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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s claim to priority to National Stage Application No. PCT/SG2020/050286 filed May 15, 2020 and to foreign priority to Singapore Application No. SG10201904434W filed May 16, 2019.
Response to Amendment
The present office action is in response to the Remarks filed 12/10/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-26 have been cancelled and claims 27-31 are newly added. Thus, claims 27-31 are presenting pending in this application.
Applicant has amended to drawings to incorporate black and white figures. However, Examiner notes that photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. See 37 CFR 1.84 (b)(1). Therefore, the drawing objection is maintained as discussed below within the Office action.
Applicant has amended the abstract to address informalities. Therefore, the previously held specification objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has cancelled claims 1-26. Therefore, the previously held claim objections are moot.
Applicant has cancelled claims 1-26. Therefore, the previously held claim rejections in regards to 35 USC § 112(b) are moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section under “VII. Rejection Under 35 USC § 103” in page 7, filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive as claims 1-26 are canceled. The prior rejections under 35 USC § 103 renders moot.
Drawings
As previously discussed, 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2) indicates that “Color photographs will be accepted in utility and design patent applications if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(1) of this section.”
Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), autoradiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. See 37 CFR 1.84 (b)(1).
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28 recites, “securing each the plurality of actuator elements” in ln 3 which Examiner suggest amending to read --securing each of the plurality of actuator elements --
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 27 recites, “a base mounted inside the garment article” in ln 3 and “a plurality of inflatable actuator elements attached to the base” in ln 4. However, this is not described within the applicant’s disclosure. The instant application indicates that the actuator array can be embodied as a garment article which can a fabric-based garment for upper body that provides support for muscular activity when performing the labor (¶0089) as shown in Figs 12 and 15 (Examiner notes that the actuator elements are shown on the exterior of the garment), but it does not specifically disclose or hint that the plurality of the inflatable actuator elements are mounted “inside” the garment article via said base. Therefore, the limitation of claim 27 amounts to new matter not supported by the written description of the application as originally filed. Applicant is reminded to provide support of amended claim to avoid introducing new matter to the claims.
Claims 28-31 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 27, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gruentzig (US 20200023927 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Gruentzig discloses, an exoskeleton (¶0003; Figs 1-3 and 7-9, deflated/inflated garments) comprising, in combination:
a garment article (¶0003, “a garment that can be worn by a wearer”; Figs 1-3, and 7-9) wearable on a body of a user;
a base (a layer which the bladders are attached to as shown in Figs, 1-3 and 7-9) mounted inside the garment article; and
a plurality of inflatable actuator elements (bladders 2, Figs 1-3, and 7-9) attached to the base and arranged in proximity to form an array, wherein each of the plurality of inflatable actuator elements is independently removable (¶0039, “all components may be easily removed and replaced”; ¶0062, “The outer layer may include straps, hooks, clips, zippers, Velcro® elements or similar…repair and/or replace components, such as bladders, of the garment. The outer layer or another layer may be used to wrap the bladders for enhanced durability”; ¶0078, “The bladders are also designed to be removable in case they are damaged”; Examiner notes that the bladder is independently removable from the base, rather each bladder independent removable from other bladders in BRI) from the base and is inflatable to an inflated position (¶0034-0035, “”; ¶0070, “The garment may be configured to inflate only a subset of bladders”; ¶0077, “ The valve may be a check valve for inflating and/or deflating one or more of the bladders”);
wherein at least one of the plurality of inflatable actuator elements collides against an adjacent inflatable actuator element when the inflatable actuator elements are in the inflated position (Examiner notes that the bladder is inflated, the at least one of the inflated bladders is colliding against the adjacent inflated bladder as shown Fig 9A-9B in view of Fig 3).
Examiner notes the limitation “a base mounted inside the garment article” is broad since it does not require the base to be attached to the garment article.
Regarding claim 29, Gruentzig discloses the exoskeleton of claim 27 as discussed above.
Gruentzig further discloses, a second array of a plurality of inflatable actuator elements (bladders located in the anterior of the body and the lower torso as shown in Fig 2), and both the array and the second array are adapted to be positioned on an anterior side of the body of the user (the bladders are also located on the anterior side as shown in Fig 2; ¶0087), and adapted to support a lower body torso of the user (the bladders are also supporting the lower body torso as shown in Fig 2; ¶0034,0050,0087).
Regarding claim 30, Gruentzig discloses the exoskeleton of claim 27 as discussed above.
Gruentzig further discloses wherein the plurality of actuator elements in the inflated position combine to generate a combined resistive torque to support muscles of the body of the user (Examiner interprets the combine resistive torque any degree of force/momentum produced by the inflated bladders; See Figs 1-3, and 7-9; Examiner notes that when the bladders of Gruentzig are inflated, the inflated bladders would produce some degree of force/momentum against the wearer based on the position of the bladder while supporting muscles of the body)
Examiner suggest amending the claim further structurally related to the joint of the user as described in the ¶0048-0049,0078,0087.
Regarding claim 31, Gruentzig discloses the exoskeleton of claim 30 as discussed above.
Gruentzig further discloses, wherein the combined resistive torque (Examiner interprets the combine resistive torque any degree of force/momentum produced by the inflated bladders) is controllable by changing a shape, a size, a material elasticity or a spatial location (¶0003-0004, “…has a shape with a volume of between about 50 cm.sup.3 to about 2,000 cm.sup.3… to inflate in response to pressurized medium to form a pneumatic structure”; ¶0047, “a flexible material, such as rubber, latex, polychloroprene, nylon fabric, or others”; Examiner notes that different size, or different materials would provide different degree of force/momentum when inflated), or any combination thereof, of one or more of the plurality of inflatable actuator elements.
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 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruentzig (US 20200023927 A1) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Tellew (US 20060270290 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Gruentzig discloses the exoskeleton as discussed above.
While Gruentzig discloses that the bladders can be contained in the pockets (¶0041) and can be discretely placed in various locations of the garment, e.g., pants and shirts as well as pockets inside the outer layer of the garment (¶0048) and the outer layer may include straps, hooks, clips, zippers, Velcro® elements or similar, to allow for an easy adjustment and easily removed from the remainder of the garment to make it easier to wash the various components of the garment or to repair and/or replace components, such as bladders, of the garment (¶0062), Gruentzig does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of inflatable actuator elements has a first mating part which is secured to a corresponding second mating part of the base, independently and removably securing each the plurality of actuator elements to the base.
However, Tellew which is analogous art to the invention of Gruentzig for the flotation device teaches the method of inflating device detachable attached to the garment by means other than a pocket such as means including hook-and-loop fasteners (¶0066) as a known method.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exoskeleton of Gruentzig to have each of the plurality of inflatable actuator elements has a first mating part which is secured to a corresponding second mating part of the base, independently and removably securing each the plurality of actuator elements to the base instead of using the pockets as taught by Tellew as these are known attachable methods known in the prior art.
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 JAEICK JANG whose telephone number is (703)756-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Kendra D Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785