DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 01/29/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending and examined below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites, “An aircraft comprising a system according to claim 1”. From the recited claim, it is not clear if “An aircraft”, is the same aircraft as claim 1 or not. Examiner suggests that Applicant make Claim 9 separate and incorporate the text of Claim 1 into it instead of referring to Claim 1 in order to avoid antecedent issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, which recites “high acceleration” is considered indefinite since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent deficiencies.
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 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0164171 (“Margetis”), and in view of US 2021/0354817 (“Justel”), and further in view of US 2014/0277924 (“van den Heuvel”).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Margetis discloses a system to assist an occupant of an aircraft during cockpit operation under high accelerations (see at least [0026], where “In addition to the ejection forces, the fighter pilots are also subjected to high acceleration forces during air fights. The system can be used in this application and protect the head, neck and spine of the pilots when an excessive range of motion is detected”; see also [0030]), wherein the system comprises:
an exoskeleton arm comprising a plurality of joints, (see at least fig 2, where device, 200 is shown that include plurality of joints 232s. exoskeleton arm is interpreted as wearable mechanical framework designed to support human function. 200 is interpreted as exoskeleton arm);
(see at least [0026], where high acceleration forces during flight are detected); and
a computing unit configured to: receive the kinematic data (see at least [0026], where the device is activated when high acceleration force is detected);
determine an acceleration at the occupant’s seat from the kinematic data (see at least [0013], where “Activation of this immobilization device can be triggered by various types of signaling between sensors, microprocessors, receivers…Examples of the sensors include, but are not limited to light sensors, sound sensors, accelerometers or other motion sensor, pressure sensors (i.e. manometers), heat sensors and gyroscopes.”; see also [0048]); and
control the actuators of the exoskeleton arm to generate a counterforce directed against the acceleration at the occupant’s seat in an amount that compensates for inertial forces of the occupant’s arm due to the acceleration at the occupant’s seat (see at least [0008], [0018] and [0028], where the device is activated when dangerous force is detected and prevent harm of user when dangerous force is detected by activating the device. That means the exoskeleton structure is controlled based on detected force which is related to sudden acceleration or deceleration. Mitigate the sudden acceleration forces transmitted to user/occupant. So, a counterforce is generated against the sudden detected acceleration.).
Margetis does not disclose the following limitations:
an exoskeleton arm comprising…actuators, and bearing surfaces to support an arm of the occupant; and
an inertial measuring unit configured to detect kinematic data of the aircraft.
However, Justel discloses a system wherein an exoskeleton arm comprising…actuators, and bearing surfaces to support an arm of the occupant (see at least [0028], where the exoskeleton arm comprises actuators and bearing surfaces to support an arm of the occupant).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Margetis to incorporate the teachings of Justel by including the above feature for reducing injury of pilot by providing a support structure in case of high acceleration.
Margetis in view of Justel does not disclose the following limitation:
an inertial measuring unit configured to detect kinematic data of the aircraft.
However, van den Heuvel discloses a system wherein an inertial measuring unit configured to detect kinematic data of the aircraft (see at least [0027], where “Inertia sensor(s) 124A are used to measure sudden changes in the velocity (acceleration and/or deceleration) of an aircraft to detect movement of the aircraft”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Margetis in view of Justel to incorporate the teachings of van den Heuvel by including the above feature for providing operator safety by monitoring kinematic information.
Regarding claim 4, Margetis further discloses a system wherein the computing unit is configured to determine a spatial direction of the acceleration occurring at the occupants seat, to determine the counterforce along the spatial direction (see at least [0054] and [0068]). Justel further discloses a system wherein control the actuators of the exoskeleton arm accordingly (see at least [0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Margetis further discloses a system comprises an (see at least [0026], where acceleration is monitored and the device is activated. So current speed of the device (exoskeleton) is tracked and the device (exoskeleton) is adjusted. prevent pilot not to fall which means counterforce is adjusted). van den Heuvel further discloses a system comprising optical crash sensors, see at least [0024].
Regarding claim 6, van den Heuvel further discloses a system wherein the inertial measuring unit is intended to be arranged in the aircraft at a known distance from the occupant’s seat along a longitudinal axis of the aircraft, the computing unit being further configured to calculate accelerations at the occupant’s seat using the known distance and from the kinematic data of the inertial measuring unit (see at least [0022], [0026] and [0029], location is interpreted as distance).
Regarding claim 7, Justel further discloses a system wherein the exoskeleton arm comprises respective bearing surfaces for an upper arm and a forearm adjoining the upper arm (see at least fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, Justel further discloses a system wherein the joints of the exoskeleton arm have degrees of freedom configured analogously to degrees of freedom of a human shoulder and a human elbow, such that the occupant’s arm accommodated in the exoskeleton arm is capable of performing all movements possible due to its degrees of freedom in the shoulder and the elbow through the exoskeleton arm as well, and the actuators of the exoskeleton arm support all the movements by the counterforce against the acceleration as determined (see at least [0008], [0011], [0030], [0037-38] and [0044]).
Regarding claim 9, Margetis in view of Justel and van den Heuvel discloses an aircraft comprising a system according to claim 1 (see at least citation on claim 1 and [0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Justel further discloses a system wherein the exoskeleton comprises a first exoskeleton arm and a second exoskeleton arm, wherein respective exoskeleton arms are mounted on structure (see at least fig 1). Aircraft seat comprises seat belt/ shoulder strap. It would be obvious to replace the traditional shoulder strap of aircraft seat with the exoskeleton arms discloses by Justel for increasing safety of occupant in case of high acceleration.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0164171 (“Margetis”), and in view of US 2021/0354817 (“Justel”), and in view of US 2014/0277924 (“van den Heuvel”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0069441 (“Larose”).
Regarding claim 2, Margetis further discloses a system wherein the computing unit being configured to determine the counterforce from the kinematic data of the aircraft (see citation above). Justel further discloses a system wherein control the actuators of the exoskeleton arm in order to apply the counterforce as determined (see citation above). van den Heuvel further discloses a system wherein the kinematic data of the aircraft detected by the inertial measuring unit (see citation above).
Larose discloses a system comprises an inertial arm measuring unit arranged on the exoskeleton arm, the inertial arm measuring unit configured to determine kinematic data of the exoskeleton arm and transmit the kinematic data of the exoskeleton arm to the computing unit…and from the kinematic data of the exoskeleton arm determined by the inertial arm measuring unit (see at least [0132], where “The processor unit 1 may use readings from inertial measurement units to operate the arm exoskeleton 180.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Margetis in view of Justel and van den Heuvel to incorporate the teachings of Larose by including the above feature for providing comfortable and safe operation during acceleration by utilizing local data.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0164171 (“Margetis”), and in view of US 2021/0354817 (“Justel”), and in view of US 2014/0277924 (“van den Heuvel”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0179075 (“Perry”).
Regarding claim 3, Margetis in view of Justel and van den Heuvel does not disclose claim 3. However, Perry discloses a system wherein the exoskeleton arm comprises bio-sensors configured to determine action potentials of the occupant and transmit the action potentials to the computing unit, the computing unit being configured to determine a movement of the exoskeleton arm desired by the occupant based on the action potentials determined by the bio-sensors, and to control the actuators superimposed on the counterforce in order to apply a force and/or a torque to carry out the movement of the exoskeleton arm desired by the occupant (see at least [0008], [0037], [0131], [0144] and claim 26).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Margetis in view of Justel and van den Heuvel to incorporate the teachings of Perry by including the above feature for providing adaptable exoskeleton arm by controlling the exoskeleton arm based on sensed user desire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 571-270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights