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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 – 16 & 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. (US 10426688 B2).
Regarding claim 15, An operation method of a wearable device, the operation method comprising: performing a test to determine whether the wearable device is properly worn on a user's body (Column 4, lines 56 – 62); and
driving the wearable device in response to determining that the test is passed (Column 5, line 7 – 22), wherein the performing the test comprises:
generating test torque through a driving module comprising a motor 145 & 155 and/or circuitry (Column , lines 1 - 19);
obtaining sensor data comprising a motion value of a leg driving frame 145 of the wearable device after the test torque is generated (Column 8, lines 34 – 51); and
determining whether the test is passed based on the sensor data (Column 8, lines 52 – 58 & Column 9, lines 3 – 7 / Column 9 lines 8 – 50).
Regarding claim 16, Robertson discloses the operation method as claimed in claim 15.
Robertson discloses wherein the performing the test comprises:
obtaining a motion value of the waist support frame 105 after the test torque is generated (Claim 1 discloses the data being taken form the sensor which could be the hip sensor 145 that is connected to the waist support frame 105); and
determine whether the test is passed based on the obtained motion value of the waist support frame 105 (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Robertson discloses the operation method as claimed in claim 17.
Robertson discloses wherein the generating the test torque comprises: generating the test torque (as claimed in claim 15) such that at least one of a first leg driving frame 145 (Note: the examiner considers this to be found on the right thigh of the user) of the wearable device configured to relay torque of the driving module to the user's right leg 140 and a second leg driving frame 145 (Note: the examiner considers this to be found on the left thigh of the user) of the wearable device configured to relay the torque of the driving module to the user's left leg moves in a front and/or rear direction of the wearable device. (Column 6, lines 50 – 67)
Regarding claim 19, Robertson discloses the operation method as claimed in claim 17.
Robertson discloses wherein the generating the test torque comprises: generating the test torque (as claimed in claim 15) such that at least one of a first leg driving frame 145 (Note: the examiner considers this to be found on the right thigh of the user) of the wearable device configured to relay torque of the driving module to the user's right leg 140 and a second leg driving frame 145 (Note: the examiner considers this to be found on the left thigh of the user) of the wearable device configured to relay the torque of the driving module to the user's left leg moves in a front and rear direction of the wearable device. (Column 6, lines 50 – 67)
Regarding claim 20, Robertson discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the operation method of claim 15. (Column 10, lines 21 – 65)
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20190083002 A1), Ha et al. (US 20160022440 A1) & Robertson et al. (US 10426688 B2).
Regarding claim 1, A wearable device 100 configured to be worn on a user's body (Column 6, lines 55 – 56), the wearable device 100 comprising:
a driving module 110, comprising a motor and/or circuitry, configured to generate torque to be applied to the user's body (Paragraph 0073 - 0074);
a leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) configured to relay the generated torque to the user's leg (Paragraph 0082);
a sensor module (Paragraph 0079), comprising one or more sensors, configured to obtain sensor data comprising motion information regarding the leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) (Paragraph 0075 - 0079); and
a control module 140, comprising control circuitry (Paragraph 0086 – 0088), configured to control the wearable device based on the sensor data (Paragraph 0081, 0086 & 0125).
Jang does not disclose a thigh fastener connected to the leg driving frame and configured to connect the leg driving frame to the user's leg.
Ha discloses a thigh fastener connected to the leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) and configured to connect the leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) to the user's leg. (Paragraph 0076)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify to include a thigh fastener connected to the leg driving frame and configured to connect the leg driving frame to the user's leg as it would apply power received from the leg driving frame to the thigh of the user. (Paragraph 0076)
Modified Jang does not disclose wherein: the control module is further configured to: perform a test to determine whether the wearable device is properly worn on the user's leg, and in the test, control the driving module to generate test torque such that the leg driving frame moves in a front or rear direction of the wearable device and determine whether the test is passed based on the sensor data obtained after the test torque is generated.
Robertson discloses performing a physical test of the sequence using the exoskeleton. Performing the physical test includes causing the exoskeleton to move and receiving data from a sensor of the exoskeleton. (Claim 1 & 2)
Robertson does not expressly disclose wherein: the control module is further configured to: perform a test to determine whether the wearable device is properly worn on the user's leg, and in the test, control the driving module to generate test torque such that the leg driving frame moves in a front or rear direction of the wearable device and determine whether the test is passed based on the sensor data obtained after the test torque is generated.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify to include wherein: the control module performs a test to determine whether the wearable device is properly worn on the user's leg, and in the test, control the driving module to generate test torque such that the leg driving frame moves in a front or rear direction of the wearable device and determine whether the test is passed based on the sensor data obtained after the test torque is generated as it would ensure the sequence is safe for the use of the user. (Column 5, line 7 – 22)
PNG
media_image1.png
513
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 2, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Jang does not expressly disclose further comprising a waist support frame configured to be worn proximate the user's waist.
However, an embodiment in Jang does disclose a waist support frame 12 configured to be worn proximate the user's waist. (Paragraph 0246)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jang to include a waist support frame configured to be worn proximate the user's waist as it would ensure the waist of the user is supported. (Paragraph 0246)
the control module 140 is further configured to determine whether the test is passed based on a motion value of the waist support frame 12 obtained after the test torque (Robertson) is generated (Paragraph 0017 & 0106 discloses one or more sensors detect the motion of the user and some are even found on the waist area of the user).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the leg driving frame comprises:
a first leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) (Note: the examiner considers this to be found on the right thigh of the user) configured to relay torque of the driving module to the user's right leg (Figure 1 discloses both sides of the device have the same parts / ); and
a second leg driving frame(see annotated Figure 2) (Note: the examiner considers this to be found on the left thigh of the user) configured to relay torque of the driving module to the user's left leg (Figure 1 discloses both sides of the device have the same parts).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 3.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the driving module 110 is further configured to generate the test torque (Robertson) such that at least one of the first leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) and the second leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) moves in a front and/or rear direction of the wearable device by control of the control module 140. (Paragraph 0082 &00108)
Regarding claim 5, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 3.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the driving module 110 is further configured to generate a test torque (Robertson) such that at least one of the first leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) and the second leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) moves back and forth between front and rear directions of the wearable device by control of the control module 140. (Paragraph 0108 – 0109)
Regarding claim 6, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 3.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the driving module is further configured to generate the test torque (Robertson) such that the first leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) and the second leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) move in the same direction (Note: the examiner considers this having the user walk to a specific direction) by control of the control module 140. (Paragraph 0080 / 0108)
Claim(s) 7 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 10426688 B2), Ha et al. (US 20160022440 A1), Robertson et al. (US 10426688 B2) as claimed in claim 1, in view of Karamu et al. (JP 2020532436 A) & ZHU et al. (CN 108309689 B1)
Regarding claim 7, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the control module 140. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose further configured to determine at least one of a moving direction of the leg driving frame to which the test torque is applied based on a user set value by selection of the user, an intensity of the test torque, and an application pattern of the test torque.
Karamu discloses further configured to determine at least one of a moving direction of the leg driving frame to which the test torque is applied, an intensity of the test torque, and an application pattern of the test torque. (Page 10, Paragraph 6 – 7 & Page 11, Paragraph 1)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jang to include further configured to determine at least one of a moving direction of the leg driving frame to which the test torque is applied based on a user set value by selection of the user, an intensity of the test torque, and an application pattern of the test torque as it would allow the determination of positive and negative displacement that arise from such movements during conformance testing. (Page 10, Paragraph 6 – 7 & Page 11, Paragraph 1)
ZHU discloses based on a user set value by selection of the user. (Page 3, Paragraph 6)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jang to include a user set value by selection of the user as it would torque coefficient value to be selected based on the recovery condition of the patient muscles as if the muscle strength is higher, the torque coefficient is lower and vice versa. (Page 3, Paragraph 6)
Regarding claim 8, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the sensor module 120 (Paragraph 0079) comprises an angle sensor (Paragraph 0264) configured to obtain a motion value of the leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) (Paragraph 0125 – 0126), and
the control module 140. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose the control module is further configured to determine whether the test is passed based on a threshold value and the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated.
Karamu discloses further configured to determine whether the test is passed based on a threshold value (Page 10 last paragraph – Page 11 first paragraph) and the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated (Page 11, Paragraph 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jang to include further configured to determine whether the test is passed based on a threshold value and the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated as it would determine whether or not there is an improper fit for the user of the system. (Page 13, Paragraph 4)
Regarding claim 9, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 8.
Modified Jang discloses the control module 140 (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose further configured to determine that the test is passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being less than the threshold value.
Karamu discloses the conformance test can be designed to slowly increase the torque until the exoskeleton device reaches a predetermined maximum torque and then slowly return the torque to zero. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
Karamu does not expressly disclose wherein the control module is further configured to determine that the test is passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being less than the threshold value
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Karamu to include wherein the control module is further configured to determine that the test is passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being less than the threshold value as it would allow the device to compare the behavior of the device under torque to the no-torque configuration to determine if the device is properly connected to the user. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
Regarding claim 10, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 8.
Modified Jang discloses the control module 140. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose further configured to determine that the test is not passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being greater than or equal to the threshold value.
Karamu discloses the conformance test can be designed to slowly increase the torque until the exoskeleton device reaches a predetermined maximum torque and then slowly return the torque to zero (Page 4, Paragraph 3 & second to last paragraph / Page 5, second paragraph);
further configured to determine that the test is not passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being greater than or equal to the threshold value. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Karamu to include wherein the control module is further configured to determine that the test is not passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being greater than or equal to the threshold value as it would allow the device to compare the behavior of the device under torque to the no-torque configuration to determine if the device is properly connected to the user. (Page 4, Paragraph 3) If the device indicates an improper fit if there is any deviation of the knee angle with respect to the leg.)
Regarding claim 11, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 10.
Modified Jang discloses the control module 140. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose further configured to provide the user with a guide notification to induce proper wearing of the thigh fastener in response to determining that the test is not passed.
Karamu discloses the device can provide warnings, alerts to the user. (Page 4, Paragraph 5)
Karamu does not disclose wherein the control module is further configured to provide the user with a guide notification to induce proper wearing of the thigh fastener in response to determining that the test is not passed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jang to include wherein the control module is further configured to provide the user with a guide notification to induce proper wearing of the thigh fastener in response to determining that the test is not passed as it would provide warnings and alerts to the user after assessing and determining the problem depending on which incompatibility is identified. (Page 4, Paragraph 5)
Regarding claim 12, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 10.
Modified Jang discloses the control module 140 is further configured to repeatedly perform the test until the wearable device is determined to be properly worn on the user's leg based on the sensor data obtained through the sensor module in response to determining that the test is not passed. (Column 9, lines 25 – 31 & Column 11, lines 10 – 22)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 10426688 B2), Ha et al. (US 20160022440 A1), Robertson et al. (US 10426688 B2) as claimed in claim 1, in view of Jeongrae et al. (KR 20240040589 A)
Regarding claim 13, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the control module 140 to perform the test. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose receiving a user input comprising a driving command over the wearable device or before starting an operation for a walking assistance mode and/or an exercise assistance mode of the wearable device.
Jeongrae discloses receiving a user input comprising a driving command over the wearable device or before starting an operation for a walking assistance mode and/or an exercise assistance mode of the wearable device. (Page 15, Paragraph 5)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jan to include receiving a user input comprising a driving command over the wearable device or before starting an operation for a walking assistance mode and/or an exercise assistance mode of the wearable device as it would allow the control module to operate according to the received control command and may transmit control results according to the control command and/or sensor data. (Page 15, Paragraph 5)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 10426688 B2), Ha et al. (US 20160022440 A1), Robertson et al. (US 10426688 B2) as claimed in claim 1, in view of Rock et al. (KR 20210050636 A).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Jang discloses the control module 140. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose wherein the control module is further configured to perform the test in response to entering a standby mode after terminating a walking assistance mode and/or a exercise assistance mode of the wearable device.
Rock discloses the exercise assistance device operates in a standby mode. (Page 9, Second-to-last paragraph)
Rock does not expressly disclose wherein the control module is further configured to perform the test in response to entering a standby mode after terminating a walking assistance mode and/or a exercise assistance mode of the wearable device
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jang to include wherein the control module is further configured to perform the test in response to entering a standby mode after terminating a walking assistance mode and/or a exercise assistance mode of the wearable device as it would allow to determine a test when the device does not apply torque to the user’s leg. (Page 9, Second-to-last paragraph)
Claim(s) 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. (US 10426688 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Robertson discloses the operation method as claimed in claim 15.
Robertson does not disclose wherein the determining whether the test is passed comprises:
determining that the test is passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being less than the threshold value; and
determining that the test is not passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being greater than or equal to the threshold value.
Karamu discloses the conformance test can be designed to slowly increase the torque until the exoskeleton device reaches a predetermined maximum torque and then slowly return the torque to zero. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
wherein the control module is further configured to determine that the test is passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being less than the threshold value. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Karamu to include wherein the control module is further configured to determine that the test is passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being less than the threshold value as it would allow the device to compare the behavior of the device under torque to the no-torque configuration to determine if the device is properly connected to the user. (Page 4, Paragraph 3) If the device indicates an improper fit if there is any deviation of the knee angle with respect to the leg.)
Karamu discloses the conformance test can be designed to slowly increase the torque until the exoskeleton device reaches a predetermined maximum torque and then slowly return the torque to zero. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
Karamu does not expressly disclose further configured to determine that the test is not passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being greater than or equal to the threshold value.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Karamu to include wherein the control module is further configured to determine that the test is not passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being greater than or equal to the threshold value as it would allow the device to compare the behavior of the device under torque to the no-torque configuration to determine if the device is properly connected to the user. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
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.
/GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785