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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on DATE has been considered and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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.
Claims 1-9, 12-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2022/0176546; hereinafter Smith).
Regarding Claim 1:
Smith discloses a system for assisting movement of a user comprising: a base (Smith, Para. [0070], Smith discloses the exoskeleton comprises a support structure);
at least two robotic limbs attached to the base (Smith, Figs. 1-3 and 7, Para. [0032], Smith discloses a plurality of robotic limbs attached to the support structure of the exoskeleton);
one or more sensors configured to detect forces applied to the robotic limbs (Smith, Para. [0037], Smith discloses a plurality of sensors configured to generate output data associated with the operational function of the exoskeleton); and
at least one processor configured to:
obtain the forces detected by the one or more sensors (Smith, Para. [0037], Smith discloses obtaining forces applied joint mechanisms by the plurality of sensors);
determine a direction of the forces relative to the base (Smith, Para. [0038-0041], Smith discloses determining a plurality of kinematic movements of the joint mechanisms relative to the exoskeleton base);
determine a command based at least in part on the direction of the forces (Smith, Para. [0042], Smith discloses determining a remedial measure based on the detected forces); and
operate the at least two robotic limbs based at least in part on the command (Smith, Para. [0041-0043], Smith discloses operating the exoskeleton limbs based on the remedial measure and detected forces).
Regarding Claim 2:
Smith discloses the system of claim 1.
Smith further discloses wherein determining the direction of the forces relative to the base comprises transforming the forces from reference frames associated with the at least two robotic limbs to a reference frame associated with the base (Smith, Para. [0081], Smith discloses transforming the detected forces into a format or value that can estimate the positioning of the joint mechanism relative to the exoskeleton (i.e. supporting structure)).
Regarding Claim 3:
Smith discloses the system of claim 2.
Smith further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to sum the transformed forces from the at least two robotic limbs to obtain a net force applied to the base to determine the command (Smith, Para. [0081], Smith discloses the total amount of forces applied to the joint mechanism in order to determine the remedial measures).
Regarding Claim 4:
Smith discloses the system of claim 3.
Smith further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine a magnitude of the net force to determine the command (Smith, Para. [0081], Smith discloses the total amount of forces applied to the joint mechanism in order to determine the remedial measures).
Regarding Claim 5:
Smith discloses the system of claim 1.
Smith further discloses wherein the command is a velocity command of the base including a commanded direction and magnitude (Smith, Para. [0045], Smith discloses the remedial measure includes a plurality of operations including actuating of joint mechanism (i.e. velocity command)).
Regarding Claim 6:
Smith discloses the system of claim 5.
Smith further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine one or more limb commands for the at least two robotic limbs based at least in part on the velocity command (Smith, Para. [0045], Smith discloses the remedial measure includes a plurality of operations including movement of the exoskeleton limbs).
Regarding Claim 7:
Smith discloses the system of claim 5.
Smith further discloses wherein the commanded direction of the velocity command is at least partially oriented in a direction of a net force applied to the base by the forces (Smith, Para. [0045], Smith discloses the remedial measure includes a plurality of operations based on the forces applied to the joints and/or exoskeleton).
Regarding Claim 8:
Smith discloses the system of claim 5.
Smith further discloses wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect a velocity of the base, and wherein the processor is further configured to compare the velocity command to the detected velocity and alter the velocity command based on the detected velocity (Smith, Para. [0045], [0076], Smith discloses the remedial measure include slowing or stopping of the exoskeleton limb and/or joint mechanism).
Regarding Claim 9:
Smith discloses the system of claim 8.
Smith further discloses wherein altering the velocity command based on the detected velocity results in a decay in the velocity command over time (Smith, Para. [0045], [0076], Smith discloses the remedial measure include slowing or stopping of the exoskeleton limb and/or joint mechanism).
Regarding Claim 12:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 13:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 14:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 15:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 16:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 17:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 18:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 19:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 20:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 9 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 22:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above with the inclusion of non-transitory computer readable media as disclosed by Smith (Para. [0138]), and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Johnson et al. (USP 9,554,964; hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding Claim 10:
Smith discloses the system of claim 1.
Smith fails to explicitly disclose the base is coupled to a space suit.
However Johnson, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, discloses the base is coupled to a space suit (Johnson, Column 8 Lines 10-42, Johnson discloses a space suit coupled to the exoskeleton).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith so as to include the base coupled to a space suit as disclosed by Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to assist physical movements of the user/operator, see at least Johnson Column 8 Lines 20-42.
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Mhd et al. (USP 11,738,445; hereinafter Mhd).
Regarding Claim 11:
Smith discloses the system of claim 1.
Smith fails to explicitly disclose one of more end effectors coupled to the at last two robotic limbs, wherein the one or more end effectors are configured to removably couple with an environment, and wherein the at least two robotic limbs are configured to form a closed kinematic chain with the base and the environment.
However Mhd, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, discloses one of more end effectors coupled to the at last two robotic limbs, wherein the one or more end effectors are configured to removably couple with an environment, and wherein the at least two robotic limbs are configured to form a closed kinematic chain with the base and the environment (Mhd, Claim 2, Column 3 Line 65 – Column 4 Line 25, Mhd discloses one or more end effectors which are configured to be removable from the robotic limb, and the robotic limbs are configured to be capable of grasping environmental objects and the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith so as to include removable end effectors and robotic limbs capable of connecting with the environment by Mhd with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to increase the physical communication in a variety of forms, see at least Johnson Column 4 Lines 1-24.
Regarding Claim 21:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 11 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH WALLACE whose telephone number is (469)295-9087. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/Z.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656