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 08/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-5 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections, 112(a) rejections, 112(b) rejections, and 112(f) interpretations previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/20/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the argument on page 6 that the 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/20/2025 that the knee collapse is determined by the position of the knee relative to the waist, combined with the amended claims, is persuasive. The 112(a) has been withdrawn due to the amended claims clarifying that the “waist” portion is actually the pelvis portion as presented in the argument and discussed in the interview conducted 07/24/2025. However, please refer to the new 112(a) rejection below due to the amended claim language. A knee collapse broadly claimed as a knee located forward of the pelvis based on an acquired upper leg posture angle is not enabled by the disclosure, when only the narrower situation of a knee located forward of the pelvis based on an upper leg posture angle in combination with a specific lower leg posture angle (e.g., a positive lower leg posture angle) has been disclosed (see [0023], [0026], and [0030]).
The argument on page 8 that Aoki in combination with Imaida and Seifert does not disclose the limitations of claim 1 has been considered, but is not persuasive. The examiner notes that Aoki is relied upon only to teach using an upper leg posture angle made by a longitudinal axis of an upper leg and a vertical line, not to teach that a knee collapse is determined to occur when a knee is positioned forward of the pelvis (or waist), since this was taught in the combination of Imaida and Seifert in claim 1 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/20/2025.
The argument at the bottom of page 8 to page 9 that a negative value of the upper leg posture angle indicates a knee collapse has been considered; however, please refer to the new 112(a) rejection below, since it does not appear that all instances of the upper leg posture angle being negative indicate that the knee is collapsed. The claim appears to broadly recite that any negative upper leg posture angle in standing phase indicates a knee collapse, since the knee is collapsed when the knee is located forward of the pelvis; however, as detailed below, the knee collapse appears to be indicated only during the specific portion of the standing phase when the lower leg posture angle is a specific value. The prior art rejection for claim 1 has been updated since the scope of claim 1 has changed. Additionally, the argument is against Aoki, which was not used to reject claims 1, 4, and 5. Please refer to the maintained rejection below of claims 4 and 5 over Imaida in view of Seifert.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim limitation “and an upper leg posture angle sensor that acquires an upper leg posture angle made by a longitudinal axis of an upper leg of the user and a vertical line, wherein the knee collapse sensor determines that the knee joint of the user is located forward of the pelvis portion of the user during the standing phase based on the acquired upper leg posture angle, and the upper leg posture angle sensor detects a position of the pelvis portion by calculating an upper leg posture angle when the user is in the standing phase on a walking surface such that the upper leg posture angle is a negative value when the knee joint of the user is forward of the pelvis portion and the upper leg posture angle is a positive value when the knee joint of the user is rearward of the pelvis portion” is confusing.
It is suggested to clarify the claim language to the following:
“and an upper leg posture angle sensor that acquires an upper leg posture angle made by a longitudinal axis of an upper leg of the user and a vertical line, wherein the knee collapse sensor determines that the knee joint of the user is located forward of the pelvis portion of the user during the standing phase based on the acquired upper leg posture angle, and the upper leg posture angle sensor detects a position of the pelvis portion relative to the knee by calculating [[an]] the upper leg posture angle when the user is in the standing phase on a walking surface” to ensure that it is clear that the upper leg posture angle in not calculated only when the user is in standing phase.
Claim 3 is objected to as dependent upon an objected-to base claim.
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to for poor antecedent basis by reciting “wherein when the knee collapse is sensed in the step of sensing the knee collapse… the resistance force is stopped in the step of decreasing the resistance force”. Since the claims have been amended to remove the previously recited “a step of…”, it is suggested to amend the claims to either restore the recitation of “a step of…” or to eliminate the limitations following “the step of”: “wherein when the knee collapse is sensed .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for detecting a knee collapse in the particular conditions of flat surface walking, does not reasonably provide enablement for all conditions under which a knee is considered to be collapsed in the standing phase of walking. The specification does not enable a person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claim 1 (and similarly, claims 4 and 5) limitation “a knee collapse sensor that senses a knee collapse by detecting that the knee joint of a user is located forward of a pelvis portion during the standing phase”. This limitation is interpreted according to its broadest reasonable interpretation to mean that the knee positioned forward of the pelvis in stance phase according to any walking state of a user indicates that the knee is collapsing. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this may only occur when walking on a flat surface, and a knee may be bent when walking on an inclined surface, such as stairs or a slope (see for example, US 2012/0259431 A1, fig. 4B (b) where the standing phase knee is flexed [0051] and US 2015/0173929 A1 fig. 13 (B-C) [0056]).
In addition, it appears that the disclosure does not fully support a knee collapse when the knee joint of a user is located forward of a pelvis portion in the entire standing phase, as the claims recites under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only a specific portion of the standing phase. Fig. 4 appears to show a non-collapsed state in which the knee is located forward of the pelvis in standing phase at P1. While the knee joint is not explicitly shown, it is understood that the knee is located between the waist/pelvis U1a and the foot U1e, and “forward” is understood to be in the same direction of walking. Specification [0053-0054] enables only a knee collapse occurring when a knee is located forward of the pelvis when the upper leg posture angle is equal to or less than the upper leg swinging threshold value as well as depending on the lower leg posture angle (fig. 5, the lower leg angle and the upper leg angle together determine whether the knee is collapsing; [0026-0032] and fig. 6 ST1, ST31, ST51, the lower leg posture is used to determine whether the leg is in standing phase or swinging phase in order to determine whether the upper leg posture indicates a knee collapse).
It is suggested to amend the claim to more specifically define when the knee is considered to be collapsed in the standing phase (e.g. the knee collapse sensor determines that the knee joint of the user is located forward of the pelvis during the standing phase based on the acquired upper leg posture angle and a lower leg posture angle is less than a lower leg swinging determination threshold) and under which conditions (e.g., flat surface walking).
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 1 and 3-5 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 1 limitation “wherein the knee collapse sensor determines that the knee joint of the user is located forward of the pelvis portion of the user during the standing phase based on the acquired upper leg posture” is unclear since sensors typically do not include a means for making a determination based on acquired data. Sensors typically acquire data and a control unit then makes a determination. It appears that by amending “knee collapse sensing unit” to “knee collapse sensor”, some function is lost in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/20/2025, the “knee collapse sensing unit” was interpreted according to the specification ([0022], [0025], [0030] and [0061]) to be a portion of the control unit that senses the position of the knee based on the posture angle of the upper leg using a sensor, and IMU, and/or a knee angle sensor. The current claim limitation “knee collapse sensor” has a broadest reasonable interpretation that only includes a sensor which detects signals; however, it has been interpreted by the examiner to also include a control portion which is able to make a determination based on sensor acquired data. It is suggested to amend the claim to include a control unit or other control means which can perform the claimed determining function.
The limitation “a knee collapse sensor that senses a knee collapse by detecting that the knee joint of a user is located forward of a pelvis portion during the standing phase” is unclear since the knee is forward of the pelvis in a non-collapsed state in a portion of the standing phase (see fig. 4, P1). It is suggested to specify when in the standing phase the knee is expected to be forward of the pelvis and not be in a collapsed state (i.e. figure 4, P1), versus a time during the standing phase when the knee would be considered in a collapsed state should the knee be located forward of the pelvis (fig. 4, P2).
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Imaida et al. (US 2013/0012852), hereafter Imaida, in view of Nakashima et al. (US 2012/0016278 A1), hereafter Nakashima.
Regarding Claim 1, Imaida discloses a walking assist device (fig. 1, abstract) that applies resistance force to a movement of a knee joint of a user ([0006] the one way damper generates a resisting force against the knee bending direction) according to a walking state of the user to assist a walking motion of the user ([0019]), the walking assist device comprising: an auxiliary force controller (fig. 1, controller 12, motor 26, [0019] and damper 40 [0017]; the portion of the controller which operates the motor and damper comprises the auxiliary force control unit) that decreases the resistance force applied to the movement of the knee joint of the user when determination is made that the walking state of the user transitions from a standing phase to a swinging phase ([0033] the controller closes valves to bypass the one-way damper in the transition from stance to swing phase, which allows the knee to bend, i.e., decreasing the resistance force created by the one-way damper);
a knee collapse sensor (as interpreted based on the 112(b) rejection above, the knee collapse sensor also includes a control unit to make a determination on the state of the knee; [0035] the portion of the controller 12 that detects abnormalities and angle sensor 27 [0017]) that senses a knee collapse ([0039] the controller detects a potential fall when the knee is in swing phase but the leg is grounded, i.e. a knee collapse, using an angle sensor 27 between the upper leg link 20 and lower leg link 30 [0017] and a grounding sensor 32 on the sole of a foot link 36, [0018], fig. 1), wherein when the knee collapse sensor senses the knee collapse, the auxiliary force controller reduces a degree of a decrease in the resistance force or stops the decrease in the resistance force ([0039] when the grounded leg is detected to be in swing phase, in which the lower leg is bending, the controller increases the resistance to rotation, rather than decreasing it); and
an upper leg posture angle sensor that acquires an upper leg posture angle (the upper leg angle is monitored relative to the lower leg using the angle sensor 27 [0017]).
However, Imaida is silent on: the knee collapse sensing unit that senses a knee collapse by detecting that the knee joint of the user is located forward of a pelvis portion of the user during standing phase (instead, Imaida uses the combination of detecting the leg in grounding phase using the grounding sensor, while the knee is bending as if in swing phase using the angle sensor, to determine that a fall will occur ([0039]), whether the upper leg posture angle is made by a longitudinal axis of an upper leg of a user and a vertical line (the upper leg angle is relative to the angle of the lower leg [0017]),
wherein the knee collapse sensor determines that the knee joint of the user is located forward of the pelvis portion of the user during the standing phase based on the upper leg posture angle, and
the upper leg posture angle sensor detects a position of the pelvis portion (interpreted by the examiner to mean that the angle of the upper leg indicates the position of the pelvis by being an endpoint of the upper leg; this interpretation is based on [0022] and [0031]) by calculating an upper leg posture angle when the user is in the standing phase on a walking surface (Imaida only appears to indicate the angle of the knee joint as the angle of the upper leg relative to the angle of the lower leg [0017] and is silent on the location of the upper end point of the upper leg, i.e., the pelvis) such that the upper leg posture angle is a negative value when the knee joint of the user is forward of the pelvis portion and the upper leg posture angle is a positive value when the knee joint of the user is rearward of the pelvis portion.
Nakashima teaches a walking assist device which defines an upper leg posture angle (fig. 2, Ah [0024]) as the angle made by a longitudinal axis of an upper leg (fig. 2, “right leg” [0024]) and a vertical line (fig. 2, L2 [0024]), as well as teaching that the upper leg posture angle is a negative value when the knee joint of the user is forward of the pelvis portion and the upper leg posture angle is a positive value when the knee joint of the user is rearward of the pelvis portion ([0024] the hip joint angle Ah is negative when the upper leg swings to the foreside, and negative when positioned toward the back side of the body).
Additionally, Nakashima defines the upper leg posture angle (fig. 2, Ah, the hip joint angle [0024]) to include the hip joint (i.e., the pelvis) as the upper end point of the upper leg segment, and the knee as the lower endpoint of the upper leg segment (fig. 2 [0024]). An encoder at the hip joint (fig. 3A, encoder 21 located at 20a [0034]) detects the angle of the hip and is considered a sensor ([0034]). Thus, Nakashima teaches an upper leg posture angle sensor (fig. 3A, encoder 21 at 20a [0034]) that detects a position of the pelvis portion when the user is in the standing phase on a walking surface ([0034], since the angle of the hip is detected, the position of the pelvis is known relative to the upper leg).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Imaida’s knee collapse sensor from using the knee angle relative to the foot’s contact with the ground, to the means taught by Nakashima so that Imaida’s upper leg posture angle sensor additionally detects a position of the pelvis portion by calculating an upper leg posture angle when the user is in the standing phase on a walking surface such that the upper leg posture angle is a negative value when the knee joint of the user is forward of the pelvis portion and the upper leg posture angle is a positive value when the knee joint of the user is rearward of the pelvis portion, since determining the joint angle between the upper leg and the lower leg, as in Imaida’s disclosure, would function equally well by additionally measuring the hip angle (i.e., the upper leg posture angle) as taught by Nakashima. Further, since Nakashima teaches the use of the hip angle, which gives the location of the pelvis, the modified knee collapse sensor determines that the knee joint of the user is located forward of the pelvis portion of the user during the standing phase based on the upper leg posture angle (since the upper leg posture angle taught by Nakashima gives the location of the hip joint relative to the knee joint, the knee collapse sensor thus is able to determine where the knee joint is located relative to the pelvis portion during the standing phase).
