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 3, 7-9, and 17-18 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 3, the recitation “wherein the torsional spring is attached to a joint” is indefinite as it is unclear if applicant is attempting to claim a human joint of the user or another joint of the joint apparatus. If applicant is attempting to claim the joint apparatus attached to a user, the recitation should be changed to read –wherein the torsional spring is configured to be attached to the joint of the user--.
Regarding claims 7-9, “stiffness of the joint“ should read –stiffness of the joint apparatus—to provide proper antecedent basis and to clarify that applicant is claiming the stiffness of the apparatus and not the human joint of the user.
Regarding both claims 17 and 18, the recitation “torsional spring” (two occurrences in each claim) lacks antecedent basis as no torsional spring is previously recited in the claim chain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11, 15-22 and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0133577 to Chen at al.
Regarding claim 1, Chen at al discloses a variable stiffness joint apparatus (see Figures 3-4), comprising a torsional spring (73); a variable stiffness mechanism comprising a self-locking mechanism (pawl 74) and a linkage system (link 85), the self-locking mechanism comprising an auxiliary spring (10); and an actuator (76) in communication with the auxiliary spring of the self-locking mechanism, wherein when the actuator changes position, a force is applied to the auxiliary spring by the actuator and a stiffness is adjusted at an energy cost that is independent of the stiffness of the torsional spring and the energy stored by the torsional spring.
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al discloses the variable stiffness joint apparatus of claim 1, wherein the energy is stored by the torsional spring without large or precisely timed forces provided by a motor or a human.
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al discloses the variable stiffness joint apparatus of claim 1, wherein the torsional spring is configured to be attached to a joint, the linkage system is coupled to the torsional spring, the self-locking mechanism coupled to the linkage system.
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al discloses the variable stiffness joint apparatus of claim 1, wherein the actuator controls the position of the self-locking mechanism, the position of the self-locking mechanism controls an arrangement of the linkage system, and the arrangement of the linkage system controls the stiffness of the joint apparatus.
Regarding claim 11, Chen et al discloses the variable stiffness joint apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a control device (76) suitable for manual control of the actuator by a user.
Regarding claims 15-16, Chen et al further teaches a method of changing a stiffness of a variable stiffness joint apparatus, comprising: applying a force to an auxiliary spring of a self-locking mechanism, the self- locking mechanism coupled to the variable stiffness spring; and changing a position of a pivot point of a self-locking mechanism based at least in part on the force applied to the auxiliary spring causing the stiffness of the variable stiffness spring to change; changing the position of the pivot point comprises moving a pawl on a linear ratchet of the self-locking mechanism (the ratchet of Chen et al is curvilinear which is considered to read on the linear ratchet as broadly as claimed).
Regarding claims 17-19, the recitations are inherent in the movement of the pawl along the ratchet of Chen et al, e.g., wherein when the force of the auxiliary spring is larger than a threshold force to unlock the pawl and a reaction force of the torsional spring, the pawl is moved to increase the stiffness of the torsional spring; and wherein when the force of the auxiliary spring is smaller than a threshold force to unlock the pawl and a reaction force of the torsional spring, the pawl is moved to decrease the stiffness of the torsional spring; and wherein a large force and precise timing of the force applied by an actuator and the auxiliary spring is not required.
Regarding claim 20, the actuation of 76 of Chen et al again produces the claimed limitation wherein applying a force to an auxiliary spring of a self-locking mechanism comprises changing a position of an actuator that acts on the auxiliary spring, the actuator being controlled by a user applying small and not precisely timed forces via a handheld control device.
Regarding claim 21, Chen et al discloses a self-adjusting variable stiffness mechanism, comprising a compression spring (73), wherein energy stored by compressing the compression spring and the mechanism self-adjusts a stiffness to enable energy accumulation using a same maximal compression force which is not dependent on the energy accumulated in the compression spring, all as broadly as claimed.
Regarding claim 22, Chen et al discloses the self-adjusting variable stiffness mechanism of claim 21, wherein repeated compressions increase an amount of energy stored.
Regarding claim 34, Chen et al discloses the self-adjusting variable stiffness mechanism of claim 21, wherein a hand tool (76) comprises the self-adjusting variable stiffness mechanism.
Regarding claims 35-37, Chen et al discloses a method of energy accumulation, comprising: compressing a floating spring assembly comprising compression spring; and storing energy in the compression spring locking the floating spring assembly to control endpoints of the compression spring; further comprising repeatedly compressing the compression spring; and locking the floating spring assembly between the end of one compression and the beginning of the next compression; wherein the energy stored by the compression spring is retained between compressions; and wherein a force required to compress the compression spring at the beginning of a repeated compression is lower than a constant force, all as broadly as claimed. The spring of Chen et al has attached endpoints and accumulates energy with each endpoint connection and with each flex of the joint.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al in view of US 2022/0364621 to Moffitt, Jr.
Regarding claim 14, Chen et al discloses the invention substantially as recited in claim 1 as discussed, supra. Chen et al does not disclose a 3D printed carbon fiber reinforced torsional spring. Moffitt, Jr. discloses the ability to form springs of desired strength via 3D printing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the teachings of Moffitt, Jr. to make a spring for Chen et al as a convenient and efficient way to a make a spring with desired properties.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al in view of US 2011/0040216 to Herr et al.
Regarding claim 33, Chen et al discloses the invention substantially as recited in claim 1 as discussed, supra. Chen et al also discloses straps to attach to the user (1,2). Chen et al does not disclose means to secure the self-adjusting variable stiffness mechanism to a leg of a user such that the hinge joint coincides with a knee of the user, an end first linear shaft coincides with a hip of the user, an end of second linear shaft coincides with the ankle of a user. In the same field of endeavor, Herr et al discloses an anatomical joint assist device and teaches the attachments as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the teachings of Herr et al to adapt the joint assist device of Chen et al and attach in the configuration set forth in order to assist the desired joint necessary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 10, 12-13, 23-32 and 38-40 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 7-9 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Chen et al is representative of the current state of the art in joint assist devices. Chen et al discloses the instant invention to the extent discussed, supra. Chen et al does not teach alone or in combination with any other prior art of record the specific structures set forth for the variable stiffness joint apparatus as set forth in claims 5-10, 12-13 and 23-32.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA C DVORAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am-4 pm 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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4764. 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.
LINDA C. DVORAK
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3739
/LINDA C DVORAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794