DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 06/05/26 (hereinafter Response) including claims amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 16 and 20 have been amended, while all other claims are maintained as previously presented in the application. In view of amendment, drawing objection and 112(b) rejections previously presented have been withdrawn and in view of further consideration, the rejections of claims 1-26 are maintained and sustained as previously presented in the office action mailed (03/05/2026). Accordingly, claims 1-26 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments see (‘Remarks’ filed 06/05/2026, pages 1-3) regarding all claim rejections under 35 USC §102 and §103 have been fully considered but in view of amendment and further consideration…are not found persuasive (details below).
In view of argument [ ‘Remarks’, pages 1-3], the applicant submits that the claim 1 is now amended to introduce a new limitations that the Tran fails to teach: “a shin; a foot flex actuator housed within the shin.” “the pedestal and configured to pivot relative to the shin about a foot pitch axis in response to movement of the connecting rod via the foot flex actuator; a single toe structure: (i) having a lower curved surface that has a curvilinear extent.”
The examiner disagrees. The argument is not persuasive.
As depicted in fig. 1 of Tran, the batteries, electric motor and control electronics are clearly shown. Those components constitute a “torque sensitive actuator” as taught by para. 022 of Tran and as depicted in figs. 6-7. ‘Abstract’ also expressly discloses: “the powered knee joint uses a unique torque-sensitive mechanism combining the benefits of elastic actuators with that of variable transmissions. A single actuator powers the ankle and toe joints through a compliant, underactuated mechanism”. Also, see figs. 8, F and G where flexion is maintained by the use of “torque-sensitive actuator” which aims to address the issue of altering torque ratio in response to knee extension torque. See fig. 5 of flexion articulation in three separate movements and this action is actuated by means of “torque-sensitive actuator” as disclosed by Tran before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, which is equivalent to the claimed term “foot flex actuator.” Tran in fig. 1 clearly depicts “a shin”, “the pedestal”, configured to pivot relative to the shin about a foot pitch axis in response to movement of the connecting rod via the foot flex actuator, equivalent to “torque-sensitive actuator” of Tran. Also, fig. 1 clearly shows that toe structure having a lower curved surface that has a curvilinear extent.
As stated in MPEP § 2141, a reference anticipates or renders a claim obvious if it discloses the claimed structure or its equivalent, regardless of the terminology used by the reference. The structural and functional features relied upon by Applicant are plainly disclosed in Tran’s reference. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-26 under 35 USC § 102 and § 103 are retained (details below).
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)(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.
(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 1-7 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minh Tran (“A lightweight robotic leg prosthesis replicating the biomechanics of the knee, ankle, and toe joint” -(https://web.archive.org/web/20221124032859/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.abo3996; Published - Nov 23, 2022; hereinafter, “Tran”).
Regarding claim 1, Tran discloses: A humanoid robot (“A lightweight robotics replicating the biomechanics of the knee, ankle, and toe joint; thus, humanoid robot”; ‘Title’ and see annotated fig. 1 below) having a leg (“Bionic leg” A, fig. 1), and wherein said leg (A) comprises:
a foot flex actuator (FFA, annotated fig. 1 below) housed within the shin (shin, see annotated fig. 1 or Tran below) coupled to a connecting rod (CD);
a foot (“foot”; [0007]) that includes:
a pedestal (P) having a toe coupling section (TCS, annotated fig. 1 below), the pedestal (P) configured to pivot relative to the shin (see fig. 5) about a foot pitch axis (AA') in response to movement of the connecting rod (CD) via the foot flex actuator (FFA, see fig. 4 for “characterization of the ankle module on the bench” and [para. 006 teaches: “the knee module uses a unique torque-sensitive actuator (foot-flex actuator) that works as a variable transmission to change the torque ratio passively, continuously, and quickly in response to varying knee extension torque by following a specific curve defined by the design geometry”]);
a single toe structure (fig. 1): (i) having a lower surface (annotated fig. 1 below) that has a curvilinear extent (fig. 1 shows the lower surface with curvilinear extent), and (ii) hingedly
coupled to the toe coupling section (via AA' axis) of the pedestal (P), the toe structure (“toe”, fig 1 and [0009]) configured to pivot relative to the pedestal about a toe pivot axis (AA'); and
a passive toe biasing device (“underactuated system”, fig. 1B and [para. 009]) configured to bias the toe structure (“toe”, fig 1B and [0009]) toward an initial position (fig. 1A-B) relative to the pedestal (see figs. 1A-B).
PNG
media_image1.png
769
941
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Tran
Regarding claim 2, Tran further discloses that the toe biasing device (“underactuated System”, fig. 1B) includes a linear compression device (figure 4B has linear compression device configuration; [0009]) configured to provide a biasing force to bias the toe structure toward the initial position [fig. 4B discloses: “linear actuator speed for sinusoidal position input at the ankle and fixed toe and for sinusoidal position input at both the ankle and the toe”; thus, linear compression device configured to provide a biasing force to bias the toe structure toward the initial position.]
Regarding claim 3, Tran further discloses that the toe biasing device (“underactuated System”, fig. 1B) includes a positioning rod (PD, annotated fig. 1 above) having: (i) a first end (FE, annotated fig. 1 above) with a first curvilinear surface (curve surface, annotated fig. 1 above) positioned within an extent of the toe structure (“toe”, fig 1B and [0009]), and (ii) a second end (SE, annotated fig. 1 above) positioned within an extent of the pedestal (P).
Regarding claim 4, Tran further discloses that the toe biasing device (“underactuated System”, fig. 1B) includes a bias force adjustment mechanism (via spring compression and extension, fig 4D) that controls the magnitude of the biasing force [035-036] that is applied to bias the toe structure (“toe”, fig 1B and [0009]) toward the initial position [036 discloses:” to demonstrate the effect of the underactuated ankle-toe mechanism on the linear actuator, we commanded the ankle joint to generate a 0.5-Hz sinusoidal position profile with a partially constrained setup. We performed testing under two conditions: with the toe joint locked and with the toe joint manually synchronized with the ankle motion to minimize linear actuator movement by the experimenter. For each condition, we tested three times”; thus, the toe biasing device includes a bias force adjustment mechanism that controls the magnitude of the biasing force that is applied to bias the toe structure toward the initial position; also see figs 4-8.]
Regarding claim 5, Tran further discloses that the toe biasing device further includes an internal channel (“ball screw channel”, fig. 8D) configured to allow air to escape (via spring encoder, fig. 8E) the pedestal when the toe structure (fig. 8) moves towards said pedestal (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Tran further discloses that the humanoid robot comprising: a sole (sole, fig. 8) comprising: a front portion (F, fig. 8) and a rear portion (R, annotated fig. 1 above); and a separation slit (SS, annotated fig. 1 above and fig. 8 of Tran) formed through the sole and configured to allow relative movement (via axis AA') between the front portion (F) and the rear portion (R) of the sole (sole), wherein the separation slit (SS) does not extend across the full width of the sole (fig. 8 configuration and [030-031]).
Regarding claim 7, Tran further discloses that a foot cover (cover, annotated fig. 1 above) including a carrier (carrier, annotated fig. 8 below) and a textile layer (fig. 1 shows fabric and fig. 8 shows textile layer) adhered to the carrier (fig 8 shows carrier), and wherein said foot cover (cover) is configured to be removable from the robot without removal of the leg from the humanoid robot (fig. 1 shows the configuration where cover can be removed without removal of leg).
PNG
media_image2.png
366
517
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 8 of Tran
Regarding claim 14, Tran discloses: a humanoid robot (“A lightweight robotics replicating the biomechanics of the knee, ankle, and toe joint; thus, humanoid robot”; ‘Title’ and see annotated fig. 1 below) having a leg (“Bionic leg” A, fig. 1), and wherein said leg (A) comprises:
a foot (“foot”; [0007]) that includes a sole (sole, fig. 8 -D), the sole comprising:
a front portion (F, annotated fig. 1 above) and a rear portion (R. annotated fig. 1 above);
a coupling portion (‘toe joint’, fig. 8D) positioned between the front portion (F) and the rear portion (R); and
a separation slit (SS, annotated fig. 1 above) formed in the coupling portion (via shaft at AA' axis, annotated fig. 1 above), and wherein the separation slit (SS): (i) is configured to allow relative movement (via shaft at axis AA'; figs. 1 and 8) between the front portion (F) and the rear portion (R) of the sole (sole, fig. 8), when the foot moves from an initial position to a flexed position (fig. 6 where initial and a flexed positions are shown), and (ii) does not extend across the full width of the sole [see fig. 8G and para. 030 teaches: “the ankle joint can be controlled without affecting the toe joint. Moreover, a viscoelastic element returns the toe joint to a neutral position when no force is applied at the input joint, such as at the end of swing phase; thus, the front portion and the rear portion of the sole, when the foot moves from an initial position to a flexed position does not extend across the full width of the sole.]
Regarding claim 15, Tran further discloses that the separation slit (SS, annotated fig. 8 above) includes a central slit section (CSS, annotated fig. 8 of Tran above), a left side slit section (left section of SS), and a right side slit section (right section of SS), and said left and right side slit sections extend from the central slit section (see figs. 1 and annotated fig. 8 above), and an angle is formed (see annotated fig. 8 above) between an extent of the left and right side slit sections (left SS, right SS) and the central slit section (CSS).
Regarding claim 16, Tran further discloses that a first separation slit width, measured laterally on the sole (see annotated fig. 4 of Tran below), that extends from a first side point located within the left side slit section to a second side point located within the right side slit section (see fig. 1 and 4 for width which expressly shows slit width that extends from a first side point located within the left side slit section to a second side point located within the right side slit section), and a second separation slit width, measured laterally on the sole (annotated fig. 4 below for width measured laterally), that extends from a first central point located on a left extent of the central slit section to a second central point located on a right extent of the central slit section (see fig. 1 and expressly fig. 8 shows that a second separation slit width that extends from a first central point located on a left extent of the central slit section to a second central point located on a right extent of the central slit section), and wherein the first separation slit width (figs. 4 and 8) is (i) measured forward of the second separation slit width and (ii) greater than the second separation slit width (as depicted in fig. 8, the first separation slit width is measured forward of the second separation slit width and is greater than the second separation slit width, see also annotated fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
314
337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 4 of Tran.
PNG
media_image4.png
321
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 8 of Tran
Regarding claim 17, Tran further discloses that the humanoid robot further comprising: (i) a toe structure coupled to the front portion of the sole (see fig. 1), and (ii) a platform (rear platform, see annotated fig. 8 above) coupled to the rear portion of the sole (fig 8 shows at rear), and wherein: (i) an extent of the toe structure is externally visible when the foot is in the flexed position (see fig. 8G where toe structure is externally visible when the foot is in the flexed position), and (ii) the extent of the toe structure is not externally visible when the foot is in the initial position (fig. 8 position is understood to be in initial position where toe structure is not externally visible).
Regarding claim 18, Tran further discloses that the toe structure (“toe”, fig 1B and [0009]) includes a rear portion with a curvilinear extent (fig. 1A shows the toe structure includes a rear portion with a curvilinear extent), and the platform includes a front portion with a curvilinear extent that substantially matches the curvilinear extent of the rear portion (see fig. 1 and fig. 8), whereby allowing the two portions (front and rear portion as depicted in figs. 1 and 8) to slide ( via underactuated system of fig. 1B) relative to one another (front and rear) when the foot moves from the initial position to the flexed position (fig. 4, [009]).
Regarding claim 19, Tran further discloses that the humanoid robot, further comprising a toe biasing device (“underactuated system”, fig. 1B and [para. 009]) having a linear compression device (figure 4B has linear compression device configuration; [0009]), and wherein said linear compression device (“underactuated system”, fig. 1B) is configured to apply a biasing force (via light weight spring; [028]) on an extent of the foot (fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 20, depending on claim 19, Tran further discloses that the extent of the foot (fig. 1) is a toe structure (“toe”, fig 1B and [0009]) hingedly coupled (via shaft at AA', fig. 8D) to a pedestal (P), and wherein when a compressive force (via toe torque, fig. 6) is applied on the toe structure (“toe”) in an amount that is greater than (annotated fig. 6 below) at least a portion of the biasing force [see annotated fig. 6 graphical representation below where toe torque which creates compression is greater than stride and toe position (note that: biasing force increases over stride); thus, a compressive force is applied on the toe structure in an amount that is greater than at least a portion of the biasing force; note that % of stride increases when bias], the toe structure pivots ( at axis AA’ with angle, fig 8A) relative to the pedestal about a toe pivot axis (R3, fig. 8A or AA', annotated fig. 1 above).
PNG
media_image5.png
527
841
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 6 of Tran
Regarding claim 21, Tran further discloses that the humanoid robot comprising a spring [para. 018 discloses: “the proposed underactuated mechanism (biasing device) uses a spring in series with the motor (fig. 1)] configured to resist movement of a front portion of the sole relative to a rear portion of the sole [ para. 023 discloses: “it would have required a longer spring, which would have reduced the range of motion of the ankle and toe joints; thus, a spring in series with the motor (fig. 1)] configured to resist movement of a front portion of the sole relative to a rear portion of the sole.]
Regarding claim 22, Tran further discloses that the humanoid robot, further comprising a toe biasing device (“toe encoder”, fig. 8E): (i) that is configured to apply a biasing force (via spring encoder which measures angles of toe joint; [031]) to an extent of the foot (fig. 4), and (ii) includes a bias force adjustment mechanism that is configured to alter a magnitude of the biasing force [para 031 teaches that a linear potentiometer measures the length of the spring. A custom instrumented pyramid provides ground reaction force sensing (55); thus, includes a bias force adjustment mechanism that is configured to alter a magnitude of the biasing force.]
Regarding claim 23, Tran further discloses that the humanoid robot, further comprising a foot cover (cover, annotated fig. 1 above) that is removably coupled to the humanoid robot without removal of the leg from said humanoid robot (figs. 1 and 8 shows the configuration where cover can be removed without removal of leg).
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 no obviousness.
Claims 8-9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Alfayad et al. (US20110186362 A1; hereinafter, “Alfayad”).
Regarding claim 8, Tran discloses the foot cover, its textile feature, but fails to explicitly disclose that an interconnect assembly for coupling the foot cover to the pedestal, and wherein said interconnect assembly is mechanically secured to said pedestal; however,
Alfayad in another ‘foot for humanoid robot’ similar to Tran teaches that an interconnect assembly (53, 56, 57 constitute an interconnect assembly, ([0042]) for coupling the foot cover (50, fig. 5 and [0042]) to the pedestal (figs. 2 and 5), and wherein said interconnect assembly (53, 56, 57 constitute and interconnect assembly) is mechanically secured (via screws 53 as depicted in fig. 5) to said pedestal (fig. 2 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Tran to incorporate the teaching of Alfayad and integrate a foot cover that are connected via an interconnected assembly to the pedestal, using a mechanical secure means, such as screws in order to advantageously provide the engagement structures that can be actuated, so the robot could gain better ground reaction force distribution, especially on uneven terrain, making it possible to attach there to an ankle of the robot [0036 of Alfayad].
Regarding claim 9, Tran as modified above discloses the interconnect assembly, but fails to explicitly disclose that the interconnect assembly includes an opening formed therethrough, and wherein air is configured to be drawn into the shin and forced out of the opening in said interconnect assembly; however,
Alfayad teaches that the interconnect assembly (53, 56, 57 constitute an interconnect assembly; [0042]) includes an opening formed therethrough (via bores 54 and 55, fig. 5; [0042]), and wherein air is configured to be drawn into the shin and forced out of the opening in said interconnect assembly [It should be understood that bores 54 and 55 are configured to provide a cushioning effect between the cover and the pedestal, as movement of interconnect assembly draws air into a shin and forces air out through the opening during actuation or walking. Such an arrangement represents an apparent design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Tran to incorporate the teaching of Alfayad and incorporate a venting means, such as bores to provide airflow-based cushioning between the cover and the pedestal in order to advantageously reduce the friction, so the toe being able to move on an angular travel about an axis of connection [claim 1 of Alfayad], as such venting arrangements represent a predictable design choice yielding expected result.
Regarding claim 24, Tran further discloses the foot cover (cover, annotated fig. 1 above), but fails to teach that includes a locking trim assembly configured for attachment of the foot cover to internal components of the foot, and wherein the locking trim assembly is configured for attachment at a toe portion of the foot, at a heel portion of the foot, and at side portions of the foot; however,
Alfayad teaches that the foot cover (22, [0033]) includes a locking trim assembly configured for attachment of the foot cover (via screw 53, fig. 5) to internal components of the foot (10), and wherein the locking trim assembly (52, [0042]) is configured for attachment at a toe portion (12) of the foot (10), at a heel portion of the foot (fig. 3), and at side portions of the foot (fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Tran to incorporate the teaching of Alfayad and incorporate a locking trim assembly configured for attachment of the foot cover to internal components of the foot, and wherein the locking trim assembly is configured for attachment at a toe portion of the foot, at a heel portion of the foot, and at side portions of the foot in order to advantageously reduce the friction, secure foot, so the toe being able to move on an angular travel about an axis of connection [claim 1 of Alfayad], as such foot cover with locking trim assembly represent a predictable design choice yielding expected result.
Claims 10-12 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Koike Takashi (JP2003266362 A; hereinafter, “Takashi”) and further in view of Partovi (US 20140132210 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tran discloses the pedestal, but fails to explicitly teach that the humanoid robot further comprising a charging assembly coupled to a lower extent of the pedestal and including: (i) a receiving coil, and (ii) a coil shield that both partially surrounds the receiving coil and is positioned between said receiving coil and the pedestal; however,
Takashi in another ‘foot of leg type mobile robot,’ similar to Tran teaches that the humanoid robot (“humanoid legged mobile robot 100”, fig. 4) comprising a charging assembly coupled to a lower extent of the pedestal (pedestal 1015; see fig. 4) where charging assembly coupled to a lower extent of the pedestal) and including: (i) a receiving coil (coil spring 1160, [0033]), and (ii) a coil shield (“top plate portion” 1011, fig. 4) that both partially surrounds (see fig. 4 where 1011 surrounds 1160) the receiving coil (1160) and is positioned between said receiving coil (1160) and the pedestal (1015) [see fig. 4 where a coil shield 1011 partially surrounds coil 1160 and is positioned between said receiving coil and the pedestal].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a charging assembly coupled to a lower extent of the pedestal that includes: a receiving coil, and a coil shield, thereby both partially surrounds the receiving coil and is positioned between said receiving coil and the pedestal as taught by Takashi into the invention of Tran with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously eliminate a need for a pre-load adjusting work for calibration of a force sensor [ ‘Abstract’ of Takashi], in such a way that the coil spring could be interposed between the receiving coil and the pedestal, thereby improving balance and reducing tripping risk.
Tran as modified above includes the pedestal and charging assembly coupled to a lower extend of the pedestal, but fails to explicitly disclose that the charging assembly is the wireless charging assembly; however,
Partovi in another ‘system and method for charging or powering devices, such as Robots,’ similar to the modified Tran teaches that the humanoid robot that comprising a wireless charging assembly (wireless charging assembly of fig. 11 that includes receiver shield, [para. 0060 teaches that alloys of Ni, Mn, Zn, Fe, Co, Gd, and Dynano nano materials, and many other materials in solid or other matrix that are used in shielding (this is being interpretated to indicate “nano crystalline material), receiver coil etc. and power supply as depicted in figs.12]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a wireless charging assembly as taught by Partovi and coupled the assembly to a lower extent of the pedestal that includes: a receiving coil, and a coil shield of the modified Tran with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance the systems and methods for enabling efficient wireless power transfer and charging of devices [0010 of Partovi].
Regarding claim 11, Tran as modified above further teaches that the coil shield includes nanocrystalline material [para. 0060 teaches: “alloys of Ni, Mn, Zn, Fe, Co, Gd, and Dynano nano materials, and many other materials in solid” that are used in shielding” (this is being interpretated to indicate “nano crystalline material)].” See claim rejection 10 above for the details.
Regarding claim 12, Tran further teaches the humanoid robot, but fails to teach that a charging assembly positioned adjacent to a lower extent of the pedestal; however,
Takashi teaches that the humanoid robot (“humanoid legged mobile robot 100”, fig. 4 of Takashi) comprising a charging assembly positioned adjacent to a lower extent of the pedestal (pedestal 1015; see fig. 4 where charging assembly coupled to a lower extent of the pedestal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a charging assembly positioned adjacent to a lower extent of the pedestal as taught by Partovi into the invention of Tran and allow positioning of those elements adjacent to a lower extent of the pedestal with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance the systems and methods for eliminating hot spots due to the presence of metal in between the coils, eliminating a very serious and difficult problem in practical use of wireless charging [0069 of Partovi].
Tran as modified above does not explicitly teach a wireless charging assembly and including a heat transfer device, and wherein openings are formed in an extent of the pedestal to allow for air to be forced into contact with said heat transfer device; however,
Partovi teaches that a wireless charging assembly (wireless charging assembly, fig. 11 of Partovi that includes receiver shield and receiver coil etc.) and including a heat transfer device [0069], and where in openings (“aperture”; [0069]) are formed in an extent of the pedestal to allow for air to be forced into contact with said heat transfer device [ para. 0069 teaches: “in accordance with an embodiment, the build-up of the magnetic field between the coils at a particular location allows opening up the magnetic aperture (openings) in that area. Therefore, when a metal part is placed in that area, the magnetic field cannot build up and no power transfer occurs. This behavior results in an automatic method for eliminating hot spots (heat) due to presence of metal in between the coils and eliminating a very serious and difficult problem in practical use of wireless charging.”; thus, openings are formed in an extent of the pedestal to allow for air to be forced into contact with said heat transfer device.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a wireless charging assembly, including a heat transfer device, and wherein openings are formed in an extent of the pedestal to allow for air to be forced into contact with said heat transfer device as taught by Partovi into the invention of the modified Tran and allow positioning of those elements adjacent to a lower extent of the pedestal with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance the systems and methods for eliminating hot spots due to the presence of metal in between the coils, eliminating a very serious and difficult problem in practical use of wireless charging [0069 of Partovi].
Regarding claim 25, Tran further discloses the humanoid robot but fails to explicitly teach that a charging assembly positioned adjacent a rear portion of the sole and including: (i) a coil shield, and (ii) a receiving coil that is both partially surrounded by the coil shield and is positioned between said coil shield and the sole; however.
Takashi teaches that a charging assembly positioned adjacent a rear portion of the sole and including: (i) a coil shield (“top plate portion” 1011, fig. 4), and (ii) a receiving coil (coil spring 1160, [0033]) that is both partially surrounded by the coil shield (see fig. 4 of Takashi where 1011 surrounds 1160) and is positioned between said coil shield and the sole (fig. 4 configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a charging assembly positioned adjacent a rear portion of the sole and including a coil shield, and a receiving coil that is both partially surrounded by the coil shield and is positioned between said coil shield and the sole as taught by Takashi into the invention of Tran with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously eliminate a need for a pre-load adjusting work for calibration of a force sensor [ ‘Abstract of Takashi], in such a way that the receiving coil could be interposed between the coil shield and the sole, thereby improving balance and reducing tripping risk.
Tran as modified above includes the charging assembly, but fails to explicitly disclose that the charging assembly is the wireless charging assembly; however,
Partovi in another ‘system and method for charging or powering devices, such as Robots,’ similar to the modified Tran teaches that the humanoid robot that comprising a wireless charging assembly [wireless charging assembly of fig. 11 that includes receiver shield].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a wireless charging assembly as taught by Partovi and coupled that to the invention of the modified Tran that includes: a receiving coil, and a coil shield within the sole with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance the systems and methods for enabling efficient wireless power transfer and charging of devices [0010 of Partovi].
Regarding claim 26, Tran in view of Takashi and Partovi teaches the humanoid robot comprising a wireless charging assembly positioned adjacent to a rear portion of the sole (see claim rejection 25 above; note that: although the claims 26 and 25 are unrelated dependency-wise; however, identical limitations have been noted, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]. Tran as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach a heat transfer device, and wherein openings are formed in an extent of the foot to allow for air from above the foot to be forced into contact with said heat transfer device; however,
Partovi teaches that a wireless charging assembly (wireless charging assembly, fig. 11 of Partovi that includes receiver shield and receiver coil etc.) and including a heat transfer device [0069], and where in openings (“aperture”; [0069]) are formed in an extent of the foot to allow for air from above the foot to be forced into contact with said heat transfer device [ para. 0069 teaches: “in accordance with an embodiment, the build-up of the magnetic field between the coils at a particular location allows opening up the magnetic aperture (openings) in that area. Therefore, when a metal part is placed in that area, the magnetic field cannot build up and no power transfer occurs. This behavior results in an automatic method for eliminating hot spots (heat) due to presence of metal in between the coils and eliminating a very serious and difficult problem in practical use of wireless charging.”; thus, openings are formed in an extent of the pedestal to allow for air from above the foot to be forced into contact with said heat transfer device.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a wireless charging assembly, including a heat transfer device, and wherein openings are formed in an extent of the pedestal to allow for air from above the foot to be forced into contact with said heat transfer device as taught by Partovi into the invention of the modified Tran with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance the systems and methods for eliminating hot spots due to the presence of metal in between the coils, eliminating a very serious and difficult problem in practical use of wireless charging [0069 of Partovi].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Takashi in view of Partovi and further in view of Inose Masashi (WO2024111509 A1; hereinafter, “Masashi”).
Regarding claim 13, Tran as modified above teaches the wireless charging assembly, but fails to explicitly further teach that a receiving coil that is positioned below the heat transfer device and is thermally coupled to said heat transfer device; however,
Masashi in another ‘charger’ similar to the modified Tran teaches that a receiving coil (coil 6, 106 fig. 1) that is positioned below the heat transfer device (CST near area 100a, fig. 1) and is thermally coupled to said heat transfer device (CST; [paragraphs 15-16) [ para. 16 teaches that the charger 1 is provided with a cooling structure CST capable of cooling the area of the charger 1 facing the internal space 22 and the area near the surface 100a of the object to be charged 100 in parallel; also see para. 23 for intake air flow path, the heat exchanger heat with a heat source; also, para. 24 teaches that when the air passes near the surface 100a of the object to be charged 100, it exchanges heat with the heat source in the object to be charged 100, note that as depicted in fig. 1, coil 106 or 6 is positions below the heat transfer device and thermally coupled so as to transfer heat as disclosed by para. 16.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a receiving coil that is positioned below the heat transfer device and is thermally coupled to said heat transfer device, so as to exchange heat with the heat source as taught by Masashi and integrate the charging configuration to the wireless configuration of the modified Tran with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance the systems and methods for eliminating hot spots due to the presence of metal in between the coils. As a result, the efficiency of wireless charging can be improved, and the wireless charging can be continuously performed in a quick charging mode [para. 26 of Masashi]. Such a wireless technology and its heat-management techniques, whether via air-bypass openings or heat-transfer-device are well-known in device charging and would have been routinely implemented by a skilled artisan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
"Powered Ankle-Foot Prosthesis for the improvement of Amputee Ambulation." – Published: August 23-26, 2007.
"An Underactuated Active Transfemoral Prosthesis with Series Elastic Actuators Enables Multiple Locomotion Tasks."---17 June 2024.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM 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, Neacsu, Valentin can be reached on 571-272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights