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 .
Response to Amendment
2. This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on December 25, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 4, and 7 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
3. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are objected to for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a side (sagittal plane) part” (ln. 12-13) should read --a side sagittal plane part-- to avoid any potential confusion that use of the parenthesis renders the “sagittal plane” limitation as optional.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “the at least one first body is connected to the leg upper part” (ln. 1-2) should read --the at least one first body is configured to be connected to the leg upper part-- to avoid any potential interpretation that the applicant is attempting to positively claim a body part (i.e. “leg upper part”) in violation of 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “the at least one second body is connected to the leg lower part” (ln. 1-2) should read --the at least one second body is configured to be connected to the leg lower part-- to avoid any potential interpretation that the applicant is attempting to positively claim a body part (i.e. “leg lower part”) in violation of 35 USC 101.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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
8. 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.
9. 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 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 2016/0158087).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses an exoskeleton system (fig. 1) 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 ([0003] states that the exoskeleton can assist walking or assist in carrying a heavy load), comprising
at least one first body (fig. 1, femur module 21) for being connected to a motionless upper part of a leg (fig. 3, thigh belt 214 attaches to a thigh of a user, see [0051]), and at least one second body (fig. 1, tibia module 22) for being connected to a motionless lower part of the leg (fig. 5, shank belt 223 attaches to a shank of a user, see [0057]), and at least one knee embodiment (figs. 11A-11B, which represent fig. 1, knee joint component 23) provided between the at least one first body and the at least one second body ([0067] states force transmission device 50 controls knee joint component 23, and [0070] states that the driving element connects the femur module 21 and the tibia module 22) in a manner allowing a motion of a knee joint (see motion allowed in figs. 11A-11B), and
at least one foot embodiment (fig. 1, foot module 30) for forming a support to a foot part ([0063] states the foot module supports the foot by being inserted into a sole of a shoe worn by the user) by being connected to the at least one second body ([0064] states that foot module 30 connects to tibia module 22), and
at least one spring (figs. 11A-11B, driving element 53 can be a spring, see [0070]),
wherein the at least one knee embodiment comprises at least one isogram mechanism (figs. 11A-11B, cam 52 and hook structure 54) provided in a manner supporting a bio-mechanical motion of the knee (see figs. 11A-11B where bending of the knee is facilitated) joint from a side (sagittal plane) part of the knee joint (fig. 1, knee joint component 23 is aligned to a side part of the knee), the at least one isogram mechanism comprises at least one movement element (figs. 11A-11B, input force joint 52b) that is connected to the at least one spring ([0070] states that the driving element 53 connects between the femur module 21 and the input force joint 52b of the cam 52), wherein the at least one movement element is configured to be manipulated by means of the at least one spring ([0070] states that the driving element 53 moves the tibia module 22 via the input force joint 52b and a hook structure 54)), wherein the at least one spring energy storage element allows carrying a load (figs. 11A-11b, driving element 53 creates pulling force 62), in order to compensate a translation motion realized by the knee joint while rotating ([0070] states that the pulling force 62 allows movement of the femur module 21 and tibia module 22 towards an extension mode).
Regarding claim 2, the system of Huang reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on at least one first part (figs. 11A-11B, cam 52) of the at least one knee embodiment where the at least one knee embodiment (fig. 1, knee joint component 23) is connected to the at least one first body (fig. 1, femur module 21, figs. 11A-11B, knee joint component 23 includes cam 52 which allows connection to 21, see [0070]), and at least one second part (figs. 11A-11B, hook structure 54) where the at least one knee embodiment is connected to the at least one second body (fig. 1, tibia module 22, figs. 11A-11B, knee joint component 23 includes hook structure 54 which allows connection to 22, see [0070]), 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 is a compliant manner to a bio-mechanics of the knee joint (see annotated fig. 11A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
706
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the system of Huang reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on the at least one first body (fig. 1, femur module 21) is connected to the leg upper part by means of at least one thigh connection element (fig. 3, thigh belt 214 attaches to a thigh of a user, see [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, the system of Huang reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on the at least one second body (fig. 1, tibia module 22) is connected to the leg lower part by means of at least one shank connection element (fig. 5, shank belt 223 attaches to a shank of a user, see [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, the system of Huang reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on the at least one isogram mechanism (figs. 11A-11B, cam 52 and hook module 54) is configured to fit a user around a knee of the user ([0070] states figs. 11A-11B corresponds to a force transmission device 50, [0067] states a force transmission device 50 controls the knee joint component 23, and fig. 1, knee joint component 23 is positioned around the knee of a user).
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 Huang in view of Choi et al. (US 10,688,009).
Regarding claim 3, the system of Huang reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the foot piece (fig. 1, foot module 30) can be connected to the rest of the device (fig. 5, tibia module connector 224 allows tibia module 22 to connect with foot module 30, see [0059]), 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 Huang with the motion assistance apparatus as taught by Choi to connect the foot piece (fig. 1, foot module 30) to the tibia module (fig. 1, 22) 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 Tong in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0254854).
Regarding claim 4, the system of Huang reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on at least one foot embodiment (fig. 1, foot module 30), 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 foot piece of Tong 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]).
Response to Arguments
14. 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
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tung et al. (US 2016/0374888) discloses a leg support exoskeleton strapped to a user’s leg that uses a force generator which can include a spring.
16. 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.
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