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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 10/23/2025. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Thus, claims 1-44 are pending in the application.
Priority
2. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for benefit of priority for 18/408,466 (filing date of 01/09/2024) which claims benefit of 63/437,993 (filing date of 01/09/2023). 18/408,466 does not provide sufficient support for the subject matter of claims 1-44. Therefore, the current application will be assigned the effective filing date of 10/23/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected Species V (FIGS. 20-40; Claims 1-44) directed to a walk-about human augmentation system without traverse on 07/01/2026.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1) because photographs are used in FIGS. 27 and 28. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications unless photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. See MPEP 608.02(v). In the present application, it does not appear that photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the subject matter depicted in FIGS. 27 and 28.
Applicants are required to replace the photographs of FIGS. 27 and 28 with drawings that comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.84. Corrected drawing sheets are required in reply to this Office action.
Claim Interpretation- 35 USC § 112 – Sixth Paragraph/35 USC § 112(f)
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
At present, no claims are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim Objections
3. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 17, the claim the phrase “5 and 15 degrees” (In 2) is objected for an apparent typographical/grammatical error. The claim recites “5 and 15 degrees,” without positively reciting the relationship between the numerical values. An example of the phrase could be corrected to –is between 5 and 15 degrees--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 39-41 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. Specifically:
Regarding claim 39, the limitation reciting “the one or more memory devices” (In 1) and “the one or more processors” (In 2) lacks proper antecedent basis because claim 39 depends from claim 26, and neither claim 26 nor the claims from which it depends introduce one or more memory devices or one or more processors. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation reciting “the one or more memory devices” (In 1) and “the one or more processors” (In 2) lacks proper antecedent basis because claim 40 depends from claim 26, and neither claim 26 nor the claims from which it depends introduce one or more memory devices or one or more processors. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 41, the limitation reciting “the guide member” lacks proper antecedent basis because no guide member is previously introduced in claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (20240225943) in view of Jacobsen et al. (9789603).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a walk-about platform 104, comprising:
a walk-about base 108 moveable about a ground surface (see, [0046; 0069-0071; 0086, 0095-0101]),
the walk-about base defining, at least in part, a bi-pedal zone 106 of operation for an operator (see, [0045; 0050; 0071; 0086]);
a mast 110 extending upward from the walk-about base, the mast being in support of at least one robotic arm (Smith discloses mast 110 supporting exoskeleton 102 having robotic limbs 113a,113b through support bridges 116 [0047-0051]);
and an actuator assembly supported by the mast, and comprising an actuator operable with a supported first robotic arm (Smith discloses a mast exoskeleton interface system 171 comprising linear actuator 112 operable to move exoskeleton 102, including robotic limb 113a, relative to mast 110 [0051-0052; 0059; 0065-0067]).
Smith does not disclose that the first robotic arm undergoes inclined displacement in a sloped vertical degree of freedom within a given range of motion, and relative to the ground surface.
However, Jacobsen teaches a robotic system having robotic arms movable through degrees of freedom corresponding to degrees of freedom of a human arm. In particular, Jacobsen teaches a master control arm having support members coupled about joints to form degrees of freedom corresponding to degrees of freedom of a human shoulder, elbow, and wrist, and a slave robotic arm having corresponding degrees of freedom maneuverable about a ground surface [0075; 0084-0086; 0088-0091].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic arm system of Smith in view of Jacobsen such that the supported robotic arm supported by support structures that is movable through degrees of freedom corresponding to movement of the operator, including movement having both vertical and horizontal components, thereby permitting the robotic arm to undergo inclined displacement in a sloped vertical degree of freedom within a given range of motion relative to the ground surface. Such modification would have been obvious to permit the robotic arm to follow the natural movement of the operator thereby accommodate movement of the operator while operating the robotic arm system.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Smith does disclose the walk-about platform of claim 1, wherein an inclined path of the first robotic arm when undergoing of the operator when moving between a standing position and a squatting position (Smith discloses exoskeleton 102, including robotic limb 113a, moving relative to mast 110 as the operator moves between standing position and a squatting position, wherein control unit 172 controls linear actuator 112 such that exoskeleton m102 moves in the same direction and at the same speed as the operator [0051; 0060-0061; 0065-0067; 0089]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Smith does disclose a walk-about platform of claim 1 104.
The modified device of Smith does not disclose a mast comprising a carrier support assembly. However, Jacobsen FIG. 1 depicts a support structure comprising a framework supporting the robotic arms and associated actuator assemblies. See Annotated FIG. 1 Below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic arm system of Smith in view of Jacobsen to provide the mast in the form of a carrier support assembly comprising framework supporting robotic arm and associated actuator assembly, in order to provide a structural support arrangement capable of supporting and permitting movement of the robotic arm assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Smith does disclose a walk-about platform of claim 3, wherein the carrier support assembly comprises: a framework comprising a structural support column having a working surface in support of the actuator assembly; and a guide member supported on the structural support column, wherein the structural support column is configured to facilitate the inclined displacement of the first robotic arm within a range of motion along the guide member (Smith discloses exoskeleton 102 moveably mounted relative to mast 110, wherein mast 110 comprises linear actuator 112 configured to facilitate movement of exoskeleton 102 relative to mast 110, including movement between standing and lower or squatting position [0051-0052]).
The modified device of Smith does not specifically disclose a carrier support assembly. Jacobsen FIG. 1 depicts a carrier support assembly comprising a framework supporting the robotic arm arrangement and associated actuator assemblies, including structure along which the robotic arm arrangement is supported. See Annotated FIG. 1 Above. As modified as set forth with respect to claim 1, the combined structure facilitates the inclined displacement of the supported robotic arm within the range of motion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carrier support assembly of the modified device Smith as discussed in claim 3, with the structural support and actuator/guide arrangement taught by Jacobsen so that the supported robotic arm is guided through its range of motion, thereby providing controlled support and movement of the robotic arm during the inclined displacement discussed in respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Smith does disclose a walk-about platform of claim 4, further comprising a second actuator assembly supported by the mast, and comprising a second actuator operable with a supported second robotic arm, wherein the degree of freedom within a given range of motion, and relative to the ground surface (Smith discloses right and left robotic limbs 113a,113b supported by support bridge 116, wherein respective joint assemblies can comprise one or more actuators configured to facilitate relative movement of the robotic limbs [0047-0049; 0051]. The modified device further provides that the second robotic arm undergoes inclined displacement in a sloped vertical degree of freedom within a given range of motion and relative to the ground surface, as modified as set forth to claim 1, see, Jacobsen [0101-0102]. See Annotated FIG. 1 Above.
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Smith does disclose a walk-about platform of claim 5, wherein the carrier support assembly further comprises: a second structural support column that is part of the framework, the second structural support column having a working surface in support of the second actuator assembly; and a guide member supported on the second structural support column, wherein the second structural support column is configured to facilitate the inclined displacement of the second robotic arm within a range of motion along the guide member of the second structural support column (Smith discloses right and left robotic limbs 113a,113b supported by support bridge 116, wherein respective joint assemblies can comprise one or more actuators configured to facilitate relative movement of the robotic limbs [0047-0049; 0051]. Jacobsen FIG. 1 depicts the corresponding framework supporting the robotic arm arrangement and associated actuator assemblies, including structural support structure and the associated actuator assemblies, including structural support structure and the associated actuator/guide structure along which the robotic arm arrangement is supported. See Annotated FIG. 1 Above.
7. Claims 8-14, 18, 20-25, 28-30, 32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (20240225943) in view of Jacobsen et al. (9789603).
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses a walk-about human augmentation system, comprising: an upper-body robotic human augmentation system comprising: a first robotic arm having at least one joint facilitating movement in at least one degree of freedom; a user input device associated with the first robotic arm; a walk-about platform in support of the upper-body robotic human augmentation system, and operable about a ground surface, the walk-about platform comprising: a walk-about base; and a given range of motion along the guide member, and relative to the ground surface (Smith discloses walk-about skeleton 100 comprising exoskeleton 102 supported by walk-about platform 104 having walk-about base 108 and mast 110; the exoskeleton includes right and left robotic limbs 113a, 113b coupled to support bridge 116 by respective joint assemblies facilitating relative movement [0047-0051]; Smith further discloses user input device 176 for initiating and controlling movement of the exoskeleton relative to mask 110 [0062-0063]. Smith further discloses the exoskeleton 102 being movably supported relative to mast 110 by an actuator assembly comprising linear actuator 112 facilitates movement of the exoskeleton relative to the mast, including movement between standing and lower or squatting positions [0051-0052].
Smith does not expressly disclose the mast in the form of the claimed carrier support assembly comprising a framework and an actuator assembly having an actuator and guide member arranged such that the first robotic arm undergoes inclined displacement in a sloped vertical degree of freedom along the guide member of the second support column. However, Jacobsen depicts a robotic system comprising a framework, support columns, arm mount brackets supporting robotic arm arrangements and associated actuator assemblies, including structure along which the robotic arm arrangement is supported and movable of a linear path. See Annotated FIG. 1 Below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic system of Smith in view of Jacobsen such that the supported robotic arm is supported by support structures that is movable through degrees of freedom corresponding to movement of the operator, including movement having both vertical and horizontal components, thereby providing a carrier support assembly comprising a framework and actuator assembly having an actuator and a guide member, wherein the first robotic arm is moveably supported by the carrier support assembly, and wherein the first robotic arm undergoes inclined displacement in a sloped vertical degree of freedom within a given range of motion along the guide member, and relative to the ground surface. Such modification would have been obvious to permit the robotic arm to follow the natural movement of the operator and thereby accommodate movement of the operator while operating the robotic arm system.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 8, wherein an inclined path of the first robotic arm, when undergoing the inclined displacement, is configured to approximate an inclined path of travel of a shoulder of the operator when moving between a standing position and a squatting position while operating the walk-about system (Smith discloses that movement of exoskeleton 102 relative to mast 110 allows an operator to move into different positions, including from a standing to a lower or squatting position [051-0052]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the sloped vertical degree of freedom comprises a single actuated degree of freedom (Smith discloses linear actuator 112 operable to move exoskeleton 102 relative to mast 110 [0051-0052]).
The modified device of Smith does not explicitly disclose such that the inclined displacement of the first robotic arm in the sloped vertical degree of freedom results in movement of the first robotic arm in two spatial degrees of freedom. However, Jacobsen teaches robotic arms movable through degrees of freedom corresponding to movement of the operator [0084-0091]. The actuation of the robotic arm along the inclined guide member provides a single actuated degree of freedom having both vertical and horizontal spatial components, thereby resulting in movement of the first robotic arm in two spatial degrees of freedom.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the single actuator movement of Smith according to the inclined robotic arm support arrangement taught by Jacobsen such that actuation along the inclined path produces both vertical and horizontal spatial components of movement, thereby permitting the supported robotic arm to more closely follow the movement of the operator.
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the framework comprises a first structural support column, and wherein the first robotic arm is moveably supported by the first structural support column (Jacobsen FIG. 1 depicts a framework comprising structural support member supporting the robotic arm and associated actuator assembly. See Annotated FIG. 1 Above. Jacobsen further discloses robotic arms supported on or about platform 400 and movable through respective degrees of freedom [0101-0103]. The structural support member of the framework provides the claimed first structural support column by which the first robotic arm is movably supported).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the first robotic arm comprises a configuration kinematically equivalent to an arm of the operator [0002].
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the upper-body robotic human augmentation system comprises a wearable upper-body exoskeleton, wherein the first robotic arm is configured as a first robotic arm of the upper-body exoskeleton (Smith discloses exoskeleton 102 configured to be worn by an operator and comprising right and left robotic arms 113a, 113b supported by support bridge 116, wherein the robotic limbs facilitate movement of the operator [0047-0051]). See Smith FIGS. 1-2.
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the inclined displacement of the first robotic arm follows a linear path, such that the first robotic arm moves along a constant angle of descent and ascent (Jacobsen FIG. 1 depicts the support structure associated with the robotic arm and actuator assembly extending along a substantially linear path. See Annotated FIG. 1 Above).
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 11, wherein the upper-body robotic human augmentation system comprises a second robotic arm having at least one joint facilitating movement in at least one degree of freedom (Smith discloses walk-about skeleton 100 comprising exoskeleton 102 supported by walk-about platform; the exoskeleton includes right and left robotic limbs 113a, 113b coupled to support bridge 116 by respective joint assemblies facilitating relative movement [0047-0051]).
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 20, wherein the framework of the carrier support assembly further comprises: the second robotic arm being moveably; and a second actuator assembly having an actuator and a guide member, wherein the second robotic arm undergoes inclined displacement in a sloped vertical degree of freedom within a given range of motion along the guide member of the second actuator assembly, and relative to the ground surface (Smith discloses walk-about skeleton 100 comprising exoskeleton 102 supported by walk-about platform 104 having walk-about base 108 and mast 110; the exoskeleton includes right and left robotic limbs 113a, 113b coupled to support bridge 116 by respective joint assemblies facilitating relative movement [0047-0051]. ]; Smith further discloses user input device 176 for initiating and controlling movement of the exoskeleton relative to mask 110 [0062-0063]. Smith further discloses the exoskeleton 102 being movably supported relative to mast 110 by an actuator assembly comprising linear actuator 112 facilitates movement of the exoskeleton relative to the mast, including movement between standing and lower or squatting positions [0051-0052].
The modified device of Smith does not disclose second structural support column. However, Jacobsen depicts a robotic system comprising a framework supporting robotic arm arrangements and associated actuator assemblies, including structure along which the robotic arm arrangement is supported and movable. See Annotated FIG. 1 Above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic system of Smith’s second robotic arm with a corresponding second structural support column and actuator /guide arrangement as taught by Jacobsen, thereby providing structural support and guide movement for the second robotic arm is substantially the same manner as the first robotic arm.
Regarding claim 22, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 21, wherein an inclined path of the second robotic arm, when undergoing the inclined displacement, is configured to approximate an inclined path of travel of a shoulder of the operator when moving between a standing position and a squatting position while operating the walk-about system (Smith discloses that movement of exoskeleton 102 relative to mast 110 allows an operator to move into different positions, including from a standing to a lower or squatting position [051-0052]).
Regarding claim 23, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the user input device comprises an operator end effector supported about the first robotic arm, the operator end effector being operable with at least one sensor to detect movements of the operator, wherein control of the first robotic arm is based on corresponding forces as detected by the at least one sensor (Smith discloses walk-about skeleton 100 comprising exoskeleton 102 supported by walk-about platform 104 having walk-about base 108 and mast 110; the exoskeleton includes right and left robotic limbs 113a, 113b coupled to support bridge 116 by respective joint assemblies facilitating relative movement [0047-0051]; Smith further discloses sensor 174 and user input device 176 for initiating and controlling movement of the exoskeleton relative to mask 110 [0060-0063]).
Regarding claim 24, the modified device of Smith does not disclose the system of claim 20, wherein the first and second robotic arms are independent of one another, and are independently controlled by respective user input devices operable with the first and second robotic arms.
However, Jacobsen discloses a robotic system comprising a robotic arm arrangements and associated actuator assemblies, including structure along which the robotic arm arrangement is supported and independently movable by user input [0107-0112]. See Annotated FIG. 1 Above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s first and second robotic arms for independent control using respective user input devices as taught by Jacobsen, thereby permitting an operator to selectively and independently manipulate each robotic arm according to the requirements of a particular task.
Regarding claim 25, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 20, wherein the first and second robotic arms are each controlled in a coordinated manner with the user input device operable with at least one of the first or second robotic arms (Smith discloses right and left robotic limbs 113a, 113b comprising joint actuation systems configured to facilitate movement of the respective robotic limbs based on input from the operator, such as movement of an arm of the operator, thereby amplifying movements performed by the operator [0047-0049]; see also user input device 176 [0062-0063]).
Regarding claim 28, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the walk-about platform comprises a conveyance system that facilitates powered locomotion of the walk-about platform about the ground surface (Smith discloses walk-about platform 104 comprising walk-about a ground surface; see also Smith’s disclosure of the powered/motorized locomotion components associated with the walk-about base [0045-0050]).
Regarding claim 29, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the walk-about base comprises first and second lateral members (Smith discloses walk-about base 108 comprising opposing lateral members 124 defining, at least in part, the bipedal locomotion zone 106 [0069-0080]).
Regarding claim 30, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the walk-about platform further comprises a riding platform operable to support the operator above the ground surface within a bi-pedal locomotion zone, and to facilitate riding of the operator on the walk-about platform (Smith discloses walk-about platform 104 comprising deployable riding platform selectively movable into bi-pedal locomotion zone 106 to allow the operator to ride on the walk-about platform 104, the riding platform comprising right and left platforms 142a, 142bconnected to respective lateral members 124 [0115-0116]. Smith further discloses the foot platforms being movable into a riding position with the bi-pedal locomotion zone 106, wherein the operator can ride on the walk-about platform 104 [0117-0119]).
Regarding claim 32, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 8, further comprising a gravity compensation system supported on the carrier support assembly, and operable to gravity compensate the first robotic arm (Smith discloses mast exoskeleton interface system 171 comprising passive actuator 178 configured to provide gravity compensation to support the weight of the exoskeleton 102 [0054-0058]. Jacobsen further teaches a gravity compensation of a robotic arm, wherein a compensating torque is provided to compensate for the effects of gravity on the robotic arm [0130-0134]).
Regarding claim 35, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the carrier support assembly further comprises a robotic arm interface that moveably couples the first robotic arm to the carrier support assembly (Smith discloses mast exoskeleton interface system 171 providing an interface between mast 110 and exoskeleton 102, wherein the interface system 171 facilitates relative movement between the mast 110 and exoskeleton 102, including robotic limb 113a, with the exoskeleton 102 being moveably supported relative to the mast 110 [0047-0052]).
8. Claims 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (20240225943) in view of Jacobsen et al. (9789603).
Regarding claim 36, Smith discloses a walk-about robotic human augmentation system, comprising: a first robotic arm comprising at least one joint facilitating movement of a jointed member in at least one degree of freedom; a second robotic arm comprising at least one joint facilitating movement of a jointed member in at least one degree of freedom; a walk-about platform operable about a ground surface, and comprising: a walk-about base; a mast in the form of a carrier support assembly supported by the walk-about base and a control unit comprising one or more processors, and one or more memory devices comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: control inclined displacement of the first robotic arm in a sloped vertical degree of freedom within a given range of motion relative to the ground surface (Smith discloses a walk-about robotic human augmentation system comprising a first robotic arm and a second robotic arm, each comprising at least one point facilitating movement of a jointed member in at least one degree of freedom (right and left robotic limbs 113a, 113b comprising limb members 114a, 114b, 114c moveable relative to one another via joints 115a, 115b [0047-0049]); walk-about platform 104 operable about a ground surface and comprising a walk-about base and an actuator and control arrangement operable to control movement of the robotic limbs relative to the mast [0046-0052; 0059; 0062-0063]).
Smith does not expressly disclose the mast in the form of the claimed form comprising respective first and second support columns and respective actuator assemblies arranged to control inclined displacement of the first and second robotic arms in respective sloped vertical degrees of freedom within a given range of motion relative to the ground surface. However, Jacobsen teaches a robotic system comprising first and second robotic arm arrangements supported by a framework and having respective degrees of freedom corresponding to movement of a human operator with actuators and a control system operable to control movement of the robotic arms about the respective degrees of freedom [0075; 0084-0091; 0108-0114]. Additionally, FIG. 1 depicts a robotic system comprising a framework supporting robotic arm arrangements and associated actuator assemblies, including structure along which the robotic arm arrangement is supported and movable. See Annotated FIG. 1 Below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic arm support and control arrangement of Smith in view of Jacobsen such that the first and second robotic arms are supported and controlled for movement through respective degrees of freedom including movement having both vertical and horizontal components, thereby providing inclined displacement of the respective robotic arms in a sloped vertical degree of freedom relative to the ground surface, in order to accommodate natural movement of an operator while operating the robotic arm system.
Regarding claim 37, the modified device of Smith does explicitly disclose the system of claim 36, wherein the one or more memory devices further comprises instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to coordinate the movement of the first robotic arm with the movement of the second robotic arm via a common user interface device.
However, Jacobsen teaches a teleoperated robotic system comprising a plurality of robotic arms and a control module facilitating selective control and operation of the robotic arms, including control through user interface devices communicating with the control system [0078-0080; 0088-0089; 0120; 0126-0128].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Smith in view of Jacobsen to configure the processor executed control instructions to coordinate movement of the first and second robotic arms via a common user interface device, thereby facilitating coordinated operator control of multiple robotic arms through the control system.
Regarding claim 38, the modified device of Smith does explicitly disclose the system of claim 36, wherein the one or more memory devices further comprises instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to control operation of at least one of the first or second robotic arms.
However, Jacobsen teaches a teleoperated robotic system in which a control system controls operation and movement of one or more robotic arms, including selective control of robotic arms through a control module and user interface [0078-0080; 0088-0089; 0120].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Smith in view of Jacobsen to configure the processor executed instructions to control operation of at least one of the first or second robotic arms, thereby providing controlled operation of the robotic arm responsive to operator input.
Regarding claim 39, the modified device of Smith does explicitly disclose the system of claim 26, wherein the one or more memory devices further comprises instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to operate the one or more robotic arms in a teleoperation mode.
However, Jacobsen teaches a teleoperated robotic system in which a master control system controls movement of a slave robotic arms, including selective on-board and off board user control of the slave arms [0078-0079; 0080-0081; 0103]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Smith in view of Jacobsen to configure the processor executed instructions to operate the one or more robotic arms in a teleoperation mode, thereby permitting an operator to remotely control movement and operation of the robotic arm through the master control system.
Regarding claim 40, the modified device of Smith does disclose the system of claim 26, wherein the one or more memory devices further comprises instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to operate the one or more robotic arms in an autonomous mode (Smith disclose walk-about exoskeleton system 100 configured to operate in an autonomous mode, wherein an operator may not be necessary to control the system [0128-0129]. Smither further discloses that remote navigation system 195 can send commands to control systems and subsystems of the walk-about exoskeleton system, including limb members 114 and joints 115 [0132]).
9. Claims 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (20240225943) in view of Jacobsen et al. (9789603).
A method for facilitating operation of a walk-about robotic human augmentation system, comprising: configuring an upper-body robotic human augmentation system to comprise a first robotic arm having at least one joint facilitating movement in at least one degree of freedom; configuring a walk-about platform to be in support of the upper-body robotic human augmentation system (Smith discloses walk-about skeleton 100 comprising exoskeleton 102 the exoskeleton includes right and left robotic limbs 113a, 113b coupled to support bridge 116 by respective joint assemblies facilitating relative movement [0047-0051]; and configuring a walk-about platform 104 to be in support of the upper-body robotic human augmentation system [0045-0051] Smith further discloses exoskeleton 102 being movably supported relative to mast 110 by mast exoskeleton interface system 171 comprising linear actuator 112 configured to facilitate movement of the exoskeleton relative to the mast [0051-0052; 0059-0061]).
Smith does not explicitly disclose facilitating inclined displacement of the first robotic arm in a sloped vertical degree of freedom within a given range of motion along the guide member, and relative to the ground surface. However, Jacobsen teaches a robotic system having robotic arms movable through degrees of freedom corresponding to movement of an operator, including master and slave robotic arm arrangements supported by a framework and associated actuator structures permitting movement of the robotic arms through corresponding degrees of freedom [0075; 0084-0086; 0088-0091].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith in view of Jacobsen such that the supported robotic arm arrangement to facilitate movement through degrees of freedom corresponding to movement of the operator, including movement having vertical and horizontal components, thereby facilitating inclined displacement of the first robotic arm in a sloped vertical degree of freedom within a given range of motion and relative to the ground surface. Such modification would have been obvious to permit the robotic arm to follow the natural movement of the operator and thereby accommodate movement of the operator while operating the robotic arm system.
Regarding claim 42, the modified device of Smith does disclose the method of claim 41, further comprising configuring an inclined path of the first robotic arm, when undergoing the inclined displacement, to approximate an inclined path of travel of a shoulder of the operator when moving between a standing position and a squatting position while operating the walk-about system (Smith discloses sensors 174 detecting movement of an operator, including vertical movement as the operator crouches into a squatting position or stands from a squatting position, and control unit 172 controlling movement of exoskeleton 102 relative to mast 110 in response thereto [0059-0061; 0051-0052]).
Regarding claim 43, the modified device of Smith does disclose the method of claim 41, further comprising configuring the sloped vertical degree of freedom to comprise a single actuated degree of freedom, such that the inclined displacement of the first robotic arm in the sloped vertical degree of freedom results in movement of the first robotic arm in two spatial degrees of freedom (Smith discloses linear actuator 112 operable to move exoskeleton 102 relative to mast 110 [0051-0052]. Jacobsen teaches robotic arms movable through degrees of freedom corresponding to movement of operator [0084-0091]. As modified as set forth with respect to claim 41, actuation of the robotic arm along the inclined path provides a single actuated degree of freedom having vertical and horizontal spatial components, thereby resulting in movement of the first robotic arm in two spatial degrees of freedom).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 7, 15-17, 19, 26, 27, 31, 33, 34 and 44 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. The following claim limitations are not taught or fairly suggested by the prior art of record, either alone or in combination:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a carrier support assembly comprising an operator pass-through channel defined, at least in part, by first and second structural support columns, wherein the operator pass-through channel extends through the carrier support assembly, and facilitates ingress of the operator into, and egress of the operator out of, a bi-pedal locomotion zone from multiple directions.
Therefore, since the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest all of the claimed limitations, claim 7 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the inclined displacement of the first robotic arm follows a non-linear, curved incline, such that the first robotic arm moves along a changing angle of descent and ascent.
Therefore, since the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest all of the claimed limitations, claim 15 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest an inclined path of travel of the first robotic arm having the particular angular ranges recited in the claims, as measured from an axis normal to the ground surface.
Therefore, since the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest all of the claimed limitations, claims 16 and 17 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the actuator comprises a ball screw-type actuator.
Therefore, since the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest all of the claimed limitations, claim 19 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 26, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the first and second robotic arms are coupled together via a mechanical arm link, such that the first and second robotic arms undergo synchronized inclined displacement.
Therefore, since the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest all of the claimed limitations, claim 26 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 27, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the framework of the carrier support assembly defines an operator pass-through channel that facilitates ingress of the operator into, and egress of the operator out of, a bi-pedal locomotion zone from multiple directions.
Therefore, since the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest all of the claimed limitations, claim 27 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 31, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest an upper body and a lower body of the operator are decoupled from the walk-about system.
Therefore, since the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest all of the claimed limitations, claim 31 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 33, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a gravity compensation system comprising a counterweight; and a pulley system coupling the counterweight to a robotic arm interface coupling the first robotic arm to the carrier support assembly, wherein the counterweight applies a counterforce to the first robotic arm in opposition to a gravitational force.
Therefore, since the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest all of the claimed limitations, claim 33 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 34, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a gravity compensation system comprising a gas spring; and a pulley system coupling the gas spring to a robotic arm interface coupling the first robotic arm to the carrier support assembly, wherein the gas spring applies a counterforce to the first robotic arm in opposition to a gravitational force.
Therefore, since the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest all of the claimed limitations, claim 34 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 44, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest configuring the walk-about platform to define an operator pass-through channel that facilitates ingress of the operator into, and egress of the operator out of, a bi-pedal locomotion zone from multiple directions.
Therefore, since the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest all of the claimed limitations, claim 44 contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LEROME PRATT whose telephone number is (571)272-
8454. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7:00-4:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached on 571-272-5139. The fax phone number
for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/LEROME PRATT/
Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights