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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The arguments presented in “Remarks” dated 04/08/2026 have been carefully considered and are persuasive. The examiner agrees that Maynard does not teach the required limitation of claim 1. The previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, after further search and consideration due to the change in scope with the addition of limitation “thereby cancelling an operation of the wearable suit”, a new rejection has been made below.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2023/0041426 A1), hereafter Park in view of Noda et al. (US 2007/0247101 A1), hereafter Noda.
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a method of controlling a wearable suit (fig. 12, wearable robot 20 may be worn on the arms or legs [0176]) comprising a muscular strength assistance unit (fig. 1A, soft actuator 10 includes thermal reactive members 100 [0060]) including a shape memory alloy material (fig. 1A, thermal reactive member 100 may include a shape memory alloy [0072]), the method comprising: heating the muscular strength assistance unit ([0062] heat is applied to the thermal reactive member 100) to provide an auxiliary force to a user of the wearable suit ([0062] heat causes 100 to contract, [0174] soft actuators 10a and 10b are arranged for strength support, figs. 14a-b); and after heating the muscular strength assistance unit, cooling the muscular strength assistance unit ([0122] and figs. 8A-8C [0140-0142]), to reduce the auxiliary force ([0138] cooling of the soft actuators relaxes the actuator, thus reducing the force), wherein cooling the muscular strength assistance unit comprises cooling the muscular strength assistance unit based on an operating time of the wearable suit ([0143] the cooling speed can either be increased by the cool air supplier 600, or the natural cooling of the device after the current is no longer supplied [0144]; [0065] the sensor 320 may sense a motion of the user’s muscle, and [0068] the controller controls the current to thermal reactive member 100 based on information from the sensor; thus, cooling begins at the time that the sensor detects the user’s muscle no longer needs to support a load [0065]).
However, Park is silent on the cooling being based on an operating time of the wearable suit set in advance to have a predetermined duration, thereby cancelling an operation of the wearable suit.
Noda teaches a shape metal alloy actuator (abstract) that is operated based on a predetermined length of time ([0027] current is applied to the SMA actuator with a time duration “a” that corresponds to “on”) and cooling begins after the energization is suspended at the end of the time period ([0036]). After the time of cooling, the actuation of the SMA is canceled, i.e., is no longer actuated ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate Park’s SMA actuators to be heated and then cooled when a predetermined time period is reached, thereby canceling an operation of the wearable suit, since Noda teaches that it was known in the art to operate an SMA actuator based on a predetermined duration, in order to conserve electric power particularly when a compact portable energy storage device is used, such as a battery (Noda [0006]).
Regarding Claim 7, Park discloses a method of claim 1, further comprising detecting a load of an object acting on the wearable suit ([0065] a sensor 320 includes an electromyography sensor which detects a muscle motion associated with supporting a load), wherein heating or cooling the muscular strength assistance unit includes heating or cooling the muscular strength assistance unit based on the load ([0069] the controller uses the electromyography sensor data to calculate a force for bending the arm to obtain a target force for the actuator).
Regarding Claim 8, Park discloses a wearable suit (fig. 12, wearable robot 20 may be worn on the arms or legs [0176]) configured to assist a user of the wearable suit to move an object (figs. 15A-B and [0174] the soft actuators are used for strength support), comprising: a muscular strength assistance unit (fig. 1A, soft actuator 10 includes thermal reactive members 100 [0060]) including a shape memory alloy material (fig. 1A, thermal reactive member 100 may include a shape memory alloy [0072]) and configured to provide, when heated ([0062] heat is applied to the thermal reactive member 100), an auxiliary force to a muscular strength of the user ([0062] heat causes 100 to contract, [0174] soft actuators 10a and10b are arranged for strength support, figs. 14a-b) and decrease the auxiliary force when cooled ([0122] and figs. 8A-8C [0140-0142]; [0138] cooling of the soft actuators relaxes the actuator, thus reducing the force); and a control unit configured to heat or cool the muscular strength assistance unit (fig. 12, controller 300 controls the power supply to heat or cool [0173]), wherein the control unit is configured to cool the heated muscular strength assistance unit based on an operating time of the wearable suit ([0143] the cooling speed can either be increased by the cool air supplier 600, or the natural cooling of the device after the current is no longer supplier [0144]; [0065] the sensor 320 may sense a motion of the user’s muscle, and [0068] the controller controls the current to thermal reactive member 100 based on information from the sensor; thus, cooling begins at the time that the sensor detects the user’s muscle no longer needs to support a load [0065]).
However, Park is silent on the cooling being based on an operating time of the wearable suit set in advance to have a predetermined duration, thereby cancelling an operation of the wearable suit.
Noda teaches a shape metal alloy actuator (abstract) that is operated based on a predetermined length of time ([0027] current is applied to the SMA actuator with a time duration “a” that corresponds to “on”) and cooling begins after the energization is suspended at the end of the time period ([0036]). A the time of cooling, the actuation of the SMA is canceled, i.e., is no longer actuated ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate Park’s SMA actuators to be heated and then cooled when a predetermined time period is reached, thereby canceling an operation of the wearable suit, since Noda teaches that it was known in the art to operate an SMA actuator based on a predetermined duration, in order to conserve electric power particularly when a compact portable energy storage device is used, such as a battery (Noda [0006]).
Regarding Claim 15, Park discloses a wearable suit of claim 8, further comprising a sensing unit configured to detect a load of the object acting on the wearable suit ([0065] a sensor 320 includes an electromyography sensor which detects a muscle motion associated with supporting a load), wherein the control unit is configured to heat or cool the muscular strength assistance unit based on the load of the object ([0069] the controller uses the electromyography sensor data to calculate a force for bending the arm to obtain a target force for the actuator).
Claims 2-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Park and Noda, further in view of Andrianesis (US 2017/0203432 A1), hereafter Andrianesis.
Regarding Claim 2, Park discloses a method of claim 1, but is silent on the method further comprising detecting a temperature of the muscular strength assistance unit, wherein cooling the muscular strength assistance unit further comprises cooling the muscular strength assistance unit further based on the temperature of the muscular strength assistance unit.
Andrianesis teaches a wearable assistance device (fig. 1 [0004]) that operates using a shape memory alloy ([0028]), which may include a set of sensors that provide data to a control unit (fig. 5, sensors 154, control unit 150 [0031]) to drive the actuators in response to the sensed data ([0031]). The sensors may include a temperature sensor ([0032]) to monitor the temperature of the actuators in order to prevent extreme temperature conditions that may lead to hardware failure and/or user harm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a method of detecting a temperature of the muscular strength assistance unit, as taught by Andrianesis, which provides operational information to the control unit to responsively drive the actuators, such that in the modified Park device, which also has a control unit, would be able to responsively operate the cool air supplier such that cooling the muscular strength assistance unit further comprises cooling the muscular strength assistance unit further based on the temperature of the muscular strength assistance unit, in order to prevent overheating in the actuators and thereby protecting the hardware and the user from excessive heat.
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Park discloses a method of claim 2, but is silent on further comprising displaying, via a display unit, operation information of the wearable suit.
However, Andrianesis teaches a user interface (fig. 1, 120 [069]) that includes a display module (fig. 7, display 208 and status indicators 212 [0069]) which displays operation mode, faults, or alerts ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displaying operation information of Park’s wearable suit using a display as taught by Andrianesis, for the benefit of communicating alerts and faults to the user.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Park discloses a method of claim 3, wherein the operation information includes at least one of: information as to whether the wearable suit is operating ([0072]); information as to whether the wearable suit fails (as modified by Andrianesis, [0072] status indicators 212 can display faults).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Park discloses a method of claim 3, wherein the display unit includes one or more LED lamps (as modified by Andrianesis, both the display module 208 and the status indicators 212 are LEDs [0070], [0072]).
Regarding Claim 9, Park discloses a wearable suit of claim 8, but is silent on further comprising a temperature sensor.
Andrianesis teaches a wearable assistance device (fig. 1 [0004]) that operates using a shape memory alloy ([0028]), in which the device may include a set of sensors that provide data to a control unit (fig. 5, sensors 154 [0031]) to drive the actuators in response to the sensed data ([0031]). The sensors may include a temperature sensor ([0032]) to monitor the temperature of the actuators in order to prevent extreme temperature conditions that may lead to hardware failure and/or user harm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of the muscular strength assistance unit, as taught by Andrianesis, which provides operational information to the control unit to responsively drive the actuators, such that in the modified Park device, which also has a control unit, would be able to responsively operate the cool air supplier such that the control unit is configured to cool the muscular strength assistance unit further based on the temperature of the muscular strength assistance unit, in order to prevent overheating in the actuators and thereby protecting the hardware and the user from excessive heat.
Regarding Claim 10, Park discloses a wearable suit of claim 8, but is silent on further comprising a display unit configured to display operation information of the wearable suit.
However, Andrianesis teaches a user interface (fig. 1, 120 [069]) that includes a display module (fig. 7, display 208 and status indicators 212 [0069]) which displays operation mode, faults, or alerts ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displaying operation information of Park’s wearable suit using a display as taught by Andrianesis, for the benefit of communicating alerts and faults to the user.
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Park discloses a wearable suit of claim 10, wherein the display unit is disposed on an arm of the user (as modified by Andrianesis, the display is located on the user interface 120, which is located on the arm of the user, fig. 1 [0031]).
Claims 6, 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Park and Noda, further in view of Angel Robotics (KR 102174522 B1), hereafter Angel Robotics. A machine translation is relied upon to address claims.
Regarding Claim 6, Park discloses a method of claim 1, but is silent on first and second switches.
However, Angel Robotics teaches a wearable assistance device (fig. 1, 10 [0001]) that comprises first and second switches (fig. 2, switching unit 610 [0058]; [0085] both arms may have assistive units, each having a traction wire [0085]), determining whether at least one of the first and second switches is contacting an object to be moved by the user ([0080] the elastic switch 611 of the switching unit 610 is pressed by the operator lifting a heavy object); determining that the user has inputted an operation signal in response to determining that at least one of the first and second switches is contacting the object ([0090] the encoder also detects rotation of the link member to determine the operation intention of the wearer), and in response to determining that the user has inputted the operation signal, activates the muscular strength unit ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s assistive suit to include first and second switches such that heating Park’s actuators includes determining whether at least one of the first and second switches are contacting an object to be moved by the user, determining that the user has input an operation signal, such as walking forward, in response to determining that at least one of the first and second switches is contacting the object, and in response to determining that the user has input the operation signal, heating the muscular strength assistance unit in order to operate the device, for the benefit of providing assistive force of the arm automatically without an additional control signal being needed during work (Angel Robotics [0029]).
Regarding Claim 12, Park discloses a wearable suit of claim 8, but is silent on the device further comprising first and second switches.
Angel Robotics teaches a wearable assistance device (fig. 1, 10 [0001]) that comprises first and second switches (fig. 2, switching unit 610 [0058]; [0085] both arms may have assistive units, each having a traction wire [0085]), wherein the control unit is configured to: determine whether at least one of the first and second switches is contacting the object ([0080] the elastic switch 611 of the switching unit 610 is pressed by the operator lifting a heavy object); determine that the user has inputted an operation signal in response to determining that at least one of the first and second switches is contacting the object ([0090] the encoder also detects rotation of the link member to determine the operation intention of the wearer), and in response to determining that the user has inputted the operation signal, activates the muscular strength unit ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s assistive suit to include first and second switches such that heating Park’s actuators includes determining whether at least one of the first and second switches are contacting an object to be moved by the user, determining that the user has input an operation signal, such as walking forward, in response to determining that at least one of the first and second switches is contacting the object, and in response to determining that the user has input the operation signal, heating the muscular strength assistance unit in order to operate the device, for the benefit of providing assistive force of the arm automatically without an additional control signal being needed during work (Angel Robotics [0029]).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Park discloses a wearable suit of claim 12, but does not disclose whether the first and second switches respectively include first and second wearing members configured to be disposed respectively on both forearms of the user. Instead, as modified by Angel Robotics, the switch is located on the palm of the user’s hand (fig. 2 [0029]).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to rearrange the position of the switches to the forearms rather than the palms, since a user lifting a heavy load will likely still be able to active the switches by contacting a heavy load, since the forearms are also expected to contact large, heavy objects in order to lift them. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Park discloses a wearable suit of claim 12, but does not disclose whether the first and second switches respectively include first and second wearing members configured to be disposed respectively on both wrists of the user. Instead, as modified by Angel Robotics, the switch is located on the palms of the user’s hand (fig. 2 [0029]).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to rearrange the position of the switches to the wrists rather than the palms, since a user lifting a heavy load will likely still be able to active the switches by contacting a heavy load, since the wrists are also expected to contact large, heavy objects in order to lift them. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding Claim 16, Park as modified discloses a method of claim 6, wherein, when determining whether at least one of the first and second switches is contacting the object, determining that the user has inputted the operation signal includes: determining whether at least one of the first and second switches contacts the object a set number of times within a set time (Angel Robotics [0087] the switch is pressed, interpreted to be once, on the load); and determining that the user has inputted the operation signal when it is determined that at least one of the first and second switches contacts the object the set number of times within the set time (Angel Robotics [0086] the signal is generated and transmitted to the controller 220 and the actuator generates traction).
Regarding Claim 17, Park as modified discloses a wearable suit of claim 12, wherein the control unit is further configured to: determine whether at least one of the first and second switches contacts the object a set number of times within a set time (Angel Robotics [0087] the switch is pressed, interpreted to be once, on the load); and determine that the user has inputted the operation signal when it is determined that the at least one of the first and second switches contacts the object the set number of times within the set time (Angel Robotics [0086] the signal is generated and transmitted to the controller 220 and the actuator generates traction).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA K. TOICH whose telephone number is (703)756-1450. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30 am - 4:30 pm, every other F 7:30-3:30 ET.
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, Brandy S. Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/SARA K TOICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights