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 § 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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 15 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.
The term “rigid” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rigid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification fails to provide an objective standard (such as a scale or specific Young's modulus/yield strength for metal) to ascertain where the boundary of "rigidity" lies. Because this term depends on the unpredictable interpretation of a user or observer rather than defined physical properties, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine whether a given metal falls within the scope of the claims.
The Examiner suggests defining the term or providing explicit examples of what type of rigid metal is to be used in the design of the instant invention.
The term “soft” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “soft” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification fails to provide an objective standard (such as a durometer scale for rubber yield strength for this material) to ascertain where the boundary of "softness" lies. Because this term depends on the unpredictable interpretation of a user or observer rather than defined physical properties, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine whether a rubber element would fall within the scope of the claims.
The Examiner suggests defining the term or providing explicit examples of what type of soft rubber is to be used in the design of the instant invention.
The term “low” and “mid” with respect to low-level control and mid-level control in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” and “mid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification fails to define the exact thresholds, ranges, or hardware conditions that separate a "low" level control from a "mid" level control. Without explicit numerical boundaries or a specific mapping to the controller hardware device's operating parameters, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the precise operational limits of the claimed invention.
The Examiner suggests amending the disclosure (specification and/or drawings) to further indicate where low/mid-level control is with respect to the controller hardware.
The term “desired” in claim(s) 3 and 15 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “desired” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim broadly covers "desired" velocity / “desired” torque without specifying what establishes that desire, who is desiring it, AND the physical or numerical parameters/conditions that define the target value. This makes the claim scope entirely dependent on a variable, subjective state, rendering the boundaries of the motor velocity limitations unascertainable. Because these claim limitations depend on open-ended, comparative, and subjective variables rather than clear, objective metrics, they fail to apprise the public of the true scope of the invention.
The Examiner suggests removing such term or providing a definition / value or other more specific closed-ended metric to this term either in the claims or the disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner notes that claims 1, 4-14, and 16-20 are allowed. Examiner further notes the 112(b) rejections indicated above for claims 2-3 and 15. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter (please provide correction to claims 2-3 and 15, as indicated above):
In regards to Claim 1, the prior art of Mooney et al. (US 10265195 B2) teaches an ankle-foot orthosis system including an ankle-foot orthosis wearable device having a frame configured to be worn on a user’s leg, an actuator configured to generate torque about an ankle joint through a unidirectional transmission, one or more sensors including a rotary encoder for determining ankle or joint position, a controller configured to communicate with the actuator, and a cable-based transmission configured to transmit actuation forces to the orthosis. Mooney further teaches controlling ankle motion to provide plantarflexion assistance during gait using sensor feedback and controller-generated control signals.
However, Mooney fails to teach, disclose, or render obvious correcting at least one of plantarflexion or inversion-eversion torque of a human ankle in real time during an activity session based on activity skill levels analyzed via the controller hardware device and data received from the ankle angle sensors or the load cell sensors at an earlier time. Specifically, while Mooney utilizes sensor feedback to control operation of the orthosis, the disclosed controller responds to measured biomechanical parameters associated with the current gait cycle. Mooney neither evaluates activity skill levels of a user nor utilizes previously collected sensor data to characterize or analyze those skill levels for purposes of modifying subsequent torque correction. Rather, the claimed controller employs a higher-level adaptive control methodology that analyzes historical sensor information to assess a user’s activity proficiency and thereafter adjusts ankle assistance in real time based upon that analysis. Such personalization based upon previously acquired activity performance is neither disclosed nor suggested by Mooney’s reactive feedback control architecture.
In summary, while Mooney teaches a controller that utilizes sensor feedback to provide real-time ankle assistance, the controller operates as a conventional reactive closed-loop feedback system that adjusts actuator output based upon the user’s instantaneous biomechanical state. In contrast, the instant invention requires analyzing activity skill levels using sensor data obtained at an earlier time and utilizing that historical analysis to adapt future real-time torque correction. Accordingly, the instant invention’s controller employs an adaptive, individualized control model based upon learned user performance rather than merely responding to contemporaneous sensor inputs. Mooney neither teaches nor suggests evaluating historical sensor data to determine activity skill levels or using such analyzed skill levels as an input for subsequent real-time control, and therefore fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed adaptive control methodology.
In regards to Claim 14, Mooney teaches a method of operating an ankle-foot orthosis including mechanically coupling an actuator system to an ankle-foot orthosis, transmitting control signals from a controller to the actuator, and controlling ankle movement using sensor feedback obtained from the orthosis during use.
However, Mooney fails to teach, disclose, or render obvious correcting at least one of plantarflexion or inversion-eversion torque of a human ankle in real time during an activity session based on activity skill levels analyzed via the controller hardware device and data received from ankle angle sensors or load cell sensors that are integrated in the frame at an earlier time. Although Mooney performs controller-based actuation using sensor information, the disclosed method is directed to controlling ankle assistance according to measured operating conditions during movement and does not include analyzing historical sensor information to determine a user’s activity skill level. Furthermore, Mooney does not disclose utilizing such analyzed skill levels as a basis for adaptively modifying subsequent real-time torque correction. The claimed method therefore recites an adaptive learning and personalization framework that extends beyond conventional closed-loop feedback control by incorporating prior activity performance into future control decisions. This functionality is neither taught nor suggested by Mooney.
Accordingly, while Mooney teaches a method of operating an ankle-foot orthosis by delivering control signals to an actuator and adjusting ankle assistance using contemporaneous sensor feedback during movement, the disclosed method remains directed to conventional reactive closed-loop feedback control based upon the user’s instantaneous biomechanical state. In contrast, the presently claimed method requires analyzing activity skill levels using sensor data obtained at an earlier time and utilizing that historical analysis to perform future real-time correction of plantarflexion or inversion-eversion torque during a subsequent activity session. Accordingly, the claimed method recites an adaptive, individualized control process that learns from prior user performance to influence future control decisions rather than merely reacting to present operating conditions. Mooney neither teaches nor suggests analyzing previously acquired sensor data to determine a user’s activity skill level or using such analyzed skill levels as an input for subsequent real-time torque correction, and therefore fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed adaptive control methodology. Accordingly, the method of Claim 14 is patentably distinguished over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571)-272-8525. 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.
MADISON MATTHEWS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
07/19/2026
Prosecution Insights