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 01/26/2026. As directed by the amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 1 and 4 were amended, and no claims were newly added. Thus, claims 1-10 are presently pending in this application.
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:
“a rotation control portion” in claim 1 line 7
The corresponding structure is “Specifically, the rotation control portion 400 may include a coupling portion 410… the coupling portion 410 (for example, the solenoid stroke)” (spec page 11 lines 2 and 7-8)
“an abnormal situation detection portion” of claim 2 line 2
The corresponding structure is “the abnormal situation detection portion may be the acceleration sensor, the angular velocity sensor or the angle sensor” (spec page 12 line 8-9)
“a control portion” of claim 2 line 4 and claim 7 line 4
“a coupling portion” of claim 5 line 2 and claim 10 line 2
The corresponding structure is “the coupling portion 410 (for example, the solenoid stroke)” (spec page 11 line 7-8; and page 3 line 13)
“a displacement detection portion” of claim 7 line 2
The corresponding structure is “ the displacement detection portion is a hall sensor or an imaging sensor” (spec page 3 line 21-22)
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 2 and 9 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 2 lines 4-7, the term “a control portion to receive the abnormal situation of the human body from the abnormal situation detection portion, and control the rotation control portion to allow the rotation member to rotate relative to the load providing portion when the abnormal situation of the human body occurs” is unclear as to how the control portion structures differs from the rotation control portion structure. Amended drawings Figs. 2A-B show a connection between the two structures, but it is unclear how the two operate and function together.
Regarding claim 9 lines 1-2, the term “the recesses” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim limitation “a control portion” of claim 2 line 4 and claim 7 line 4” 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.
Regarding claim limitation “a control portion”, the specification does not provide any disclosure that could provide linkage between the structure and function of this limitation. The specification mentions the control portion is able to “receive” and “determine”, but no distinct structure that can perform those functions is provided. 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.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding claim 4 lines 3-4, the term “…are connected to a joint of the human body” encompasses structures directly connecting to the human body, which improperly claims a human organism. Therefore, the claim is rejected as claiming the human organism.
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 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilbert et al. (US 2010/0160844; hereinafter “Gilbert”).
Regarding claim 1, Gilbert discloses a gait rehabilitation device (actuated orthotic device 12 with high torque active mechanism 10), comprising:
a load providing portion (joint assembly 32’s magnetorheological (MR) rotational damper 34 and proximolateral support 26 and distolateral support 28; connecting to the upper/lower leg of the user) including a body and a rotating shaft (stator body 54 and rotor body 82) which rotates relative to the body to generate a load ([0047] “magnetorheological (MR) rotational damper 34… commands the braking torque provided by the high torque active mechanism 10” against the knee joint rotation), wherein the rotating shaft is couplable to a first portion of a human body (damper 34 within high torque active mechanism 10 in Fig. 1 is coupled to the side of the human leg);
a rotation member rotatably coupled to the body and couplable to a second portion of the human body (joint assembly 32’s bearing covers 50a, b; one side contacting the user’s knee joint); and
a rotation control portion to allow or disallow the rotation member to rotate relative to the load providing portion (rotational locking mechanism 44, which specifically is locking pin 66 inserts into holes 67a, 67b of bearing covers 50a, 50b, blocking rotational movement between the supports 26, 28, which includes rotational movement of damper 34 and covers 50a,b).
Regarding claim 3, Gilbert discloses the load providing portion is a rotary damper (MR rotational damper 34).
Regarding claim 4, Gilbert discloses the first portion of the human body couplable to the load providing portion and the second portion of the human body couplable to the rotation member are connected to a joint of the human body (actuated orthotic device 12, comprising all structures, on lateral side of user’s knee K Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Gilbert discloses the rotation control portion includes a coupling portion coupled to the rotation member and configured to linearly move (Fig. 4 rotational locking mechanism 44 comprising through holes 67a,b for retaining pin 64), and
wherein as the coupling portion linearly moves, the coupling portion is inserted into a recess formed in the body or separated from the recess (retaining pin 64 is moved linearly into and out of through holes 67a,b, or recesses).
Regarding claim 7, Gilbert discloses a displacement detection portion to detect a displacement of the body with respect to the rotation member (torque sensor 38, Fig. 10 to Fig. 11 shows displacement upon rotation); and
a control portion to receive the displacement of the body with respect to the rotation member from the displacement detection portion ([0045] “other components required for the control of the actuation mechanism such as, for example, a processing module 18, power management module 20, a power source 22… and a sensor module 24”), and insert the coupling portion into the recess when the coupling portion and the recess are aligned with each other (rotational locking mechanism 44, which is seen in Figs. 10-11 but not labeled as the leftmost extension comprising two through holes, is effected by the rotation and thus displacement of torque sensor 38. Pin 64 enters through holes 67a,b).
Regarding claim 9, Gilbert discloses a plurality of the recesses is arranged at a predetermined interval along an outer circumferential surface of the body (Fig. 2 multiple through holes 67a,b along circumferential direction).
Regarding claim 10, Gilbert discloses all of the claimed structures (see rejection to claim 5 above), and discloses wherein the body has a depression and a projection continuously formed along an outer circumferential surface (Fig. 3 needle bearing sets 52a-b show a textured surface with depressions and projections that connect to the rotor of damper module 34), and as the coupling portion linearly moves (Pin 64 in through holes 67a), the coupling portion is separated from the depression (Fig. 3 pin 64 is located on band 63, which connects to needle bearing sets 52a-b, but is separated from the depressions along bearing sets 52a-b).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tong et al. (US 2016/0331560; hereinafter “Tong”).
Regarding claim 2, Gilbert discloses a situation detection portion to detect a situation of the human body (rotational sensor 36; [0047] “measures the relative angle between the proximolateral 26 and the distolateral 28 structural supports”), but is silent as to detecting an abnormal situation of the human body. However, Tong teaches an abnormal situation detection portion to detect an abnormal situation of the human body ([0041] Motion sensors placed on thigh, shank, or foot part of the exoskeleton, can be joint angle sensors, gyroscope or accelerometer… [0053] “connected with a connection cable 38 from the sensor to the control box 37 to provide power and signal communication”… [0020] “an angular velocity detected by the motion sensor is larger than an angular velocity threshold”. Meaning the motion sensor detects beyond a threshold value and communicates the information to the controller of the device). 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 situation detection portion, in the form of a rotational sensor, of Gilbert with the abnormal situation detection portion as taught by Tong so as to maintain the user’s safety in the threshold amount user’s leg can rotate in the device.
Modified Gilbert discloses a control portion to receive the abnormal situation of the human body from the abnormal situation detection portion (see Gilbert [0045] “other components required for the control of the actuation mechanism such as, for example, a processing module 18, power management module 20, a power source 22… and a sensor module 24”), and control the rotation control portion to allow the rotation member to rotate relative to the load providing portion when the abnormal situation of the human body occurs (if the detected angular velocity, as taught by Tong, was over a threshold value such as in an abnormal situation for the human body, the relative rotation of Gilbert controlled by actuation would account for the abnormal value).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sankai et al. (US 2024/0390211; hereinafter “Sankai”).
Regarding claim 6, Gilbert is silent as to the coupling portion is a solenoid stroke. However, Sankai teaches the coupling portion is a solenoid stroke (see Sankai Fig. 14A [0082] lock mechanism unit 72 “as operated by an electromagnetic solenoid is provided in the recess 70X”. The lock mechanism unit 72 acts as a stopper, comprising a coupling portion solenoid, against thigh part rotation of the knee joint connector 60). 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 coupling portion of Gilbert with the coupling portion as a solenoid stroke as taught by Sankai as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of coupling portion rotational stopper for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. couple in order to limit rotation of the joint.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Noda et al. (US 2019/0047161; hereinafter “Noda”).
Regarding claim 8, Gilbert is silent as to the displacement detection portion is a hall sensor or an imaging sensor. However, Noda teaches the displacement detection portion is a hall sensor or an imaging sensor (see Noda encoder 20 within rotational structure 10, as torque sensor 38 is in Gilbert, wherein [0077] encoder 20 is an optical reflection encoder… or Hall element). 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 displacement detection portion of Gilbert with the hall or imaging sensor as taught by Noda as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of displacement sensor for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. determine displacement upon rotation of a rotational element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 7-8 of the remarks, that “Gilbert fails to disclose a technical feature corresponding to the rotation member (300) of claim 1”. However, Examiner disagrees and has clarified the amended claim’s rejection on the record. As claimed, the rotation member (300) is disclosed by Gilbert. Therefore, the rejection still stands.
Applicant argues, on page 9 of the remarks, that “Gilbert fails to disclose the rotation control portion (400) of claim 1”. However, Examiner disagrees because the rotational locking mechanism 44, and subsequent parts including the locking pin arrangement (67a,b; 66) does prevent rotation amongst the components inside joint assembly 32 and thus the support structures 26, 28 running up and down the user’s leg. Overall, rotation movement as claimed is stopped relative to the rotation member relative to the load providing portion. Examiner has clarified the amended claim’s rejection on the record. Therefore, the rejection still stands.
Applicant argues, on page 9 of the remarks, that “Gilbert is silent with an abnormal situation detection portion and a control portion” in the argument section regarding 35 USC 102 rejections. However, the language regarding these structures is in claim 2, and is rejected under 35 USC 103. Gilbert is not solely relied on to teach this claim language in the rejection. Therefore, the rejection still stands.
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