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 . Claims 41-60 are pending and examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference number (125), seen in paragraph 65 is not shown in drawings. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference numbers (111 and 115), seen in Figs. 1 and 3 are not mentioned in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “209” has been used to designate both protective component and rubber seal. 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. 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 Interpretation
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.
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.
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: an assistive device in claims 41, 46-47, 50, 55, 57, and 60; a tensioning element in claims 41-43, 55-56, and 60; and a protective component in claims 48-53 and 60.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 41-60 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 claims 41, 50, and 60, the phrase "assistive device" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural features or material characteristics are required for a device to be considered “assistive”. The dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claims 41-42, 50, and 60, the phrase "tensioning element" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural features or material characteristics are required for a device to be considered “a tensioning element”. The dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claims 48, 50, and 60, the phrase "substantial entirety" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if a first protective component need to cover the whole junction or just a portion. The dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claims 48-53, and 60, the phrase "protective component" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural features or material characteristics are required for a device to be considered “a protective member”. The dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 53, the phrase "proximate" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the first protective component is attached “proximal” to the switch or if the first protective component is attached near the switch.
Claim limitations “an assistive device” in claims 41, 46-47, 50, 55, 57, and 60; “a tensioning element” in claims 41-43, 55-56, and 60; and “a protective component” in claims 48-53 and 60” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is not description provided in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
(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.
Claims 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Romo et al (US 2020/0229960 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Romo et al discloses an exoskeleton device (abstract) comprising: a frame arranged for wearing along a back by a user (Fig. 1: body interface (100), paragraph 0034); a first assistive device arranged for assisting the user in exerting physical efforts by offsetting different degrees of gravitational torque about a first axis of rotation (Fig. 3: first attachment (150), paragraphs 0045-0048; also see MPEP 2114(II)); and a first hinge mechanism for attaching the first assistive device to the frame (Fig. 3: multiple-degrees-of-freedom attachments (308), paragraph 0061); wherein the frame has a width adjustment feature for adjusting the first assistive device to correspond to a width of the user's shoulders (Fig. 1: adjustment system (110), paragraph 0038; also see MPEP 2114(II)); wherein the width adjustment feature includes a tensioning element for translating the first assistive device in a medial direction and a lateral direction (Fig. 1: tensioning elements (122), paragraph 0041; also see MPEP 2114(II)), the width adjustment feature further including an adjustment mechanism for providing a desired degree of tension to the tensioning element (Fig. 1: tensioning device (111), paragraph 0041; also see MPEP 2114(II)); wherein a terminal end of the tensioning element is configured to slide outwardly in the lateral direction under a natural bias of the first assistive device (a terminal end of the tensioning elements, which can be located within the adjustment mechanism, can be capable of sliding outwardly within the adjustment mechanism, paragraphs 0039-0046; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 42, Romo et al discloses the exoskeleton device of claim 41, wherein the adjustment mechanism defines a dial for tuning the tensioning element in the medial direction and the lateral direction (Fig. 4C: dial (405), paragraph 0065-0070; also see MPEP 2114(II)), the dial being configured to retain the tensioning element, thereby preventing movement of the tensioning element, and to loosen the tensioning element, thereby enabling movement of the tensioning element (paragraphs 0065-0073; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 43, Romo et al discloses the exoskeleton device of claim 41, wherein a terminal end of the tensioning element is configured to be pulled to adjust the width adjustment feature and translate the first hinge mechanism in the medial direction (the tensioning elements are capable of being pulled to translate the first hinge mechanism, paragraphs 0041-0046; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 44, Romo et al discloses the exoskeleton device of claim 41, wherein the frame forms a vertical strut configured to extend along a user's back (Fig. 1: frame (102) includes a vertical strut, paragraph 0035) and a horizontal strut configured to extend from a top surface of the vertical strut between the user's shoulders (Fig. 1: frame (102) includes a horizontal strut, paragraph 0035; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 45, Romo et al discloses the exoskeleton device of claim 44, wherein the terminal end is arranged to drop down along the vertical strut of the frame to indicate a width corresponding to the width of the user's shoulders (a terminal end of the tensioning elements, which can be located within the adjustment mechanism, can be capable of sliding outwardly out of the adjustment mechanism, paragraphs 0039-0046; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo et al (US 2020/0229960 A1), in view of Mosie et al (US 2020/0139537 A1).
Regarding claim 46, Romo et al discloses the exoskeleton device of claim 41, however doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the first assistive device comprises an elastic mechanism, housed within a body.
Mosie et al discloses a system for assisting an operator in exerting efforts, where the system includes a compensation device that includes a tension regulation device to regulate a moment obtained about a joint of the operator (abstract). Mosie et al further discloses wherein the first assistive device comprises an elastic mechanism (Fig. 12: elastic member (306), paragraph 0111), housed within a body (Fig. 12: elastic member (306), paragraph 0111), arranged for assisting the user in exerting physical efforts by offsetting different degrees of gravitational torque about the first axis of rotation (paragraphs 0111-0114; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first assistive device taught by Romo et al to include an elastic mechanism as taught by Mosie et al because courts have found prima facie obviousness where the modification requires combing prior art elements according to know methods to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143). Here, the predictable results are that the elastic mechanism would provide the first assistive device with the capability of storing and releasing mechanical energy by changing shape when a force is applied and returning to its initial state before the force was applied, which would help a user move the exoskeleton.
Regarding claim 47, Romo et al discloses the exoskeleton device of claim 46, wherein the body includes a lateral half and a medial half that are releasably attached to one another to define an interior of the assistive device (see annotated fig. 3 below, also see paragraphs 0036), the lateral half and the medial half being joined along a junction (see annotated fig. 3 below, also see paragraphs 0036).
PNG
media_image1.png
719
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo et al (US 2020/0229960 A1), in view of Mosie et al (US 2020/0139537 A1), as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Hutter et al (US 2019/0160658 A1).
Regarding claims 48-49, Romo et al in view of Mosie et al discloses the exoskeleton device of claim 47, however doesn’t specifically disclose wherein a first protective component is provided at a substantial entirety of the junction.
Hutter et al discloses joint unit for a mechanical unit (abstract), where the joint unit includes a housing that is sealing using an elastic sealing ring (paragraph 0103). Hutter et al further discloses wherein a first protective component is provided at a substantial entirety of the junction (sealing ring (31), paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0103), the first protective component being configured to seal the interior of the body against an exterior of the body and prevent entrance of contaminants (paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0103; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first assistive device body taught by Romo et al in view of Mosie et al to include a sealing ring as taught by Hutter et al in order to protect the assistive device from water or dust (paragraph 0062).
Claims 50-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo et al (US 2020/0229960 A1), in view of Mosie et al (US 2020/0139537 A1), as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Hutter et al (US 2019/0160658 A1).
Regarding claims 50-52, Romo et al discloses an exoskeleton device (abstract) comprising: a frame arranged for wearing along a back by a user (Fig. 1: body interface (100), paragraph 0034); a first assistive device; and a first hinge mechanism for attaching the first assistive device to the frame (Fig. 3: first attachment (150), paragraphs 0045-0048; also see MPEP 2114(II)); wherein the body features a lateral half and a medial half that are releasably attached to one another to define an interior of the assistive device (see annotated fig. 3b below, also see paragraphs 0036); wherein the lateral half and the medial half are joined along a junction (see annotated fig. 3b below, also see paragraphs 0036), however doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the first assistive device has an elastic mechanism, housed within a body, arranged for assisting the user in exerting physical efforts by offsetting different degrees of gravitational torque about a first axis of rotation.
Mosie et al discloses a system for assisting an operator in exerting efforts, where the system includes a compensation device that includes a tension regulation device to regulate a moment obtained about a joint of the operator (abstract). Mosie et al further discloses wherein the first assistive device comprises an elastic mechanism (Fig. 12: elastic member (306), paragraph 0111), housed within a body (Fig. 12: elastic member (306), paragraph 0111), arranged for assisting the user in exerting physical efforts by offsetting different degrees of gravitational torque about the first axis of rotation (paragraphs 0111-0114; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first assistive device taught by Romo et al to include an elastic mechanism as taught by Mosie et al because courts have found prima facie obviousness where the modification requires combing prior art elements according to know methods to yield predicable results (see MPEP 2143). Here, the predictable results are that the elastic mechanism would provide the first assistive device with the capability of storing and releasing mechanical energy by changing shape when a force is applied and returning to its initial state before the force was applied, which would help a user move the exoskeleton; however Romo et al in view of Mosie et al doesn’t specifically disclose wherein a first protective component is provided at a substantial entirety of the junction, the first protective component being configured to seal the interior of the body against an exterior of the body and prevent entrance of contaminants.
Hutter et al discloses joint unit for a mechanical unit (abstract), where the joint unit includes a housing that is sealing using an elastic sealing ring (paragraph 0103). Hutter et al further discloses wherein a first protective component is provided at a substantial entirety of the junction (sealing ring (31), paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0103), the first protective component being configured to seal the interior of the body against an exterior of the body and prevent entrance of contaminants (paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0103; also see MPEP 2114(II)), wherein the first protective component is custom-fitted to a profile defined by a shape of the body (the sealing ring fit around the device in order to provide a custom seal, paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0103; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first assistive device body taught by Romo et al in view of Mosie et al to include a sealing ring as taught by Hutter et al in order to protect the assistive device from water or dust (paragraph 0062).
PNG
media_image2.png
719
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 53, Romo et al doesn’t specifically disclose, wherein the body includes a switch for engaging with the elastic mechanism inside the body.
Mosie et al discloses wherein the body includes a switch for engaging with the elastic mechanism inside the body and configured with the first protective component (Figs 13-14: cam switch (338), paragraphs 0115-0119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first assistive device body taught by Romo et al to include a switch as taught by Mosie et al in order to provide the user with the ability to change the tension of the elastic member within the assistive device (paragraph 0115).
Regarding claim 54, Romo et al discloses, wherein the frame has a width adjustment feature for adjusting the first assistive device to correspond to a width of the user's shoulders (Figs. 1: elastic components (121), paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 55, Romo et al discloses the exoskeleton device of claim 54, wherein the width adjustment feature includes a tensioning element for translating the first assistive device in a medial direction and a lateral direction (Figs. 1: elastic components (117), paragraphs 0058-0059), the width adjustment feature further including an adjustment mechanism for providing a desired degree of tension to the tensioning element (Figs. 1: elastic components (117), paragraphs 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 56, Romo et al discloses, wherein a terminal end of the tensioning element is configured to be pulled to adjust the width adjustment feature and translate the first hinge mechanism in a medial direction (the tensioning elements are capable of being pulled to translate the first hinge mechanism, paragraphs 0041-0046; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
Regarding claims 57, Romo et al discloses, wherein the terminal end is configured to slide outwardly in the lateral direction under a natural bias of the first assistive device (a terminal end of the tensioning elements, which can be located within the adjustment mechanism, can be capable of sliding outwardly within the adjustment mechanism, paragraphs 0039-0046; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 58, Romo et al discloses, wherein the frame forms a vertical strut configured to extend along a user's back (Fig. 1: frame (102) includes a vertical strut, paragraph 0035) and a horizontal strut configured to extend from a top surface of the vertical strut between the user's shoulders (Fig. 1: frame (102) includes a horizontal strut, paragraph 0035; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 59, Romo et al discloses, wherein the terminal end is arranged to drop down along the vertical strut of the frame to indicate a width corresponding to the width of the user's shoulders (a terminal end of the tensioning elements, which can be located within the adjustment mechanism, can be capable of sliding outwardly out of the adjustment mechanism, paragraphs 0039-0046; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo et al (US 2020/0229960 A1), in view of Hutter et al (US 2019/0160658 A1).
Regarding claim 60, Romo et al discloses an exoskeleton device (abstract) comprising: a frame arranged for wearing along a back by a user (Fig. 1: body interface (100), paragraph 0034); a first assistive device arranged for assisting the user in exerting physical efforts by offsetting different degrees of gravitational torque about a first axis of rotation (Fig. 3: first attachment (150), paragraphs 0045-0048; also see MPEP 2114(II)); and a first hinge mechanism for attaching the first assistive device to the frame (Fig. 3: multiple-degrees-of-freedom attachments (308), paragraph 0061); wherein the frame includes an adjustment mechanism for providing a desired degree of tension to a tensioning element for adjusting the first assistive device to correspond to a width of the user's shoulders (Fig. 1: adjustment system (110), paragraph 0038; also see MPEP 2114(II)), the tensioning element being configured to translate the first assistive device in a medial direction and a lateral direction (Fig. 1: tensioning elements (122), paragraph 0041; also see MPEP 2114(II)); wherein a terminal end of the tensioning element is configured to slide outwardly in the lateral direction under a natural bias of the first assistive device (the tensioning elements are capable of being pulled to translate the first hinge mechanism, paragraphs 0041-0046; also see MPEP 2114(II)); wherein the first assistive device features a body (see annotated fig. 3C below, also see paragraphs 0036), the body including a lateral half and a medial half that are releasably attached to one another to define an interior of the assistive device (see annotated fig. 3C below, also see paragraphs 0036); wherein the lateral half and the medial half are joined along a junction (see annotated fig. 3C below, also see paragraphs 0036); however doesn’t specifically disclose wherein a first protective component is provided at a substantial entirety of the junction, the first protective component being configured to seal the interior of the body against an exterior of the body and prevent entrance of contaminants.
Hutter et al discloses joint unit for a mechanical unit (abstract), where the joint unit includes a housing that is sealing using an elastic sealing ring (paragraph 0103). Hutter et al further discloses wherein a first protective component is provided at a substantial entirety of the junction (sealing ring (31), paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0103), the first protective component being configured to seal the interior of the body against an exterior of the body and prevent entrance of contaminants (paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0103; also see MPEP 2114(II)), wherein the first protective component is custom-fitted to a profile defined by a shape of the body (the sealing ring fit around the device in order to provide a custom seal, paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0103; also see MPEP 2114(II)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first assistive device body taught by Romo et al to include a sealing ring as taught by Hutter et al in order to protect the assistive device from water or dust (paragraph 0062).
PNG
media_image3.png
719
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE H TREVINO III whose telephone number is (703)756-4678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9-6 EST.
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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.
/J.H.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774