Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/458,314

MAGNETIC JOINT ASSEMBLIES FOR ACTIVE-PASSIVE ROBOTIC EXOSKELETON SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MAKING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 30, 2023
Examiner
PATEL, ROHAN DEEP
Art Unit
3785
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Motion Augmented LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
12 granted / 21 resolved
-12.9% vs TC avg
Strong +45% interview lift
Without
With
+45.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
70
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§103
55.4%
+15.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 21 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2023 has been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 should read: “a waist assembly configured to be attachable to a waist of a user or a back plate assembly configured to be attachable to a back of the user, the second frame segment includes a thigh assembly configured to be attachable to a thigh of the user or an arm assembly configured to be attachable to an arm of the user”, to avoid incorrectly claiming the human body. Appropriate correction is required. 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). 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). PNG media_image1.png 390 538 media_image1.png Greyscale 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 attachable to a waist of a user (hip arc member 72) or a back plate assembly attachable to a back of the user, the second frame segment includes a thigh assembly attachable to a thigh of the user or an arm assembly attachable 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 rotational coupling rotatably attached to the first frame segment (joint 68(2), figure 4); a socket outer shell (depicted in the annotated figure 5 at 84(2)) attached to the rotational coupling (Figure 4 depicts this outer shell attached 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 ball outer shell ((Depicted in annotated figure 5 below the ball 88(2)) attached to the connector bracket (connected 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 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 below), 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 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 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. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 30, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594211
WALKING ASSIST DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582782
DRY SALT THERAPY DEVICE WITH CONVERGING-DIVERGING NOZZLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575995
WEARABLE MOTION ASSISTANCE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12527933
Automatic Placement of a Mask
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12508388
TUBE CONNECTOR FOR VENTILATOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+45.0%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 21 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month