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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one upper joint element” of claim 1 line 3 “at least one lower joint element” of claim 1 line 4 “at least one force transmission element” of claim 2 line 2-3 “ a first engagement element” of claim 12 lines 4-5 “a second engagement element” of claim 12 line 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: in line 7 of the abstract, the term “ orthopedicdevice ” should read --orthopedic device-- to separate the two terms correctly. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claim s 1, 7, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1 line 5 and claim 12 line 7 , the term s “ pivotablerelative ” and “ pivotableabout ” respectively should read --pivotable relative-- and --pivotable about-- respectively to separate the two terms correctly for grammatical sense. Regarding claim 7 lines 2-3 , the term “joint element (.” should read --joint element.-- thus omitting the erroneous parathes is. Regarding claims 7-11 line 1, the respective preambles, such as in claim 7, of “The orthopedic device according to claim 7 wherein” should read --The orthopedic device according to claim 7, wherein-- adding the comma after the respective claim recitation in order to remain consistent with patent claim writing. Appropriate correction is required. 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: “at least one upper joint element” of claim 1 line 3 “at least one lower joint element” of claim 1 line 4 “at least one actuator” of claim 1 line 6 “at least one ground contact element” of claim 1 line 10 “at least one force transmission element” of claim 2 line 2-3 “a mechanical energy store” of claim 11 line 2 “an upper body element” of claim 12 line 2 “an upper leg element” of claim 12 line 3 “a pelvic element” of claim 12 line 3-4 “ a first engagement element” of claim 12 line 4-5 “a second engagement element” of claim 12 line 5 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-12 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 1 line 13 , the term “torque applied” is unclear as to if this is the same or different from “a torque” in line 6. Regarding claim 10 line 1 , the term “wherein a 8 lower leg shell” is unclear as to what is meant by the claim language and the use of “8” within the claim. Regarding claim 12 line 12 , the term “the mechanical energy store” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. 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 1-5, 7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2015/0321340). Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a n orthopedic device for supporting a lower limb and/or a lower back of a user ( Title “Legged Robotic device…” and exoskeleton 100 overall) , comprising: at least one upper joint element ( support member 121a with back member 110 ) , at least one lower joint element ( support member 121c) , wherein the at least one upper joint element and the at least one lower joint element are pivotablerelative to each other ( [0016] coupling of support members 121c and 121a rotates about axis 131a, corresponding to hip flexion/extension) , at least one actuator configured to apply a torque to the at least one upper joint element and/or the at least one lower joint element for pivoting the at least one upper joint element and the at least one lower joint element relative to each other ( actuator 140 ; [0017] “ the primary drive actuator 140 can be operable to apply a force or a torque to the support members 121a- i ”, including 121 a to 121c to complete the rotation about axis 131a discussed above ) , and at least one ground contact element connected to the at least one lower joint element such that when the orthopedic device is in a mounted state ( support member 121i) , a force is transmitted by the at least one ground contact element to a ground on which the user is located as a result of torque applied by the at least one actuator ( [0017] above discusses how actuator 140 applies force/torque to support members 121a-i. [0024] the device can be used for standing or walking, both of which involve a shift of force into the ground, in this case via the ground contacting member 121i ). Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses the at least one ground contact element is connected to the at least one lower joint element via at least one force transmission element ( support members 121g-h are connecting support member 121i [ground element] to support member 121c [lower joint element]) . Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses the at least one ground contact element is arranged on the at least one force transmission element such that the at least one ground contact element is displaced with the at least one force transmission element ( [0016] coupling of support member 121h to support member 121i about rotation axis 131d ; displacement is corresponding to ankle flexion/extension). Regarding claim 4, Smith discloses the at least one force transmission element is displaceable relative to the at least one ground contact element ( see rejection to claim 3 above) and wherein a connection that transmits force is established between the at least one force transmission element and the at least one ground contact element by the at least one force transmission element being displaced by the torque applied by the at least one actuator ( [0017] “ the primary drive actuator 140 can be operable to apply a force or a torque to the support members 121a- i ”, meaning the flexion/extension between support members 12 1 h and 12 1 i is controlled by the applied torque) . Regarding claim 5, Smith discloses the at least one force transmission element is pivotably arranged on the at least one lower joint element ( support members 1 21 h and 12 1 i rotatably pivot about axis 131d ). Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses the at least one ground contact element is arranged at a distal end of the at least one lower joint ele ment ( support member 121i is arranged at the distal end of support member 121h). Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses the at least one ground contact element protrudes frontally over the at least one upper joint element ( support member 121i protrudes along with the direction of the foot, protruding frontally over the support members 121g-h lined up with the shin). Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses the at least one force transmission element is rotatable about a longitudinal axis of the at least one force transmission element ( [0019] support members 121g and 1 21h rotate about axis 131c relative to one another). Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses the at least one actuator comprises a mechanical energy store ([0022] “When powered, the actuators 140-143 can comprise any suitable type of actuator, such as a hydraulic actuator, a pneumatic actuator, and/or an electric actuator.”). 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Maxwell et al. (US 9,808,073; hereinafter “Maxwell”). Regarding claim 6 , Smith is silent as to the at least one force transmission element comprises a lower leg shell mountable on a lower leg of the user that is along a longitudinal extension of the at least one force transmission element relative to the at least one force transmission element. However, Maxwell teaches the at least one force transmission element comprises a lower leg shell mountable on a lower leg of the user that is along a longitudinal extension of the at least one force transmission element relative to the at least one force transmission element ( see Maxwell calf support 950 provided on the fibula component 900, extending at least a portion of the longitudinal length of fibula component 900) . 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 at least one force transmission element of Smith with the addition of a lower leg shell as taught by Maxwell so as to provide more support in the leg to the user . Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Maxwell. Regarding claim 10, Smith is silent as to a 8 lower leg shell is arranged on the distal section of the at least one force transmission element. However, Maxwell teaches a 8 lower leg shell is arranged on the distal section of the at least one force transmission element ( see Maxwell calf support 950 provided on the fibula component 900, extending at least a portion of the longitudinal length of fibula component 900) . 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 distal end of the at least one force transmission element of Smith with the addition of a lower leg shell as taught by Maxwell so as to provide more support in the leg to the user . Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses the at least one upper joint element is an upper body element ( see Smith support member 121a is on the upper hip area of the body) and the at least one lower joint element is an upper leg element ( see Smith support member 121c is on the thigh portion of the leg ) , and wherein the orthopedic device further comprises a pelvic element ( see Smith base member 110) , wherein the upper body element comprises a first engagement element ( see Smith support member 121b) and the upper leg element comprises a second engagement element ( see Smith support member 121f ) , wherein the upper leg element is arranged on the pelvic element such that the upper leg element is pivotatableabout a first pivot axis ( see Smith support member 121a in contact with base member 110 is able to pivot about both axis 131a and rotate in direction 144) , the upper body element is movably arranged relative to the pelvic element ( see Smith direction of rotation 144 corresponding the members 110 and 121a) , the first engagement element is engageable and/or disengageable from the second engagement element by moving the upper body element relative to the pelvic element ( see Smith [0017] “the primary drive actuator 140 can apply a force or torque to the support member 121b (i.e., in direction 144), which can serve as an input linkage, to cause the mechanism 120 to move” ; wherein the movement in direction 144 is the movement between pelvic element member 110 and upper body element member 121a caused by the “input linkage” engagement of support member 121b ) , and the mechanical energy store is chargeable and/or dischargeable by pivoting the upper leg element relative to the upper body element when the first engagement element is engaged with the second engagement element ( see Smith members 121a and 121c pivotable about axis 131a are moved when actuator 140 engages via applying the input linkage member 121b ) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. Accoto et al. (US 2015/0272809) is cited to show an assistance device for the lower limb with leg sleeves/cuff. Sugar et al. (US 2014/0200715) is cited to show a body motion apparatus for moving the lower limbs via springs. Amundson et al. (US 2010/0094185), Zoss et al. (US 10,327,975), and Woo et al. (US 10,751,884) are cited to show an exoskeleton with actuators providing torque for locomotion. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4742 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Justine Yu can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4835 . 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