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
Claims 1-20, as filed on 05/31/2024, are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities, appropriate correction is required:
Claim 11, line 2 amend: “attached to a user’s body part.” To ---configured to be attached to a user’s body part.---.
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.
Claim 14-15, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim 14 recites: “wherein each of the vest and the shorts”. The claim is rendered indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations are necessary to meet the requirements of the claim as claim 13 states “comprising one or more of”.
Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---wherein the plurality of wearable pieces comprise at least the vest and the shorts, wherein each of the vest and the shorts---.
Claim 16 recites: “wherein each of the knee pads and the elbow pads”. The claim is rendered indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations are necessary to meet the requirements of the claim as claim 13 states “comprising one or more of”.
Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---wherein the plurality of wearable pieces comprise at least the knee pads and the elbow pads, wherein each of the knee pads and the elbow pads---.
Claim 18 recites: “wherein the vest and the shorts”. The claim is rendered indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations are necessary to meet the requirements of the claim as claim 13 states “comprising one or more of”.
Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to ---wherein the plurality of wearable pieces comprise at least the vest and the shorts, wherein the vest and the shorts---.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) The claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190134454 A1 (Mahoney).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Mahoney discloses a neurosuit system (exosuit 200, Fig 2A) comprising:
a neurosuit (exosuit 200) comprising:
a plurality of wearable pieces (thigh LDMs 212 and 214, arm LDMs 216 and 218, and upper torso LDM 202; LDMs are load distribution members);
and a plurality of bungee cords (PLSs 240 and 245 and extensor PLSs 250 and 255; power layer segment (PLS) comprising flexible linear actuators (FLA), “Each of power layer segments can include any number of flexible linear actuators” Paragraph 91 and “The FLA can also include an in line elastic element, such as a rubber tube” Paragraph 70; a rubber tube is a bungee cord) to interlock the plurality of wearable pieces (See Figure 2A);
a sensory input device (“plurality of sensors” Paragraph 11) configured to capture a body movement of a user wearing the neurosuit;
a suit control device (“control circuitry” Paragraph 17) communicatively coupled to the sensory input device, wherein the suit control device is configured to: receive inputs from the sensory input device (“control circuitry is operative to monitor the plurality of sensors while a user of the exosuit is performing an exercise movement to obtain movement factors” Paragraph 17);
PNG
media_image1.png
239
277
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2A
determine the body movement based on the inputs; compare the body movement with an ideal body movement; and perform a predetermined action when the body movement is different from the ideal body movement (“analyze the movement factors to determine whether the user is performing the exercise movement within parameters associated with the exercise movement, and selectively activate and deactivate at least one of the plurality of actuators” Paragraph 17),
wherein the predetermined action is associated with the plurality of bungee cords (“selectively activate and deactivate at least one of the plurality of actuators to provide spot assistance to the user in response to a determination that that user is not performing the exercise movement within the parameters associated with the exercise movement” Paragraph 17; actuators are the FLA’s).
Regarding Claim 3, Mahoney further discloses the neurosuit system of claim 1, wherein the sensory input device is an inertial measurement unit (“Inertial measurement units (IMUs) measure and enable computation of kinematic data (positions, velocities and accelerations) of points on the suit and wearer. These data enable inverse dynamics calculations of kinetic information (forces, torques) of the suit and wearer” Paragraph 74).
Regarding Claim 4, Mahoney further discloses the neurosuit system of claim 1, wherein the suit control device is configured to: obtain information (“parameters”) associated with the ideal body movement from a memory (“the parameters may be selected based on a user setup process in which the user may provide dimensions of his or her body parts” Paragraph 119; said parameters are selected in a first setup process and then stored onto the control circuitry on a form of software memory);
and compare the body movement with the information associated with the ideal body movement (“control circuitry is operative to monitor the plurality of sensors while a user of the exosuit is performing an exercise movement to obtain movement factors, analyze the movement factors to determine whether the user is performing the exercise movement within parameters associated with the exercise movement, and selectively activate and deactivate at least one of the plurality of actuators to provide spot assistance to the user in response to a determination that that user is not performing the exercise movement within the parameters associated with the exercise movement.” Paragraph 17).
Regarding Claim 5, Mahoney further discloses the neurosuit system of claim 4, wherein the suit control device is further configured to:
identify a deficit in the body movement and the ideal body movement based on the comparison (“control circuitry is operative to monitor the plurality of sensors while a user of the exosuit is performing an exercise movement to obtain movement factors, analyze the movement factors to determine whether the user is performing the exercise movement within parameters associated with the exercise movement” Paragraph 17);
determine a muscle group associated with the deficit (“ any exercise movement requires activation of protagonist muscles, a subset of the power layer segments can emulate activation of antagonist muscles associated with that exercise movement to provide resistance” Paragraph 96; said power layer segments are associated with respective muscle groupings comprising respective protagonist/antagonist muscle groupings associated with the specific exercise movement);
determine a bungee cord, of the plurality of bungee cords, associated with the muscle group (“if the user is not performing the movement within the parameters, control circuitry may provide corrective feedback. For example, the control circuitry may selectively activate the appropriate power layer segments to reposition the user in the correct alignment” Paragraph 121; the selected appropriate power layer segment is a selected respective PLS/FLA);
and determine an optimal position of the bungee cord based on the deficit and the muscle group (“to reposition the user in the correct alignment.” Paragraph 121; the correct alignment is a predetermined optimal position).
Regarding Claim 6, Mahoney further discloses the neurosuit system of claim 5, wherein the suit control device is further configured to:
determine an existing position of the bungee cord (“monitor the plurality of sensors while a user of the exosuit is performing an exercise movement to obtain exercise factor” Claim 8; said exercise factors include positioning of the exosuit which includes positioning of the PLS/FLA);
compare the existing position with the optimal position (“analyze the exercise factors to determine whether the user is performing the exercise movement within parameters associated with the exercise movement” Claim 8);
and perform the predetermined action when the existing position is different from the optimal position (“wherein the control circuitry is operative to selectively activate a subset of the plurality of power layer segment to reposition the user to a correct alignment in response to a determination that the exercise factors are not within the parameters” Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 7, Mahoney further discloses the neurosuit system of claim 6, wherein the predetermined action comprises:
generate a recommendation based on the comparison between the existing position and the optimal position (“analyze the exercise factors to determine whether the user is performing the exercise movement within parameters associated with the exercise movement, and communicate feedback that indicates whether the user is performing the exercise movement factors within the parameters” Paragraph 11;
and output the recommendation to a user interface (“the communicated feedback comprises audio feedback, visual feedback, or haptic feedback” Paragraph 12 and “user interface/user experience (UI/UX) layer 280).
Regarding Claim 9, Mahoney further discloses the neurosuit system of claim 1 further comprises a sensory output device configured to output feedback to the user (“the communicated feedback comprises audio feedback, visual feedback, or haptic feedback” Paragraph 12).
Regarding Claim 10, Mahoney further discloses the neurosuit system of claim 9, wherein the sensory output device comprises a vibrator (“the exosuit may include vibration motors to provide haptic feedback” Paragraph 78).
Regarding Claim 12, Mahoney further discloses the neurosuit system of claim 10, wherein the predetermined action comprises actuating the vibrator (“Exosuit based alignment may provide audio, visual, or haptic cues for proprioceptive feedback to maintain proper form during an exercise movement” Paragraph 97).
Regarding Claim 13, Mahoney further discloses the neurosuit system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of wearable pieces comprises one or more of a vest and shorts (base layer 210; base layer is a unitard which comprises a best and a set of shorts), elbow pads (load distribution members (LDMs) 216, 218).
Regarding Independent Claim 19, Mahoney disclose a method comprising:
receiving, by a processor (“control circuitry” Paragraph 17, “One or more software controllers can be implemented as part of an operating system, kernel, driver, application, service, daemon, or other computer-readable program executed by a processor included in the exosuit” Paragraph 170: emphasis added; the control circuitry is implemented via computer-readable program executed by a processor), inputs (“The sensors may provide absolute position data, relative position data, accelerometer data, gyroscopic data, inertial moment data, strain gauge data, resistance data, or any other suitable data” Paragraph 109) from a sensory input device of a neurosuit system (sensors disposed on the base layer 210, Paragraph 109), wherein the neurosuit system comprises a neurosuit (ARA exosuit 200, Figures 2A, 2B) and the sensory input device (sensors in flex drive subsystem 231), wherein the neurosuit comprises:
a plurality of wearable pieces (thigh LDMs 212 and 214, arm LDMs 216 and 218, and upper torso LDM 202; LDMs are load distribution members), and
a plurality of bungee cords to interlock the plurality of wearable pieces (PLSs 240 and 245 and extensor PLSs 250 and 255; power layer segment (PLS) comprising flexible linear actuators (FLA), “Each of power layer segments can include any number of flexible linear actuators” Paragraph 91 and “The FLA can also include an in line elastic element, such as a rubber tube” Paragraph 70; a rubber tube is a bungee cord),
wherein the sensory input device is configured to capture a body movement of a user wearing the neurosuit (“sensors may be located anywhere on base layer 210… …The sensors may provide absolute position data, relative position data, accelerometer data, gyroscopic data, inertial moment data, strain gauge data, resistance data, or any other suitable data” Paragraph 109);
determining, by the processor, the body movement based on the inputs (“analyze the movement factors” Paragraph 17; said movement factors are the positional data from the sensors);
comparing, by the processor, the body movement with an ideal body movement (“control circuitry is operative to monitor the plurality of sensors while a user of the exosuit is performing an exercise movement to obtain movement factors, analyze the movement factors to determine whether the user is performing the exercise movement within parameters associated with the exercise movement” Paragraph 17, said control circuitry implemented by the processor analyzes the data from the sensor and compares said data to parameters associated with the exercise);
and performing, by the processor, a predetermined action when the body movement is different from the ideal body movement, wherein the predetermined action is associated with the plurality of bungee cords (“selectively activate and deactivate at least one of the plurality of actuators to provide spot assistance to the user in response to a determination that that user is not performing the exercise movement within the parameters associated with the exercise movement” Paragraph 17).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190134454 A1 (Mahoney).
Regarding Independent Claim 20, Mahoney discloses a processor (“control circuitry” Paragraph 17, “One or more software controllers can be implemented as part of an operating system, kernel, driver, application, service, daemon, or other computer-readable program executed by a processor included in the exosuit” Paragraph 170; the control circuitry is implemented via computer-readable program executed by a processor), cause the processor to: receive inputs (“The sensors may provide absolute position data, relative position data, accelerometer data, gyroscopic data, inertial moment data, strain gauge data, resistance data, or any other suitable data” Paragraph 109) from a sensory input device of a neurosuit system (sensors disposed on the base layer 210, Paragraph 109), wherein the neurosuit system comprises a neurosuit (ARA exosuit 200, Figures 2A, 2B) and the sensory input device (sensors in flex drive subsystem 231), wherein the neurosuit comprises:
a plurality of wearable pieces (thigh LDMs 212 and 214, arm LDMs 216 and 218, and upper torso LDM 202; LDMs are load distribution members), and
a plurality of bungee cords to interlock the plurality of wearable pieces (PLSs 240 and 245 and extensor PLSs 250 and 255; power layer segment (PLS) comprising flexible linear actuators (FLA), “Each of power layer segments can include any number of flexible linear actuators” Paragraph 91 and “The FLA can also include an in line elastic element, such as a rubber tube” Paragraph 70; a rubber tube is a bungee cord),
wherein the sensory input device is configured to capture a body movement of a user wearing the neurosuit (“sensors may be located anywhere on base layer 210… …The sensors may provide absolute position data, relative position data, accelerometer data, gyroscopic data, inertial moment data, strain gauge data, resistance data, or any other suitable data” Paragraph 109);
determining the body movement based on the inputs (“analyze the movement factors” Paragraph 17; said movement factors are the positional data from the sensors);
comparing the body movement with an ideal body movement (“control circuitry is operative to monitor the plurality of sensors while a user of the exosuit is performing an exercise movement to obtain movement factors, analyze the movement factors to determine whether the user is performing the exercise movement within parameters associated with the exercise movement” Paragraph 17, said control circuitry implemented by the processor analyzes the data from the sensor and compares said data to parameters associated with the exercise);
and performing, by the processor, a predetermined action when the body movement is different from the ideal body movement, wherein the predetermined action is associated with the plurality of bungee cords (“selectively activate and deactivate at least one of the plurality of actuators to provide spot assistance to the user in response to a determination that that user is not performing the exercise movement within the parameters associated with the exercise movement” Paragraph 17).
Mahoney does not explicitly disclose the processor or computer readable program functioning on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in this embodiment.
Mahoney in a different embodiment discloses a processor running using a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereupon (applications installed on computer-readable storage medium included in the exosuit 1500; the storage medium is non-transitory) which, when executed by a processor (“controllers can be implemented as… …computer-readable program executed by a processor included in the exosuit” Paragraph 170).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify exosuit and processor to include a non-transitory computer readable storage medium in order to store the computer readable programs.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190134454 A1 (Mahoney) in view of US 9266233 B2 (Kornbluh et al; henceforth Kornbluh).
Regarding Claim 2, Mahoney discloses the invention as substantially claimed see above. Mahoney further discloses wherein the sensor can be an encoder, potentiometer, force sensor, inertial measurement unit, electromyographic sensor, or strain gauge. Mahoney does not disclose wherein the sensory input device is a camera.
Kornbluh teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor and incorporated by reference (Paragraph 69) by Mahoney discloses:
An exosuit (exosuit 100) with sensors (“sensors”), wherein the sensor is a camera (“sensors include but are not limited to force sensors (e.g., load cells), strain or displacement sensors (e.g., capacitive sensors, laser or ultrasonic rangefinders, linear encoders, rotary encoders on rotary elements of rotary-to-linear transducers or transmissions), angle sensors (e.g., magnets and magnetometers, filtered accelerometers, magnetometers, and/or gyroscopes), location, velocity, and/or acceleration sensors (e.g., GPS receivers, filtered or unfiltered accelerometers, magnetometers, and/or gyroscopes), temperature sensors, EMG sensors, ECG sensors, pulse sensors, blood pressure sensors, galvanic skin response sensors, humidity sensors, chemical sensors (e.g., CO.sub.2, CO, O.sub.2 sensors), ionizing radiation sensors, cameras, SONAR, LIDAR, proximity sensors, or other sensors” Col. 10, lines 52-64).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensor to include a camera sensor to include an optical sensor for visual feedback.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190134454 A1 (Mahoney) in view of WO 2015002850 A1 (Rubin).
Regarding Claim 2, Mahoney discloses the invention as substantially claimed see above. Mahoney further discloses wherein the sensor can be an encoder, potentiometer, force sensor, inertial measurement unit, electromyographic sensor, or strain gauge. Mahoney does not disclose wherein the neurosuit further comprises infrared light sources.
Rubin teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor of exosuit solving the same issue of using sensors comprising:
An exosuit comprising infrared sensors (sensor 2426, 2430 comprises: a thermocouple, a resistive temperature device, an infrared sensor, a bimetallic temperature sensor, a thermometer, or a silicon diode).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensors to include an infrared sensor to allow for non-contact sensors that work in any lighting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-16, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record US 20190134454 A1 (Mahoney) fails to teach or render obvious the neurosuit in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
wherein the recommendation comprises recommending a change in position of the bungee cord from the existing position to the optimal position.
The prior art of record teaches modifying the relative resistance of the PLS’s, which are not considered equivalent to applicant’s invention. It would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the PLS’s to change in position without improper hindsight.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record US 20190134454 A1 (Mahoney) fails to teach or render obvious the neurosuit in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including
wherein the vibrator is movably attached to one or more bungee cords of the plurality of bungee cords or attached to a user’s body part.
The prior art of record does not disclose the vibrators attached to the rubber cords or a user’s body part. It would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the vibrators to be attached to a user’s body part or the bungee cords without improper hindsight.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record US 20190134454 A1 (Mahoney) fails to teach or render obvious the neurosuit in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
wherein each vertical strap comprises a plurality of hooks configured to engage with the bungee cords.
The prior art of record teaches actuators attached to each end of the cords which is not equivalent to applicant’s invention. It would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the actuators to be hooks or hooks therebetween without improper hindsight.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record US 20190134454 A1 (Mahoney) fails to teach or render obvious the neurosuit in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
wherein each of the knee pads and the elbow pads comprises an opening at a center portion, and wherein the opening is covered by a fabric.
The prior art of record does not disclose openings in the centers of knee pads or elbow pads. It would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the device to include knee pads and elbow pads and then further modifying the teaching refence to include holes therein with fabric coverings without improper hindsight.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record US 20190134454 A1 (Mahoney) fails to teach or render obvious the neurosuit in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
wherein the vest and the shorts are connected via a buckle connector.
The prior art of record teaches the vest and shorts as unitary with PLSs connected therebetween embedded into the vest and shorts. It would not be obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the vest and shorts to be two separate parts connected by a buckle without improper hindsight and without breaking the embedded attached PLSs therebetween.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-0063. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00am - 4:00pm EST.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached on (571) 272-4966. 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.
/ZACHARY T MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3784