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 7/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 18-22 remain pending.
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) 1, 8-10, 18-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massonnier (WO 2020043801 A1), in view of Lakany (US 20200281796 A1), in view of Vrijlandt (US 20080106133 A1), in view of Kim et al. (US 20110164949 A1), hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Massonnier discloses an exoskeleton for supporting a user's arm (Fig. 1, exoskeleton 10), the exoskeleton comprising: a supporting frame (Fig. 1, column 41) that supports an up-and-down movable standard (Fig. 1, housing 42) on which a horizontally movable arm is mounted (Fig. 1, 21 which includes connecting rod 212 and 213), wherein the horizontally movable arm carries a back support (Fig. 1, back support 45) and a supporting arm construction for supporting the user's arm (Fig. 1, arm 22 is attached to upper limb of a user, par. 0076), and wherein the horizontally movable arm is articulated (Fig. 1, rod 212 is articulated to rod 213, par. 0148).
Massonnier does not disclose wherein the supporting arm construction is articulated and extendable so as to tailor the arm construction to the user's arm dimensions.
Lakany teaches a wearable orthosis for the arm (par. 0013) wherein the supporting arm construction (Fig. 1, linkage arrangement 14 for coupling to an arm, par. 0186) is articulated and extendable so as to tailor the arm construction to the user's arm dimensions (Fig. 2-3, first upper arm element 60 and second upper arm element 62 are coupled by a slider coupling so as to adjust to match the user’s anthropometry, par. 0210).
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 supporting arm construction of Massonnier to be articulated and extendable as taught by Lakany. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow user of different body shapes to comfortably use the device.
The modified Massonier does not disclose wherein the exoskeleton is provided with two up-and-down movable standards and that are independently movable of one another.
Kim teaches an exoskeleton arm support device (Fig. 1, abstract) comprising two up-and-down movable standards (base 22 can move in a vertical direction, Fig. 7-8, par. 0048; two bases 22 are provided corresponding to the left and right arm supports 10a and 10b, Fig. 1, par. 0040). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this configuration taught by Kim allows the user to vertically move the left and right arms independently of each other (Fig. 1 shows left arm support 10a and right arm support 10b at different vertical heights).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Massonier to comprise two up-and-down movable standards as taught by Kim for the purpose of allowing the user to vertically move the left and right arms independently of each other (Kim Fig. 1).
The modified Massonier does not disclose wherein the up-and-down movable standard is supported through a parallelogram mechanism by the supporting frame and each of the two up-and-down movable standards is supported through a separate and individual parallelogram mechanism by the supporting frame.
However, Vrijlandt teaches an up-and-down movable standard (5) that is supported through a parallelogram mechanism (Fig. 3, rods 11, 5, 12, 4, tension wire 18, and wheel 19 make a parallelogram mechanism) by a supporting frame (4).
The only difference in the prior art and the claimed device is the substitution of how the up-and-down movable standard moves up and down. The substituted components and their functions are well known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted Massonnier’s up-and-down movement of 42 with the up-and-down movement taught by Vrijlandt and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Massonnier such that the up-and-down movable standard is supported through a parallelogram mechanism by the supporting frame and each of the two up-and-down movable standards is supported through a separate and individual parallelogram mechanism by the supporting frame as taught by Vrijlandt as the courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Massonnier discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1 (shown above).
The modified Massonnier further discloses wherein the parallelogram mechanism (Vrijlandt: Fig. 3, rods 11, 5, 12, 4, tension wire 18, and wheel 19 make a parallelogram mechanism) comprises a guide wheel (19) or guide wheels that guide a tension wire (18) so as to provide an upward force to the parallelogram mechanism (Vrijlandt Fig. 3, spring 20 pulls the end 17 of rod 11 downwards which would provide an upward force to element 5, par. 0022).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Massonnier discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 8 (shown above), wherein the tension wire comprises two extremities (Vrijlandt Fig. 3, two ends of wire 18), and connects on a first extremity of the two extremities to a spring mounted on the supporting frame (Vrijlandt Fig. 3, one end of wire 18 is attached to spring 20 of 4).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Massonnier discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 9 (shown above), wherein on a second extremity of the two extremities the tension wire connects to an adjustment knob (Vrijlandt Fig. 2-3, a second end of the wire 18 connects to a control knob 23 via elements 4 and 21; [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Massonnier discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1 (shown above), wherein the exoskeleton is provided with two sets, each comprising, the up-and-down movable standard (base 22 can move in a vertical direction, Kim Fig. 7-8, par. 0048; two bases 22 are provided corresponding to the left and right arm supports 10a and 10b, Kim Fig. 1, par. 0040), the horizontally movable arm (Fig. 1, arms 21), and the supporting arm constructions (Fig. 1, arm supports 22), wherein each set is provided on the supporting frame in mirror image (Fig. 1, exoskeleton is symmetrical about the supporting frame 41, par. 0072), and at least one back support (Fig. 1, back supports 45) so as to provide that the exoskeleton can support two arms of the user (exoskeleton comprises two upper limb modules for supporting both user’s upper limbs, par. 0072).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Massonnier discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 18 (shown above), wherein the two horizontally movable arms support the at least one back support (Fig. 1, arms 213 and back support 45), and are connected to each other with a back connector (Fig. 1, profile 43 via 44).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Massonnier discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 19 (shown above), wherein the back connector has an adjustable length (Fig. 1, a length of profile 43 that is exposed on the right and left sides of 44 is adjustable by sliding elements 44, par. 0154).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Massonnier discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1 (shown above), wherein the exoskeleton only comprises passive components (Massonier par. 0090).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massonier in view of Lakany, in view of Vrijlandt, in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chou (US 10576620 B1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Massonnier discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1 (shown above).
Massonnier does not disclose the supporting arm construction comprises at least two limbs, namely a limb that is farthest away from the back support and an upper limb, that connect to each other with a hinge, and that on opposite sides of the hinge the limb that is farthest away from the back support connects to counterbalancing springs that on their opposite sides connect to the upper limb and directly or indirectly to the horizontally movable arm.
Chou teaches an exoskeleton (abstract line 1) wherein the supporting arm construction (Fig. 20) comprises at least two limbs (Fig. 20, forearm frame 26 and upper arm frame 24), namely a limb that is farthest away from the back support (Fig. 20, forearm frame 26) and an upper limb (Fig. 20, upper arm frame 24), that connect to each other with a hinge (Fig. 20, upper arm frame 24 and forearm frame 26 are connected by a hinge), and that on opposite sides of the hinge the limb that is farthest away from the back support (Fig. 20, forearm frame 26) connects to counterbalancing springs (Fig. 20, springs 74) that on their opposite sides connect to the upper limb (Fig. 20, opposite end of spring 74 connects to upper limb 24) for the purpose of counterbalancing the force of gravity (col. 15 line 61-63).
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 supporting arm construction of Massonnier to comprise two limbs connected by a counterbalancing spring as taught by Chou for the purpose of counterbalancing the force of gravity (Chou col. 15 line 61-63). With this modification, the opposite sides of the counterbalancing springs would be connected indirectly to the horizontally movable arm which supports the upper limb of the supporting arm construction.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massonier in view of Lakany, in view of Vrijlandt, in view of Kim, in view of Chou, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Asbeck (US 20220228710 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Massonnier discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 3 (shown above).
The modified Massonnier does not disclose wherein the limb that is farthest away from the back support supports a flexible arm sleeve.
Asbeck teaches an exoskeleton (Fig. 1) wherein the limb that is farthest away from the back support supports a flexible arm sleeve (Fig. 1, cuffs are provided with straps 22 that wraps around user’s arm and padding) for the purpose of protecting the user from sharp edges or pressure concentrations (par. 0081 line 1-6).
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 supporting arm construction of the modified Massonnier to include a flexible arm sleeve as taught by Asbeck for the purpose of protecting the user from sharp edges or pressure concentrations (Asbeck par. 0081 line 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Massonnier discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 3 (shown above).
The modified Massonnier does not disclose wherein the limb that is farthest away from the back support comprises an attached gripping flap.
Asbeck teaches an exoskeleton (Fig. 1) wherein the limb that is farthest away from the back support comprises an attached gripping flap (Fig. 1, strap 22) for the purpose of comfortably securing the device to the user’s arm (par. 0081 line 1-6).
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 supporting arm construction of the modified Massonnier to comprise an attached gripping flap as taught by Asbeck for the purpose of comfortably securing the device to the user’s arm (par. 0081 line 1-6).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Massonnier discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 4 (shown above).
The modified Massonnier does not disclose the limb that is farthest away from the back support comprises a brace that extends above the flexible arm sleeve.
Asbeck teaches an exoskeleton (Fig. 21A/B) wherein the limb that is farthest away from the back support comprises a brace (Fig. 21A/B, brace 354) that extends above the flexible arm sleeve (Fig. 21A/B, cuff 320a made of a textile, par. 0117 line 1-11) for the purpose of allowing rotation of the forearm (par. 0113).
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 supporting arm construction of the modified Massonnier to comprise a brace as taught by Asbeck for the purpose of allowing rotation of the forearm (Asbeck par. 0113).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massonier in view of Lakany, in view of Vrijlandt, in view of Kim, in view of Chou, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tafler (US 20180214334 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Massonnier discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 3 (shown above).
The modified Massonnier does not disclose wherein the spring that connects the limb that is farthest away from the back support to the horizontally movable arm comprises a Y-shape wherein the branches of the Y connect to the limb that is farthest away from the back support and the other side of the Y connects to the horizontally movable arm. The modified Massonnier discloses a spring mechanism which anchors to the upper arm support at two points (Chou Fig. 20, spring 74 anchors to upper arm frame 24 at two points).
Tafler discloses a spring (Fig. 1, tension member 114) which is anchored to a limb by an elongate anchor (Fig. 1, securing structure 102).
The substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention since the substitution of one known anchoring mechanism (the elongate anchor of Tafler) for another (the two anchoring points of Chou) would have yielded predictable results, namely, anchoring a spring and providing tension between the upper arm and forearm. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Massonnier as taught by Tafler since the courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)
The modified Massonnier discloses wherein the spring that connects the limb that is farthest away from the back support to the horizontally movable arm comprises a Y-shape (the two springs 74 of Chou Fig. 20 connected to the elongated anchor 102 of Tafler Fig. 1 creates a Y-shape) wherein the branches of the Y connect to the limb that is farthest away from the back support and the other side of the Y connects to the horizontally movable arm (the two branches of the spring 74 connect to the forearm section 26 of Chou Fig. 20 and the elongate anchor 102 of Tafler Fig. 1 anchors the spring 74 to the upper arm 24 of Chou Fig. 20 which connects to the horizontally movable arm).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion to combine Massonier’s exoskeleton with Lakany’s arm support features. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the supporting arm construction of Massonnier to be articulated and extendable as taught by Lakany to adjust the arm support to fit the user’s arm and allow users of different body shapes to comfortably use the device. With regards to Kim, it likewise would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Massonier to comprise two up-and-down movable standards as taught by Kim to allow the user to vertically move the left and right arms independently of each other.
In response to applicant's argument that the parallelogram mechanism of Vrijlandt is incompatible with Massonier. It is Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the parallelogram mechanism of Vrijlandt as a solution to the particular problem of supporting a body part, given that the parallelogram mechanism of Vrijlandt can provide all the functions of the up-and-down movable standard of Massonier and could have been reasonably substituted for the up-and-down movement mechanism of Massonier.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding Applicant's argument that modifying Massonier with the parallelogram mechanism of Vrijlandt would change Massonier’s principal of operation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the parallelogram mechanism of Vrijlandt as an alternative mechanism for providing up-and-down movement of a standard and locking in place. The parallelogram mechanism of Vrijlandt is capable of adjusting a vertical height and locking in place. The parallelogram mechanism of Vrijlandt would not change the basic principle under which the Massonier construction was designed to operate since it would still allow for the same up-and-down movement and locking in place of the standard and the rest of the exoskeleton to function as intended.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights