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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendment filed on March 18, 2026. Claims 1-18 are pending, in which claims 1, 3, and 7-17 have been amended.
Drawings
Figures 13, 14A, 14B, and 15 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the Abstract the language “define,” “determine,” and “calculate,” should read --defining--, --determining--, and --calculating--. 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 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, 6, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Astero-Active Safety Test Robot product description and YouTube Video from MESSRING (“Astero”) in view of YouTube® Video “Gait Range of Motion Animation” by Kopelvich (“Kopelvich”) and further in view of US. Publication No. 2014/0102224 by Fritz (“Fritz’”).
In re claims 1 and 11, Astero discloses creating a realistic human gait for an articulating dummy with leg comprising an articulating hip joint connected to an upper leg, and articulating knee joint connecting the upper leg to a lower leg and a set of servos to move the leg. The articulation shown includes a gait type of walking, jogging, and running [see video @ 0:04/0:37]. Each gait type has a cycle (heel contact of foot to next heel contract of same foot). In addition, the dummy has given parameters including the joint angles and step frequency for the gait type. Astero shows but doesn’t explicitly teach the phases of a walking gait cycle, but Kopelvich teaches a gait cycle for walking that includes a stance phase and a swing phase [at 0.15/3:51 of video]. Additionally, Kopelvich teaches defining the duration of the stance and the swing phase [.20/3:51 of the video shows duration of cycle (d) is length of heal strike to heal strike of same foot with stance phase being 0.6d and the swing phase being 0.4d]. In addition Kopelvich teaches determine a position within the gait cycle and for the position at based on the position determining the knee angle and the hip angle [e.g., in stance phase at “foot flat” position the knee angle is determined to be 15° (at 1:54/3:51) and the corresponding hip angle is determined to be flex angle of 15°; in the swing phase at the “acceleration” position the knee 60° is and the corresponding hip angle is 20° flex].
Astero and Kopelvich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Gait Simulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Astero and to include simulated walking include the gait characteristics (phases, duration, angles, etc.) as taught by Kopelvich, in order to accurately mimic a human walking gait by the dummy.
Astero in view of Kopelvich doesn’t explicitly disclose but Fritz teaches for an articulating dummy [Fig. 1, Abstract]; a remote controller comprising: a wireless transmitter connected to a processor; a wireless receiver [¶¶40-47, 57, among others, receiver control unit receives wireless signals (e.g., via radio)]; the servo controller connected to the set of servos and to the wireless receiver and constructed to: receive control signals the remote controller; and actuate the set of servos [¶¶40-47, among others, describe servos with controllers to actuate limbs and joints including knee and hips. Corresponding programs control the drive unit and the components of the movement mechanisms in accordance with the motion sequences. Each joint 5, 7, 9 and 10 is moved separately by means of its own servo drive--servo motors with servo controllers].
Astero, Kopelvich, and Fritz are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gait simulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the articulated dummy of Astero in view of Kopelvich to include a remote controller comprising: a wireless transmitter connected to a processor; a wireless receiver; the servo controller connected to the set of servos and to the wireless receiver and constructed to: receive control signals the remote controller; and actuate the set of servos, as taught by Fritz, to improve modelling of pedestrians for driver assist systems, for example, by providing accurate, repeatable simulation of walking, see, e.g., ¶7.
In re claims 6 and 18, Astero discloses an articulating dummy with gait cycle to mimic a normal human gait for walking. Kopelvich teaches for a normal human gait cycle that the stance phase is not equal in time to the swing phase [.20/3:51 of the video shows duration of cycle (d) is length of heal strike to heal strike of same foot with stance phase being 0.6d and the swing phase being 0.4d].
Astero and Kopelvich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Gait Simulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Astero to include simulated walking including the gait characteristics (unequal phases), as taught by Kopelvich, in order to accurately mimic a human walking.
Claims 2-5 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz, and further in view of Publication “Normal Human Gait Analysis of Right lower limb during complete cycle using sub-parametric Fitting Functions” by Werfalli et al. (“Werfalli”).
In re claims 2 and 14, Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz do not explicitly teach the calculation of knee angle is approximated by a Haversine function. Werfalli teaches functions for fitting the normal human gait parameters, of the right lower limb, including knee angle. Werfalli teaches one of the functions that can be used is the Haversine Function [p. 219, Subparametric fitting functions].
Astero, Kopelvich, Fritz, and Werfalli are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gait simulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz to include simulated walking with gait characteristics determined by the Haversine function, as taught by Werfalli, for the predictable result of accurately calculating knee angles that mimicking an actual human walking.
In re claims 3 and 15, Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz does not explicitly teach the calculation of knee angle is approximated by a haversine function. However, the combination does teach two different phases of the gait cycle including the swing phase and stance phase. Werfalli teaches functions for fitting the normal human gait parameters, of the right lower limb, including knee angle. Werfalli teaches one of the functions that can be used to model the joint motion is the Haversine Function [p. 219, Subparametric fitting functions]. It is submitted that haversine function would need to be variable based on the position of the dummy within the phase of the gait cycle because the kinematics of the connected joints will vary depending on the position and/or phase of the gait cycle.
Astero, Kopelvich, Fritz and Werfalli are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gait simulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz to include simulated walking with gait characteristics determined by the Haversine function, as taught by Werfalli, for the predictable result of accurately calculating knee angles that mimicking an actual human walking.
In re claims 4 and 16, Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz does not explicitly teach the calculation of knee angle is approximated by a haversine function. However, the combination does teach two different phases of the gait cycle including the swing phase and stance phase. Werfalli teaches functions for fitting the normal human gait parameters, of the right lower limb, including knee angle. Werfalli teaches one of the functions that can be used to model the joint motion is the Haversine Function [p. 219, Subparametric fitting functions]. It is submitted that two variable period Haversine functions would be used as a different Haversine function for the stance phase and swing phase would have different periods (i.e., .6d vs .4d).
Astero, Kopelvich, Fritz and Werfalli are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gait simulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz to include simulated walking with gait characteristics determined by the Haversine function, as taught by Werfalli, for the predictable result of accurately calculating knee angles that mimicking an actual human walking.
In re claims 5 and 17, Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz does not explicitly teach the calculation of hip angle is approximated by a cosine function when in the stance phase. However, Werfalli shows in Fig. 8 that the shape of the graph of the hip angle in stance phase of the gait cycle has a curve that conforms with the cosine function (vs a sine function).
Astero, Kopelvich, Fritz and Werfalli are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gait simulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz to include simulated walking with knee angle determined by the cosine function, as taught by Werfalli, for the predictable result of accurately calculating knee angles that mimicking an actual human walking.
In re claim 12, Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz does not explicitly teach using stride and the calculation of the hip angle is based on the length of the upper leg and the stride length. Werfalli teaches functions for fitting the normal human gait parameters to model hip angle using stride length and length of upper leg [see, e.g., p.222 Trajectory of lower limb, Fig. 2, L1].
Astero, Kopelvich, Fritz, and Werfalli are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gait simulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz to include simulated walking with gait characteristics determined by the stride length and limb length, as taught by Werfalli, for the predictable result of accurately calculating hip angles that mimicking an actual human walking.
In re claim 13, Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz does not explicitly teach using stride a length of the upper leg and a length of the lower leg, wherein the calculation of the hip angle in is based on the length of the upper leg and the length of the lower leg. Werfalli teaches functions for fitting the normal human gait parameters to model hip angle using stride length and length of upper leg and lower leg [see, e.g., p.222 Trajectory of lower limb, Fig. 2, L1 and L2].
Astero, Kopelvich, Fritz, and Werfalli are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gait simulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz to include simulated walking with gait characteristics determined by the stride length and limb length, as taught by Werfalli, for the predictable result of accurately calculating hip angles that mimicking an actual human walking.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz and further in view of US. Publication No. 2013/0226048 by Unluhisarcikli et la. (“Unlu’”).
In re claim 7, Astero shows the gaits cycle is repeated for walking and Kopelvich shows angle for knee and hips can be determined for discrete positions within the gait cycle. Fritz teaches an articulating dummy including a controller for transmitting control signals to servos to control the movement of the dummy. Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz does not explicitly teach storing the knee angle and hip angle for each iteration of the position within the gait cycle using a look-up table.
Unlu teaches measuring the ankle, knee, and hip flexion/extension angles for a gait cycle and computing a desired joint angle based on the estimated gait phase for robotic articulation of patient’s leg and storing the corresponding angles in a look-up tables [¶¶24, 24, 95 describe for a position of gait phase, the desired angle is found from the corresponding look-up table].
Astero, Kopelvich, Fritz, and Unlu are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Gait Simulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Astero to include simulated storing the angles uses for simulating walking taught by Kopelvich in a look-up table as taught by Unlu, in order to improve system performance, for example, by replacing slow, repetitive runtime computations with fast, precomputed array indexing, optimizing speed and reducing computational load.
In re claims 8 and 9, Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz show the gait cycle has a range of 0% to 100%; however, the combination fails to show explicitly that the discrete positions of iterative knee and hip angle determination are separated by an intervals of at most 5% of the gait cycle or 1% of the gait cycle.
However, the selection of specific intervals (e.g., 5% or 1%), would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as the selection of any specific sampling/computational interval will depend on the specific implementation and design parameters, for example, smaller intervals will mimic a smoother and/or more realistic gait at the cost of increased computation and power consumption; therefore, the choice of any explicit interval is part of routine computational design; moreover, Applicant provides the intervals as examples and has not disclosed that any particular interval solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
In re claim 10, Astero shows a dummy with a first leg comprising a first articulating hip joint and a first articulating knee joint, and a second leg comprising a second articulating hip joint and a second articulating knee joint and actuating the joints during a walking gait cycle. Kopelvich shows determining the hip and knee angle angles for a gait cycle of one leg and that the other leg cycle start for knee and hips can be determined for discrete positions within the gait cycle. Fritz teaches an articulating dummy including a controller for transmitting control signals to servos to control the movement of the dummy. Astero in view of Kopelvich and Fritz does not explicitly teach storing the knee angle and hip angle for each iteration in a look-up table.
Unlu teaches measuring the ankle, knee, and hip flexion/extension angles for a gait cycle and computing a desired joint angle based on the estimated gait phase for robotic articulation of patient’s leg and storing the corresponding angles in a look-up tables [¶¶24, 24, 95 describe for a position of gait phase, the desired angle is found from the corresponding look-up table].
Astero, Kopelvich, Fritz and Unlu are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Gait Simulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Astero to include simulated storing the angles uses for simulating walking taught by Kopelvich in a look-up table as taught by Unlu, in order to improve system performance, for example, by replacing slow, repetitive runtime computations with fast, precomputed array indexing, optimizing speed and reducing computational load.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s remarks state “Per the Examiner's requirement under MPEP § 608.02(g), corrected drawing sheets will be submitted that designate these figures with the legend "Prior Art". However, no corrected drawings have been filed. Therefore, the objection to the drawings is maintained for the reasons given above.
Applicant’s remarks state “Regarding the Abstract, the language has been corrected to use the present participle form ("defining," "determining," "calculating") as requested." However, no amendment to the Abstract was provided, therefore objection to the specification is maintained for the reasons given above.
The objection to claims 10 for lettering of steps and claim 11 for typographical error are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. With regard to claim 1, 7, and 10, Applicant states the claim punctuation has been revised to ensure each claim contains only one terminal period at the end.” However, claims 1, 7, and 10 still include multiple periods. Therefore, the objection to the claims is maintained for the reasons given above.
The rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-10 as directed to non-eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s remarks and Amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the obviousness of claims 1-18 have been considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained for the reasons given above.
Applicant’s remarks only address claims 1 and 6. Applicant argues “There is no reason to combine these references to arrive at the claimed invention, as a person of ordinary skill would not look to a simplified animation to solve the complex problem of coupling limb articulation to the forward motion of a strikable dummy.“ The animation in question is provided to show the aspects of a human gait cycle. The Astero teaches an articulating dummy for testing assistance systems and emergency braking systems (AEB). Astero also teaches that the dummies should reproduce human behavior and movement as accurately as possible. Astero doesn’t explicitly teach the aspects of a human gait cycle, such as the phases, the actual angles of the knees and hips in its articulation. However, based on the teaching of the desirability to accurately reproduce a human behavior, Astero would want to mimic a human walk or gate. Therefore, the animation in question shows the human gait cycle and the corresponding angles of the knees and joints in each phase that would be incorporated into the Astero dummy to accurately mimic a human’s gait. Therefore, the animation is demonstrative of the gait cycle that would be employed by Astero.
Applicant then argues that “Werfalli contains no disclosure of any physical dummy hardware, no servo motors at the hip joint or knee joint, no wireless servo controller receiving lookup-table values, and no real-time ordered computation wherein a knee angle is first retrieved from a precomputed table indexed to discrete gait-cycle positions and then used to derive the hip angle for opposite-phase dual-leg coordination at variable stance durations of 55-65 percent and swing durations of 35-45 percent of a 1.6-second stride-features that Astero's pneumatic-muscle open-loop system and Kopelvich’s graphical animation likewise lack entirely.” It is noted that these features were not included in originally filed claims 1 and 6 and were added by Applicant’s and therefore Astero, Kopelvich and Werfalli were not relied to show these features. However, Fritz and Unlu are provided to teach these features of the amended claims 1 and 6. Applicant did not address Fritz and Unlu in their remarks, therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection under Fritz and Unlu.
Applicant did not address the rejections of the other claims; therefore, the rejections are maintained for the reasons provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
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 Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights