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 .
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 7, 10-11, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Choi, KR 10-2008-0048450 A. The embodiment of Figures 12-14 involves a fluidic actuator unit comprising a joint 41 configured to be aligned with a user’s knee (attached machine translation: page 4, last two lines; page 16, last two lines; page 17, lines 1-6) and coupled to first arm or thigh brace 30 and to second arm or calf brace 31 (page 4, bottom portion; page 18, lines 3-9) and an inflatable bellows actuator 11 circumferentially extending between first and second plates 90 which radially extend from joint 41 (page 17, lines 6-15), the inflatable bellows actuator 11 defining a bellows cavity having an arced tube shape of varying cross-sectional area (Figure 14; page 17, last two lines) and configured to extend along an azimuthal length and centroidal axis when inflated by introducing fluid into the bellows cavity (page 18, last three lines), the centroidal axis being curvilinear and central such that the axis passes through first and second plates 90 but not through the inner and outer zigzagged walls of bellows actuator 11.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the fluidic actuator unit is configured to be worn about a knee joint in alignment with a rotational axis of the knee, the joint 41 being disposed on a lateral side of the knee (Figure 12; page 18, lines 4-5 and 14-15). Regarding claim 16, a distal end of second arm or calf brace 31 (Figure 12) is structurally capable of being directly or indirectly coupled to a ski boot (MPEP § 2114), even though such is not the stated intent. Regarding claim 7, “pneumatic” in the preamble (at line 1) is deemed to involve a statement of purpose rather than giving “life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim (MPEP § 2111.02), the body of which claim is not limited to pneumatic elements, and “comprises” (line 2 of claim 7) is inclusive or open-ended (MPEP § 2111.03); moreover, the Choi hydraulic system is capable of at least partially accommodating air or other gases, even though the walking assistance device would not perform as optimally engineered. The further limitations of other claims are addressed above (MPEP § 707).
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 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, KR 10-2008-0048450 A. Regarding claim 8, coupling prosthetics and orthotic assist devices to ski boots was well-known in the art (as demonstrated in the previous Office action of February 10, 2025, near the bottom of page 5) and would have been obvious to the ordinary practitioner at the effective filing date of the present application in order to enhance user locomotion in colder climates. Regarding claims 9 and 17-18, a fluid impermeable, flexible, inextensible layer for each bellows actuator 11 (Figures 13-14) would likewise have been obvious in order to transmit hydraulic pressures in an efficient manner without fluid leakage or ballooning [page 3, bottom; page 4, top; page 11, lines 8-9 (“a material that can withstand a pressure of approximately 10 kilograms (Kg) per square centimeter (cm2) without bursting”); page 18, lines 5-17 (hydraulic pressure transmitted from hydraulic generating pack 20 to bellows actuators 11 with applied forces determined in part by pertinent cross-sectional areas)].
Claims 1-4, 6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, WO 2015/104832 A1, in view of Choi, KR 10-2008-0048450 A. Yamamoto illustrates left and right actuator units (Figures 3-4), upper and lower arms coupled to rotatable joints (Figures 2, 8A-8B, 10-13), arc-shaped bellows actuators between plates extending from the rotatable joints (Figures 10-11), and a control system with sensors (Figure 9; machine translation pages 14-15 and 21), except that Yamamoto is focused on hip and waist joints (abstract; Figure 1) rather than knee joints. To additionally provide joint motion assistance to the knees would have been obvious from Choi (discussed above) in order to impart walking assistance to users having weakened legs and/or to enhance lifting of heavy objects (Yamamoto: page 21, lines 847-852), with further motivation (to combine) provided by references of Yamamoto to “a vane pump” and a “knee joint” (page 1, lines 24 and 32), independently assisting movement of more than one joint (page 4, lines 135-138), and utilizing various working fluids such as air, water, and oil (page 21, lines 845-846). A computing device having sensors, memory, control programs, and a processor to control the pneumatic system based in part on sensor data would have been immediately obvious from Yamamoto’s control unit 184 (Figure 9; page 14, line 553, et seq.) and the processing of biological or biometric information involving muscle forces, electromyograms, and brain waves (page 15, lines 592-593 and 603-606; page 21, lines 839-841) in order to appropriately respond to gait dynamics, lifting forces, and so on.
Regarding the newly presented claim limitations, “comprises” is inclusive or open-ended (MPEP § 2111.03 I), so the exoskeleton system as claimed may include hip and waist actuator units along with left and right knee joint actuator units, either of which would include only a single rotatable joint 41 in the Choi enhancement, which neither involves nor requires other rotational joints for the knee unit to function. Likewise, the system may comprise other plates or vanes: only a single inflatable bellows actuator 11 extends between first and second plates or vanes 90, and only a single inflatable bellows actuator 11 extends between third and fourth plates or vanes 90, with first and third plates or vanes 90 being integrally formed with one another via structure of the joint 41, and the same for second and fourth plates or vanes 90 (Figures 13-14).
Regarding claims 3-4, an internal first layer that is substantially impermeable to the pneumatic fluid and bonded to an outer second layer comprising a flexible but inextensible material would have been obvious in order to provide a reinforced bellows structure that reliably and efficiently transmits force (Yamamoto: page 18, lines 746-747), with further motivation given by the pressure and force calculations taught by Choi (as explained above). The further limitations of other dependent claims would have been obvious for reasons presented above.
Response to Arguments
The examiner agrees that cross-sections of inflatable bellows actuator 11 are generally rectangular in form, as plainly seen in Figure 13 of Choi. However, “tube shape” (Applicant’s reply of April 10, 2026: page 9, last paragraph) is broader in scope than what is suggested by Applicant’s arguments. A tube is “any of various usu. cylindrical structures or devices : as a: a hollow elongated cylinder: esp : one to convey fluids” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.: 1996) or “[a] hollow cylinder, esp. one conveying a fluid or functioning as a passage” (Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary: 1984), with “cylinder” being defined as “the surface traced by a straight line moving parallel to a fixed straight line and intersecting a fixed planar closed curve” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.: 1996) or “[a] surface generated by a straight line moving parallel to a fixed straight line and intersecting a plane curve” (Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary: 1984). Thus, a cylinder need not be a right circular cylinder, and a tube is not necessarily circular in cross-section. Rectangular forms are encompassed by the term “planar closed curve” because virtually all manufactured corners and edges are rounded, even if the corresponding radius or radii are infinitesimal, and even if such were not the case, rounding corners and edges would have been obvious to the ordinary practitioner in order to lessen stress concentrations and avoid cutting surfaces that could pose a hazard during assembly. Applicant’s own claimed invention does not strictly lie within the definition of cylinder, with the “bellows cavity having an arced tube shape of constant or varying cross-sectional area” (e.g., amended claim 7 at lines 13-14; emphasis added). It is Applicant’s burden to precisely define the scope of the claimed invention, and not the examiner’s (In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Attention is also directed to MPEP §§ 2111 and 2111.01.
The grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 based upon Yamamoto and Choi do not reengineer or modify an actuator unit based on hip and waist joints to form an actuator unit with a single knee joint, but rather add on an already existing knee actuator unit engineered by Choi to supplement the Yamamoto hip and waist actuator unit. The new limitations of amended claim 1 are thus met, as further explained in the grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 [i.e., restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper] and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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