DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under one or more of these, as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 18/854,714, PCT/US2023/018217, 63/362,779, and 63/362,778, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
For example, these applications do not appear to disclose at least the limitations of:
“a planetary gear transmission comprising a ring gear, a carrier gear, and a sun gear wherein the sun gear is coupled to the motor shaft and the motor torque generates an actuator torque between the ring gear and the carrier gear” of independent Claim 1
or
“actuator first element and the actuator second element are coupled to the first thigh link and the second thigh link respectively such that arbitrary flexion and extension of the first and second thigh links relative to the supporting trunk rotate the actuator first element and the actuator second element respectively” of independent Claim 11.
Accordingly, none of the claims (Claims 1 – 6, 11 – 15, 17, 19 – 21, 25, and 27 – 37) are entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the carrier” beginning on Page 3, which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It is however clear that this should instead read “the carrier gear”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “first thigh link”. It should read “the first thigh link”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
Potential improper (See “if” statement above) incorporation by reference references include “U.S. Provisional Patent Application Number 63/362,778, filed April 11, 2022, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Number 63/362,779, filed April 11, 2022” (See at least [0001] of Applicant’s originally filed, and current, specification).
Claim Interpretation
Applicant makes frequent use of the preposition “to” and similar phrases of “for”, “such that”, “thereby”, “resulting in”, etc. The broadest reasonable interpretation for many of these phrases is not necessarily that of a positively recited limitation, but instead an indication, description, or other contextual clue as to the intended result, effect, or purpose of a preceding limitation. MPEP 2111 relates.
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “to” is of indicating a purpose, intention, tendency, or result. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of limitations reciting “to”, depending on claim construction, is inclusive of those which render the limitations as non-positively recited limitations.
Furthermore, and in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that if interpreted as positively recited limitations, limitations may appear to “merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention” and therefore “the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear”. MPEP 2173.05(g) relates.
Applicant is respectfully requested to carefully review the claims and provide amendments where appropriate to clarify the appropriate meaning. For example, clearly stating in functional or structural limitations that which achieves the desired “such that” or “thereby” or “resulting in” phrases. Phrased differently, if not inherent to the function or structure already recited preceding these phrases, to amend the claims such that they are recited, or in other words clearly claim how the result is claimed such that it is inherent and of clear structural and/or functional scope.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner has generally either addressed each recitation as a positively recited limitation and/or otherwise made note of the breadth of the recitation and potential lack of any positively recited limitation in the rejections made under prior art below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 – 6, 11 – 15, 17, 19 – 21, 25, and 27 – 37 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, the claim recites the term “arbitrary”. The term “arbitrary” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “arbitrary” 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. For example, an appropriate dictionary definition of the term includes “chosen, decided, etc. seemingly at random or on a whim rather than in a reasoned or methodical way”. This meaning is thus by its very nature vague and non-specific such that a distinction between arbitrary and non-arbitrary flexion and extension, etc. is unclear.
Applicant’s specification precedes some uses of the few uses of the term with the word “any”. It is believed that this is the intended meaning of the phrasing from the context of the specification (See e.g. [0188] and [0196]), i.e., that there is no limitation or in other words “any”.
Regarding Claims 1, 4 – 6, 11 – 14, 17, 30 – 31, and 33 – 37, the claims are explicitly directed towards an “exoskeleton”. Thus, the statutory category of the invention is clearly that of a machine (or as alternatively phrased, an apparatus) as described in MPEP 2106. Per MPEP 2114 “Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g)”. Furthermore, “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)”.
The following limitations are unclear as to if they are limitations intended to recite a manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, a structural limitation, or a functional limitation of a structure.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
“the motor torque generates an actuator torque between the ring gear and the carrier gear”
“the motor generates an actuator torque between the carrier gear and the ring gear”.
“that turns with”
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitations are interpreted as instead reading the following:
“the ring gear and carrier gear are configured to generate an actuator torque between the ring gear and the carrier gear from the motor torque”.
“the motor is configured to generate an actuator torque between the carrier gear and the ring gear”.
“configured to turn with”
Examiner notes that with respect to the second item, it appears that Applicant may be intending to claim a particular timing or contingent limitation (MPEP 2111.04(II) relates). Examiner notes that at present, the claim does not recite a controller or what must occur under any other condition. In other words, a motor that is configured to, or capable of, producing a torque between the carrier gear and the ring gear would read on this limitation. Phrased differently, there appears to be no structural difference required, as the manner in which this is accomplished is not claimed, particularly as it is with respect to the motor and not any controller or similar.
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
“the motor halts producing”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as instead reading the following:
“the motor is configured to halt producing”.
Wherein the comments made above with respect to “the motor” of Claim 1 are applicable here as well. Furthermore, as presently constructed, there is nothing to halt, as this is not a method claim having such a recited step.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation:
“the motor generates”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as instead reading the following:
“the motor is configured to generate”.
Wherein the comments made above with respect to “the motor” of Claim 1 are applicable here as well.
Claim 11 recites the limitation:
“the actuator generates the first actuator torque on the actuator first element and the second actuator torque on the actuator second element”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as instead reading the following:
“the actuator is configured to generate the first actuator torque on the actuator first element and the second actuator torque on the actuator second element”.
Wherein the comments made above with respect to “the motor” of Claim 1 are applicable here as well.
Claim 12 recites the limitation:
“the actuator halts producing”
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as instead reading the following:
“the actuator is configured to halt producing”.
Wherein the comments made above with respect to “the motor” of Claim 1 are applicable here as well. Furthermore, as presently constructed, there is nothing to halt, as this is not a method claim having such a recited step.
Claims 13 and 14 recite the limitation:
“the actuator generates”
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as instead reading the following:
“the actuator is configured to”.
Wherein the comments made above with respect to “the motor” of Claim 1 are applicable here as well.
Claim 17 recites the limitation:
“turns with”
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as instead reading the following:
“configured to turn with”
Claim 30 recites the limitation:
“wherein the first and the second actuator torques increase”
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as instead reading the following:
“wherein the exoskeleton is configured to increase the first and the second actuator torques”
Claim 31 recites the limitation:
“wherein the first and the second actuator torques decrease”
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as instead reading the following:
“wherein the exoskeleton is configured to decrease the first and the second actuator torques”
Claim 33 recites the limitation:
“wherein the first and the second actuator torques decrease”
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as instead reading the following:
“wherein the exoskeleton is configured to decrease the first and the second actuator torques”
Claims 34 and 35 recite the limitation:
“wherein the first and the second actuator torques increase”
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as instead reading the following:
“wherein the exoskeleton is configured to increase the first and the second actuator torques”
Claim 36 recites the limitation:
“wherein the actuator torques decrease”
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as instead reading the following:
“wherein the exoskeleton is configured to decrease the actuator torques”
Claim 37 recites the limitation:
“a tilt sensor that generates”
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as instead reading the following:
“a tilt sensor configured to generate”
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, the claim recites the limitation “the bending motion of the supporting trunk”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, many motions may be considered as being involved such that singularity is not an inherent property. The limitation should instead read:
“a bending motion”.
Regarding Claims 4 – 6, 12 – 14, and 28, the claims recite the term “substantially”, “small”, or “substantially small”. The terms “substantially”, “small”, or (and especially) the combination thereof, are 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. For example, it is impossible to objectively determine a “small resistance” from a not-small “resistance”, a “substantial” torque from an insubstantial torque, etc. These appear to wholly depend on the subjective opinion of a given person for a given unbounded context.
In the interest of compact prosecution, all such terms are interpreted as not existing.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 11, wherein:” and then proceeds to recite structures. The nature of “wherein” is undefined such that the nature of the following elements/limitations is wholly undefined.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is instead interpreted as reading:
“The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 11, the exoskeleton further comprising:”
Regarding Claims 29 and 37, the claims recite the limitation “the vertical gravitational line”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It should read “a vertical gravitational line”.
Regarding Claims 2 – 3, 15, 19 – 21, 25, 27, and 32, the claims depend from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claims 2 – 3, 15, 19 – 21, 25, 27, and 32 are rejected under the same logic presented above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 – 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, 27 – 31, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (Ko, Hun Keon, et al. "Waist-assistive exoskeleton powered by a singular actuation mechanism for prevention of back-injury." Robotics and Autonomous Systems 107 (2018): 1-9.).
Regarding Claim 11, Ko teaches:
A trunk supporting exoskeleton configured to be worn by a person (See at least Figure 1) to (Non-limiting indication of intended purpose, use, result, or similar) reduce the muscle forces in the person's back during forward lumbar flexion, the exoskeleton comprising (See again at least Figure 1):
a supporting trunk configured to be coupled to the person's trunk (See at least Section 2.3, “The robot is connected to the operator with straps in the shoulder, waist, and crotch”);
a first thigh link and a second thigh link each configured to be in contact with one of the person's thighs (See at least each “Leg brace” illustrated in Figure 6), wherein each of the first and second thigh links is rotatably coupled to the supporting trunk to allow for flexion and extension of respective first and second thigh links relative to the supporting trunk (See at least “Active DoF for flexion/extension” illustrated in Figure 6 and Section 2.3, “The exoskeleton has total eight degrees of freedom (DoFs) consisting of two one-directional active DoF for pitching of both hip joint, two passive DoF for yawing and pitch of upper body, two passive DoF for ab/adduction of each leg”);
an actuator (See at least Figure 6) comprising an actuator first element (Examiner first notes that the phrase “element” is extremely broad. In the interest of compact prosecution the following items are used, but in independent claims mapping may shift in light of this breadth. See at least “Drive pulley for left hip joint” of Figure 6) and an actuator second element (See at least “Drive pulley for right hip joint” of Figure 6), wherein:
the actuator is configured to concurrently generate a first actuator torque on the actuator first element and a second actuator torque on the actuator second element (See at least Section 2.2 “The torque from the drive pulleys is transmitted to the hip joint pulley through a wire as described in Fig. 4, which is mechanically guided by a set of rollers installed inside of the frame link along the hip line”) while the actuator first element and the actuator second element are configured to be rotatable independently of each other (See at least Section 2.2 “Therefore, the two drive pulleys are free when rotating in the same direction, and are affected in the opposite direction by the electric motor. … The drive pulleys move in opposite directions with the same displacement as shown in Fig. 5 (b) when the waist is flexed”), and
the actuator first element and the actuator second element are coupled to the first thigh link and the second thigh link respectively such that arbitrary flexion and extension of the first and second thigh links relative to the supporting trunk rotate the actuator first element and the actuator second element respectively (See again above and Figure 3),
wherein:
when the person is in a forward bent position, the actuator generates the first actuator torque on the actuator first element and the second actuator torque on the actuator second element to generate extension torques between the first and the second thigh links and the supporting trunk (See at least Section 4.1 “Moreover, it is verified that an assistive torque is provided for the extension of both hips until the state of the robot approaches that of the initial posture (i.e. 𝜃𝑚 ≈ 0)”) thereby (Recitation of intended result) resisting the bending motion of the supporting trunk during the forward bent position (Clearly an accomplished purpose of the device. See again at least above of Section 4.1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 11, wherein when the person is not in a forward bent position, the actuator halts producing the first and the second actuator torques on the actuator first element and the actuator second element (See at least Section 4.1 “Moreover, it is verified that an assistive torque is provided for the extension of both hips until the state of the robot approaches that of the initial posture (i.e. 𝜃𝑚 ≈ 0)”) resulting in (Clear recitation of intended result) a substantially free movement of the actuator first element and the actuator second element and consequently (Further recitation of intended result) free flexion and extension movements of the first thigh link and the second thigh link relative to the supporting trunk (Regardless of positive recitation, this is a result of the above recitation. See as needed section 2.3 for more detail on the design and DoFs achieved).
Regarding Claim 13, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 11, wherein when the person is not in a forward bent position, the actuator generates a substantially small first actuator torque and second actuator torque (See at least Section 3.2. “Initially, it operates in the walking mode. In this walking mode, the actuator is intended to generate the minimally required torque for maintaining the tension on the wire by Eq. (3)”) resulting in (Clear recitation of intended result) a small resistance for movement of the first and second thigh links relative to the supporting trunk during walking, climbing and ascending stairs and slopes (Regardless of positive recitation, see as needed the bullet points of Section 3.2 covering four different torques applicable to these activities).
Regarding Claim 14, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 11, wherein when the first and second thigh links are in a reciprocating mode for walking (The claim does not define this condition, entering or leaving this condition, function or operation outside of this condition, etc. and thus it is open to extremely broad interpretation. The device may be considered as always in a “reciprocating mode for walking” by the very nature of its structure being capable of such at any time. Alternatively, and more narrowly, see Section 3.2 “Walking, stoop, squat and semi-squat are considered as basic states of a normal working motion and each motion is discriminated based on data given from both the IMU sensor and the motor hall sensor [24]”), the actuator generates no torque on the actuator first element and the actuator second element (See at least Section 2.2. “After that, both legs move almost symmetrically in walking [23], and so, the output pulleys rotate together in the same direction, as shown in Fig. 5 (d). The electric motor is stationary at this time, and so, the wearer can walk without resistance”) resulting in (Clear recitation of intended result) a substantially free rotation between the actuator first element and the actuator second element and substantially free rotation of the first and second thigh links relative to the supporting trunk for walking (Regardless of positive recitation, see again above wherein “the wearer can walk without resistance”).
Regarding Claim 15, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 11, wherein the actuator first element is coupled to the first thigh link via a first line and the actuator second element is coupled to the second thigh link via a second line (See at least “drive wire for left hip” and “drive wire for right hip” in Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 11, wherein:
an actuator first pulley coupled to the actuator first element and turns with the actuator first element;
an actuator second pulley coupled to the actuator second element and turns with the actuator second element (Examiner notes that “element” is extremely broad. In this claim the mapping is shifted from the pulleys for the elements to any element of the pulleys, which are inherently coupled thereto, for example any of the holes thereof, and the pulleys are mapped to the pulleys of the claim.
Alternatively, see also Section 2.2 wherein these “elements” may be mapped to the “flex spline and the circular spline”, (“Two drive pulleys are connected to the flex spline and the circular spline of the harmonic gear, respectively));
a first line, wound onto the actuator first pulley from a first end of the first line and coupled to the first thigh link from a second end of the first line such that the first actuator torque generates a tensile force in the first line (See at least “drive wire for left hip” and “drive wire for right hip” in Figures 2 and 3) thereby (Recitation of an intended purpose, it being nested within another recitation which itself could be considered as such but is presently indicating a required form of coupling between components) providing an extension torque between the first thigh link and the supporting trunk, and
a second line wound onto the actuator second pulley from a first end of the second line and coupled to the second thigh link from a second end of the second line such that the second actuator torque generates a tensile force in the second line thereby providing an extension torque between the second thigh link and the supporting trunk (This is a repetition of the above with respect to a second set of components already addressed. See again preceding).
Regarding Claim 19, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 17, wherein:
the first thigh link comprises a first thigh link pulley and the second thigh link comprises a second thigh link pulley (See at least Section 2.2, “The torque from the drive pulleys is transmitted to the hip joint pulley through a wire as described in Fig. 4” and Figures 3 and 4), wherein:
the first line is wound on the first thigh link pulley from the second end of the first line such that the actuator torque on the first actuator pulley generates a tensile force in the first line (Inherent to the structure and operation disclosed. No transmission of forces across motion is possible without winding of the wire around the pulleys. If there was no winding, the wire would not remain in tension and would merely spool out. As necessary, see Section 2.2 “The torque from the drive pulleys is transmitted to the hip joint pulley through a wire as described in Fig. 4 … The diameters of the drive pulley and the joint pulley are chosen to be same. Thus, two connected pulleys have the same amount of rotational movement”, Figures 5(a) – 5(d) wherein the wire can be seen wound on the drive pulleys, Figure 4 showing the transmission of the wire to the hip pulleys, the nature of the term “pulley”, and discussion of calibration in Section 3.2 “the driving wire is wound by the actuator until the tension force on the wire is determined”) thereby (Recitation of an intended purpose, it being nested within another recitation which itself could be considered as such but is presently indicating a required form of coupling between components) providing an extension torque between the first thigh link and the supporting trunk, and
the second line is wound onto the second thigh pulley from the second end of the second line such that the second actuator torque generates a tensile force in the second line thereby providing an extension torque between the second thigh link and the supporting trunk (This is a repetition of the above with respect to a second set of components already addressed. See again preceding).
Regarding Claim 21, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 11, wherein the actuator comprises a motor comprising a motor shaft and a motor housing, wherein the motor is configured to generate the first actuator torque on the motor shaft and the second actuator torque on the motor housing (Broad. Motor housing is undefined. Torques are technically shared among all components without being more specific. Also is disclosed as best understood by the Examiner. See at least “Two drive pulleys are connected to the flex spline and the circular spline of the harmonic gear, respectively”), and the actuator first element and the actuator second element are coupled to the motor shaft and the motor housing (Broadly claimed. This is inherent. Not limited to direct coupling. As they are part of a connected system, they are coupled regardless. Alternatively, disclosed under the mapping above).
Regarding Claim 25, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 11, wherein the actuator comprises a motor comprising a motor shaft and a motor housing, wherein the motor is configured to generate a torque on the motor shaft; and a planetary gear transmission comprising a ring gear, a carrier gear, and a sun gear, wherein the sun gear is coupled to the motor shaft, wherein the actuator first element is coupled to the ring gear and the actuator second element is coupled to the carrier gear.
Regarding Claim 27, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 11, further comprising a controller configured to send a signal to the actuator to generate the first actuator torque and the second actuator torque when the person is bent forward relative to a vertical gravitational line (See at least Section 3.2 “𝜃𝐿 denotes the summation value for angles of both hip joint relative to the vertical direction, and 𝜃𝑢 is the clock-wise angle between the torso link and the gravitational direction”, Figure 8, “Gravity compensation torque” in general, and demonstration in Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 28, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 27, wherein the controller is configured to send a signal to the actuator to generate a substantially small first actuator torque and second actuator torque when the person is not bent forward relative to the vertical gravitational line (See at least Section 3.2, “Initially, it operates in the walking mode. In this walking mode, the actuator is intended to generate the minimally required torque for maintaining the tension on the wire by Eq. (3)”, Equation (3), and the continuation of Section 3.2, “‘a’ and ‘b’ are set to be constant threshold values of 𝜃𝐿, 𝜃𝑢 to distinguish between two modes: the assist mode and the walking mode, respectively. According to the conditional statement for transiting from the walking mode to the assist mode in Fig. 10, the walking mode always has 𝜃𝑢 ≤ 𝑎 and 𝜃𝐿 ≤ 𝑏”).
Regarding Claim 29, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 27, wherein the first actuator torque and the second actuator torque are based on an amount of forward bend of the person relative to the vertical gravitational line (See preceding or Figure 11 demonstration).
Regarding Claim 30, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 27, wherein the first and the second actuator torques increase as an angle of the supporting trunk relative to the vertical gravitational line increases (See preceding or Figure 11 demonstration).
Regarding Claim 31, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 27, wherein the first and second actuator torques decrease as an angle of the supporting trunk relative to the vertical gravitational line decreases (See preceding or Figure 11 demonstration).
Regarding Claim 37, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 27, further comprising: a tilt sensor that generates a tilt signal indicative of an angle of the supporting trunk relative to the vertical gravitational line in the sagittal plane (See at least Section 3.1, “The electricity system for implementing a control algorithm consists of a 48 V Li-Po battery, a DC–DCconverter, controller, an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor”), wherein one of the first actuator torque or the second actuator torque is based on the tilt signal (See preceding or Figure 11 demonstration).
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.
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.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. and further in view of Ludovico et al. (Ludovico, Daniele, et al. "Design of non-circular pulleys for torque generation: a convex optimisation approach." IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6.2 (2021): 958-965.).
Regarding Claim 20, Ko teaches:
The trunk support exoskeleton of claim 19,
Ko does not teach, but Ludovico teaches:
wherein first thigh link pulley and the second thigh link pulley each have a non-circular shape (See title, “Non-Circular Pulleys”) to (Clear indication of intended purpose of the non-circular shape and not a positively recited limitation) reduce the tensile forces in the first line and the second line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize non-circular pulleys as taught by Ludovico in Ko with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well known and understood that non-circular pulleys allow for torque and related behaviors in a system to vary with the rotation and position of said pulley as the radius to a given point varies. More specifically, and per Ludovico, “Pulleys and cams with non-circular shapes increase the number of design parameters in the system, simplifying the optimisation of gravity compensation mechanisms [16]–[18]”, “non-circular pulleys” can “generate non-monotonic torque profiles” and allow for the creation of “an arbitrary torque profile” (Section 1). Ko explicitly discusses at least “gravity compensation” with respect to the exoskeleton.
Claims 32 – 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. and further in view of Li et al. (Li, Jared M., et al. "Design and validation of a cable-driven asymmetric back exosuit." IEEE Transactions on Robotics 38.3 (2021): 1489-1502.).
Regarding Claim 32, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 27,
Ko does not teach, but Ludovico teaches:
wherein the first and the second actuator torques are functions of an angular velocity of the supporting trunk in a sagittal plane (See at least Section III(B), “During operation, the FSM transitions between states based on the measured trunk extension angle (θt) and trunk extension velocity (ωt)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the actuator torque with respect to the angular velocity as taught by Li in Ko with a reasonable expectation of success. Per Li, this ensures that torque is provided when needed and in a safe manner (See at least Section III(B)).
Regarding Claim 33, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 27,
Ko does not teach, but Ludovico teaches:
wherein the first and the second actuator torques decrease as a forward bending angular velocity of the supporting trunk in a sagittal plane increases (No baseline quantity, point in time, etc. for increase is provided and thus may be arbitrarily chosen. Furthermore, the manner of control is not claimed and the claim is broadly constructed without reference to a controller.
See at least Section III(B), “We implement a two-tier control system to autonomously assist the user. Specifically, the mid-level finite state machine (FSM) detects the user mode throughout the lift (see Fig. 4) and updates the control gains and desired cable tension (sd) of the low-level force controller accordingly” (emphasis added). Thus, the best way to approximate the “actuator torque” or in other words commanded torque is by rearranging Equation 4 to solve for the “desired cable tension sd”. This leaves trunk extension velocity as a negative term (-khωt/ks), or in other words, desired cable tension decreases or increases as trunk extension velocity increases or decreases respectively. This is in addition to the FSM transitions discussed in the final paragraph of Section III(B)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the actuator torque with respect to the angular velocity as taught by Li in Ko with a reasonable expectation of success. Per Li, this ensures that torque is provided when needed and in a safe manner (See at least Section III(B)).
Regarding Claim 34, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 27,
Ko does not teach, but Ludovico teaches:
wherein the first and the second actuator torques increase as a forward bending angular velocity of the supporting trunk in a sagittal plane decreases (No baseline quantity, point in time, etc. for increase is provided and thus may be arbitrarily chosen. Furthermore, the manner of control is not claimed and the claim is broadly constructed without reference to a controller.
See at least Section III(B), “We implement a two-tier control system to autonomously assist the user. Specifically, the mid-level finite state machine (FSM) detects the user mode throughout the lift (see Fig. 4) and updates the control gains and desired cable tension (sd) of the low-level force controller accordingly” (emphasis added). Thus, the best way to approximate the “actuator torque” or in other words commanded torque is by rearranging Equation 4 to solve for the “desired cable tension sd”. This leaves trunk extension velocity as a negative term (-khωt/ks), or in other words, desired cable tension decreases or increases as trunk extension velocity increases or decreases respectively. This is in addition to the FSM transitions discussed in the final paragraph of Section III(B)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the actuator torque with respect to the angular velocity as taught by Li in Ko with a reasonable expectation of success. Per Li, this ensures that torque is provided when needed and in a safe manner (See at least Section III(B)).
Regarding Claim 35, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 27,
Ko does not teach, but Ludovico teaches:
wherein the first and the second actuator torques increase as an unbending angular velocity of the supporting trunk in a sagittal plane increase (No baseline quantity, point in time, etc. for increase is provided and thus may be arbitrarily chosen. Furthermore, the manner of control is not claimed and the claim is broadly constructed without reference to a controller.
See at least Section III(B), “We implement a two-tier control system to autonomously assist the user. Specifically, the mid-level finite state machine (FSM) detects the user mode throughout the lift (see Fig. 4) and updates the control gains and desired cable tension (sd) of the low-level force controller accordingly” (emphasis added). Thus, the best way to approximate the “actuator torque” or in other words commanded torque is by rearranging Equation 4 to solve for the “desired cable tension sd”. This leaves trunk extension velocity as a negative term (-khωt/ks), or in other words, desired cable tension decreases or increases as trunk extension velocity increases or decreases respectively. This is in addition to the FSM transitions discussed in the final paragraph of Section III(B)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the actuator torque with respect to the angular velocity as taught by Li in Ko with a reasonable expectation of success. Per Li, this ensures that torque is provided when needed and in a safe manner (See at least Section III(B)).
Regarding Claim 36, Ko teaches:
The trunk supporting exoskeleton of claim 27,
Ko does not teach, but Ludovico teaches:
wherein the actuator torques decrease as an unbending angular velocity of the supporting trunk in a sagittal plane decreases (No baseline quantity, point in time, etc. for increase is provided and thus may be arbitrarily chosen. Furthermore, the manner of control is not claimed and the claim is broadly constructed without reference to a controller.
See at least Section III(B), “We implement a two-tier control system to autonomously assist the user. Specifically, the mid-level finite state machine (FSM) detects the user mode throughout the lift (see Fig. 4) and updates the control gains and desired cable tension (sd) of the low-level force controller accordingly” (emphasis added). Thus, the best way to approximate the “actuator torque” or in other words commanded torque is by rearranging Equation 4 to solve for the “desired cable tension sd”. This leaves trunk extension velocity as a negative term (-khωt/ks), or in other words, desired cable tension decreases or increases as trunk extension velocity increases or decreases respectively. This is in addition to the FSM transitions discussed in the final paragraph of Section III(B)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the actuator torque with respect to the angular velocity as taught by Li in Ko with a reasonable expectation of success. Per Li, this ensures that torque is provided when needed and in a safe manner (See at least Section III(B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2 – 6 and 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner has not found alone or in a reasonable combination within Examiner’s search of the prior art the limitations of:
“a planetary gear transmission comprising a ring gear, a carrier gear, and a sun gear wherein the sun gear is coupled to the motor shaft and the motor torque generates an actuator torque between the ring gear and the carrier gear”
and
“a ring gear pulley coupled to the ring gear and that turns with the ring gear; a carrier pulley coupled to the carrier gear and that turns with the carrier gear”
and
“the motor generates an actuator torque between the carrier gear and the ring gear”
of Claim 1;
or
“the actuator comprises a motor comprising a motor shaft and a motor housing, wherein the motor is configured to generate a torque on the motor shaft; and a planetary gear transmission comprising a ring gear, a carrier gear, and a sun gear, wherein the sun gear is coupled to the motor shaft, wherein the actuator first element is coupled to the ring gear and the actuator second element is coupled to the carrier gear”
of Claim 25.
In other words, the limitation and feature of an exoskeleton having a single actuator providing torque in the system by torque transmission via pulleys and wires to both legs/thighs, wherein each thigh or leg portion is directly connected in said torque transmission system with a ring gear and a carrier gear of the planetary gear/transmission system has not been found within the prior art.
While Ko discloses the use of a single actuator, it uses a harmonic and differential system. While planetary gear systems may be used in differential systems, and while they may be well-known and understood in general, the claims go beyond merely claiming the use of such a system and are specific to the way each leg structure is attached to said gearing such that a single actuator can replace what is typically two actuators. The closest prior art of record with respect to the use of planetary gear systems in exoskeletons are Li et al. (US 20220193887 A1) and Lee et al. (US 20240399565 A1). However, in both cases, the systems utilize two actuators, one for each leg, and furthermore the actuators involved do not appear capable of producing the required simultaneous torques of a single actuator even if used within Ko without further modification not disclosed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US 20220193887 A1) and Lee et al. (US 20240399565 A1) cited above in the Allowable Subject Matter section for the reasons indicated therein.
Hosek et al. (US 9149936 B2) which discloses a robot having non-circular pulleys.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights