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 .
This office action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 02/09/2024. As directed by the amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 1-17 were amended, and claims 18-21 were newly added. Thus, claims 1-21 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “arm 4” on specification page 6 lines 6, 8, 15; page 7 line 1, 18; page 8 lines 2, 4; page 9 lines 19-20, 21; page 23 line 5.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“ a base section” of claim 1 line 3
Corresponding structure is “The base section 1 comprises a main section and a textile carrying system…The main section comprises a back part 8… the back part 8 comprises an expediently rigid back part… the textile carrying system comprises, by way of example, the pelvic strap 16 and/or at least one, preferably two, shoulder straps 19” (specification page 4 line 12- page 5 line 17)
“a support section” of claim 1 line 5
Corresponding structure is “The support section 3 can expediently be referred to as an arm actuator” (specification page 5 line 5)
“a light output device” of claim 1 line 11
Corresponding structure is “the light output device comprises a light source” (specification page 1 line 16)
“a light output unit” of claim 8 line 2
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15 line 5 and 7-8 and claim 16 line 4 and 6, the term “the at least two presets” should read --the at least two manually and/or automatically selectable presets-- to remain consistent with claim 15 line 2-3.
Regarding claim 15 line 7, the term “the input variable” should read --the at least one input variable-- in order to remain consistent with claim 15 line 4.
Regarding claim 16 line 2, the term “the presets” should read --the at least two manually and/or automatically selectable presets-- to remain consistent with claim 15 line 2-3.
Regarding claim 16 line 6, the term “the input variable” should read --the at least input variable-- in order to remain consistent with either claim 15 line 4 or claim 16 line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 line 3-4, the term “the human body” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3 line 4, the term “the detected angle” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6 lines 3-5, the term “on the basis of position information which indicates a position of the exoskeleton and a user relative to the environment and a position of an object separate from the exoskeleton” is unclear as to how all the listed positions are measured. How are the position of the user, exoskeleton, and an object all input to the control device to adjust the light beam?
Regarding claim 8 line 2, the term “the actuator” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “an actuator device” of claim 1 line 8.
Regarding claim 15 line 5-6, the term “their light output characteristic” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. In line 7, the term “a function of the input variable” in unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a function” of line 4.
Regarding claim 16 line 3, the term “a function of at least one input variable” is unclear as to if the term, both the function and the input variable, is the same or different than claim 15 line 4. In line 4, the term “their support force characteristic” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. In line 5, the term “a support force specification” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than line 3. In line 6-7, the term “the support force” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. In line 7, the term “the basis” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 17 line 1, the term “an exoskeleton device” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than claim 1 line 1, from which the claim depends.
Claim limitations “a light output unit” of claim 8 line 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding “a light output unit” of claim 8 line 2, the term is described with insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function. There is no clear link to a unit structure able to perform light output as claimed.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
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 1-2, 7-8, 11-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fig. 3 of Sandler et al. (US 2016/0045386; hereinafter “Sandler”) in view of Fig. 4 of Sandler.
Regarding claim 1, Sandler discloses an exoskeleton device (see Sandler Fig. 1-4 Exoskeletons 100, 304, 404), comprising:
an exoskeleton (see Sandler Exoskeleton 304, modeled with reference numerals in exoskeleton 100) having:
-a base section for attachment to a body section of the human body (see Sandler Fig. 3 Exoskeleton 304 torso section; same structures as labeled in Fig. 1 exoskeleton 100 with trunk portion 110),
- a support section for supporting a body part of the human body (see Sandler Fig. 3 Exoskeleton 304 leg braces; same structures as labeled in Fig. 1 exoskeleton 100 with leg supports 112), wherein the support section is movably coupled to the base section (see Sandler Fig. 3 Exoskeleton 304 hip joint between torso and leg; same structure as labeled in Fig. 1 exoskeleton 100 with pivotable hip joint 145),
- an actuator device for providing a support force for the body part (see Sandler Fig. 3 exoskeleton 304; same structure as labeled in Fig. 1 exoskeleton 100 with hip actuator 135), wherein the actuator device is acting on the support section (see Sandler hip actuator 135 moves hip joint 145), wherein the exoskeleton device further comprises:
-a light output device (see Sandler Fig. 3 exoskeleton 304 includes integral interface point lights 306) and
- a control device (see Sandler Fig. 3 exoskeleton 304 includes control system 305) which is configured to
a light intensity of the light output device (see Sandler [0060] control system 305 communicates with force sensors to illuminate lights 306 at various illumination intensities)
and to project auxiliary information into an environment of the exoskeleton device (see Sandler [0061] Illumination intensity of light 306 as coupled to shank coupling 307 monitors how much force torque is exerted at the coupling; providing information to the environment for the physical therapist as to force exerted at each point of gait).
Figure 3 of Sandler is silent as to control the light output device in order to set an orientation of a light beam provided by the light output device. However, Figure 4 of Sandler teaches control the light output device in order to set an orientation of a light beam provided by the light output device (see Sandler Fig. 4 laser pointer with means for controlling pan and tilt 403 projecting laser beam 406 to place crutch placement targets 407 on support surface 413; [0063] “The pan and tilt projection angle actuation means connected to the exoskeleton control system and controlled such that the laser pointer is aimed at relevant location to the exoskeleton wearer such as ideal crutch placement targets”), and to project auxiliary information into an environment of the exoskeleton device (see Sandler Fig. 4 [0063] a singular or multiple laser pointers can overlap images on the ground by sweeping outlines on the ground repeatedly, or project duplicate images). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exoskeleton device of Fig. 3 of Sandler with the addition of the laser beam light output device with controlled orientation as taught by Fig. 4 of Sandler so as to allow for more stability of the user in the exoskeleton and provide gait aid.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sandler discloses the control device is configured to adjust the orientation of the light beam according to a position of the support section (see Sandler [0063] laser beam 406 is attached to the side of exoskeleton leg braces; pan and tilt projection angle actuation means 403 can project the laser to ideal foot placement targets which is the position of the leg braces/support section).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sandler discloses the light output device has a plurality of light output sections which can be switched on and off independently of one another (see Sandler Fig. 4 laser pointers 404 projecting individual laser beams 406 to two independent lighted target areas 407, 408), and the control device is configured to set the orientation of the light beam by selectively switching the light output sections on and off (see Sandler [0063-0064] pan and tilt projection angle actuation means connected to the exoskeleton control system control the laser pointers 404 for ideal foot placement targets; each foot would have selectively ideal targets on/off when laser pointed).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sandler discloses an actuator for moving a light output unit of the light output device (see Sandler pan and tilt projection angle actuation means 403), wherein the control device is configured to, for adjusting the orientation of the light beam, control the actuator in order to effect a movement of the light output unit (see Sandler laser pointer with means for controlling pan and tilt 403 projecting laser beam 406 to place crutch placement targets 407 on support surface 413, and [0063] above).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sandler discloses the base section comprises a back part, a shoulder strap and a pelvic strap (see Sandler annotated Fig. 3 below) and the light output device is arranged on the back part, the shoulder strap and/or the pelvic strap (see Sandler annotated Fig. 3 below with lights 306).
PNG
media_image1.png
491
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sandler Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding claim 12, modified Sandler discloses the light output device is arranged at the base section or the support section (see Sandler Fig. 3 lights 306 arranged around trunk portion 110 and leg supports 112 as described in Fig. 1; in Fig. 4 the laser beams 406 arranged around leg supports 112 as described in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sandler discloses the auxiliary information comprises an orientation indicator (see Sandler crutch placement target 407 or ideal foot placement targets) and/or one or more auxiliary lines (see Sandler [0063] laser pointers could project multiple images or sweeping outlines on the ground repeatedly).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sandler discloses the control device is configured to select one of a plurality of possible action areas of the environment of the exoskeleton device (see Sandler Fig. 4 support surface 413 receives placement targets 407, 408 from control system operating laser beam 406) and to adjust the orientation of the light beam such that the selected action area is selectively illuminated by the light output device (see Sandler [0064] laser pointer 404 projects beam 406 projecting placement targets 407, 408 in a stream of light).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sandler discloses a method of operating an exoskeleton device according to claim 1 (see modified Sandler rejection to claim 1 above), comprising the step of:
- adjusting the orientation of the light beam (see Sandler Fig. 4 laser pointer modification) and/or the light intensity (see Sandler Fig 3 lights 306 changing in intensity) and/or projecting the auxiliary information into the environment of the exoskeleton device (see Sandler Fig. 3 illumination intensity of lights 306 provide force information to the environment; and Fig. 4 laser pointer can project images on the ground).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sandler discloses the base section is configured for attachment to the torso of a human body (see Sandler Fig. 3 Exoskeleton 304 torso section; same structures as labeled in Fig. 1 exoskeleton 100 with trunk portion 110) and/or the support section is configured for supporting a limb of the human body (see Sandler Fig. 3 Exoskeleton 304 leg braces; same structures as labeled in Fig. 1 exoskeleton 100 with leg supports 112).
Claim 3, 15-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandler as applied to claim 2 regarding claim 3 above and claim 1 regarding claim 15 above respectively, and further in view of Riener et al. (US 2019/0343707; hereinafter “Riener”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sandler discloses the control device is configured to adjust the orientation of the light beam according to an angle (see Sandler [0063] pan and tilt projection angle actuation means 403 connected to control system; controlling the laser pointer aim to target placements), but is silent as to an angle sensor for detecting an angle of the support section. However, Riener teaches an angle sensor for detecting an angle of the support section (see Riener [0211] control unit 400 comprises sensor 401 attached to garment elements detecting angle 411 of limb portion in view of the vertical). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device configured to adjust the angle of the light beam of modified Sandler with the addition of an angle sensor to measure the angle of the support section as taught by Riener so as to have more accuracy in the angle measurement and ability to record the sensed angle value for repeatability of the movement.
Regarding claim 15, modified Sandler discloses the control device has at least two manually and/or automatically selectable presets (see Sandler [0063] The pan and tilt projection angle actuation means aiming the laser for ideal crutch placement, ideal foot placement, or a next movement target; identifying three preset/ideal/target movements).
Modified Sandler discloses a pan and tilt projection angle actuation means functioning at a specific angle, but is silent as to [the presets] each of which has at least one light output characteristic which determines the light beam orientation as a function of at least one input variable. However, Riener teaches an angle sensor for detecting an angle of the support section (see Riener [0211] control unit 400 comprises sensor 401 attached to garment elements detecting angle 411 of limb portion in view of the vertical). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system and pan and tilt projection angle actuation means of modified Sandler with the addition of an angle sensor as taught by Riener so as to precisely angle the actuation means with a measurable angle relative to the support section.
Modified Sandler discloses wherein the at least two presets differ in their light output characteristic (see Sandler laser beams 406 project two different angles for targets 407, 408 on left or right sides), and
wherein the control device is configured to set the light beam orientation as a function of the input variable using a preset selected from the at least two presets (see Sandler [0063] “The pan and tilt projection angle actuation means connected to the exoskeleton control system and controlled”, modified to include specific angle information from Riener angle sensor 401; [0065] in an example, the physical therapy assists the new patient with familiarizing them with placement targets).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sandler discloses the presets, but is silent as to the presets furthermore each have at least one support force characteristic which defines a support force specification as a function of at least one input variable. However, Riener teaches at least one support force characteristic which defines a support force specification as a function of at least one input variable (see Riener [0211] control unit 400 controls garment elements; where sensor 401 measures angle 411 of limb portion associated with the garment, and then control unit 400 controls actuators 310 adapted according to angle change in the limb). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system presets and angle sensor measurement of modified Sandler with the use of the angle sensor measurement to apply a support force specification specific to the exoskeleton actuator as taught by Riener so as to assist the user moving to a preset location in the proportional amount by the actuator force.
Modified Sandler discloses wherein the at least two presets differ in their support force characteristic (see modified Sandler ideal crutch placement, ideal foot placement, or a next movement target; identifying three preset/ideal/target movements would each have a different actuator force value to perform the movement), and
wherein the control device is configured to determine a support force specification as a function of the input variable (see modified Sandler above) using a preset selected from the at least two presets and to set the support force on the basis of the support force specification (see modified Sandler [0063] identifies three preset/ideal/target movements all of which have different actuator force values that would be set according to the angle sensor feedback to the light beam projection).
Regarding claim 21, modified Sandler discloses the input variable is a position of the support section (see Sandler modified by Riener to include the angle sensor 401 used when controlling the pan and tilt projection angle actuation means relative to leg braces, where beams 406 are projected from).
Claim 4-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandler as applied to claim 2 regarding claim 4 and as applied to claim 1 regarding claims 5-6 and 9 above respectively, and further in view of Fig. 6 of Sandler.
Regarding claim 4, modified Sandler is silent as to the control device is configured to detect the position of the support section with at least two different degrees of freedom and/or to adjust the orientation of the light beam with at least two different degrees of freedom. However, Fig. 6 of Sandler teaches the control device is configured to detect the position of the support section with at least two different degrees of freedom (see Sandler Fig. 6 [0072] exoskeleton 602 controlled by control system 603 with camera 605 and lights 608 [synonymous to lights 306 above]; camera 605 determines position and direction of head/glasses relative to the exoskeleton 602, particularly the leg braces; using this information to determine placement of images or targets for foot/crutch placement [synonymous to laser 406 and placements 407 above]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of modified Sandler with the addition of a camera able to detect the position of the support section as taught by Fig. 6 of Sandler so as to adapt the position of the exoskeleton individually to each user.
Regarding claim 5, modified Sandler is silent as to an optical sensor for detecting optical sensor data, wherein the control device is configured to adjust the orientation of the light beam, the light intensity and/or the projection of the auxiliary information on the basis of the optical sensor data. However, Fig. 6 of Sandler teaches an optical sensor for detecting optical sensor data (see Sandler Fig. 6 camera 605), wherein the control device is configured to adjust the orientation of the light beam or the projection of the auxiliary information on the basis of the optical sensor data (see Sandler Fig. 6 exoskeleton 602 controlled by control system 603 with camera 605 and lights 608 [synonymous to lights 306 above]; camera 605 determines position and direction of head/glasses relative to the exoskeleton 602, particularly the leg braces; using this information to determine placement of images or targets for foot/crutch placement [synonymous to laser 406 and placements 407 above]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of modified Sandler with the addition of an optical sensor in the form of a camera able to detect the optical position information of the exoskeleton as taught by Fig. 6 of Sandler so as to adapt the position of the exoskeleton individually to each user.
Regarding claim 6, modified Sandler is silent as to the control device is configured to adjust the orientation of the light beam, the light intensity and/or the projection of the auxiliary information on the basis of position information which indicates a position of the exoskeleton and/or a user relative to the environment and/or a position of an object separate from the exoskeleton. However, Fig. 6 of Sandler teaches the control device is configured to adjust the orientation of the light beam or the projection of the auxiliary information on the basis of position information which indicates a position of the exoskeleton and/or a user relative to the environment (see Sandler Fig. 6 [0072] exoskeleton 602 controlled by control system 603 with camera 605 and lights 608 [synonymous to lights 306 above]; camera 605 determines position and direction of head/glasses relative to the exoskeleton 602, particularly the leg braces; using this information to determine placement of images or targets for foot/crutch placement [synonymous to laser 406 and placements 407 above]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of modified Sandler with the addition of a camera able to detect the position information of the exoskeleton as taught by Fig. 6 of Sandler so as to adapt the position of the exoskeleton individually to each user.
Regarding claim 9, modified Sandler is silent as to an optical sensor, wherein the control device is configured to set an orientation of the optical sensor and the orientation of the light beam in correspondence to each other in order to detect, with the optical sensor, optical sensor data from an illumination area illuminated by the light output device. However, Fig. 6 of Sandler teaches an optical sensor (see Sandler Fig. 6 camera 605), wherein the control device is configured to set an orientation of the optical sensor and the orientation of the light beam (see Sandler Fig. 6 camera 605 determines position and direction of head/glasses relative to the exoskeleton 602, particularly the leg braces; by detecting the lights 608 [synonymous to lights 306 above]) in correspondence to each other in order to detect, with the optical sensor, optical sensor data from an illumination area illuminated by the light output device (see Sandler Fig. 6 using this information from camera 605 to determine placement of images or targets for foot/crutch placement [synonymous to laser 406 and placements 407 above]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of modified Sandler with the addition of an optical sensor in the form of a camera able to detect the optical position information of the exoskeleton as taught by Fig. 6 of Sandler so as to adapt the position of the exoskeleton individually to each user.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yagi et al. (US 2014/0212243; hereinafter “Yagi”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sandler discloses a powered exoskeleton (see Sandler [0052]; [0073] says a battery level can be displayed), but is silent as to a rechargeable battery for operating the exoskeleton device. However, Yagi teaches a rechargeable battery for operating the exoskeleton device (see Yagi [0130] battery 133 in control system is a rechargeable storage battery supplying power to the lower and upper limb units). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power of the exoskeleton of modified Sandler with the rechargeable battery source as taught by Yagi so as to power the exoskeleton portably, and easily replace and recharge the power source.
Modified Sandler discloses wherein the light output device is electrically powered from the rechargeable battery (see Sandler powered exoskeleton including control system, modified by Yagi to be powered by a rechargeable battery source).
Regarding claim 20, modified Sandler is silent as to the actuator device is a pneumatic actuator device. However, Yagi teaches the actuator device is a pneumatic actuator device (see Yagi Figs. 13a-b [0217] suit 500 includes pneumatic cylinders and pneumatic actuators for power assistance to hips, lower limbs, upper limbs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator of modified Sandler with the pneumatic actuator as taught by Yagi as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of driving actuator for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. actuate the movement of the exoskeleton.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Rubin et al. (US 2017/0083085; hereinafter “Rubin”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Sandler discloses an upper body support (see Sandler annotated Fig. 3 above shoulder straps), but is silent as to the support section is configured for supporting an arm of the human body. However, Rubin teaches a support section (see Rubin human-computer interface terminal 102 comprises an exoskeleton, such as in Fig. 2 with arm segments 400a/b), wherein the support section is configured for supporting an arm of the human body (see Rubin arm segments 400a/b controlled by computer 102 including binocular display 144, projecting auxiliary information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exoskeleton of modified Sandler with the addition of upper body support as taught by Rubin so as to provide exoskeleton support to the upper body and provide more balance and therapy to the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant' s disclosure.
Xue et al. (US 2021/0353493) and Kim et al. (US 2020/0206062) are cited to show an assisted exoskeleton rehab device.
Selod (US 2006/0292533), Van Gerpen et al. (US 2006/0025836), Nef et al. (US 2010/0249673), Virgo (US 2021/0183263), and Sala et al. (US 2020/0276072) are cited to show a rehabilitation device with attached light source device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Tim Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. 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.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights