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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the Amendment to the Specification of January 13, 2026, paragraph 0009 is not reproduced in its entirety (37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(ii)). In replacement paragraph 0069, third line, “811” should read --θ11-- (Figure 5(A)), and on the sixth line, “821” should be --θ21--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-5, 7, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Matsuoka, US 2011/0251534 A1, which discloses a body support device A for supporting a body of a wearer so that the wearer can sit on body support device A (Figures 1-3, 5; abstract; paragraphs 0019, 0022-0025, 0030, 0033) comprising a first support part or upper link rod member 5 and seat part 1 configured to attach to a thigh back and enable sitting (paragraphs 0002, 0019-0020; MPEP § 2114), a second support part or lower link rod member 7 configured to attach to a shin (paragraphs 0002, 0020), grounding parts 2a, 2b, 2c (paragraph 0027), a first rotary knee part 8 restricting a rotation in a direction that brings the thigh back and calf closer to each other to within a predetermined angle [paragraphs 0005-0006, 0020, 0029-0030, 0033 (“variable range of the extent of flexion of each leg link 3 is set by a mechanical limitation imposed by a stopper member (not shown) included in the third joint 8, as a result of which the knee angle θ is variable in the predetermined range”), 0046], and a second rotary ankle part 6 permitting rotation in a direction that brings the shin and foot instep closer to each other (paragraphs 0020, 0027-0028). Seat part 1 is positioned rearward of rod member 5, extends vertically along the thigh back, and curves toward the wearer’s back to receive the thigh back and a hip portion (Figure 1; paragraphs 0022-0025). Rod members 5 and 7 and rotary parts 6 and 8 are not substantially disposed on a leg posterior but are disposed on an inner side of a leg along a sagittal plane of the wearer by virtue of shoe 2a illustrated as being in front of connecting member 2b (Figures 1 and 3; MPEP § 2125) and because seat part 1 is “saddle-shaped” so as to be “located between the roots of both legs of the user”, with rod member 5 being “movably engaged with the guide rail 11”, which “is assembled to the base frame 1b of the seat 1” (paragraphs 0022, 0050-0051; emphasis added).
Regarding claim 5, first rotary part 8 has a stop mechanism, not shown in the drawings, whereby a restricted angle of the rotation can be selected from among a plurality of angles (paragraph 0033, last sentence). Regarding claim 7, rod members 5 and 7 are connected spirally via first rotary part 8 in that a helical or spiral coil spring 14 may traverse these parts (paragraph 0048). Regarding claim 11, a heel portion of placement part 2a and/or 2c is at a longer distance from ground during the heel rise portion of the gait cycle stance phase, for example, and upper portions of shoe 2a at a heel end are at a greater distance from the ground when the wearer is sitting or standing. Regarding claim 13, second rotary ankle part 6 may include structure for enabling right and left rotational movements (paragraph 0028).
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.
Claims 6, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka, US 2011/0251534 A1. Regarding claim 6, an identification mechanism would have been obvious for the stop mechanism (paragraph 0033) in order to facilitate a precise selection of an angular range setting deemed best suited for a particular desired activity based upon past experiences of the wearer. Regarding claim 8, adjustability at the connecting member 2b would have been obvious in order to accommodate a diversity of leg lengths, footwear heel heights, and floor reaction forces (paragraph 0027), with Matsuoka contemplating “a slipper or the like, instead of the shoe 2a” (last sentence of paragraph 0027). Regarding claims 9 and 12, detachable straps for respectively affixing a thigh portion and a lower leg portion were common in the art at the effective filing date of the present application and would have been obvious to the ordinary practitioner in order to more stably secure a wearer’s leg to body support device A, with further motivation provided by paragraph 0002 (upper member “fixed to a thigh” and lower member “fixed to a crus”); elastic padding members would likewise have been obvious in order to impart comfort to the wearer during use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the altered scope of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
CN 105962944 A: drawings.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL (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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Thomas Barrett can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4746. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights