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 .
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 6-14 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.
In regards to Claim 6, the phrase “according to any one of claim 3” is unclear. There is only one claim listed. As such, it is unclear how a choice of “any one of” can be made.
In regards to Claim 7, the phrase “according to any one of claim 4” is unclear. There is only one claim listed. As such, it is unclear how a choice of “any one of” can be made.
In regards to Claim 8, the phrase “according to any one of claim 5” is unclear. There is only one claim listed. As such, it is unclear how a choice of “any one of” can be made.
In regards to Claim 9, the phrase “the spherical joints of the three branch mechanisms” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regards to Claim 13, the phrase “the support airbag” is unclear. Which of the “two support airbags” is being referenced?
In regards to Claim 14, the phrase “the support airbag” is unclear. Which of the “two support airbags” is being referenced?
Further in regards to Claim 14, the phrase “the bellow airbag” is unclear. Which of the “a plurality of bellow airbags” is being referenced?
The remaining claims inherit the rejection by dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colja et al (20100244504).
In regards to Claim 1, Colja teaches a pose-adjustable rigid-flexible coupled waist rehabilitation robot (intended use, can be used for this purpose), comprising a fixed platform (Detail 36), a movable platform (Detail 24, which can be removed, making it movable) connected to the fixed platform, a lumbar vertebra support assembly (see annotated figure below) mounted on the movable platform (Figure 2), and two support airbags (see annotated figure below) symmetrically arranged at both sides of the lumbar vertebra support assembly; and the lumbar vertebra support assembly comprises a plurality of bellow air bags (Figure 5) arranged in parallel.
PNG
media_image1.png
442
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colja et al in view of Renzi (4993171).
In regards to Claim 13, while Colja essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach a gasket is provided between each of four corners of each support airbag and the movable platform, and the support airbag is connected to the movable platform by bolts penetrating through four bolt holes and the gaskets. Renzi, however, teaches that this use of a gasket and bolts with an airbag is well known (Figure 3, Details 35, 52, 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized such a gasket, so as to maintain proper air pressure in the airbag by ensuring air cannot escape at the point of connection.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colja et al.
In regards to Claim 14, while Colja essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, including a contact surface made of comfortable material (intended use is a chair for sitting), it fails to specifically teach the use of soft silica gel. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized any suitable material for user contact, including silica gel. The device of Colja is intended to contact a user, and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been more than capable of determining what material to form the surface out of. It should be noted, applicant provides no criticality or unexpected results arising from the use of silica gel aside from comfort, which would be an obvious consideration for the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record.
Specifically, at least DeFranks et al (20190174930) Figure 1, Borgman et al (20150305959) Figure 3, and Ro (JP 2004216109) Figure 2 teach elements similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732