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
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/09/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 2-3 were canceled, claims 1, 4, 13, 15-16, and 18 were amended, and no claims were newly added. Thus, claims 1 and 4-20 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: the amended Fig. 2A addition of reference number “222” overlaps the previously presented drawing. In addition, the reference number “222” does not clearly indicate the structure intended to be labeled. The added feature 222 cannot break the previously presented Fig. 2A. It is not clear how the feature 222 is attached to the invention overall.
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.
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 4-12 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1 lines 26-32 and claim 4 lines 2-7, the structures “wherein the apparatus further comprises a plurality of wheels coupled to the base and one or more brakes associated with the plurality of wheels, wherein engaging the one or more brakes causes the plurality of wheels to be lifted off the ground surface such that the one or more brakes contact the ground surface to temporarily maintain the apparatus in a fixed position for donning or doffing the exoskeleton” as described in claim 1 and “each of the plurality of wheels being rotatable about a horizontal axis between the deployed configuration wherein the plurality of wheels contact the ground surface and a non-deployed configuration wherein the base contacts the ground surface and the plurality of wheels decouple from the ground surface” as described in claim 4 are not enabled within the disclosure as one invention that can be understood.
Turning now to the Wands factors, no guidance provided from the Applicant enables the claims in view of the Wands factors. The examiner notes the Wands factors with a specific emphasis on the nature of the invention, the breadth of the claims, and the amount of direction provided by the inventor. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also MPEP 2164.01(a) and 2164.04.
In regards to the nature of the invention, the language of claim 1 appears to read on the embodiment as shown in Fig. 2A. The language of claim 4 appears to read on the embodiment as shown in Fig. 3A. No description is provided linking the two embodiments as able to be within the same invention. The wheels and brakes of Fig. 2A do not appear to be rotatable in the way as described regarding Fig. 3A, or other places within the specification. The same applies regarding the ability to attach brakes 222 as described within the embodiment Fig. 3A. The nature of the invention as described in independent claim 1 further specified in dependent claim 4 is not enabled.
In regards to the breadth of the claims, the connection from claim 1 to the dependent claim 4 is broad. The step of making the wheels rotatable as they are already claimed as wheels and brakes as described in claim 4 is not provided with enough explanation and is instead too broad to be enabled. Additionally, the Fig. 2A and Fig. 3A legs are very different and provide a broad interpretation of how the legs could interact with such wheels as claimed. The wheels and brakes attached to the legs of Fig. 2A do not appear to be attachable to the legs as shown in Fig. 3A.
In regards to the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the specification and figures do not provide adequate explanation how to make the invention as claimed, with both the wheels and brakes, as well as with the rotatable ability of the wheels. There is no indication in the specification as to a way to achieve such results as described in the claims.
Therefore, due to the nature of the invention, the breadth of the claims, and the amount of direction provided by the inventor, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make or use the invention in its entire scope without undue experimentation because no explanation or guidance has been disclosed as to how to make and use the invention.
As the dependent claims fail to identify any characteristics specifically limiting the steps recited from claims 1 and 4 above, the dependent claims 5-12 are non-enabled.
Claims 18-20 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.
Regarding claim 18 lines 12-14, the claim reads as having “one or more recesses formed along lateral sides of the sear configured to provide clearance for protruding portions of the exoskeleton”. However, this is new subject matter entered upon the amendment of the claim and fails to provide adequate written description of the structure. Examiner questions if “the plurality of eccentric spaces 242” as described in specification [0034] and the amended independent claims 1 and 13 is the intended structure, but it is not clear and the claimed invention appears to read primary on figs. 3A-F.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 4-12 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 1, the terms “a folded transport configuration in which, via the plurality of joints, the plurality of legs configured to reposition to move the seat and the back toward the base and bring the seat and back into a stacked arrangement over the base” of lines 22-25 and “a plurality of wheels coupled to the base and one or more brakes associated with the plurality of wheels, wherein engaging the one or more brakes causes the plurality of wheels to be lifted off the ground surface such that the one or more brakes contact the ground surface to temporarily maintain the apparatus in a fixed position for donning or doffing the exoskeleton” of lines 26-32 are unclear as to how folding plurality of legs as described function with the wheels and brakes as described. The folded transport of the legs appear to describe Figs. 3A-C, whereas the wheels and brakes as described appear to describe Fig. 2A. Fig. 2A with the wheels and brakes has four legs, but the Fig. 3A-C embodiment has two folding legs. How do the brakes contact the ground surface as claimed while comprising the plurality of legs as described?
Regarding claim 4 lines 2-7, the term “the plurality of wheels being rotatable about a horizontal axis between the deployed configuration wherein the plurality of wheels contact the ground surface and a non-deployed configuration wherein the base contacts the ground surface and the plurality of wheels decouple from the ground surface” is unclear as to how the wheels as described to move in conjunction with the brakes (see claim 1) and are also able to rotate about a horizontal axis. The limitations of claim 4 appear to describe the Figs. 3A-C, of which the wheels and brakes as described in claim 1 and Fig. 2A do not appear to work interchangeably.
Regarding claim 11 line 3, the term “one or more wheels” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a plurality of wheels” from claim 1 line 26.
Regarding claim 15 line 3, the term “exoskeleton” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “an exoskeleton” from claim 13 line 1-2.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johannsen (US 2,141,475).
Regarding claim 13, Johannsen discloses an apparatus for storage and transportation of an exoskeleton (Folding chair in Fig. 1, foldable in for example Figs. 7-8), comprising:
a base (U-shaped base frame 10);
a seat positioned over the base (seat panel 28);
a back mechanically coupled to the seat (back panel 24); and
a plurality of legs interconnecting the seat with the base (leg components 14, 15 with carrying rails 19, 20), each of the plurality of legs including an elongated member having at least a first section and a second section in communication via a joint (leg components 14, 15 and carrying rails 19, 20, communicating via joints 16, 17), the first section and the second section being configured to fold relative to one another to accommodate transition between and temporarily maintain one of a plurality of exoskeleton transport and storage configurations for the seat, the back, and the plurality of legs (Fig. 1 to Fig. 2 seat 28 folds towards back 24 via pintle 30. Then, Fig. 4 joints 16, 17 include knuckle pivot 31 able to swing legs 14, 15 to fold. Figs. 6-7 show the chair in the stackable, folded position. Portions of base 10 include 11, 12, 13 on which the rest of the chair components are stacked over.),
wherein the seat defines a seat surface and the back defines a front surface (see Johannsen seat panel 28 adapted for a user to sit in the chair, and front of back panel 24 surface), and wherein a plurality of eccentric spaces are formed along the seat surface and the front surface (see Johannsen clearances in the back of the chair between seat 28 and back 24; also a lack of “arms” on the chair provides more clearances), the plurality of eccentric spaces configured to provide clearance for protruding portions of the exoskeleton while the seat surface and the front surface provide support for the exoskeleton (see Johannsen the exoskeleton would rest against the seat 28 and back 24, while having clearance between and along the sides of the seat and back as shown).
Regarding claim 14, Johannsen discloses the joint defines a pivot axis that extends generally along a lateral side of the seat (joints 16, 17 allow for lateral extension of the leg components).
Regarding claim 15, Johannsen discloses the seat, the back, and the plurality of legs are adapted, via a plurality of joints (joints 16, 17 and pintle 30), to transition between and temporarily maintain one of the plurality of exoskeleton transport and storage configurations (Fig. 1 to Fig. 6-7 transition describes in claim 13 rejection. Pintle 30 allows for folding of seat 28 to back 24).
Regarding claim 18, Johannsen discloses an apparatus for storage and transportation of an exoskeleton (Folding chair in Fig. 1, foldable in for example Figs. 7-8), comprising:
a base (U-shaped base frame 10);
a seat positioned over the base (seat panel 28); and
a back mechanically coupled to the seat (back panel 24),
wherein the seat and the back are configured for engagement with the exoskeleton (user can sit in chair on seat 28, rest on back 24), and
wherein the seat and the back are stackable relative to the base between (i) a deployed configuration in which the seat is suspended over the base (see Fig. 1 configuration depicting a chair) and (ii) a folded transport configuration in which the seat and the back are stacked over the base (Figs. 6-7 show the chair in the stackable, folded position), and
wherein the seat includes one or more recesses formed along lateral sides of the seat configured to provide clearance for protruding portions of the exoskeleton (see Johannsen the exoskeleton would rest against the seat 28 and back 24, while having clearance between and along the sides of the seat and back as shown).
Regarding claim 19, Johannsen discloses the apparatus further comprises a plurality of legs interconnecting the seat with the base (leg components 14, 15 with carrying rails 19, 20), the plurality of legs being configured to reposition relative to the base to move the seat and the back toward the base to form the folded transport configuration (Fig. 1 to Fig. 2 seat 28 folds towards back 24 via pintle 30. Then, Fig. 4 joints 16, 17 include knuckle pivot 31 able to swing legs 14, 15 to fold. Figs. 6-7 show the chair in the stackable, folded position. Portions of base 10 include 11, 12, 13 on which the rest of the chair components are stacked over).
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannsen (US 2,141,475) in view of Murrell (US 5,603,491).
Regarding claim 1, Johannsen discloses an apparatus for storage and transportation of an exoskeleton (see Johannsen Folding chair in Fig. 1, foldable in for example Figs. 7-8), comprising:
a base defining a rectangular sector having three contiguous sides configured to contact a ground surface (see Johannsen U-shaped base frame 10);
a seat positioned over the base (see Johannsen seat panel 28), the seat defining a seat surface configured to support a trunk or frame of the exoskeleton (see Johannsen seat panel 28 adapted for a user to sit in the chair);
a back mechanically coupled to the seat (see Johannsen back panel 24);
a plurality of eccentric spaces formed along the seat surface and a front surface of the back (see Johannsen clearances in the back of the chair between seat 28 and back 24; also a lack of “arms” on the chair provides more clearances), the plurality of eccentric spaces configured to provide clearance for protruding portions of the exoskeleton while the seat surface and the front surface provide support for the exoskeleton (see Johannsen the exoskeleton would rest against the seat 28 and back 24, while having clearance between and along the sides of the seat and back as shown); and
a plurality of legs interconnecting the seat with the base (see Johannsen leg components 14, 15 with carrying rails 19, 20),
wherein the seat and the back are configured for engagement with the exoskeleton (see Johannsen user can sit in chair on seat 28, rest on back 24), and
wherein the seat, the back, and the plurality of legs are adapted, via a plurality of joints (see Johannsen joints 16, 17 and pintle 30), to transition between and temporarily maintain one of a plurality of configurations, including (i) a deployed configuration with the seat suspended over the base via the plurality of legs to support the exoskeleton (see Johannsen see Fig. 1 configuration depicting a chair) and (ii) a folded transport configuration in which, via the plurality of joints, the plurality of legs configured to reposition to move the seat and the back toward the base and bring the seat and back into a stacked arrangement over the base (see Johannsen Fig. 2 seat 28 folds towards back 24 via pintle 30. Then, Fig. 4 joints 16, 17 include knuckle pivot 31 able to swing legs 14, 15 to fold. Figs. 6-7 show the chair in the stackable, folded position. Portions of base 10 include 11, 12, 13 on which the rest of the chair components are stacked over).
Johannsen is silent as to wherein the apparatus further comprises a plurality of wheels coupled to the base and one or more brakes associated with the plurality of wheels, wherein engaging the one or more brakes causes the plurality of wheels to be lifted off the ground surface such that the one or more brakes contact the ground surface to temporarily maintain the apparatus in a fixed position for donning or doffing the exoskeleton.
However, Murrell teaches a plurality of wheels coupled to the base (see Murrell wheels 100 mounted to rectangular base 51) and one or more brakes associated with the plurality of wheels (see Murrell Col. 7 lines 58-64 each of the wheels 10 is carried by lever 104 with fulcrum 106, wherein the fulcrum 106 is connected to the bar 48 by nipple 108), wherein engaging the one or more brakes causes the plurality of wheels to be lifted off the ground surface such that the one or more brakes contact the ground surface to temporarily maintain the apparatus in a fixed position for donning or doffing the exoskeleton (see Murrell when levers 104 are engaged by the user, the wheels 100 assume either the upraised or lowered conditions [Figs. 4-5 for transition], and in the lever induced lowered condition [Fig. 5] the bars 48 contact the ground surface rather than wheels 100). 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 base of Johannsen with the addition of wheels and brakes being rotatable about deployed and non-deployed configurations as taught by Murrell so as to provide mobility to the apparatus.
