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 .
This action is in regards to the filing on 1/10/2024. Since the initial filing, claims 21-60 have been cancelled and no claims have been amended or added. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney (US 2020/0016020) in view of Njalsson (US 2024/0261127).
In regards to claim 1, Mooney discloses a method of integrating bipedalism augmentation components, comprising: providing footwear comprising a sole formed of an insole and an outsole (Fig 6A and 6B); selecting, based on a size of the footwear, a footplate having a length that is less than the size of the footwear (footplate insert into the shoe, paragraph 36, Fig 6A and 6B), the footplate comprising: a first portion of the footplate to extend along at least a first portion of the sole; a second portion of the footplate to extend along at least a second portion of the sole, and a mounting component connected to the first portion of the footplate (see Annotated Fig 8); inserting the footplate between the insole and the outsole of the footwear such that the mounting component protrudes at least partially from the footwear (paragraph 38 and 41, Fig 6B and 8); and coupling a bracket to the mounting component, the bracket configured to receive force from an actuator and apply the force to the first portion of the footplate via an axis of rotation about an ankle to augment motion (paragraph 55, see Annotated Fig 6B).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
375
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 6B
PNG
media_image2.png
376
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 8
Mooney does not disclose wherein the first portion of the footplate has greater rigidity than the second portion of the footplate; the first portion of the footplate with greater rigidity is located proximate to a heel of the footwear.
However, Njalsson teaches wherein the first portion of the footplate has greater rigidity than the second portion of the footplate; the first portion of the footplate with greater rigidity is located proximate to a heel of the footwear (reinforced connection 312 more rigid than rest of footplate 305, paragraph 87, Fig 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mooney the first portion of the footplate has greater rigidity than the second portion of the footplate; the first portion of the footplate with greater rigidity is located proximate to a heel of the footwear as taught by Njalsson as this would ensure that the connection between the footplate and the rest of the exoskeleton would be strong and stable.
In regards to claim 8, Mooney in view of Njalsson teaches the method of claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein the second portion of the footplate is thinner than the first portion of the footplate, and the second portion of the footplate at least partially overlaps with the first portion of the footplate (Njalsson: reinforced connection 312 more rigid than rest of footplate 305, paragraph 87, Fig 6C and 7).
In regards to claim 9, Mooney in view of Njalsson teaches the method of claim 1 and Mooney further discloses wherein the mounting component protrudes from a rear of the footwear (Fig 13).
In regards to claim 10, Mooney in view of Njalsson teaches the method of claim 1 and Mooney further discloses wherein the mounting component protrudes from a side at a heel of the footwear that is different from a rear of the footwear (Fig 6B).
In regards to claim 11, Mooney in view of Njalsson teaches the method of claim 1 and Mooney further discloses comprising: coupling the actuator to a lower limb of a subject wearing the footwear, the actuator coupled below a knee of the lower limb of the subject (paragraph 24, Fig 1 and see Annotated Fig 6B).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney (US 2020/0016020) in view of Njalsson (US 2024/0261127) and in further view of Lerner (US 2022/0000703) and Angold (US 2018/0243155) as evidenced by Horst (US 2004/0102723).
In regards to claim 2, Mooney in view of Njalsson teaches the method of claim 1.
Mooney does not disclose identifying, by a data processing system comprising one or more processors and memory, a type of the footwear; determining, by the data processing system prior to insertion, the length for the footplate based on the type of the footwear; and selecting, by the data processing system, the footplate with the length for insertion into the sole of the footwear.
However, Lerner teaches wherein the size of the footplate is based on the size of the footwear (paragraph 84).
Further, Angold teaches wherein a data processing system determines the size of the footplate (computer models size of user to determine size of exoskeleton components including footplate, paragraph 8-13 and 47; Horst: computers commonly contain memory and processors, paragraph 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mooney wherein identifying, by a data processing system comprising one or more processors and memory, a type of the footwear; determining, by the data processing system prior to insertion, the length for the footplate based on the type of the footwear; and selecting, by the data processing system, the footplate with the length for insertion into the sole of the footwear as taught by Lerner and Angold and evidenced by Horst as this would ensure that the footplate fit the user to provide the most effective and comfortable assistance.
In regards to claim 4, Mooney in view of Njalsson, Lerner and Angold as evidenced by Horst teaches the method of claim 2 and the combination further teaches determining, by the data processing system based on the type of the footwear, the length of the footplate (see Rejection of Claim 2).
Mooney does not disclose wherein the footplate terminates behind a metatarsal joint of a foot on which the footwear is worn.
However, Lerner teaches wherein the footplate terminates behind a metatarsal joint of a foot on which the footwear is worn (Fig 10 shows placement of end of plate 622 behind a metatarsal joint of a foot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mooney wherein the footplate terminates behind a metatarsal joint of a foot on which the footwear is worn as taught by Lerner as this would allow the toes of the user to flex comfortably during walking.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney (US 2020/0016020) in view of Njalsson (US 2024/0261127), Lerner (US 2022/0000703) and Angold (US 2018/0243155) as evidenced by Horst (US 2004/0102723) and in further view of Caputo (US 12127995).
In regards to claim 3, Mooney in view of Njalsson, Lerner and Angold as evidenced by Horst teaches the method of clam 2.
Mooney does not disclose wherein the type of the footwear comprises at least one of a running footwear, a hiking footwear, a cross-training footwear, a basketball footwear, a boot, or a dress footwear.
However, Caputo teaches wherein the type of the footwear comprises at least one of a running footwear, a hiking footwear, a cross-training footwear, a basketball footwear, a boot, or a dress footwear (column 21 line 3-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mooney wherein the type of the footwear comprises at least one of a running footwear, a hiking footwear, a cross-training footwear, a basketball footwear, a boot, or a dress footwear as taught by Caputo as these are commonly used types of footwear.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney (US 2020/0016020) in view of Njalsson (US 2024/0261127) and in further view of Angold (US 2018/0243155) as evidenced by Horst (US 2004/0102723).
In regards to claim 5, Mooney in view of Njalsson teaches the method of claim 1 and Mooney further discloses identifying an activity to be performed with the footwear; determining the size for the footplate based on the activity; and selecting the footplate with the size for insertion into the sole of the footwear (paragraph 44).
Mooney does not disclose wherein identifying, determining and selecting are performed by a data processing system comprising one or more processors and memory.
However, Angold teaches wherein a data processing system determines the size of the footplate (computer models size of user to determine size of exoskeleton components including footplate, paragraph 8-13 and 47; Horst: computers commonly contain memory and processors, paragraph 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mooney wherein identifying, determining and selecting are performed by a data processing system comprising one or more processors and memory as taught by Angold as this would be an efficient and known manner by which to fit an exoskeleton to a user.
In regards to claim 6, Mooney in view of Njalsson and Angold as evidenced by Horst teaches the method of claim 5 and Mooney further discloses wherein the activity comprises at least one of running, walking, or hiking (paragraph 44).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney (US 2020/0016020) in view of Njalsson (US 2024/0261127) and in further view of Lerner (US 2022/0000703) and Angold (US 2018/0243155) as evidenced by Horst (US 2004/0102723) and Caputo (US 12127995).
In regards to claim 7, Mooney in view of Njalsson teaches the method of claim 1 and the combination further teaches identifying an activity to be performed with the footwear, an amount of rigidity for the second portion of the footplate based on the activity, determining an amount of rigidity based on the footwear (Mooney: multiple plates may be bonded together, paragraph 44; Njalsson: reinforcement increases rigidity, paragraph 87).
Mooney does not disclose comprising: identifying, by a data processing system comprising one or more processors and memory, a type of the footwear; determining, by the data processing system prior to insertion, a length for the first portion of the footplate and a length for the second portion of the footplate; and selecting, by the data processing system for insertion into the sole, the footplate having the determined length for the first portion, the determined length for the second portion, and the determined amount of rigidity for the second portion.
However, Lerner teaches wherein the size of the footplate is based on the size of the footwear (paragraph 84).
Additionally, Caputo teaches wherein the type of the footwear comprises at least one of a running footwear, a hiking footwear, a cross-training footwear, a basketball footwear, a boot, or a dress footwear (column 21 line 3-7).
Further, Angold teaches wherein a data processing system determines the size of the footplate (computer models size of user to determine size of exoskeleton components including footplate, paragraph 8-13 and 47; Horst: computers commonly contain memory and processors, paragraph 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mooney wherein identifying, by a data processing system comprising one or more processors and memory, a type of the footwear; determining, by the data processing system prior to insertion, a length for the first portion of the footplate and a length for the second portion of the footplate; and selecting, by the data processing system for insertion into the sole, the footplate having the determined length for the first portion, the determined length for the second portion, and the determined amount of rigidity for the second portion as taught by Lerner, Caputo and Angold and evidenced by Horst as this would ensure that the footplate fit the user to provide the most effective and comfortable assistance.
Claim(s) 12, 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angold (US 2018/0243155) as evidenced by Horst (US 2004/0102723) and in view of Mooney (US 2020/0016020) and Njalsson (US 2024/0261127).
In regards to claim 12, Angold discloses a system that integrates bipedalism augmentation components, comprising: a data processing system comprising memory and one or more processors to: receive a request to modify a footwear for augmentation, select a footplate based on a size of the footwear to have a length that is less than the size of the footwear (computer models size of user to determine size of exoskeleton components including footplate, paragraph 8-13 and 47; Horst: computers commonly contain memory and processors, paragraph 15).
Angold does not disclose the footwear comprising a sole formed of an insole and an outsole; the footplate comprising: a first portion of the footplate to extend along at least a first portion of the sole; a second portion of the footplate to extend along at least a second portion of the sole, wherein the first portion of the footplate has greater rigidity than the second portion of the footplate; and a mounting component connected to the first portion of the footplate; provide an indication of the selected the footplate for insertion between the insole and the outsole of the footwear such that the first portion of the footplate with greater rigidity is located proximate to a heel of the footwear and the mounting component protrudes at least partially from the sole, wherein the mounting component is configured to couple to a bracket to receive force from an actuator and apply the force to the first portion of the footplate via an axis of rotation about an ankle to augment motion.
However, Mooney teaches the footwear comprising a sole formed of an insole and an outsole (Fig 6A and 6B); the footplate comprising: a first portion of the footplate to extend along at least a first portion of the sole; a second portion of the footplate to extend along at least a second portion of the sole; and a mounting component connected to the first portion of the footplate (see Annotated Fig 8); provide an indication of the selected the footplate for insertion between the insole and the outsole of the footwear such that the mounting component protrudes at least partially from the sole (paragraph 38 and 41, Fig 6B and 8), wherein the mounting component is configured to couple to a bracket to receive force from an actuator and apply the force to the first portion of the footplate via an axis of rotation about an ankle to augment motion (paragraph 55, see Annotated Fig 6B).
Further, Njalsson teaches wherein the first portion of the footplate has greater rigidity than the second portion of the footplate; the first portion of the footplate with greater rigidity is located proximate to a heel of the footwear (reinforced connection 312 more rigid than rest of footplate 305, paragraph 87, Fig 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angold wherein the footwear comprising a sole formed of an insole and an outsole; the footplate comprising: a first portion of the footplate to extend along at least a first portion of the sole; a second portion of the footplate to extend along at least a second portion of the sole, wherein the first portion of the footplate has greater rigidity than the second portion of the footplate; and a mounting component connected to the first portion of the footplate; provide an indication of the selected the footplate for insertion between the insole and the outsole of the footwear such that the first portion of the footplate with greater rigidity is located proximate to a heel of the footwear and the mounting component protrudes at least partially from the sole, wherein the mounting component is configured to couple to a bracket to receive force from an actuator and apply the force to the first portion of the footplate via an axis of rotation about an ankle to augment motion as taught by Mooney and Njalsson as this would provide a secure and comfortable wearable interface for an exoskeleton.
In regards to claim 15, Angold in view of Horst and in view of Mooney and Njalsson teaches the system of claim 12 and the combination further discloses the data processing system configured to select the footplate based on type of footwear and activity (see Claim 12 Rejection).
Angold does not disclose altering the length of the footplate based on an activity to be performed with the footwear, the activity comprising at least one of running, walking, or hiking.
However, Mooney teaches customizing the footplate based on an activity to be performed with the footwear, the activity comprising at least one of running, walking, or hiking (paragraph 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angold wherein altering the length of the footplate based on an activity to be performed with the footwear, the activity comprising at least one of running, walking, or hiking as taught by Mooney as this would help ensure the system is designed to suit the needs of the user.
In regards to claim 17, Angold in view of Horst and in view of Mooney and Njalsson teaches the system of claim 12 and the combination further discloses the data processing system configured to select the footplate based on type of footwear and activity (see Claim 12 Rejection) and wherein the second portion of the footplate that is thinner than the first portion of the footplate, wherein the second portion of the footplate at least partially overlaps with the first portion of the footplate (Njalsson: reinforced connection 312 more rigid than rest of footplate 305, paragraph 87, Fig 6C and 7).
In regards to claim 18, Angold in view of Horst and in view of Mooney and Njalsson teaches the system of claim 12 and the combination further discloses the data processing system configured to select the footplate based on type of footwear and activity (see Claim 12 Rejection).
Angold does not disclose wherein the mounting component configured to protrude from a rear of the footwear.
However, Mooney teaches the mounting component configured to protrude from a rear of the footwear (Fig 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angold wherein the mounting component is configured to protrude from a rear of the footwear as taught by Mooney as this is a known configuration for attaching an assistance system to a footwear.
In regards to claim 19, Angold in view of Horst and in view of Mooney and Njalsson teaches the system of claim 12 and the combination further discloses the data processing system configured to select the footplate based on type of footwear and activity (see Claim 12 Rejection).
Angold does not disclose wherein the mounting component configured to protrude from a side at a heel of the footwear that is different from a rear of the footwear.
However, Mooney teaches wherein the mounting component configured to protrude from a side at a heel of the footwear that is different from a rear of the footwear (Fig 6B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angold wherein the mounting component configured to protrude from a side at a heel of the footwear that is different from a rear of the footwear as taught by Mooney as this is a known configuration for attaching an assistance system to a footwear.
In regards to claim 20, Angold in view of Horst and in view of Mooney and Njalsson teaches the system of claim 12 and the combination further discloses the data processing system configured to select the footplate based on type of footwear and activity (see Claim 12 Rejection).
Angold does not disclose the actuator configured to couple to a lower limb of a subject wearing the footwear, the actuator configured to couple below a knee of the lower limb of the subject.
However, Mooney teaches the actuator configured to couple below a knee of the lower limb of the subject (paragraph 24, Fig 1 and see Annotated Fig 6B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angold wherein the actuator configured to couple below a knee of the lower limb of the subject as taught by Mooney as this would provide a link to provide assistance to the user.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angold (US 2018/0243155) as evidenced by Horst (US 2004/0102723) and in view of Mooney (US 2020/0016020) and Njalsson (US 2024/0261127) and in further view of Caputo (US 12127995).
In regards to claim 13, Angold in view of Horst and in view of Mooney and Njalsson teaches the system of claim 12 and the combination further discloses the data processing system configured to select the footplate based on type of footwear and activity (see Claim 12 Rejection).
Angold does not disclose wherein the type of the footwear comprises at least one of a running footwear, a hiking footwear, a cross-training footwear, a basketball footwear, a boot, or a dress footwear.
However, Caputo teaches wherein the type of the footwear comprises at least one of a running footwear, a hiking footwear, a cross-training footwear, a basketball footwear, a boot, or a dress footwear (column 21 line 3-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angold wherein the type of the footwear comprises at least one of a running footwear, a hiking footwear, a cross-training footwear, a basketball footwear, a boot, or a dress footwear as taught by Caputo as these are commonly used types of footwear.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angold (US 2018/0243155) as evidenced by Horst (US 2004/0102723) and in view of Mooney (US 2020/0016020), Njalsson (US 2024/0261127) and Caputo (US 12127995) in further view of Lerner (US 2022/0000703).
In regards to claim 14, Angold as evidenced by Horst and in view of Mooney, Njalsson and Caputo teaches the system of claim 13.
Angold does not disclose wherein the footplate terminates behind a metatarsal joint of a foot on which the footwear is worn.
However, Lerner teaches wherein the footplate terminates behind a metatarsal joint of a foot on which the footwear is worn (Fig 10 shows placement of end of plate 622 behind a metatarsal joint of a foot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angold wherein the footplate terminates behind a metatarsal joint of a foot on which the footwear is worn as taught by Lerner as this would allow the toes of the user to flex comfortably during walking.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angold (US 2018/0243155) as evidenced by Horst (US 2004/0102723) and in view of Mooney (US 2020/0016020) and Njalsson (US 2024/0261127) and in further view of Lerner (US 2022/0000703).
In regards to claim 16, Angold in view of Horst and in view of Mooney and Njalsson teaches the system of claim 12 and the combination further discloses the data processing system configured to select the footplate based on type of footwear and activity (see Claim 12 Rejection).
Angold does not disclose wherein the data processing system is further configured to: receive an indication of a type of the footwear and an activity to be performed with the footwear; determine, prior to insertion, a length for the first portion of the footplate and a length for the second portion of the footplate; determine, prior to insertion, an amount of rigidity for the second portion of the footplate based on the type of the footwear and the activity; and select, for insertion into the sole, the footplate having the determined length for the first portion of the footplate, the determined length for the second portion of the footplate, and the determined amount of rigidity for the second portion.
However, Mooney and Njalsson teaches identifying an activity to be performed with the footwear, an amount of rigidity for the second portion of the footplate based on the activity (multiple plates may be bonded together based on activity and need of footwear, paragraph 44; Njalsson: reinforcement increases rigidity, paragraph 87).
Further, Lerner teaches wherein the size of the footplate is based on the size of the footwear (paragraph 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Angold wherein the data processing system is further configured to: receive an indication of a type of the footwear and an activity to be performed with the footwear; determine, prior to insertion, a length for the first portion of the footplate and a length for the second portion of the footplate; determine, prior to insertion, an amount of rigidity for the second portion of the footplate based on the type of the footwear and the activity; and select, for insertion into the sole, the footplate having the determined length for the first portion of the footplate, the determined length for the second portion of the footplate, and the determined amount of rigidity for the second portion as taught by Mooney, Njalsson and Lerner as this would ensure that the system is fit properly for the user and their needs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights