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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 regarding prior art rejections Applicant argues amendments overcome the rejections of record.
The Examiner respectfully refers to the rejection below regarding amended claims.
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: bi-stable mechanism in claims 1, 20.
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. The specification [0007] describes this as being a “torsion spring”.
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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner (DE 202019002639 U1) in view of Workman et al. (US 6343802 B1) hereinafter known as Workman, further in view of Sandler et al. (EP 3141231 A2) hereinafter known as Sandler and Yadan (US 20150175184 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Steiner discloses a convertible ride-on and walk-about platform (Figure 1) for a robotic upper-body exoskeleton (This is stated as an “intended use” of the claimed device. The applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 (II). In this case, the patented structure of Steiner was considered capable of performing the cited intended use of being used in conjunction with a robotic upper-body exoskeleton, if a user desires), the platform being maneuverable about a ground surface (The applicant is advised that, while the features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In addition, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2144 (I). In this case, the patented apparatus of Steiner discloses (as detailed above) all the structural limitations required to perform the recited functional language, therefore was considered to anticipate the claimed apparatus. See, for example [0010]-[0012] regarding the three ambulatory modes of the platform, each of which allow it to be maneuverable about a ground) and comprising:
a walk-about base (Annotated Figure 1) having first and second lateral members (Annotated Figure 1; the lateral members are considered to be all side members that support the rollers and wheels),
a mast exoskeleton interface system (Annotated Figure 1) configured to engage and support the robotic upper-body exoskeleton (this is stated as an intended use of the interface system (see explanation above). The interface is understood to be capable of engaging and supporting an upper-body exoskeleton if desired),
a mast (Annotated Figure 1) in support of the mast interface system (Annotated Figure 1),
rollers mounted on the first and second lateral members (Annotated Figure 1) operable to facilitate movement about the ground surface (this is likewise stated as a “functional limitation” of the rollers which the rollers are considered capable of meeting. See for example [0010] the rollators electrically power the walker while the user walks on the ground), which define in part a bi-pedal locomotion zone that provides clearance for bi-pedal locomotion of an operator donning the robotic upper-body exoskeleton (this is stated as an intended use of the locomotion zone (see explanation above). See also Annotated Figure 5; [0010]),
a conveyance system ([0008]) supported by the base (all parts of the platform positioned above at least part of the base are considered to be supported thereby) which is capable of powering the one of the rollers to facilitate powered locomotion of the base about the ground surface (this is stated as a functional limitation of the conveyance system (see explanation above). However, see also [0010] which indicates how the conveyance system control circuit moves the platform into a vertical “walking aid position” so one of the rollers is electrically augmenting the user’s walking),
a riding platform (Figure 6 item 8) supported by at least one of the lateral members (Figure 6; all parts of the base, including lateral members, wheels, and rollers mounted thereon are understood to support the platform since they serve as a foundation for the platform which separates it from the ground), operable to be selectively moveable into the bi-pedal locomotion zone (this is stated as a “functional limitation” (see explanation above). See also Figures 5-6 which show the movement of the platform from a walking-assist, vertical position to a horizontal riding location) to allow the operator to ride thereon (this is stated as an “intended use” of the platform while in the locomotion zone (see explanation above) which Steiner is understood capable of meeting. See for example [0011]), the riding platform being elevated above and out of contact with the ground surface in a deployed, riding position (see the English translation page 2, [0011]: “The ascent height between the floor and standing platform of the BEA module is only 80 mm”). The platform (Figure 12 item 21) is clearly separated from the ground surface by the other elements of the BEA module (2));
but is silent with regards to the mast exoskeleton interface system including an actuator that facilitates vertical movement of the exoskeleton relative to the mast, and
the conveyance system comprising a sensor which powers the platform based on sensed input,
and whether the riding platform is supported via a bi-stable mechanism so it is biased to remain in or out of the locomotion zone depending on the position.
However, regarding claim 1 Workman teaches a system which includes rollers to facilitate movement about the ground surface which define a bi-pedal locomotion zone that provides clearance for bi-pedal locomotion of an operator (Figure 1 item 48), the system including a mast (Figure 1 item 5) which supports a mast interface system (Figure 1, the upper half of the system, including items 38/39/6/5/7 etc. the interface system being configured to engage and support an upper body exoskeleton (this is stated as an intended use of the interface system (See the explanation above), which the system is understood capable of doing), which includes an actuator (Figure 7) that is capable of facilitating the vertical movement of an upper-body exoskeleton relative to the mast (this is stated as a “functional limitation” (see the explanation above). See also Column 7 lines 26-65). Steiner and Workman are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely user interface systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the platform of Steiner to include an actuated mast interface system as is taught by Workman in order to include a mast interface system with an actuator on the system of Steiner in order to provide a mechanism for the interface to the patient to adjust in height, allowing it to be customized to the height of a particular patient, and/or to allow it to transition to different heights for different intended uses.
Further, regarding claim 1 Sandler teaches that walking assistance systems can include at least one sensor (Figure 7 item 725, 735), so that powering of the walking assistance system is based on user input that is sensed by the sensor (Figure 7). Steiner and Sandler are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely walking assistance devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the platform of the Steiner Workman Combination so that the conveyance system includes a sensor as is taught by Sandler in order to ensure the platform is receiving information about the user and device state, position, and environment in order to allow the position of the platform to be changed based on the user’s desires and/or programs ([0090]).
Further, regarding claim 1 Yadan teaches that within transport assistance vehicles that have elements that flip from one position to another, the element can include a bistable mechanism (spring) to ensure it remains biased in whichever position it is in ([0059]). Steiner and Yadan are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely transit devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the platform of the Steiner Workman Sandler Combination so the platform of the Combination utilizes a bi-stable mechanism as is taught by Yadan in order to ensure the platform does not simply rotate upward or downward when the user is not intending, which might cause harm to the user of the platform. This is understood to result in the platform to remain out of the locomotion zone when in a walking position and to remain in the locomotion zone when in the riding position.
PNG
media_image1.png
393
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
413
443
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7 the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Combination teaches the platform of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Steiner further discloses mast skeleton interface system is mounted to the mast so as to position the operator in the zone upon donning the exoskeleton (Annotated Figure 1, 5; shows how a user will be positioned in the zone during any use of the system).
Claims 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, Workman, Sandler, and Yadan as is applied above in view of Hanley (US 20190201259 A1).
Regarding claim 2 the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Combination teaches the platform of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the platform including two platforms connected to the first/second lateral members, respectively.
However, regarding claim 2 Hanley teaches that foot platforms can include a first foot platform connected to a first lateral member and a second foot platform connected to a second lateral member (Figure 1, items 110 and 140 represent one of the foot platforms and one of the lateral members). Steiner and Hanley are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely ambulatory aids. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the platform of the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Combination so that the foot platform is split into first and second platforms connected to the first/second lateral members respectively such as is taught by Hanley since the courts have held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B), and since the courts have held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(E). In this case, the use of a split platform which fold up to the sides as opposed to a single platform that folds upward is obvious to try, as it is a common solution to moveable platforms in the art.
Regarding claim 3 the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Hanley Combination teaches the platform of claim 2 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Hanley further teaches the first and second foot platforms are rotatably connected to the first and second lateral members, respectively (Figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 4 the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Hanley Combination teaches the platform of claim 3 substantially as is claimed,
wherein the Combination further teaches the platforms are each connected to the lateral members (see Hanley) via the bi-stable mechanisms (see the rejection to claim 1 above regarding the inclusion of the bi-stable mechanism to adjust the platforms up/down).
wherein Hanley further teaches the platforms are connected to the lateral members via a mechanism such that the platforms are biased to remain out of the locomotion zone when they are in “walking” position (of Steiner) ([0010]), and the bias mechanism comprises a torsion spring which biases the platforms to the “walking” position (of Steiner) ([0007], [0010]),
Regarding claim 5 the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Hanley Combination teaches the platform of claim 4 substantially as is claimed,
wherein the Combination further teaches the bi-stable mechanisms each comprise a torsion spring with a stiffness sufficient to maintain the platforms in the walking position but insufficient to rotate the platforms to the walking position (see the explanation/rejection to claim 1 regarding including the bi-stable mechanism, which inherently has this bi-stable state, and the rejection to claim 2 above regarding the obviousness of having two platforms).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, Workman, Sandler, and Yadan as is applied above in view of McGuire (US 10166165 B1).
Regarding claim 6 the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Combination teaches the platform of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to the platform’s surface.
However, regarding claim 6 McGuire teaches surfaces of foot platforms can include a friction enhancing surface (Figure 10a item 328; Column 6 lines 48-52). Steiner and McGuire are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely walking assistance devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the platform of the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Combination so that it includes a friction enhancing surface as is taught by McGuire in order to ensure a user of the platform can safely stand on the platform without slipping off.
Claims 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, Workman, Sandler, Yadan as is applied above in view of Harrison (WO 2016170364 A1).
Regarding claim 12 the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Combination teaches the platform of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
but is silent with regards to there being first and second retractable extensions operable to selective extend and retract from the lateral members.
However, regarding claim 12 Harrison teaches a mobility device which includes a retractable extension (page 9 lines 7-14). Steiner and Harrison are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely personal mobility devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the platform of the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Combination so that their lateral members include retractable extensions operable to selectively extend and retract from the lateral members such as is taught by Harrison in order to allow the platform of Steiner to fold up more compactly when not in use, and allow the chassis to extend the wheelbase of the device thus changing the stability for the user as a whole and enabling a more custom fit platform. The Examiner notes that when the extendable features of Harrison are applied to Steiner, whose chassis includes two lateral members instead of one central member, the person of ordinary skill understands that the lateral members would both lengthen.
Regarding claim 13 the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Harrison Combination teaches the platform of claim 12 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Steiner further discloses the rollers comprise front and rear rollers (Annotated Figure 1; at least the front rollers are considered two front wheels, the rear rollers can be considered to be at least two of the other rollers),
and wherein the Combination further teaches the front rollers are disposed on the retractable extensions (as the Combination in claim 12 explains, the lateral members should include the extension in order to apply Harrison’s extendable chassis concept to Steiner. In this situation, the rollers, which are on the frontmost and rearmost corners of the platform, would inherently have at least one set of front/rear wheels located on the extensions, and the other on the remainder of the frame. Whether the front/rear wheels are on these extensions depends first on which wheels being considered front/rear, and would depend on which are extending/telescoping from the other. The person of ordinary skill in the art would find either configuration obvious, for the front or rear rollers to be disposed on the extensions).
Regarding claim 14 the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Harrison Combination teaches the platform of claim 13 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Harrison further teaches the base comprises an actuator operable to extend and retract the extensions (Figure 31 item 901),
but is silent with regards to the actuators being located within the rollers.
However, regarding claim 14 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to position the actuators within the rollers since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 15 the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Harrison Combination teaches the platform of claim 14 substantially as is claimed,
wherein the Combination further teaches the actuator of the front rollers is operable to extend and retract the extensions automatically based on a load carried by the exoskeleton (this is stated as an “intended use” of the actuator. Since an electric actuator is understood to be capable of automatic functioning, if desired (e.g. if connected to a computer which is programmed to instruct it to elongate).
Regarding claim 16 the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Harrison Combination teaches the platform of claim 12 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Harrison further teaches the base comprises an actuator operable to extend and retract the extensions (Figure 31 item 901). The Examiner notes that when applied to the platform of Steiner, the actuators would obviously be located within the lateral members since these are the items being elongated within Steiner (Harrison also teaches the motor 901 being located within the part of the chassis being elongated (Figure 31)).
Regarding claim 17 the Steiner Workman Sandler Yadan Harrison Combination teaches the platform of claim 16 substantially as is claimed,
wherein the Combination further teaches the actuators in the first and second lateral members are operable to extend and retract the extension automatically based on a load carried by the exoskeleton (this is stated as an “intended use” of the actuator. Since an electric actuator is understood to be capable of automatic functioning, if desired (e.g. if connected to a computer which is programmed to instruct it to elongate).).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner as is applied above in view of Park et al. (US 20190247696 A1) hereinafter known as Park, and further in view of Sandler and Yadan as is applied above.
Regarding claim 20 Steiner discloses a walk-about exoskeleton system (Figure 1) comprising:
a convertible ride-on and walk-about platform being maneuverable about a ground surface, and comprising:
a walk-about base,
rollers supported on the base and operable to facilitate movement about the ground surface, the rollers defining in part, a bi-pedal locomotion zone that provides clearance for bi-pedal locomotion of an operator, and
a conveyance system supported in part by the base which is capable of powering one of the rollers to facilitate powered locomotion of the base about the ground surface, and
a riding platform operable to be selectively moveable into the bi-pedal locomotion zone to allow the operator to ride thereon, the platform being elevated above and out of contact with the ground surface in a deployed, riding position (see rejection to claim 1 above),
but is silent with regards to the exoskeleton system including an upper-body exoskeleton comprising one or more robotic limbs donned by the operator, the platform being able to support the upper-body exoskeleton,
the conveyance system including a sensor,
and whether the riding platform is supported via a bi-stable mechanism so it is biased to remain in or out of the locomotion zone depending on the position.
However, regarding claim 20 Park teaches that exoskeleton systems can include an upper-body exoskeleton which includes a robotic limb donned by an operator (Figures 11, 13, item A [0053] exoskeleton A can be an upper body exoskeleton which includes a limb that couples to an arm of a user). Steiner and Park are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely assistive systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Steiner so that it included an upper-body exoskeleton with a limb as is taught by Park in order to ensure the system is compatible with many users, including those which regularly rely on exoskeletons. This increases the usability of the system. Further, the Combination is understood to teach the platform (see Steiner) being able to support the upper-body exoskeleton of Park as the claim requires.
Further, regarding claim 20 Sandler teaches that walking assistance systems can include at least one sensor (Figure 7 item 725, 735), so that powering of the walking assistance system is based on user input that is sensed by the sensor (Figure 7). Steiner and Sandler are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely walking assistance devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the platform of the Steiner Park Combination so that the conveyance system includes a sensor as is taught by Sandler in order to ensure the platform is receiving information about the user and device state, position, and environment in order to allow the position of the platform to be changed based on the user’s desires and/or programs ([0090]).
Further, regarding claim 20 Yadan teaches that within transport assistance vehicles that have elements that flip from one position to another, the element can include a bistable mechanism (spring) to ensure it remains biased in whichever position it is in ([0059]). Steiner and Yadan are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely transit devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the platform of the Steiner Workman Sandler Combination so the platform of the Combination utilizes a bi-stable mechanism as is taught by Yadan in order to ensure the platform does not simply rotate upward or downward when the user is not intending, which might cause harm to the user of the platform. This is understood to result in the platform to remain out of the locomotion zone when in a walking position and to remain in the locomotion zone when in the riding position.
Claims 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, Park, Sandler, and Yadan further in view of Hanley as is applied above.
Regarding claim 21 see the rejection to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 22 see the rejection to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 23 see the rejection to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 24 see the rejection to claim 5 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Jacqueline Woznicki whose telephone number is (571)270-5603. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm EST.
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached on 408-918-7557. 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.
/Jacqueline Woznicki/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 04/13/26
Prosecution Insights