Regarding claim 4, modified Johannsen is silent as to each of the plurality of wheels being rotatable about a horizontal axis between the deployed configuration wherein the plurality of wheels contact the ground surface and a non-deployed configuration wherein the base contacts the ground surface and the plurality of wheels decouple from the ground surface. However, Murrell teaches each of the plurality of wheels being rotatable about a horizontal axis between the deployed configuration wherein the plurality of wheels contact the ground surface (see Murrell Fig. 4 rotated wheels 100 lowered to portability condition, for wheeled movement after moving wheel levers 104) and a non-deployed configuration wherein the base contacts the ground surface and the plurality of wheels decouple from the ground surface (see Murrell Fig. 5 and Col. 8 lines 2-8 upraised stability condition where bars 48 engage the floor without wheels). 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 base of Johannsen with the addition of wheels being rotatable about deployed and non-deployed configurations as taught by Murrell so as to provide mobility to the apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, modified Johannsen discloses wherein each of the plurality of legs define an elongated member comprising at least two sections in communication via a joint (see Johannsen leg components 14, 15 and carrying rails 19, 20, communicating via joints 16, 17), the at least two sections adapted to fold about one another by way of the joint along a horizontal axis extending along a lateral side of the seat (see Johannsen folding movement of leg components 14, 15 and rails 19,20 is exclusively in a lateral direction relative to the seat; Col. 2 lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 11, modified Johannsen discloses the rectangular sector of the base encompasses a maximal area of a footprint of the seat, the back, the plurality of legs, and one or more wheels (see Johannsen Fig. 1 U-shaped base 10 encompasses the entirety of the footprint of seat, back, and legs, and claim 1 modification in view of Murrell to include wheels 100).
Regarding claim 12, modified Johannsen discloses wherein in the non-deployed configuration, the plurality of wheels are positioned within a region bounded by the three contiguous sides of the rectangular sector defined by the base (see Murrell Fig. 4 wheels 100 rotate up to the upraised stability condition; within the same plane as the base 51. Modified onto Johannsen U-shaped base 10 would stay in the same line as the frame as in Murrell).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannsen in view of Murrell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wagner (US 6,247,756).
Regarding claim 5, modified Johannsen discloses extensions on the back of the apparatus (see Johannsen back tie piece 23 in Fig. 4 extend slightly from the back), but is silent as to one or more handles defined along a rear surface of the back for transporting the apparatus. However, Wagner teaches one or more handles defined along a rear surface of the back for transporting the apparatus (see Wagner pushing bars 4 and 5 on upper back area 3 of wheelchair). 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 back of modified Johannsen with the addition of handles as taught by Wagner so as to provide more stability on the apparatus in the form of a handle able to be held onto by the user or another person.
Regarding claim 6, modified Johannsen is silent as to one or more retention belts positioned along the seat and the back for engagement with the exoskeleton. However, Wagner teaches one or more retention belts positioned along the seat and the back for engagement with the exoskeleton (see Wagner positioning straps 30, 50; securing user to wheelchair Fig. 3). 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 seat and back of modified Johannsen with the addition of retention belts for securing the exoskeleton as taught by Wagner so as to increase the safety of the user when seated in the seat.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannsen in view of Murrell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paul et al. (US 9,084,710; hereinafter “Paul”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Johannsen is silent as to a plurality of footrests positioned along the base, each of the plurality of footrests being adapted to transition between a first position and a second position. However, Paul teaches a plurality of footrests positioned along the base (see Paul footrests 30, attached to the base frame 22), each of the plurality of footrests being adapted to transition between a first position and a second position (see Paul movement of footrests 30 from Fig. 8 to 9… Col. 9 lines 57-61 “…cause the immediately adjacent footrest 30 to pivot from a use position in front of seat 24 (shown in FIGS. 4-8) to a stowed position along the sides 46 of chair 220 (shown in FIG. 9)”… some footrest embodiments require manual positioning). 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 frame of modified Johannsen with the addition of footrests as taught by Paul so as to provide more comfort to a user as an option to have footrests.
Regarding claim 8, modified Johannsen discloses the first position is defined directly in front of the seat (see Paul footrests 30; in Fig. 8 positioning in front of the seat) and wherein the second position is defined lateral to the seat (see Paul footrests 30; in Fig. 9 swiveled to be lateral to seat 24), each of the plurality of footrests being adapted to swivel between the first position and the second position (see Paul movement of footrests 30 from Fig. 8 to 9… Col. 9 lines 57-61 “…cause the immediately adjacent footrest 30 to pivot from a use position in front of seat 24 (shown in FIGS. 4-8) to a stowed position along the sides 46 of chair 220 (shown in FIG. 9)”… some footrest embodiments require manual positioning).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannsen in view of Murrell as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Zarinfar et al. (US 8,113,587; hereinafter “Zarinfar”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Johannsen is silent as to one or more pneumatic shocks for engaging the plurality of legs, wherein the at least two sections of the elongated member are adapted to transition from a first configuration to a second configuration by assistance from the one or more pneumatic shocks. However, Zarinfar teaches one or more pneumatic shocks for engaging the plurality of legs (see Zarinfar pneumatic device 14 connected to chair frame 28), wherein the at least two sections of the elongated member are adapted to transition from a first configuration to a second configuration by assistance from the one or more pneumatic shocks (see Zarinfar Fig. 3-6 transition where Col. 5 lines 40-44 “The hydraulic or pneumatic device 14 is connected to the front of the chair frame through a linkage bracket 28 that aids in folding the chair to its compact state”). 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 legs of modified Johannsen with the addition of a pneumatic shock as taught by Zarinfar so as to facilitate an easier folding motion for the user folding the chair by providing at least some mechanical support.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannsen as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Murrell (US 5,603,491).
Regarding claim 16, Johannsen is silent as to a plurality of wheels coupled to the base, each of the plurality of wheels being movable between (i) a deployed wheel configuration in which the plurality of wheels contact a ground surface to permit rolling transport the exoskeleton in the folded transport configuration and (ii) a non-deployed wheel configuration in which the base contacts the ground surface and the plurality of wheels decouple from the ground surface in the deployed configuration. However, Murrell teaches a plurality of wheels coupled to the base (see Murrell wheels 100 mounted to rectangular base 51), each of the plurality of wheels being movable between (i) a deployed wheel configuration in which the plurality of wheels contact a ground surface to permit rolling transport an exoskeleton in the folded transport configuration (see Murrell Fig. 4 rotated wheels 100 lowered to portability condition, for wheeled movement after moving wheel levers 104) and (ii) a non-deployed wheel configuration in which the base contacts the ground surface and the plurality of wheels decouple from the ground surface in the deployed configuration (see Murrell Fig. 5 and Col. 8 lines 2-8 upraised stability condition where bars 48 engage the floor without wheels). 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 base of Johannsen with the addition of wheels being rotatable about deployed and non-deployed configurations as taught by Murrell so as to provide mobility to the apparatus.
Regarding claim 17, modified Johannsen discloses each of the plurality of wheels is mounted to the base to rotate about a generally horizontal axis between the deployed wheel configuration and the non-deployed wheel configuration (see Murrell Fig. 4-5 wheels 100 are rotated around the lateral extension of bars 48 along a horizontal axis).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannsen as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Murrell (US 5,603,491).
Regarding claim 20, Johannsen is silent as to the apparatus further comprises a plurality of wheels coupled to the base, each of the plurality of wheels being movable between (i) a deployed wheel configuration in which the plurality of wheels contact a ground surface and (ii) a non-deployed wheel configuration in which the base contacts the ground surface and the plurality of wheels decouple from the ground surface. However, Murrell teaches the apparatus further comprises a plurality of wheels coupled to the base (see Murrell wheels 100 mounted to rectangular base 51), each of the plurality of wheels being movable between (i) a deployed wheel configuration in which the plurality of wheels contact a ground surface (see Murrell Fig. 4 rotated wheels 100 lowered to portability condition, for wheeled movement after moving wheel levers 104) and (ii) a non-deployed wheel configuration in which the base contacts the ground surface and the plurality of wheels decouple from the ground surface (see Murrell Fig. 5 and Col. 8 lines 2-8 upraised stability condition where bars 48 engage the floor without wheels). 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 base of Johannsen with the addition of wheels being rotatable about deployed and non-deployed configurations as taught by Murrell so as to provide mobility to the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 11-12 of the remarks, that “Johannsen does not disclose or suggest such exoskeleton-interface eccentric spaces on the seat and back surfaces; rather, Johannsen discloses conventional folding chair panels and frame members”. However, Examiner disagrees. Any spaces surrounding the chair as described in the rejection would serve as spaces that “provide clearance” relative to the exoskeleton or user at the seat surface.
Applicant argues, on page 12 of the remarks, that “Johannsen does not disclose a wheel/brake arrangement, much less a brake system that lifts wheels off the ground and transfers contact to brake members to form a stable don/doff platform”. However, the argument is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Johannsen to teach the newly amended subject matter or subject matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Tim 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.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights