DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of a response to a Restriction Requirement as of 12/30/2025. As per the response, Group I (claims 2-25) has been elected, and Group II (claim 26) has not been elected. Thus, claims 2-25 are pending in the application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/22/2022 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because as it has not been submitted in the proper format as required by the noted MPEP sections. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 3A and 23 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.83(a) whereby unlabeled boxes should be labeled in order to produce a clear understanding of the drawings (e.g. boxes 314, 316, 322, and 324 in Fig. 3A and boxes 2317, 2316, and 2330 in Fig. 23). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the implied phrase “the present concepts include” in line 1, which should be omitted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 16 recites the term “GUI interface.” In line 2. Firstly, GUI should be written as --Graphical User Interface (GUI)-- in order to clearly state what the acronym stands for. Second, the term “interface” should be removed as it is redundant and unnecessary to call something an “interface interface.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the loop" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-6, and 10-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10-15 , and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,324,655. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences in language used does not differentiate the instant application from the ‘655 patent in a substantive manner, as outlined below.
Instant Application
‘655 Patent
2. An assistive flexible suit comprising: at least a first anchor configured for positioning on a first side of at least one joint; a second anchor configured for positioning on a second side of at least one joint; at least one flexible connection coupling the first anchor and the second anchor; at least one sensor; at least one actuator configured to apply a tensile force to the at least one flexible connection to generate a moment about the at least one joint during movement of the at least one joint; and at least one processor configured to actuate the at least one actuator to apply the tensile force according to an actuation profile responsive to one or more events occurring during movement of the at least one joint, the at least one processor further configured to perform the steps of: monitoring an output of the at least one sensor as the user moves to identify, using the output of the at least one sensor, at least one event during successive movement cycles of the user; updating a reference movement pattern based at least in part on continued monitoring of the output of the at least one sensor; and adjusting at least one selected from a trajectory, a timing, and a magnitude of an actuation profile of the at least one actuator based at least in part on the updated reference movement pattern; and continuing to perform the steps of monitoring, identifying, and adjusting until the actuation profile of the at least one actuator generates a moment about the at least one joint that improves movement of the at least one joint.
1. A method for promoting an improvement in a gait of a person, the method comprising: outfitting the person having an impaired gait with an assistive flexible suit, the assistive flexible suit including one or more flexible connections disposed between one or more anchor straps, being configured to span one or more joints of a leg of the person, and having at least one actuator configured to apply a tensile force to the one or more anchor straps using the one or more flexible connections for the assistive flexible suit to generate a moment about at least one of the one or more joints and at least one sensor configured to measure the gait of the person in real-time; monitoring with at least one processor an output of the at least one sensor as the person moves to identify with the at least one processor at least one gait event occurring during successive strides of the person; generating, with the at least one processor and based at least in part on a timing of the at least one gait event, a reference trajectory; generating, with the at least one processor and based at least in part on the reference trajectory, an actuation profile for promoting the improvement in the gait of the person; updating the reference trajectory, with the at least one processor and based on continued monitoring of the output of the at least one sensor, wherein the output of the at least one sensor includes kinematic sensor data; and adjusting the actuation profile, with the at least one processor and based on the updated reference trajectory, until the assistive flexible suit generates the moment about the at least one of the one or more joints that results in the improvement in the gait of the person.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘655 patent. While the ‘655 patent is directed to a method, the method includes providing all the structural features also found in the instant application, and performing the same functions with them. One difference in the claim language is that the ‘655 patent refers to “one or more anchor straps” with flexible connections coupling them together. This is understand to be the same as the instant application, where there are first and second anchors, with a flexible connection coupling them together. Both have the sensor, actuator, and processor, performing the same functions. The processor of the instant application is understood to, in response to joint movement (which is a broader “gait event”), actuate the actuator to apply a force. The instant application is merely a broader version of the ‘665 patent, whereby the measured action and response is to “joint” motion rather than the more specific “gait” of the ‘665 patent. Other terms understood to be approximately equivalent are “stride” and “movement cycle” and “reference trajectory” and “reference movement pattern”. The “moment” generated in the ‘655 patent is understood to occur from the actuator, in the same manner as adjusting a magnitude of the actuation profile in the instant application. Lastly, the instant application recites repeating the process of monitoring, identifying, and adjusting the actuation profile. This is understood to be a basic and well-known feature of a movement assist device, which is intended to be used for more than a singular instance in time. Furthermore, the ‘655 patent discusses successive strides, and improving the gait of a person, both of which occur over time and require the modulation of the actuation profile over time to continue in order to improve the gait. The dependent claims follow a similar pattern of being broader versions of the ‘665 patent (e.g. referring to an “event” rather than a “gait event”).
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘655 patent, where the processor of the ‘655 patent performs the adjustment of the actuation profile.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of the ‘655 patent.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of the ‘655 patent.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of the ‘655 patent.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘655 patent, where the ‘655 patent refers to “one or more joints of a leg of a person” during a gait cycle, which could include an ankle joint (as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as one of the three possible leg joints), and the instant application merely lists all the known possible motions that an angle joint can take, which are well-known and obvious. This is rendered further obvious in light of claim 3 of the ‘655 patent, where a plurality of the identifies gait events are measured around the foot, and thus would be in relation to the ankle joint.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of the ‘655 patent.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 13 of the ‘655 patent, where the adjusted trajectory, timing, and magnitude of the instant application’ actuation profile corresponds to the actuation profile adjustments in the ‘655 patent.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 14 of the ‘655 patent.
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to claim 15 of the ‘655 patent.
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of the ‘655 patent. The ‘655 patent includes the flexible connections (claim 1), the processor that performs steps (claim 1), and the steps of using the processor on the actuation profile (claim 1). Claim 8 of the ‘655 patent introduces a “control algorithm” which is the controller of the processor, understood to perform the adjustment operations. The nature of the actuator and controller being “offboard” is understood to be an obvious matter of making the processor/ controller separate from the suit, which would be an obvious matter of design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art should they desire separate access to the circuitry from the worn suit device. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the ‘655 patent, where a GUI is a user interface.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of the ‘655 patent.
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of the ‘655 patent.
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of the ‘655 patent.
Claim 21 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of the ‘655 patent.
Claim 22 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of the ‘655 patent.
Claim 23 of the instant application corresponds to claim 13 of the ‘655 patent, where the system undergoes gait improvement that occurs over successive strides, and thus there is a later (subsequent) stride that the adjustment occurs on.
Claim 24 of the instant application corresponds to claim 20 of the ‘655 patent, where the ‘655 patent identifies the events over successive strides (cycles) to update an average timing of the event, where it is further understood that an average relies upon N number of entries summed together and divided by N.
Claim 25 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of the ‘655 patent, where two sensors are used, one for the sound and one for the impaired leg, and the variances information between the legs relies on both the sensor’s data in order to adjust actuation profiles.
It is also understood that claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 23 of the ‘655 patent, for the same reasons as claim 1 above, and has a similar mapping of dependent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In particular, claim 7-9 are understood to not be rejected under a double patenting rejection. The double patenting rejection of claim 2 can be overcome by adding the limitations of claims 7-9, or by filing a terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D ZIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-3349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/MATTHEW D ZIEGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights