DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of a preliminary amendment on an amendment to the claims on 10/31/2025. As per the amendments, claim 1 has been amended, and no claims have been added or cancelled. Thus, claims 15-28 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 15-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Engelhoven et al. (US Pub. 2018/0111262) in view of Agrawal et al. (US Pub. 2006/0241539) in view of Mizera et al. (US Pat. 12,257,168).
Regarding claim 15, Van Engelhoven discloses a device for providing a supporting force for an upper extremity of a user (the discloses exoskeleton system; see abstract and Fig. 1), comprising: a supporting device (see Figs. 1-2 shoulder bases 102 and proximal link 150, which form a supporting framework); an arm strut (see Figs. 1-2 arm link mechanism 104); a rotary joint (see Fig. 2 first joint 151 with first rotational axis 154), wherein the supporting device is connected to the arm strut via the rotary joint such that the arm strut is rotatable about an axis of rotation with respect to the supporting device (see [0074] and Fig. 4 where the arm link mechanism 104 is able to rotate relative to its proximal link 150 about the joint 151); a spring element (see Fig. 47, being a close up view of the torque generator 108 of the arm link mechanism 104 of Fig. 2, having coil spring element 180), wherein the spring element provides the supporting force (see Figs. 47-48 and [0099] where the coil spring element 180 generates a tensile force to support and flex distal link 152 relative proximal link 150) and wherein the supporting force is provided in a first mode and in a second mode (see Figs. 47-48 and [0099] and [0102] where the coil spring element 180 has a first mode when upper bracket 188 is at the top of bracket screw 187 (Fig. 47) and a second mode when the upper bracket 188 is at the bottom of bracket screw 187 (Fig. 48)); a connecting element (see Figs. 47-48 pulley 183), wherein the spring element is between the supporting device and the connecting element independent of a force transmission element (see Figs. 1-2 and 47-48 where coil spring 180 is located spatially between at least part of the shoulder base 102 and the pulley 183, and is a separate and independent element from the line element 182); and the force transmission element, wherein the force transmission element has a first end and a second end and is guidable about the connecting element (see Figs. 47-48 line element 182 which has two ends, and goes around pulley 183), wherein the first end is attached to a first suspension point on the supporting device in the first mode (see Fig. 47 where a first end section of line element 182 connect to upper bracket 188 which is located on proximal link 150 of the supporting device) and the second end is attached to a second suspension point on the arm strut in the first mode (see Fig. 47 where a second end section of line element 182 connected to spring 180).
Van Engelhoven lacks a detailed description of wherein the first end and the second end are attached to the second suspension point in the second mode.
However, Agrawal teaches a similar limb supporting device with tension elements, where two alternative modes of use are shown (a first mode shown in Fig. 1, and a second mode shown in Fig. 7, where the in the second mode, the tension element is made of spring 46 and cable 58, such that a first end is spring 46 and a second end is cable 58, and both ends connect to a suspension point about center of mass 38).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tension element and pulley of Van Engelhoven to operate in a second mode that connects a suspension point to first and second ends of a tension element as taught by Agrawal, as it would be a simple substitution of one type of tension connection about a pulley and pivot point for another, to yield the predictable result of providing spring tension to the frame supporting the limb.
The modified Van Engelhoven device lacks a detailed description of where the spring element couples the supporting device and the connecting element independent of a force transmission element.
However, Mizera teaches an extremity supporting device, where a spring element couples a supporting device to a connecting element, independent of a force transmission element (see Fig. 15 where a spring member is shown (passive actuator 26), with a connecting element (curved section to the right of the passive actuator) on one side, and a supporting device (lever element 28) on the other side such that the spring connects them, and is independent of the force transmission element 18).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spring of the modified Van Engelhoven device to connect to the connecting element on one end and connect to the supporting device on the other end, as taught by Mizera, as it would be a simple substitution of one placement of the spring member for another placement, to yield the predictable result of providing a spring in the arm for providing force. It is understood that in the modified Van Engelhoven, in light of the teachings of Mizera, the end piece of the spring 180 (see Figs. 51 and 54 lower bracket screw 189) closest to link 150 instead connects directly to link 150, such that the spring connects the link 150 of the supporting device to the pulley 183, with the spring being an independent component from the line element 182.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Van Engelhoven device has wherein the supporting device has a lower end and an upper end and wherein the upper end leads to the rotary joint (Van Engelhoven; see Figs. 1 and 26 where the shoulder base 102 has a lower end, and proximal link 150 is an upper end, with the upper end leading to joint 151).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Van Engelhoven device has wherein a torque is generatable about the axis of rotation by the spring element (Van Engelhoven; see Figs. 6 and 47-48 as well as [0099] where the coil spring 180 generates torque through line element 182 to act on an axis of rotation about joint 151).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Van Engelhoven device has wherein the rotary joint divides the arm strut into an outer region and an inner region and wherein the outer region is longer than the inner region (Van Engelhoven; see Fig. 2 where joint 151 has an inner region the is proximal and adjacent to proximal link 150, being the small section of distal link 152 that is located above the joint 151, and an outer region that is the rest of distal link 152 distal the joint 151, which is longer than the inner region).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Van Engelhoven device has wherein the arm strut has a receiving device for the upper extremity of the user (Van Engelhoven; see Fig. 2 arm coupler 106).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Van Engelhoven device has wherein the receiving device is disposed in an outer region of the arm strut (Van Engelhoven; see Fig. 2 where arm coupler 106 is located on the section of distal link 152 that is distal from the joint 151).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Van Engelhoven device has wherein the second suspension point is disposed at an inner end of the arm strut (Van Engelhoven; see Figs. 47-48 where the axis about the pulley 183 is located on an end of distal link 152, and the end of distal link 152 is an inner end as the distal link 152 can be pivoted closer to the sagittal plane of the user, making the pulley closer to an interior midpoint of the user than the joint 151. The second suspension point as modified in light of Agrawal is understood to be on the links surrounding the limb, and thus on distal link 152 of Van Engelhoven).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Van Engelhoven device has wherein the axis of rotation is disposed orthogonally to an imaginary axis and wherein the imaginary axis extends parallel to a spine of the user when the device is worn by the user (Van Engelhoven; see Figs. 1-5 where axis 154 of the joint 151 is orthogonal to the spine of the user, and thus to any imaginary axis parallel the spine).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Van Engelhoven device has wherein a force of the spring element is splittable into a first force path and a second force path by the connecting element (Van Engelhoven; see Figs. 47-48 where the force of spring 180 is transmitted along line element 182, and is split by pulley 183 such that a first force path is in-line with spring 180 and a second force path is angled from spring 180 after line element 182 wraps around pulley 183) and wherein the first force path acts between the connecting element and the first suspension point (Van Engelhoven; see Figs. 47-48 where the first force path along line element 182 is between the pulley 183 and spring 180) and the second force path acts between the connecting element and the second suspension point (Van Engelhoven; see Figs. 47-48 where the second force path along line element 182 is between pulley 183 and the modified second suspension point as taught by Agrawal that exists on distal link 152).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Van Engelhoven device has an exoskeleton, comprising: a first device as claimed in claim 15; and a second device as claimed in claim 15 (Van Engelhoven; see Fig. 1 where the system has two identical and mirrored devices on each arm, each having the shoulder base 102, proximal link 150, distal link 152, and associated elements for generating the torque).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Van Engelhoven device has wherein the first and the second devices are disposed symmetrically to a sagittal plane of a user when worn by the user (Van Engelhoven; see Fig. 1 where the system has two identical and mirrored devices on each arm, being symmetric about the sagittal plane (left/right)).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Van Engelhoven device has a hip belt, wherein respective lower ends of the respective supporting devices of the first and the second devices are disposed at the hip belt (Van Engelhoven; see Fig. 1 where a hip belt is connected to the bottom of the shoulder bases 102 (as better seen in Fig. 14 with belt 116)).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Van Engelhoven device has a chest belt and wherein the chest belt is fastenable to a user of the exoskeleton (Van Engelhoven; see Figs. 6 and 14 where a coupling mechanism 114 is about the chest, including a chest strap 118, which fastens to shoulder base 102).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Engelhoven in view of Agrawal in view of Mizera as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Grenier et al. (US Pub. 2019/0344432).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Van Engelhoven device has the respective supporting devices and hip belt.
The modified Van Engelhoven device lacks a detailed description of wherein the respective supporting devices are fastenable to the hip belt by respective ball joints.
However, Grenier teaches a similar exoskeleton device, where a back-mounted frame member is connected to a hip belt via respective ball joints (see Fig. 20 where a backpack support module 14 with hoop 141 is able to connect to lumbar belt 11 about the wait and hips of the user, via ball joints 145; see [220]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection between the supporting devices and hip belt of the modified Van Engelhoven device to include a ball joint as taught by Grenier, as it would be a simple substitution of one type of joint connection for another, with the benefit of having the additional degrees of freedom and ease of motion of a ball joint to match the ball joint of the hip for easy locomotion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record. Specifically, the newly applied Mizera reference teaches a different configuration of a tension spring that connects between a supporting device and connecting element. Furthermore, it is understood that there is breadth to the term “independent.” The claims leave it broad as to how independent the spring element needs to be from the force transmission element, and thus them existing as separate and distinct components is understood to have them independent of one another, such that their connections to other elements are also independent of one another.
For these reasons, the rejections hold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Schmidt (US Pub. 2021/0315514) shows a wearable assistive device that uses spring and connecting links.
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 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