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 § 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 (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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 , 8, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kazerooni (WO2010101595), hereafter Kazerooni.
Regarding Claim 1, Kazerooni discloses An exoskeleton device (Fig. 1, Abstract), comprising: an exoskeleton (Fig. 2, exoskeleton 100), a base section (Fig. 2, exoskeleton trunk 109) for attachment to a body section of a human body (See Fig. 9, the base section is attached to a body of a human), a support section movably coupled to the base section for supporting a body part of the human body (Fig. 2, exoskeleton legs 101 and 102, par. 0023, “coupling to leg supports 101 and 102 through lower limb interface straps 135 and 136”), an actuator device acting on the support section for providing a support force for the body part (Fig. 2, hip actuator 145 or 146), wherein the exoskeleton device further comprises: - a sensor device for detecting position information which indicates a position of the exoskeleton in relation to the environment (par. 0030, “a device, such as in the form of sensors, is added to exoskeleton 100 for measuring the absolute angle between exoskeleton trunk 109 and the gravity vector”), and a control device for controlling the actuator device (Fig. 2, controller 137), wherein the control device is configured to adapt the provision of the support force on the basis of the detected position information and/or to adapt, on the basis of the detected position information, the shape of the base section and/or the attachment of the base section (par. 0025, “Under the control of signal processor 137, power unit 201 generates command signals for (among other things) the torques imposed by hip torque generators 145 and 146.”; par. 0030).
Regarding Claim 2, Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton device according to Claim 1 wherein the control device is configured to adapt the provision of the support force on the basis of the detected position information in such a way that the influence of an inclination of the base section(par. 0030, “Therefore, in one preferred embodiment of the present invention, a device, such as in the form of sensors, is added to exoskeleton 100 for measuring the absolute angle between exoskeleton trunk 109 and the gravity vector, thereby making it is possible to calculate the moment created by load 154 about hip axes 151 and 152 more exactly. Power unit 201 is configured to apply a more accurate torque to hip joints 125 and 126 in order to cancel the effects of carrying load 154.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton device according to a claim 1, wherein the sensor device has a support section sensor element, attached to the support section, and the control device is configured to detect the position information with the support section sensor element (par. 0030, “Therefore, in one preferred embodiment of the present invention, a device, such as in the form of sensors, is added to exoskeleton 100 for measuring the absolute angle between exoskeleton trunk 109 and the gravity vector”).
Regarding Claim 15, Kazerooni discloses a method of operating an exoskeleton device according to claim 1, comprising the steps of:- detecting the position information (par. 0030, “a device, such as in the form of sensors, is added to exoskeleton 100 for measuring the absolute angle between exoskeleton trunk 109 and the gravity vector”), - based on the detected position information, adjusting the support force and/or adjusting the shape and/or attachment of the base section (par. 0025, “Under the control of signal processor 137, power unit 201 generates command signals for (among other things) the torques imposed by hip torque generators 145 and 146.”; par. 0030).
Regarding Claim 17, Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, wherein the position information indicates a position of the base section and/or the support section in relation to gravity (par. 0030, “a device, such as in the form of sensors, is added to exoskeleton 100 for measuring the absolute angle between exoskeleton trunk 109 and the gravity vector”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazerooni in view of Krumholz (WO2018111853), hereafter Krumholz.
Regarding Claim 3, Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton device according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the control device is configured to effect a smaller support force in response to detected position information indicating a greater inclination of the base section than in response to detected position information indicating a smaller inclination of the base section, in particular at the same angle of the support section relative to the base section.
However, Krumholz teaches an exoskeleton device (Fig. 1), comprising of a control device (pg. 5, line 13-14, “Some embodiments of the present disclosure include lift and assist devices having dual upper and forearm adjustments that can be configured by a firmware base control system”), a base section (Fig. 2A, body chassis 102), a support section (Fig. 1, arm assembly 106, 108), and a sensor for detecting a position information (pg. 39 line 1-5, “embodiments of the upper torso augmentation system 100 can include a plurality of sensing devices 402A-D configured to monitor one or more clinical parameters of interest during use.”). Krumholz further teaches wherein the control device is configured to effect a smaller support force in response to detected position information indicating a greater inclination of the base section than in response to detected position information indicating a smaller inclination of the base section, in particular at the same angle of the support section relative to the base section (Examiner Notes: See pg. 39 line 1-5, pg. 24, line 7-14, the prior art teaches that the support force is dependent to the arm’s orientation to gravity, such that minimum force is needed when the arm is substantially vertical to the ground, therefore, when the torso is more inclined while holding the arm at an angle, the arm orientation relative to gravity is changed. Therefore, a smaller support force is needed at a greater torso inclination than at a smaller torso inclination as the gravitational torque acting on the arm is reduced.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Kazerooni, with the device of Krumholz, to provide support to the arms and provide accurate support force to compensate the force of gravity as taught by Krumholz (Krumholz, pg. 23-24).
Regarding Claim 4, Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton device (10) according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the control device is configured to cause a reduction and/or deactivation of the support force in response to the detected position information indicating an inclination of the base section relative to the environment which exceeds or falls below an inclination threshold value.
However, Krumholz teaches an exoskeleton device (Fig. 1), comprising of a control device (pg. 5, line 13-14, “Some embodiments of the present disclosure include lift and assist devices having dual upper and forearm adjustments that can be configured by a firmware base control system”), a base section (Fig. 2A, body chassis 102), a support section (Fig. 1, arm assembly 106, 108), and a sensor for detecting a position information (pg. 39 line 1-5, “embodiments of the upper torso augmentation system 100 can include a plurality of sensing devices 402A-D configured to monitor one or more clinical parameters of interest during use.”).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the known device of Kazerooni, with the device of Krumholz, to provide support to the arms and provide accurate support force to compensate the force of gravity as taught by Krumholz (Krumholz, pg. 23-24), and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
The modified Kazerooni further discloses wherein the control device is configured to cause a reduction and/or deactivation of the support force in response to the detected position information indicating an inclination of the base section relative to the environment which exceeds or falls below an inclination threshold value (Krumholz, pg. 24, line 7-14, when the inclination of the base section exceeds a threshold value, i.e. when the support section is substantially vertical, the support force is deactivated.).
Regarding Claim 9, Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton device according to a claim 1, but is silent on wherein the control device is configured to take into account an angle between the base section and the support section when detecting the position information.
However, Krumholz teaches an exoskeleton device (Fig. 1), comprising of a control device (pg. 5, line 13-14, “Some embodiments of the present disclosure include lift and assist devices having dual upper and forearm adjustments that can be configured by a firmware base control system”), a base section (Fig. 2A, body chassis 102), a support section (Fig. 1, arm assembly 106, 108), and a sensor for detecting a position information (pg. 39 line 1-5, “embodiments of the upper torso augmentation system 100 can include a plurality of sensing devices 402A-D configured to monitor one or more clinical parameters of interest during use.”). Krumholz further teaches the control device is configured to take into account an angle between the base section and the support section when detecting the position information (See Fig. 5A, the position information includes an upper arm angle). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Kazerooni, with the device of Krumholz, to provide accurate support force to the device as taught by Krumholz (Krumholz, pg. 25 line 14-22).
Regarding Claim 10, Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton device according to claims 1, but is silent on wherein the control device is configured to set the support force according to a characteristic curve which defines the support force as a function of an angle between the base section and the support section, and the control device is further configured to scale the characteristic curve on the basis of the detected position information and/or to shift the characteristic curve with respect to the angle.
However, Krumholz teaches an exoskeleton device (Fig. 1), comprising of a control device (pg. 5, line 13-14, “Some embodiments of the present disclosure include lift and assist devices having dual upper and forearm adjustments that can be configured by a firmware base control system”), a base section (Fig. 2A, body chassis 102), a support section (Fig. 1, arm assembly 106, 108), and a sensor for detecting a position information (pg. 39 line 1-5, “embodiments of the upper torso augmentation system 100 can include a plurality of sensing devices 402A-D configured to monitor one or more clinical parameters of interest during use.”). Krumholz further teaches wherein the control device is configured to set the support force according to a characteristic curve which defines the support force as a function of an angle between the base section and the support section, and the control device is further configured to scale the characteristic curve on the basis of the detected position information and/or to shift the characteristic curve with respect to the angle (See Fig. 5A, the support force is set according to a sinusoid curve, pg. 25 line 7-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Kazerooni, with the device of Krumholz, to provide accurate support force to the device as taught by Krumholz (Krumholz, pg. 25 line 14-22).
Regarding Claim 13, Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton device according to a claim 1, but is silent on wherein the control device has at least two manually and/or automatically selectable presets which each have at least one preset characteristic which defines a support force specification as a function of at least one input variable, wherein the at least two presets differ in their preset characteristics, and wherein the control device is configured to determine, using a preset selected from the at least two presets, the support force specification as a function of the input variable and to set the support force on the basis of the support force preset.
However, Krumholz teaches an exoskeleton device (Fig. 1), comprising of a control device (pg. 5, line 13-14, “Some embodiments of the present disclosure include lift and assist devices having dual upper and forearm adjustments that can be configured by a firmware base control system”), a base section (Fig. 2A, body chassis 102), a support section (Fig. 1, arm assembly 106, 108), and a sensor for detecting a position information (pg. 39 line 1-5, “embodiments of the upper torso augmentation system 100 can include a plurality of sensing devices 402A-D configured to monitor one or more clinical parameters of interest during use.”). Krumholz further teaches wherein the control device has at least two manually and/or automatically selectable presets which each have at least one preset characteristic which defines a support force specification as a function of at least one input variable (See Fig. 8A and 8B, pg. 28-29, the prior art discloses presets that provides support force as a function of the arm angle), wherein the at least two presets differ in their preset characteristics, and wherein the control device is configured to determine, using a preset selected from the at least two presets, the support force specification as a function of the input variable and to set the support force on the basis of the support force preset (Fig. 8A, 8B, pg. 28-29, “…If the user is unable to reach the first upper arm angle, the spring preload assembly 154 can be shifted and/or the lever 152 can be rotated to provide an additional Assistance Force. Upon reaching the first upper arm angle, a first assistance force provided by the upper torso augmentation system 100 can be determined…”; the prior art teaches presets based on the arm angle, and providing different support force for when the arm angle is under the preset value and above the preset value). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Kazerooni, with the device of Krumholz, to accurately provide support force according to specific arm angles as taught by Krumholz (Krumholz, pg.28-29).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton device according to claim 13, wherein the control device is configured to select the preset from the at least two presets on the basis of the detected position information (Krumholz, pg. 28-29, Fig. 8A, 8B, the control device selects between presets of support force based on the detected angle information).
Regarding Claim 16, Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, wherein the base section serves for attachment to the torso of a human body (See Fig. 9, Fig. 11), but is silent on the support section serves for supporting an arm of the human body.
However, Krumholz teaches an exoskeleton device (Fig. 1), comprising of a control device (pg. 5, line 13-14, “Some embodiments of the present disclosure include lift and assist devices having dual upper and forearm adjustments that can be configured by a firmware base control system”), a base section (Fig. 2A, body chassis 102), a support section (Fig. 1, arm assembly 106, 108), and a sensor for detecting a position information (pg. 39 line 1-5, “embodiments of the upper torso augmentation system 100 can include a plurality of sensing devices 402A-D configured to monitor one or more clinical parameters of interest during use.”). Krumholz further teaches the support section serves for supporting an arm of the human body (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Kazerooni, with the device of Krumholz, to provide support to the arms and provide accurate support force to compensate the force of gravity as taught by Krumholz (Krumholz, pg. 23-24).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 8, but is silent on wherein the support section sensor element is an acceleration sensor. The sole difference between Kazerooni and the claimed subject matter is that Kazerooni does not disclose using an acceleration sensor to measure the position information. Kazerooni uses an inclinometer for measuring the position information (par. 0030, “One type of sensor which can measure the absolute angle between exoskeleton trunk 109 and the gravity vector is generally called an inclinometer”).
Krumholz teaches the support section may include a sensor (pg. 39, line 3-5, “embodiments of the upper torso augmentation system 100 can include a plurality of sensing devices 402A-D configured to monitor one or more clinical parameters of interest during use”), wherein the support section sensor element is an acceleration sensor (pg. 39 line 5-8, “For example, the sensing devices can include inertial measurement unit (EVIU) sensors, EMG sensors, or body motion sensors, such as accelerometers, angle sensors, and/or flex sensors. The plurality of sensing devices 402 can sense, for example, a position (e.g., pronation and/or supination of extremities)”).
Krumholz shows that the use of an acceleration sensor used in an exoskeleton device for measuring a position information was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the acceleration sensor of Krumholz for the inclinometer of Kazerooni.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5-7, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazerooni in view of Jin (CN110598536, machine translation accessed 7/17/2026), hereafter Jin.
Regarding Claim 5, Kazerooni discloses an exoskeleton device according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the control device is configured, in response to the detected position information indicating an inclination of the base section relative to the environment which exceeds and/or falls below an inclination threshold value and/or is close to the inclination threshold value, to cause an output of a warning signal which is perceivable by the user of the exoskeleton device.
However, Jin teaches a human skeleton motion model system for fall detection (Abstract), comprising of a control device (par. 0025, measurement and calculation module), wherein the control device is configured, in response to the detected position information indicating an inclination of the base section relative to the environment which exceeds and/or falls below an inclination threshold value and/or is close to the inclination threshold value, to cause an output of a warning signal which is perceivable by the user of the exoskeleton device (par. 0025, “When the tilt angle of the human torso exceeds the threshold, the rate of change of the tilt angle and center height is measured. When the rate of change of the tilt angle and center height exceeds the set threshold, an early warning signal is transmitted to the early warning module.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Kazerooni, with the control device of Jin, to determine when the user is falling and issue warning to prevent injury as taught by Jin (Jin, par. 0004).
Regarding Claim 6, Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton device according to a claim 1, but is silent on wherein the control device is configured to detect an emergency situation, for example a free fall, on the basis of the detected position information.
However, Jin teaches a human skeleton motion model system for fall detection (Abstract), comprising of a control device (par. 0025, measurement and calculation module), and detection of a position information (par. 0011, “ fall is detected when the torso tilt angle exceeds a set threshold.”) wherein the control device is configured to detect an emergency situation, for example a free fall, on the basis of the detected position information (par. 0025, “When the tilt angle of the human torso exceeds the threshold, the rate of change of the tilt angle and center height is measured. When the rate of change of the tilt angle and center height exceeds the set threshold, an early warning signal is transmitted to the early warning module.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Kazerooni, with the control device of Jin, to determine when the user is falling and issue warning to prevent injury as taught by Jin (Jin, par. 0004).
Regarding Claim 7, Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton device according to claim 6, but is silent on wherein the control device is configured to effect an emergency reaction in response to the detected emergency situation.
However, Jin teaches a human skeleton motion model system for fall detection (Abstract), comprising of a control device (par. 0025, measurement and calculation module), wherein the control device is configured to effect an emergency reaction in response to the detected emergency situation (par. 0025, “When the tilt angle of the human torso exceeds the threshold, the rate of change of the tilt angle and center height is measured. When the rate of change of the tilt angle and center height exceeds the set threshold, an early warning signal is transmitted to the early warning module.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Kazerooni, with the control device of Jin, to determine when the user is falling and issue warning to prevent injury as taught by Jin (Jin, par. 0004).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 6, wherein the emergency situation is a free fall (Jin, par. 0011, “ fall is detected when the torso tilt angle exceeds a set threshold.”).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton device according to claim 7, wherein the emergency reaction comprises a deactivation of the support force and/or a deactivation of a tool and/or the sending of an emergency call and/or a jettisoning of the exoskeleton from the user (Jin, par. 0025, “When the tilt angle of the human torso exceeds the threshold, the rate of change of the tilt angle and center height is measured. When the rate of change of the tilt angle and center height exceeds the set threshold, an early warning signal is transmitted to the early warning module.”; an emergency warning call is issued in case of free fall).
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazerooni in view of Weidner et al. (US20190083350), hereafter Weidner.
Regarding Claim 11, Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton device according to a claim 1, but is silent on wherein the base section has a back element and the control device is designed to adjust a stiffness, length and/or position of the back element on the basis of the detected position information.
However, Weidner teaches an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 3), comprising of a sensor for detecting a position information (par. 0035, “a sensor arrangement to measure in particular an angle or a force”), a base section (Fig. 3, back part 110), and wherein the base section has a back element (Fig. 3, stiffening means 130) and the control device is designed to adjust a stiffness, length and/or position of the back element on the basis of the detected position information (par. 0037, “The controller is configured to control the first actuator of the rope-tensioning device on the basis of sensor data from the sensor arrangement so that, depending on the situation, the rope tension of the stiffening means is adjustable”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Kazerooni, with the base section of Weidner, to support and protect the user’s back as taught by Weidner (Weidner, par. 0038).
Regarding Claim 12, Kazerooni discloses the exoskeleton device according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the base section has a fastening strap, and the control device is configured to vary the tension of the fastening strap on the basis of the detected position information.
However, Weidner teaches an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Fig. 3), comprising of a sensor for detecting a position information (par. 0035, “a sensor arrangement to measure in particular an angle or a force”), a base section (Fig. 3, back part 110), and wherein the base section has a fastening strap (Fig. 3, stiffening means 130 is a tension strap), and the control device is configured to vary the tension of the fastening strap on the basis of the detected position information (par. 0037, “The controller is configured to control the first actuator of the rope-tensioning device on the basis of sensor data from the sensor arrangement so that, depending on the situation, the rope tension of the stiffening means is adjustable”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Kazerooni, with the base section of Weidner, to support and protect the user’s back as taught by Weidner (Weidner, par. 0038).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US11918535 discloses an exoskeleton device with fall detection and apply support force to restore stability;
US20220175558 discloses a wearable robotic system for assisting the mobility of a user, wherein the assistance force is adjusted based on the inclination of the user’s body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS HANYU GONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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 Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KRIS HANYU GONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights