DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on December 25, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 5-6 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-7 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
the limitation “from a side sagittal plane part of the knee joint” in claim 1 lines 12-13 is suggested to be replaced with –from a side, sagittal plane, part of the knee joint—to clarify that “sagittal plane” is related to the term “side”.
The limitation “fit a user around a knee of the user” in claim 7 line 2 is being interpreted as –fit a user surrounding a knee of the user—in view of figure 1 of the application. It is recommended to replace “around” with –surrounding—to enhance clarity of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
7. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first body” in claim 1 lines 4 and 6, claim 2 lines 3-4, and claim 5 line 2 is interpreted as a frame or the like according to specification page 4 lines 24-25.
“second body” in claim 1 lines 5, 7, and 9, claim 2 line 5, claim 3 line 4, and claim 6 line 2 is interpreted as a frame or the like according to specification page 4 lines 35-36.
“foot embodiment” in claim 1 line 8 and claim 7 line 3 is interpreted as a support frame of the like according to specification page 5 lines 7-8.
“movement element” in claim 1 lines 13 and 14 is interpreted as a movable plate essentially in triangular form or the like according to specification page 6 lines 6-7.
“thigh connection element” in claim 5 lines 2-3 is interpreted as essentially a holder structure according to specification page 4 lines 27-28.
“shank connection element” in claim 6 lines 2-3 is interpreted as essentially a holder structure according to specification page 4 line 37 and page 5 line 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“manipulated by means of the at least one spring” (claim 1, ln. 16);
“means of at least one thigh connection element” (claim 5, ln. 2);
“means of at least one shank connection element” (claim 6, ln. 2-3).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 2016/0374887).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses an exoskeleton system (fig. 38, which includes a passive power-conservative artificial knee 100, see [0051]) in order to provide a walking support to people who have disability in walking or in order to provide a performance improvement to healthy people ([0008] states that the artificial knee assists in swinging of the leg), comprising
at least one first body (fig. 1, thigh link 102) for being connected to a motionless upper part of a leg ([0052] states thigh connector 206 allows coupling thigh link 102 to a user’s thigh), and at least one second body (fig. 1, shank link 104) for being connected to a motionless lower part of the leg ([0052] states shank connector 208 allows coupling shank link 104 to a user’s shank), and at least one knee embodiment (fig. 1, artificial knee 100) provided between the at least one first body and the at least one second body (fig. 1, knee joint 114 connects thigh link 102 and shank link 104) in a manner allowing a motion of a knee joint ([0051] states knee joint 114 allows rotatable connection), and
at least one foot embodiment (fig. 38, ankle-foot orthosis 402) for forming a support to a foot part (fig. 38, shows 402 coupled to a foot and [0075] states it can be worn like an insole) by being connected to the at least one second body ([0075] states orthosis 402 is connectable to shank link 104), and
at least one spring (fig. 1, compressive force generator 106 can comprise a spring, see [0053]),
wherein the at least one knee embodiment comprises at least one isogram mechanism (fig. 1, artificial knee 100 comprises points, 114, 250, and 251, and constraint path 117) provided in a manner supporting a bio-mechanical motion of the knee (see figs. 1-10 which show bending of the knee) joint from a side, sagittal plane, part of the knee joint (fig. 38, the knee support is shown on the side of the knee),
the at least one isogram mechanism comprises at least one movement element (fig. 1, knee joint 114) that is connected to the at least one spring (fig. 1, joint 114 connects with generator 106 via links 102 and 104, and attachment points 250 and 251), wherein the at least one movement element is configured to be manipulated by means of the at least one spring ([0053] states that force generator 106 generates compressive force between points 250 and 251, which controls the pivoting of joint 114, see figs. 1-10), wherein the at least one spring is configured to be disposed at a back of the knee joint (fig. 1, force generator 106 is disposed behind joint 114 which is located at the front of the artificial knee) and the at least one spring carries a load by being compressed (fig. 2, in direction 800, generator 106 is being compressed, see [0056]) in order to compensate a translation motion realized by the knee joint while rotating ([0057] states that once shank link 104 passes a toggle point, see fig. 4, force generator 106 produces a force to assist flexion of shank link 104).
Regarding claim 2, the system of Wu reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on at least one first part (see annotated fig. 1 below) of the at least one knee embodiment where the at least one knee embodiment (fig. 1, knee joint 114) is connected to the at least one first body (see annotated fig. 1 below, knee joint 114 connects to the first part via thigh link 102), and at least one second part (fig. 1, rod 107) where the at least one knee embodiment is connected to the at least one second body (fig. 1, knee joint 114 connects to rod via shank link 104, and release mechanism 108), wherein the at least one first part and the at least one second part are provided in a manner extending from a front part of a knee towards a rear part of the knee in a compliant manner to a bio-mechanics of the knee joint (see annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the system of Wu reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on the at least one first body (fig. 38, thigh link 102) is configured to be connected to the leg upper part by means of at least one thigh connection element ([0052] states thigh connector 206 connects thigh link 102 to a user’s thigh, also see fig. 38).
Regarding claim 6, the system of Wu reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on the at least one second body (fig. 38, shank link 104) is configured to be connected to the leg lower part by means of at least one shank connection element ([0052] states shank connector 208 connects shank link 104 to a user’s shank, also see fig. 38).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 10,688,009).
Regarding claim 3, the system of Wu reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the foot piece (fig. 38, orthosis 402) can be connected to the rest of the device ([0075] states orthosis 402 is connectable to shank link 104), but does not expressly disclose a connection bracket connected to the second body in front of the ankle joint to support the ankle while not projecting from a foot periphery.
However, Choi teaches of a motion assistance apparatus (fig. 2, 1) with a rotary frame placed in front of the ankle joint (fig. 2, 15) which assists motion of the user (col. 6, lines 22-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the exoskeleton system of Wu with the motion assistance apparatus as taught by Choi to connect the foot piece (fig. 38, orthosis 402) to the tibia module (fig. 38, shank link 104) for the purpose of further assisting motion of the user which allows walking with less effort or strength (Choi col. 1, lines 22-25).
13. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0254854).
Regarding claim 4, the system of Wu reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on at least one foot embodiment (fig. 38, orthosis 402), but is silent on at least one foot plate being connected to a foot sole of a user and at least one finger plate being associated with the foot plate in a movable manner.
However, Lee teaches of a wearable assistive device with a foot support that includes a finger plate (fig. 6, first support 100 and midsole 120) that can be movably inserted into a foot plate (fig. 6, second support 200) which is all on top a foot base (fig. 6, first outer sole 110 and second outer sole 210) to accommodate different shoe sizes of a user thereby increasing the security of the device to the user ([0062])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the orthosis of Wu with the foot support as taught by Lee to allow adjustment of the device to better fit users with different foot/shoe sizes and increase security of the device ([0062]).
14. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (US 2015/0321341).
Regarding claim 7, the system of Wu reads on the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the isogram mechanism (fig. 1, artificial knee 100 comprises points, 114, 250, and 251, and constraint path 117 and is connected to thigh link 102 and shank link 104) and is configured to fit a user around a knee (interpreted to mean –surrounding the knee of the user--) of the user.
However, Smith teaches of an exoskeleton that has thigh and shank supports in front of the user’s legs (fig. 1) which extend around the leg in order to balance mass about the leg ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the thigh and shank links of Wu to be in front of the leg and extend around the knee as taught by Smith in order to balance the mass of the system about the leg thereby reducing gravity induced movements (Smith [0025]).
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Agrawal et al. (US 2008/0255488) discloses a powered orthosis with linear actuators located behind the knee of the user. Agrawal et al. (2006/0241539) discloses a passive gravity balancing orthosis which uses springs behind the knee of a user to assist walking. Ozsecen et al. (US 2019/0160321) discloses a biomechanical assistive device that uses an actuator placed at the rear of the knee. Iida et al. (US 2016/0213549) discloses a chairless chair device that includes a joint and damping means located behind the knee of a user.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Z CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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.
/THOMAS Z CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights