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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. 10,548,800, in view of Japanese Patent et al JP 2022507479
Regarding claim 1, Barnes teaches a joint assembly for an exoskeleton system (Figure 4, thigh rotation joint 78(2)) having an exoskeleton frame with first (pelvic link 56, Figure 2B) and second frame segments (thigh link 38, figure 2B), the joint assembly comprising:
a socket outer shell (depicted below in the annotated figure 5 below at 84(2)) configured to attach to the first frame segment (attached to the pelvic link 56 as depicted in figure 5) and defining an internal socket hole (hole at top that contains socket member 86(2));
a ball outer shell (Depicted in annotate figure 5 below the ball 88(2)) configured to attach to the second frame segment (attached to thigh link 38 via the shaft) and defining an internal shaft hole (bottom of the outer shell has a hole that contains the shaft extending from it).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a ball-and-socket assembly (78(2)) including a socket defining a socket cavity (socket 86(2) has a cavity that receives ball 88(2)), a ball movably nested in the socket cavity and mated with the socket (Depicted in figure 5), and a ball shaft rigidly attached to and projecting from the ball (Shaft projects from ball 88(2) as depicted in annotated figure 5), the socket located inside the internal socket hole and rigidly attached to the socket outer shell (the socket 86(2) is located inside the top hole of the outer shell), and the ball shaft located inside the internal shaft hole and rigidly attached to the ball outer shell (The shaft protruding from the ball is attached to the outer shell as depicted in figure 5).
Barnes fails to teach the ball and socket system as being magnetic. However Japan’s patent teaches an analogous ball and socket system for an exoskeleton that does teach a magnetic ball and socket system (Page 11 of the attached translated application states that the ball and socket system is magnetic and this is depicted in figures 16b and 16c as “the sphere (106) is attracted to the magnet (99), it enters the ball-and-socket case (110), is connected and engaged, and engages the lock pin plate (111) with the magnet case”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barnes with Japan’s patent and include a magnetic ball and socket system as it allows for quick attachment and detachment of the frame units (page 11).
Regarding claim 5, Barnes teaches the joint assembly of claim 1, wherein the magnetic socket is cylindrical (Figure 5 of Barnes, 86(2) is cylindrical throughout the bottom portion of the socket), the magnetic ball is spherical (ball 88(2) is spherical), and the ball shaft is cylindrical (ball shaft extending from the ball is spherical as depicted in figure 7).
Regarding claim 6, Barnes teaches the joint assembly of claim 5, wherein the magnetic socket is a first one-piece structure (Socket 86(2) is one piece as depicted in figure 5), and the magnetic ball and the ball shaft are a second one-piece structure (Ball and shaft are one-piece as depicted in figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, Barnes teaches the joint assembly of claim 1, wherein the socket outer shell is a hollow and truncated polyhedral one-piece structure (Outer shell 84(2) is hollow as depicted in figure 5, figure 4 depicts the outer shell as a polyhedral structure as it is a rectangular prism).
Regarding claim 9, modified Barnes teaches the joint assembly of claim 1, further comprising a connector bracket plate (joint restrictor plate 90(2)) rigidly attached to the ball outer shell) and configured to rigidly attach to the second frame segment to thereby attach the ball outer shell to the second frame segment (Figure 6 depicts the attachment of the connector bracket to the thigh segment 38(2), the ball outer shell is now connected to the second frame segment.).
Regarding claim 10, Barnes teaches the joint assembly of claim 1, further comprising a rotational coupling attached to the socket outer shell (inguinal joint 68, figure 7, column 5 line 32 states “An inguinal joint 68 is also coupled between the pelvic link 56 and the thigh link 38 via an inguinal joint fastener 70, and is configured to allow sagittal plane rotation of the pelvic link 56 with respect to the thigh link 38 about the inguinal sagittal rotation axis 60.”) and configured to rotatably attach to the first frame segment to thereby attach the socket outer shell to the first frame segment (Socket outer shell is attached to the first frame segment 56(2) by way of this rotational link as depicted in figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Barnes teaches the joint assembly of claim 10, further comprising a connector bracket extending between and rigidly attaching the socket outer shell to the rotational coupling (Depicted in annotated figure below) such that the ball outer shell and the ball shaft are pivotable with respect to the rotational coupling (Column 5 line 42 states “while each thigh 22 rotates with respect to the pelvis 18 via a ball and socket joint (not shown) within the pelvis 18 at a different location in the sagittal plane 12 from the junction between lumbar vertebrae and the pelvis 18. As a result, during a complex movement of the pelvis 18, such as a squat, the upper body 20 and the thighs 22 rotate with respect to the pelvis 18 at different locations within the sagittal plane 12 and about different sagittal rotation axes 58, 60. As a result, the independent hip joint 64 and inguinal joint 68 for each pelvic link 56 allow the exoskeleton 24 to better conform to the movements of the body 10 during complex movements.”).
Regarding claim 13, Barnes teaches the joint assembly of claim 1, wherein the first frame segment (pelvic link 56, figure 2B) includes a waist assembly configured to attach to a waist of a user (hip arc member 72) or a back plate assembly configured to attach to a back of the user, the second frame segment includes a thigh assembly configured to attach to a thigh of the user or an arm assembly configured to attach to an arm of the user (thigh assembly is thigh link 38 itself), and the joint assembly is a hip joint assembly (joint assembly 78 is a hip joint assembly as movement of the joint is based on a movement of the hip), movably attaching the thigh assembly to the waist assembly (the hip joint does attach the thigh assembly to the waist assembly as when the joint is connected, the hip and thigh assemblies move in cohesion together), or a shoulder joint assembly, movably attaching the arm assembly to the back plate assembly.
Regarding claim 14, Barnes teaches an exoskeleton system comprising: an exoskeleton frame including a first frame segment (pelvic link 56, Figure 2B) configured to attach to a trunk of a user (depicted in figure 2B) and a second frame segment (thigh link 38) configured to attach to an appendage of the user (Figure 2A depicts thigh link attached to the thigh); and an articulating joint assembly (thigh rotation joint 78, figure 4) including:
a swivel type (Column 5 line 32 states “An inguinal joint 68 is also coupled between the pelvic link 56 and the thigh link 38 via an inguinal joint fastener 70, and is configured to allow sagittal plane rotation of the pelvic link 56”.) Swivel type connector as it turns on an axis and it allows for the rotation of the pelvic link without the rotation of the thigh rotation joint 78) rotational coupling rotatably attached to the first frame segment (joint 68(2), figure 4);
a hollow socket outer shell (depicted in the annotated figure 5 at 84(2)) rigidly mounted to the rotational coupling (Figure 4 depicts this outer shell rigidly mounted to the frame segment 56) and defining an internal socket hole (hole at top that contains socket member 86(2));
a connector bracket (ball joint restrictor plate 90(2), figure 6) rigidly attached to the second frame segment (Figure 6 depicts the attachment of the connector bracket to the thigh segment 38(2));
a hollow ball outer shell (Depicted in annotated figure 5 below the ball 88(2)) rigidly mounted to the connector bracket (The ball outer shell is rigidly mounted to 90(2) as depicted in figure 5) and defining an internal shaft hole (bottom of the outer shell has a hole that contains the shaft extending from it).
and a ball-and-socket assembly (78(2)) including a cylindrical socket (Sockett of 86(2) is cylindrical, based on the cross sectional view shown in figure 5.) defining a spherical-cap-shaped socket cavity recessed into one end of the cylindrical socket (socket 86(2) has a cavity that receives ball 88(2)), a spherical ball adjacent the ball outer shell movably nested in the recessed spherical shaped socket cavity and mated with the cylindrical socket (Spherical ball Depicted in figure 5, it is located within the ball outer shell, the ball outer shell is located within the recessed spherical shaped socket cavity that is within socket member 86(2). Furthermore, socket 86(2)), and a cylindrical ball shaft rigidly attached at one end to and projecting from the spherical ball (Cylindrical shaft projects from ball 88(2) as depicted in annotated figure below), wherein the cylindrical socket is located inside the internal socket hole and rigidly attached to the socket outer shell (the socket 86(2) is located inside the top hole of the outer shell), and a second end of the ball cylindrical shaft, opposite the first end, located inside the internal shaft hole and rigidly attached to the ball outer shell (The second end of the shaft protruding from the ball is attached to the outer shell of ball 88(2) via an internal shaft hole as depicted
PNG
media_image1.png
390
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in figure 5).
Barnes fails to teach the ball and socket system as being magnetic. However Japan’s patent teaches an analogous ball and socket system for an exoskeleton that does teach a magnetic ball and socket system (Page 11 states that the ball and socket system is magnetic and this is depicted in figures 16b and 16c as “the sphere (106) is attracted to the magnet (99), it enters the ball-and-socket case (110), is connected and engaged, and engages the lock pin plate (111) with the magnet case”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barnes with Japan’s patent and include a magnetic ball and socket system as it allows for quick attachment and detachment of the frame units (page 11).
Furthermore, even if Barnes is considered to not teach the shaft being located within an internal shaft hole, the ball and shaft system 89 of Japanese Patent does depict the shaft as being located within a hole/cavity of the sphere itself. This is shown both in figure 16c and 16d.
Regarding claim 15, Barnes teaches a method of assembling a joint assembly for an exoskeleton system having an exoskeleton frame with first (pelvic link 56, Figure 2B) and second frame (thigh link 38) segments, the method comprising:
attaching a socket outer shell (depicted in the annotated figure 5 at 84(2)) to the first frame segment of the exoskeleton frame (Figure 4 depicts this outer shell attached to the frame segment 56), the socket outer shell defining therein an internal socket hole (hole at top that contains socket member 86(2));
attaching a ball outer shell ((Depicted in annotated figure 5 below the ball 88(2)) to the second frame segment of the exoskeleton frame (Ball outer shell is attached to the shaft which is attached to thigh segment 38), the ball outer shell defining therein an internal shaft hole (bottom of the outer shell has a hole that contains the shaft extending from it);
receiving a ball-and-socket assembly (78(2)) including a socket defining a socket cavity (socket 86(2) has a cavity that receives ball 88(2)), a ball movably nested in the socket cavity and mated with the socket (Depicted in figure 5), and a ball shaft rigidly attached to and projecting from the ball (Shaft projects from ball 88(2) as depicted in annotated figure 5);
inserting the socket (86(2)) into the internal socket hole (Depicted in annotated figure 5);
attaching the socket (86(2)) to the socket outer shell (84(2));
inserting the ball shaft (Depicted in annotated figure 5) into the internal shaft hole (Depicted in annotated figure 5);
and attaching the ball shaft (Depicted in annotated figure 5) to the ball outer shell (Depicted in annotated figure 5).
Barnes fails to teach the ball and socket system as being magnetic. However Japan’s patent teaches an analogous ball and socket system for an exoskeleton that does teach a magnetic ball and socket system (Page 11 states that the ball and socket system is magnetic and this is depicted in figures 16b and 16c as “the sphere (106) is attracted to the magnet (99), it enters the ball-and-socket case (110), is connected and engaged, and engages the lock pin plate (111) with the magnet case”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barnes with Japan’s patent and include a magnetic ball and socket system as it allows for quick attachment and detachment of the frame units (page 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Barnes teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the magnetic socket is cylindrical (Figure 5 of Barnes, 86(2) is cylindrical throughout the bottom portion of the socket), the magnetic ball is spherical (ball 88(2) is spherical), and the ball shaft is cylindrical (ball shaft extending from the ball is spherical as depicted in figure 7), and wherein the magnetic socket is a first one-piece structure (Socket 86(2) is one piece as depicted in figure 5), and the magnetic ball and the ball shaft are a second one-piece structure (Ball and shaft are one-piece as depicted in figure 5),
Regarding claim 18, Barnes teaches the method of claim 15, wherein attaching the socket outer shell to the first frame segment (Figure 4 depicts this outer shell attached to the frame segment 56) includes rigidly attaching the socket outer shell to a rotational coupling and rotatably attaching the rotational coupling to the first frame segment (joint 68(2), figure 4).
Regarding claim 19, Barnes teaches the method of claim 15, wherein attaching the ball outer shell to the second frame segment includes rigidly attaching the ball outer shell to a connector bracket plate (connected to 90(2) as depicted in figure 5)and rigidly attaching the connector bracket plate to the second frame segment (Figure 6 depicts the attachment of the connector bracket to the thigh segment 38(2)).
Claims 2-4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Barnes, in view of Seth et al. 2023/0065877
Regarding claim 2, modified Barnes teaches the joint assembly of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising a socket capsule located inside the internal socket hole of the socket outer shell and surrounding the magnetic socket. Seth teaches an analogous ball and socket joint (figure 21) that does teach a socket capsule (Seal 350) located inside the internal socket hole of the socket outer shell (located on inside hole of main portion 346) and surrounding the socket (Surrounds socket 344). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic socket of modified Barnes (modified through Japanese patent) with the teachings of Seth and include a socket capsule located inside the internal socket hole of the socket outer shell and surrounding the magnetic socket as this aids in locking rotation of the ball (0144).
Regarding claim 3, modified Barnes in view of Seth teaches the joint assembly of claim 2, wherein the socket capsule is rigidly attached to the socket outer shell (Figures 21 and 22 of Seth depicts the seal 350 attached to the outer shell 346) and interposed between the magnetic socket and the socket outer shell (it is located between the socket 344 and the outer shell of 346).
Regarding claim 4, modified Barnes in view of Seth teaches the joint assembly of claim 3, wherein the socket capsule is a hollow and cylindrical one-piece structure (As depicted in figure 22, cover 350 is hollow and cylindrical and is one-piece).
Regarding claim 16, modified Barnes teaches the method of claim 15, but fails to teach further comprising inserting a socket capsule into the internal socket hole of the socket outer shell such that the socket capsule surrounds the magnetic socket. Seth does teach a socket capsule (Seal 350) into the internal socket hole of the socket outer shell (located on inside hole of main portion 346) such that the socket capsule surrounds the magnetic socket (Surrounds socket 344). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic socket of modified Barnes (modified through Japanese patent) with the teachings of Seth and include a socket capsule located inside the internal socket hole of the socket outer shell and surrounding the magnetic socket as this aids in locking rotation of the ball (0144).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Barnes.
Regarding claim 8, modified Barnes teaches the joint assembly of claim 1, wherein the ball outer shell is a hollow (Figure 5 depicts the outer shell below the ball as hollow as it contains the shaft) and a one-piece structure (outer shell is one piece). Barnes fails to explicitly teach the ball outer shell as being polyhedral, however the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Barnes, in view of Fujita et al. 2020/0069505
Regarding claim 12, modified Barnes teaches the joint assembly of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising a motor adaptor mounting bracket rigidly attached to the ball outer shell and configured to mount thereon a motor unit. Fujita teaches an analogous orthosis device that does teach a motor adaptor mounting bracket (Figure 9, connecting wall body 122) rigidly attached to the ball outer shell (upper frame main body 121) and configured to mount thereon a motor unit (electric motor 111). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Barnes with the teachings of Fujita and include a motor adaptor mounting bracket rigidly attached to the ball outer shell and configured to mount thereon a motor unit as this allows for a driving force to be produced allowing for movement of the rotational pivot.
Regarding claim 20, modified Barnes teaches the method of claim 15, but fails to teach further comprising: rigidly attaching a motor adaptor mounting bracket to the ball outer shell; and mounting a motor unit onto the motor adaptor mounting bracket. Fujita teaches an analogous orthosis device that does teach a motor adaptor mounting bracket (Figure 9, connecting wall body 122) rigidly attached to the ball outer shell (upper frame main body 121) and configured to mount thereon a motor unit (electric motor 111). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Barnes with the teachings of Fujita and include a motor adaptor mounting bracket rigidly attached to the ball outer shell and configured to mount thereon a motor unit as this allows for a driving force to be produced allowing for movement of the rotational pivot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant claims that the reference does not teach a joint assembly with both a ball shell that attaches to a select frame segment and has an internal shaft hole and a ball and socket assembly having a magnetic ball with a magnetic ball shaft located inside the internal shaft hole and rigidly attached to the ball shell. Applicant also states that 88(2) of Barnes is referred to as both the claimed ball shell and the B&S ball, however the examiner respectfully disagrees. The annotated figure below is clearly referring to the shell like border that is depicted around the ball of 88(2) as being the ball shell. Two distinct borders are depicted as the ball is shown along with a separate boundary outside of it that fits within the internal socket hole cavity. An internal shaft hole is also depicted as the shaft below the ball member, and based on the image below, there would have to be some sort of hole or aperture required to connect the two to each other. Furthermore, even if the ball outer shell would not be considered as having an aperture, the court has held that making components separable may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), the claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art' s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose." MPEP § 2144.04-V-C. Simply attaching the shaft via an internal shaft hole does not distinguish the invention over the prior art if the assumption of no hole or aperture for connection was taken.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant also states that the magnetic socket and ball 106 of Japanese patent does not define a cavity and the ball is not nested inside the magnet and the ball itself is not described as being magnetic. However, figure 16b depicts magnet 99 as having a cavity in front that receives ball 106. This is further shown by the graphic depicted in figure 16d of the ball resting inside the cavity. Furthermore, page 12 of the attached translated Japanese patent states that “the sphere (106) may be magnetic and the magnet (99) may be a magnetic material.”
Lastly, applicant argues that there is no apparent reason to modify Barnes with the Japanese patent as it conflicts with the teachings of Barnes and a substitution could not be made without a substantial redesign of Barnes and render the subassembly inoperable. Examiner respectfully disagrees as although the current set up of Barnes is intended to be irremovably secured, a re-design with the teachings of Japanese patent including the magnetic ball and socket and the cavity and insertion setup as shown in figures 16b would not distinguish the invention over the prior art. A simple modification of the internal cavity of Barnes would have to be made, which is supported by the internal cavity receiving the ball 106 of Japanese patent. Once this modification is made, the joint of the pelvic subassembly 54 of Barnes would be operable and free to move in whatever direction is necessary. Japanese patent on page 12 does also give the motivation of having a magnetic ball and socket joint as “By utilizing magnetic attraction, the system (89) can generally be self-aligned for engagement, facilitating the wearer's "suit-up" time.” Furthermore, the court has held that making components separable may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), the claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art' s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose." MPEP § 2144.04-V-C.
These same arguments also apply to claim 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ROHAN DEEP PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 5:30 AM - 3:00 PM PST.
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, Brandy S Lee can be reached at (571) 2707410. 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.
/ROHAN PATEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
