviation from a previously determined trajectory graph and whether the acquired joint trajectory graph smoothly continues (see Dariush Fig. 7 “desired” and “simulated” joint trajectories, monitoring if the two follow the same path or deviate from each other).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lerner discloses the motion torque analysis is an operation of evaluating whether a torque of acquired torque information is constant (see Dariush Fig. 3 and 6 iterative calculation to determine the torque is outputting a constant value if the same conditions exist) and whether the acquired torque information exceeds a specific limit value (see Dariush Fig. 6 controller flow chart step S620 where the computed desired torque must overcome a value corresponding to the gravitational forces).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 1-2 of the remarks, that the rejection of the claims under 112(a) is improper because “The methodology of deriving a state-space equation and analyzing a coupled system therewith, as recited in the independent claims, is a well-established, standard technique in the field of control engineering.” However, Examiner disagrees because the disclosure as a whole fails to provide any form of equation or “integrated model” including that equation that distinguishes the invention as enabled. The generic use of “a state space equation” for a set of data does not provide how the control logic of an exoskeleton is evaluated according to a distinct invention, as is claimed. Thus, the rejection still stands.
Applicant argues, on pages 2-4 of the remarks, that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is improper. Applicant argues against Step 2A, Prong I that “The derivation of state-space equations is fundamentally tied to the structural and physical parameters of the exoskeleton and human models, removing the claims from pure mental activity.” However, the modeling and determining steps from previous claim 4, now in amended claim 1, are acts performable by the human mind encompassing mathematical calculations and relationships. Applicant argues against Step 2A, Prong II that the invention is for “improving the safety and efficiency of exoskeleton control logic simulation by performing a mathematical pre-validation of system controllability,” and thus the claims are patent-eligible. However, Examiner disagrees because none of the reasons listed in the remarks are translated into claim language. There is no claim link as to how the abstract idea integrates into the structure or how the structure is affected. Applicant argues against Step 2B, stating “the amended claims provides "significantly more" than a generic computer system”. However, Examiner disagrees because there is no integration back to the exoskeleton system as to how the computer system steps effect the exoskeleton system movement. Therefore, the rejection still stands.
Applicant argues, on pages 4-5 of the remarks, that in Lerner “the system merely runs predictive simulations based on user data to adjust or optimize control parameters” and that “Lerner does not disclose a method of pre-emptively verifying the controllability of a human-exoskeleton system based on state-space equations prior to simulation”. However, Examiner disagrees because Lerner is data model that changes over time, as a state space model. The controller of Lerner changes over time according to updated data, via the processor running iterative cycles of instruction in logic 84 (see Lerner). All of Fig. 10 is a process that takes place within the simulation, prior to a real-world motion. Thus, the rejection still stands.
Applicant argues, on pages 6-7 of the remarks, that “Dariush completely fails to disclose or teach the feature regarding: "wherein the step (c) includes: modeling an integrated system of the exoskeleton and the human model to derive a state space equation; and determining controllability and observability in an available range of the exoskeleton and the human model through the state space equation" (emphasis added) recited in independent Claims 1 and 11”. However, Examiner disagrees because Dariush is not used to teach the limitation argued in the remarks. Dariush is used to teach forms of analysis of data from step (e). Therefore, the rejection still stands.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tim Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights