DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/22/2026 has been entered. Claim 39 has been amended. Claims 25, 27, 29, and 31-41 remain pending.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 39 recites the limitation “so as to follow a recessed contour of an upper gluteal region of the user while reducing protrusion away from the user's body”, line 13-15. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the specification.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (KR 20170053020 A, machine translation accessed December 3 2024 relied upon herein), hereafter Roh, in view of Nakashima et al. (US 20120016278 A1), hereafter Nakashima.
Regarding claim 39, Roh discloses a wearable apparatus (Fig. 1; exercise assistance device is worn by a user, par. 0034), comprising: a rear support configured to support a rear portion of a waist of a user (Fig. F, annotated below); a driver configured to provide power to assist a motion of a joint of the user (Fig. 1, drive module 100 assists movement of hip joint; par. 0041 ln 6-9); a thigh support configured to support a thigh of the user (Fig. 1, support module 40 lifts user’s thigh; par. 0046); a waist frame including first and second shafts configured to be connected to at least the rear support (Fig. F, annotated below) and a driving source bracket configured to connect the first and second shafts and the driver (Fig. 4-6 and 8, bracket 120 connects shafts and driver 110), the first and second shafts including at least portions that are substantially parallel to each other (Fig. K, annotated below); and wherein the driver is configured to be mounted proximate a side portion of a pelvis of the user (Fig. 1 shows driver 100 is mounted by the hip joint of a user, par. 0041 ln 6-9), wherein the driving source bracket comprises a clamp configured to clamp one of the first and second shafts (Fig. B, annotated below), and wherein the clamp comprises a loop portion (Fig. A, annotated below) and a fastening member (Fig. A, annotated below). While the specification of Roh does not explicitly state that the fastening member for the clamp is configured to adjust a pressure of the loop portion, the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2125). The drawings, particularly Fig. 6 and 8(a) as annotated below, would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the fastening member can adjust a pressure of the loop portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
513
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. F, adapted from Fig. 1 of Roh
PNG
media_image2.png
460
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. K, adapted from Fig. 6 of Roh
PNG
media_image3.png
459
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. B, adapted from Fig. 6 of Roh
PNG
media_image4.png
418
672
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. A, adapted from Fig. 8(a) of Roh
Roh does not disclose wherein at least one of the first and second shafts comprises (i) a driving-side straight portion adjacent the driver, (ii) a rear straight portion adjacent the rear support, and (iii) a central portion between the driving-side straight portion and the rear straight portion, the central portion comprising a shape bent two times sequentially upward and downward so as to follow a recessed contour of an upper gluteal region of the user while reducing protrusion away from the user's body.
Nakashima teaches a shaft (waist link 30; Fig. 3A/B) comprising (i) a driving-side straight portion adjacent the driver (first straight portion; Fig. C, annotated below), (ii) a rear straight portion adjacent the rear support (second straight portion; Fig. C, annotated below), and (iii) a central portion between the driving-side straight portion and the rear straight portion (central portion comprising the upwardly and downwardly bent portions; Fig. C, annotated below), the central portion comprising a shape bent two times sequentially upward and downward (Fig. 3B shows waist link 30 with a shape bent two times, see also Fig. C, annotated below) so as to follow a recessed contour of an upper gluteal region of the user while reducing protrusion away from the user's body (the waist link 30 in Fig. 3B appears to be shaped to follow the natural shape of the user’s body at the gluteal region; while the specification of Nakashima does not explicitly state that the waist link is shaped to follow a gluteal region, the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2125)).
PNG
media_image5.png
490
689
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. C, adapted from Fig. 3B of Nakashima
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify at least one of the first and second shafts of Roh to comprise a shape bent two times sequentially upward and downward as taught by Nakashima since Nakashima teaches this is a known configuration in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized that this configuration would have provided optimal support for the apparatus and the wearer.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Nakashima as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Fujita et al. (US 2020/0069505 A1), hereafter Fujita.
Regarding claim 40, the modified Roh discloses the wearable apparatus of claim 39 (shown above), wherein a side cover of the of the driver is configured to be mounted proximate a side portion of a pelvis of the user (Roh Fig. 1 shows driver 100 with a cover; driver is mounted by the hip joint of a user, par. 0041 ln 6-9).
The modified Roh does not disclose wherein the side cover is spaced apart from the first and second shafts to thereby decouple force transmitting paths between the first and second shafts and the side cover to at least some extent.
However, a shaft and cover arrangement in Roh can only have two possible configurations; the hole in the cover can be the same size as the shaft so that there is no space between the two elements or the hole can have a larger size than the shaft so that the elements are spaced apart. Fujita teaches a wearable apparatus (Fig. 1, knee-ankle-foot orthosis; abstract ln 14) with a cover (Fig. G, annotated below) spaced apart from a shaft (Fig. G, annotated below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cover of Roh to be spaced apart from the shafts as taught by Fujita as this is an art recognized effective configuration. Furthermore, this configuration would have the benefit of preventing the outer surface of the shafts from rubbing against the inner surface of the openings.
PNG
media_image6.png
544
570
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. G, adapted from Fig. 37 of Fujita
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 was amended to include the previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 30, including all of the limitations of any intervening claims. Therefore, claims 25, 27, 29, 31-38, and 41 are allowable for the reasons stated in the final office action mailed 5/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Nakashima is structurally and functionally different from the claimed structure. However, as shown in annotated Fig. C above, the waist link of Nakashima does appear to have the claimed structure. Regarding the functional aspects of the waist link of Nakashima, the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2125). The drawings, particularly Fig. 3B as annotated above, would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art of walking assistance devices that it can be desirable to have a connecting member which connects a rear component and a hip component with two bends around the gluteal region.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KELSEY RHEE whose telephone number is (703)756-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 6:00 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, BRANDY LEE can be reached at (571) 270-7410. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785