The now modified walk assist device remains silent on the knee collapse sensing unit sensing a knee collapse by detecting that the knee joint of the user is located forward of a pelvis portion of the user during standing phase.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art, using Imaida’s disclosure, would have been able to understand that when a knee joint exceeds a predetermined angle in standing phase (Imaida [0039] “Grounding does not normally occur in the bending phase of the swing phase, and therefore grounding during the bending phase has a high probability of being due to an unforeseen situation. In a situation of this kind, it is possible to mitigate the impact upon falling…”). That is, Imaida discloses that when a knee is bending during standing phase, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly when referring to fig. 4 “stance phase”, that the bent knee would be located in front of the pelvis and thus be considered a collapse.
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Imaida discloses a walking assist device according to claim 1, further comprising a knee position sensor (Imaida fig. 1, angle sensor 27 is located at the knee and determines the position of the knee in relation to the upper leg and the lower leg [0017]), that is able to detect a position of the pelvis portion with respect to the knee joint of the user (as modified in claim 1 above, upper leg angle sensor detects the angle of the upper leg and thus the position of the hip joint/pelvis relative to the knee is known), wherein the knee collapse sensing unit determines that the knee joint of the user is located forward of the pelvis portion of the user during the standing phase using the knee position sensor (as modified in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a knee joint located forward of the pelvis during the standing phase is indicative of a knee collapse).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Imaida in view of Seifert (US 2018/0085235), hereafter Seifert.
Regarding Claim 4, Imaida discloses a control method of a walking assist device ([0039], walking assist device fig. 1 uses a controller 12 [0014]), the control method being executed in the walking assist device that applies a resistance force to a movement of a knee joint of a user (fig. 1, joints 25 comprising angle sensor and one-way damper 40 [0016] which applies resistance to the knee in the direction of knee flexion [0032] are operated by the controller 14 [0014]) according to a walking state of the user to assist a walking motion of the user (fig. 4, [0037]), the control method comprising: decreasing the resistance force applied to the movement of the knee joint of the user when determination is made that the walking state of the user transitions from a standing phase to a swinging phase ([0037] and fig. 4, from (m) to (a) is the transition from stance phase to swing phase, and [0038] in the early swing phase (a) the one-way damper is set to free mode, where the knee can flex; that is, the one-way damper is not applying resistance to the motion of the knee); and sensing a knee collapse ([0039] the controller detects a potential fall when the knee is in swing phase but the leg is grounded, i.e. a knee collapse, using an angle sensor 27 between the upper leg link 20 and lower leg link 30 [0017] and a grounding sensor 32 on the sole of a foot link 36, [0018], fig. 1), wherein when the knee collapse is sensed in the step of sensing the knee collapse, a degree of a decrease in the resistance force is reduced or the decrease in the resistance force is stopped in the step of decreasing the resistance force ([0039] when the grounded leg is detected to be in swing phase, in which the lower leg is bending, this is considered abnormal and the controller increases the resistance to rotation, rather than decreasing it).
Imaida is silent on the step of sensing a knee collapse is done by detecting that the knee joint of the user is located forward of a pelvis portion of the user during the standing phase; instead, Imaida uses the placement of the foot on the ground (“grounding” [0039]) combined with detecting bending in the leg in stance phase to determine that the knee is collapsing ([0039]).
Seifert teaches an artificial knee joint that uses damping during the stance phase using flexion resistance ([0009]). The knee angle is acquired through sensor data, and the knee angle is used to control the resistance of the knee joint ([0011]), particularly when a maximum knee angle is reached to prevent the knee from collapsing during walking ([0012]). This is considered analogous art, since Seifert is solving the same problem as the instant invention; that is, preventing a knee collapse.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Imaida’s steps of detecting a knee collapse from the knee angle relative to the foot’s contact with the ground, to the means taught by Seifert, which uses the angle of the knee during stance phase, to result in sensing a knee collapse by detecting that the knee joint of the user is located forward of a pelvis portion of the user during the standing phase, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the knee exceeding a predetermined angle in stance phase, assuming a person has a normal posture otherwise during stance phase and is standing upright, means that the knee is located forward of the pelvis (based on Seifert [0012] and Imaida fig. 4 and [0039]), otherwise this can indicate an abnormality in the gait and lead to a fall.
Regarding Claim 5, Imaida discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a control program of a walking assist device ([0019] controller 12 incorporates a micro-computer; the computer must have instructions in the form of a control program stored on a non-transitory storage medium in order to execute the operation of the device), the control program being executed by a computer ([0019] controller 12 has a micro-computer) that operates as an arithmetic device (the controller uses sensor data to determine the operation of a motor 26 and a damper 40 [0019], thus it must operate as an arithmetic device; examiner’s note: “arithmetic device” is interpreted to mean a program which calculates based on input in order to express an output based on instant specification [0025]) in the walking assist device that applies a resistance force to a movement of a knee joint of a user (fig. 1, joints 25 comprising angle sensor and one-way damper 40 [0016] which applies resistance to the knee in the direction of knee flexion [0032]) according to a walking state of the user (fig. 4, [0037]), to assist a walking motion of the user (abstract), the control program causing the computer to execute: decreasing the resistance force applied to the movement of the knee joint of the user when determination is made that the walking state of the user transitions from a standing phase to a swinging phase ([0037] and fig. 4, from (m) to (a) is the transition from stance phase to swing phase, and [0038] in the early swing phase (a) the one-way damper is set to free mode, where the knee can flex; that is, the one-way damper is not applying resistance to the motion of the knee ); and sensing a knee collapse ([0039] the controller detects a potential fall when the knee is in swing phase but the leg is grounded, i.e. a knee collapse, using an angle sensor 27 between the upper leg link 20 and lower leg link 30 [0017] and a grounding sensor 32 on the sole of a foot link 36, [0018], fig. 1), wherein when the knee collapse is sensed in the step of sensing the knee collapse, the control program causes the computer to execute reducing a degree of a decrease in the resistance force is reduced or stopping the decrease in the resistance force in the step of decreasing the resistance force ([0039] when the grounded leg is detected to be in swing phase, in which the lower leg is bending, the controller increases the resistance to rotation, rather than decreasing it).
Imaida is silent on the step of sensing a knee collapse is done by detecting that the knee joint of the user is located forward of a pelvis portion of the user during the standing phase; instead, Imaida uses the placement of the foot on the ground (“grounding” [0039]) combined with detecting bending in the leg in stance phase to determine that the knee is collapsing ([0039]).
Seifert teaches an artificial knee joint that uses damping during the stance phase using flexion resistance ([0009]). The knee angle is acquired through sensor data, and the knee angle is used to control the resistance of the knee joint ([0011]), particularly when a maximum knee angle is reached to prevent the knee from collapsing during walking ([0012]). This is considered analogous art, since Seifert is solving the same problem as the instant invention; that is, preventing a knee collapse.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Imaida’s steps of detecting a knee collapse from the knee angle relative to the foot’s contact with the ground, to the means taught by Seifert, which uses the angle of the knee during stance phase, to result in sensing a knee collapse by detecting that the knee joint of the user is located forward of a pelvis portion of the user during the standing phase, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the knee exceeding a predetermined angle in stance phase means that the knee is located forward of the pelvis, assuming a normal walking posture otherwise (based on Seifert [0012] and Imaida fig. 4 and [0039]), otherwise this can indicate an abnormality in the gait and lead to a fall.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0374887 discloses applying impedance to a knee in stance phase to improve stability during the stance phase.
KR 202000073300 discloses the use of sensors positioned at the waist and the knee to determine whether a user has fallen.
US 2019/0343707 discloses a walking assistance device which continuously estimates the user’s posture and applies force as needed to prevent a leg collapse ([0182] and figs. 3A-B).
Hara (US 2021/0259905) discloses a walking assistance device (abstract) in which the position of the knee is controlled in relation to the waist (figs. 4A-C and [0103-0105], the angle θ of the thigh side link 4 relative to the waist link 3 is used to control the knee bending and extension angle β), where the knee angle is able to flex only when the angle of the upper leg with respect to a waist link (figs. 4A-C) is within a predetermined range.
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 SARA K. TOICH whose telephone number is (703)756-1450. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30 am - 4:30 pm, every other F 7:30-3:30 ET.
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 S. 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.
/SARA K TOICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 4100