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 .
Claims 1-20, filed 7/5/23, are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 15 in [0036] and 145 and 167 in [0054]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“his arrangement” in [0036], line 8 is suggested to be changed to --this arrangement-- to correct a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“a rechargeable energy storage device configured to…” in claim 9 (corresponding structure is a lithium-ion battery pack [0021]).
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 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 1-3, 8, 10-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai et al. (2016/0331624) in view of Gaskell et al. (2022/0361770) and Smith et al. (11,833,676).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 1 Sankai discloses a biometric sensor system, comprising: a first biometric subassembly (right knee joint angle sensor [0172-0175]) configured to mount to the knee, but is silent regarding a first biometric subassembly configured to mount to an upper-extremity portion of a first appendage of a user, the first biometric subassembly including a first biometric sensor operable to monitor a first biometric characteristic of the upper-extremity portion of the first appendage and output a first sensor signal indicative thereof; a second biometric subassembly configured to mount to a lower-extremity portion of the first appendage of the user, the second biometric subassembly including a second biometric sensor operable to monitor a second biometric characteristic of the lower-extremity portion of the first appendage and output a second sensor signal indicative thereof. However, in fig. 3 Gaskell teaches a first biometric subassembly 10a configured to mount to an upper-extremity portion of a first appendage of a user (attached at the right thigh [0041]), the first biometric subassembly including a first biometric sensor operable to monitor a first biometric characteristic of the upper-extremity portion of the first appendage (roll, pitch and yaw angles [0051]) and output a first sensor signal indicative thereof (the first sensor signals are output to metrics algorithm unit 548 [0051] Fig. 5); a second biometric subassembly 10b configured to mount to a lower-extremity portion of the first appendage of the user (attached at the right calf [0041]), the second biometric subassembly including a second biometric sensor operable to monitor a second biometric characteristic of the lower-extremity portion of the first appendage (roll, pitch and yaw angles [0051]) and output a second sensor signal indicative thereof (the second sensor signals are output to metrics algorithm unit 548 [0051] Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sankai’s first biometric subassembly on the left and right side of the user and thigh straps 81 with first and second biometric subassemblies, as taught by Gaskell, for the purpose of providing alternate subassembly structures for the purpose of determining the knee angle of a user. The modified Sankai discloses a system central processing unit (CPU) (18a [0085] Sankai) configured to mount onto the user ([0085] Sankai) and communicate with the first and second biometric subassemblies (0172] Sankai, [0050] Gaskell), the system CPU being programmed to: receive the first sensor signal from the first biometric sensor and the second sensor signal from the second biometric sensor (0172] Sankai, [0050] Gaskell); calculate a first biometric parameter (knee joint angle [0050] Gaskell) of the first appendage using the first and second biometric characteristics indicated by the first and second sensor signals received from the first and second biometric sensors ([0050] Gaskell); and transmit a command signal to a subsystem (motor [0172] Sankai) to execute a control operation based on the calculated first biometric parameter ([0172] Sankai). The modified Sankai is silent regarding that the first and second sensor signals are output wirelessly and that the CPU communicates wirelessly with the first and second biometric subassemblies. However, Smith teaches wireless communication between a controller and sensors (Col. 18, ll. 8-14). 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 modified Sankai’s signal communication with wireless communication between the CPU and the first and second biometric subassemblies, as taught by Smith, for the purpose of providing alternate communication for the purpose of outputting signals to the CPU for operation.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Sankai discloses that the first biometric characteristic is a first relative angle (roll, pitch and yaw angles of the thigh [0051] Gaskell), the second biometric characteristic is a second relative angle (roll, pitch and yaw angles of the calf [0051] Gaskell), and the first biometric parameter of the first appendage is a joint angle of a joint of the first appendage (knee joint angle [0050] Gaskell).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Sankai discloses that the joint angle is calculated as an absolute value of a mathematical difference between the first and second relative angles ([0064-0066] Gaskell).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Sankai discloses that the first biometric sensor of the first biometric subassembly includes a biometric sensor motion module operable to monitor one or more dynamic characteristics of the first appendage (motion sensing devices [0040] Gaskell) and a biometric sensor module operable to monitor one or more physiological characteristics of the first appendage (temperature sensor [0044] Gaskell).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Sankai discloses that a waist biometric subassembly configured to mount to a waist portion of the user ([0174] Sankai), the waist biometric subassembly including a biometric sensor operable to monitor a biometric characteristic of the waist portion of the user (angle sensor of the hip frame relative to the thigh frame [0174] Sankai) and wirelessly output a sensor signal indicative thereof to the system CPU (Col. 18, ll. 8-14 Smith).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Sankai discloses that a third biometric subassembly (10a on the left side of the user, Gaskell) configured to mount to an upper-extremity portion of a second appendage of the user (attached at the left thigh [0041] , Gaskell), the third biometric subassembly including a third biometric sensor operable to monitor a third biometric characteristic of the upper-extremity portion of the second appendage (roll, pitch and yaw angles [0051] , Gaskell) and wirelessly (Col. 18, ll. 8-14 Smith) output a third sensor signal indicative thereof to the system CPU (the third sensor signals are output to metrics algorithm unit 548 [0051] Fig. 5, Gaskell); a fourth biometric subassembly (10b on the left side of the user, Gaskell) configured to mount to a lower-extremity portion of the first appendage of the user (attached at the left calf [0041], Gaskell), the fourth biometric subassembly including a fourth biometric sensor operable to monitor a fourth biometric characteristic of the lower-extremity portion of the second appendage (roll, pitch and yaw angles [0051] , Gaskell) and wirelessly (Col. 18, ll. 8-14 Smith) output a fourth sensor signal indicative thereof to the system CPU (the second sensor signals are output to metrics algorithm unit 548 [0051] Fig. 5, Gaskell)
Regarding claim 12, the modified Sankai discloses that the first biometric subassembly includes a first strap (81 on the right thigh, Sankai) mounting thereto the first biometric sensor (10a Gaskell), the second biometric subassembly includes a second strap (81 on the right calf, Sankai) mounting thereto the second biometric sensor (10b Gaskell), the first strap being shaped and sized to immovably mount onto the upper-extremity portion of the first appendage (Fig. 15 Sankai), and the second strap being shaped and sized to immovably mount onto the lower-extremity portion (Fig. 15 Sankai).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Sankai discloses that the first appendage is an arm or a leg (leg, Sankai), the upper-extremity portion to which mounts the first biometric subassembly includes a bicep portion of the arm or a thigh portion of the leg (thigh, Gaskell), and the lower-extremity portion to which mounts the second biometric subassembly includes a forearm portion of the arm or a tibia portion of the leg (tibia portion, Gaskell).
Regarding claim 15, in fig. 1 Sankai discloses a method of operating a biometric sensor system for a user with multiple appendages [0172-0175], the method comprising: mounting a first biometric subassembly (right knee joint angle sensor [0172-0175]) to a knee of the user, but is silent regarding a first biometric subassembly mounted to an upper-extremity portion of a first appendage of the user appendages, the first biometric subassembly including a first biometric sensor operable to monitor a first biometric characteristic of the upper-extremity portion of the first appendage and output a first sensor signal indicative thereof; mounting a second biometric subassembly to a lower-extremity portion of the first appendage, the second biometric subassembly including a second biometric sensor operable to monitor a second biometric characteristic of the lower-extremity portion of the first appendage and output a second sensor signal indicative thereof. However, in fig. 3 Gaskell teaches mounting a first biometric subassembly 10a to an upper-extremity portion of a first appendage of a user appendages (attached at the right thigh [0041]), the first biometric subassembly including a first biometric sensor operable to monitor a first biometric characteristic of the upper-extremity portion of the first appendage (roll, pitch and yaw angles [0051]) and output a first sensor signal indicative thereof (the first sensor signals are output to metrics algorithm unit 548 [0051] Fig. 5); mounting a second biometric subassembly 10b to a lower-extremity portion of the first appendage (attached at the right calf [0041]), the second biometric subassembly including a second biometric sensor operable to monitor a second biometric characteristic of the lower-extremity portion of the first appendage (roll, pitch and yaw angles [0051]) and output a second sensor signal indicative thereof (the second sensor signals are output to metrics algorithm unit 548 [0051] Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sankai’s first biometric subassembly on the left and right side of the user and thigh straps 81 with first and second biometric subassemblies, as taught by Gaskell, for the purpose of providing alternate subassembly structures for the purpose of determining the knee angle of a user. The modified Sankai discloses mounting a system central processing unit (CPU) (18a [0085] Sankai) onto the user ([0085] Sankai) receiving, via the system CPU, the first sensor signal from the first biometric sensor and the second sensor signal from the second biometric sensor (0172] Sankai, [0050] Gaskell); calculating, via the system CPU, a first biometric parameter (knee joint angle [0050] Gaskell) of the first appendage using the first and second biometric characteristics indicated by the first and second sensor signals received from the first and second biometric sensors ([0050] Gaskell); and transmitting, via the system CPU to a subsystem (motor [0172] Sankai), a command signal to execute a control operation based on the calculated first biometric parameter ([0172] Sankai). The modified Sankai is silent regarding that the first and second sensor signals are output wirelessly. However, Smith teaches wireless communication between a controller and sensors (Col. 18, ll. 8-14). 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 modified Sankai’s signal communication with wireless communication between the CPU and the first and second biometric subassemblies, as taught by Smith, for the purpose of providing alternate communication for the purpose of outputting signals to the CPU for operation.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Sankai discloses that the first biometric characteristic is a first relative angle (roll, pitch and yaw angles of the thigh [0051] Gaskell), the second biometric characteristic is a second relative angle (roll, pitch and yaw angles of the calf [0051] Gaskell), and the first biometric parameter of the first appendage is a joint angle of a joint of the first appendage (knee joint angle [0050] Gaskell).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Sankai discloses that the joint angle is calculated as an absolute value of a mathematical difference between the first and second relative angles ([0064-0066] Gaskell).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai, Gaskell and Smith, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Horst et al. (9,474,673).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Sankai is silent regarding that the system CPU is further programmed to: receive a selection of a desired operating mode for the subsystem, the desired operating mode being selected from a group comprising an active mode and a passive mode; and responsive to the desired operating mode being the active mode, transmit a power-on command signal to the subsystem to transition to an active operating state. However, Horst teaches a system CPU that is programmed to: receive a selection of a desired operating mode for the subsystem (passive, active and free movement modes Col. 1, ll. 53-65), the desired operating mode being selected from a group comprising an active mode and a passive mode (passive, active and free movement modes Col. 1, ll. 53-65); and responsive to the desired operating mode being the active mode, transmit a power-on command signal to the subsystem to transition to an active operating state (a power-on command signal must be sent in order to motor Col. 1, ll. 53-65). 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 modified Sankai’s system with the addition of active and passive modes, as taught by Horst, for the purpose of providing varying modes of support depending on the particular user’s needs.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai, Gaskell and Smith, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Yagi et al. (2014/0212243).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Sankai discloses that the subsystem includes an electric motor [0097], but is silent regarding the subsystem includes a position encoder, and a motor driver, and wherein the control operation includes the position encoder determining a current position of the electric motor and the motor driver changing the current position of the electric motor based on the calculated first biometric parameter. However, Yagi teaches a subsystem that includes an electric motor 1001, a position encoder [0387], and a motor driver (1133,1142), and wherein the control operation includes the position encoder determining a current position of the electric motor [0387] and the motor driver changing the current position of the electric motor based on the calculated first biometric parameter [0306][0387-0388]. 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 modified Sankai’s electric motor with the addition of a position encoder and motor drive, as taught by Yagi, for the purpose of providing an alternate subsystem structure having the predictable results of moving the electric motor to assist the user.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Sankai a rechargeable energy storage device configured to mount onto the user and selectively power the system CPU. However, Yagi teaches a rechargeable energy storage device configured to mount onto the user and selectively power the system CPU [0197]. 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 modified Sankai’s CPU with the addition of a rechargeable battery, as taught by Yagi, for the purpose of providing a rechargeable power source to the CPU.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai, Gaskell, Smith and Yagi, as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Quinn et al. (2018/0116828).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Sankai is silent regarding that the control operation further includes the motor driver moving the electric motor to an omega set point via systematically repeating a position convergence loop until a position convergence is achieved between the current position of the electric motor and the omega set point. However, Quinn teaches a control operation further includes the motor driver moving the electric motor to an omega set point via systematically repeating a position convergence loop until a position convergence is achieved between the current position of the electric motor and the omega set point [0112]. 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 modified Sankai’s control operation with systematically repeating a position convergence loop, as taught by Quinn, for the purpose of providing precise positioning of the motor.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai, Gaskell, Smith and Yagi, as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Smith et al. (2019/0262214).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Sankai is silent regarding that the subsystem further includes a torque-transmitting clutch mechanism drivingly connected to the electric motor, and wherein the control operation further includes activating the clutch mechanism to transmit torque received from the electric motor. However, Smith ‘214 teaches a subsystem further includes a torque-transmitting clutch mechanism drivingly connected to the electric motor [0036], and wherein the control operation further includes activating the clutch mechanism to transmit torque received from the electric motor [0039]. 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 modified Sankai’s subsystem with a motor and clutch, as taught by Smith ‘214, for the purpose of allowing for times of free rotation of the joint ([0036] Smith ‘214).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai et al. (2016/0331624) in view of Gaskell et al. (2022/0361770), Smith et al. (11,833,676) and Hasuo (2019/0193286).
Regarding claim 14, in fig. 1 Sankai discloses an exoskeleton system comprising: an exoskeleton frame (11 and 12) with a joint assembly (at least 14R, 14L and 15, 81 on both sides) configured to attach to an appendage of a user; a motor unit [0097] attached to the exoskeleton frame and selectively operable to transmit a motor torque to the joint assembly to thereby assist with movement of the appendage of the user [0097]; a biometric sensor system, comprising: a first biometric subassembly (right knee joint angle sensor [0172-0175]) configured to mount to the knee, but is silent regarding a first biometric subassembly configured to mount to an upper-extremity portion of a first appendage and including a first biometric sensor operable to monitor a first biometric characteristic of the upper-extremity portion of the first appendage and output a first sensor signal indicative thereof; a second biometric subassembly configured to mount to a lower-extremity portion of the first appendage and including a second biometric sensor operable to monitor a second biometric characteristic of the lower-extremity portion of the first appendage and output a second sensor signal indicative thereof. However, in fig. 3 Gaskell teaches a first biometric subassembly 10a configured to mount to an upper-extremity portion of a first appendage (attached at the right thigh [0041]) and including a first biometric sensor operable to monitor a first biometric characteristic of the upper-extremity portion of the first appendage (roll, pitch and yaw angles [0051]) and output a first sensor signal indicative thereof (the first sensor signals are output to metrics algorithm unit 548 [0051] Fig. 5); a second biometric subassembly 10b configured to mount to a lower-extremity portion of the first appendage (attached at the right calf [0041]) and including a second biometric sensor operable to monitor a second biometric characteristic of the lower-extremity portion of the first appendage (roll, pitch and yaw angles [0051]) and output a second sensor signal indicative thereof (the second sensor signals are output to metrics algorithm unit 548 [0051] Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sankai’s first biometric subassembly on the left and right side of the user and thigh straps 81 with first and second biometric subassemblies, as taught by Gaskell, for the purpose of providing alternate subassembly structures for the purpose of determining the knee angle of a user. The modified Sankai discloses a system central processing unit (CPU) (18a [0085] Sankai) configured to mount onto the user ([0085] Sankai) and communicate with the first and second biometric subassemblies (0172] Sankai, [0050] Gaskell), the system CPU being programmed to: receive the first sensor signal from the first biometric sensor and the second sensor signal from the second biometric sensor (0172] Sankai, [0050] Gaskell); calculate a first biometric parameter (knee joint angle [0050] Gaskell) of the first appendage using the first and second biometric characteristics indicated by the first and second sensor signals received from the first and second biometric sensors ([0050] Gaskell); and transmit a command signal to a subsystem (motor [0172] Sankai) to execute a control operation based on the calculated first biometric parameter ([0172] Sankai). The modified Sankai is silent regarding that the first and second sensor signals are output wirelessly and that the CPU communicates wirelessly with the first and second biometric subassemblies. However, Smith teaches wireless communication between a controller and sensors (Col. 18, ll. 8-14). 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 modified Sankai’s signal communication with wireless communication between the CPU and the first and second biometric subassemblies, as taught by Smith, for the purpose of providing alternate communication for the purpose of outputting signals to the CPU for operation. The modified Sankai is silent regarding that the motor unit is removably attached. However, Hasuo teaches a motor unit that is removably attached [0042]. 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 modified Sankai’s motor unit with a removable motor unit, as taught by Hasuo, for the purpose of maintaining the robot ([0041] Hasuo).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai, Gaskell and Smith, as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Yagi et al. (2014/0212243).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Sankai discloses that the subsystem includes an electric motor [0097], but is silent regarding the subsystem includes a position encoder, and a motor driver, and wherein the control operation includes the position encoder determining a current position of the electric motor and the motor driver changing the current position of the electric motor based on the calculated first biometric parameter. However, Yagi teaches a subsystem that includes an electric motor 1001, a position encoder [0387], and a motor driver (1133,1142), and wherein the control operation includes the position encoder determining a current position of the electric motor [0387] and the motor driver changing the current position of the electric motor based on the calculated first biometric parameter [0306][0387-0388]. 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 modified Sankai’s electric motor with the addition of a position encoder and motor drive, as taught by Yagi, for the purpose of providing an alternate subsystem structure having the predictable results of moving the electric motor to assist the user.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai, Gaskell, Smith and Yagi, as applied to claim 18 above, in further view of Quinn et al. (2018/0116828).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Sankai is silent regarding that the control operation further includes the motor driver moving the electric motor to an omega set point via systematically repeating a position convergence loop until a position convergence is achieved between the current position of the electric motor and the omega set point. However, Quinn teaches a control operation further includes the motor driver moving the electric motor to an omega set point via systematically repeating a position convergence loop until a position convergence is achieved between the current position of the electric motor and the omega set point [0112]. 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 modified Sankai’s control operation with systematically repeating a position convergence loop, as taught by Quinn, for the purpose of providing precise positioning of the motor.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai, Gaskell, Smith and Yagi, as applied to claim 18 above, in further view of Smith et al. (2019/0262214).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Sankai is silent regarding that the subsystem further includes a torque-transmitting clutch mechanism drivingly connected to the electric motor, and wherein the control operation further includes activating the clutch mechanism to transmit torque received from the electric motor. However, Smith ‘214 teaches a subsystem further includes a torque-transmitting clutch mechanism drivingly connected to the electric motor [0036], and wherein the control operation further includes activating the clutch mechanism to transmit torque received from the electric motor [0039]. 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 modified Sankai’s subsystem with a motor and clutch, as taught by Smith ‘214, for the purpose of allowing for times of free rotation of the joint ([0036] Smith ‘214).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Angold et al. ((2007/0056592) directed towards a semi-powered lower-extremity exoskeleton, Rokosz et al. (2018/0235830) directed towards measuring knee abduction and adduction, Walsh et al. (2017/0027735) directed towards an orthopedic device and Galiana Bujanda et al. (2021/0007874) directed towards a lift assisting device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Timothy 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights