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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 4/11/2023. As directed by the Preliminary amendment, claims 1-20 were cancelled, and claims 21-40 have been added. Thus, claims 21-40 are currently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 7A shows an exploded view, and so should have its parts embraced by a bracket (see MPEP 608.02(V)(h)(1)). 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 21 recites “the first and second ends thereof.” in lines 12-13 and is suggested to read --the first end and the second end of the elastic mechanism.-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis. 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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “a first rotatable member and a second rotatable member” in claim 1 line 5, “an elastic mechanism…to impart…a moment” in claim 1 lines 9-10, “a regulation device…for adjusting” in claim 1 line 11, and “a rotational stop assembly…to engage” in claim 37 lines 1-2.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to the Applicant’s specification para. [42], “a first rotatable member and a second rotatable member” in claim 1 line 5 is being interpreted as gears, and equivalents thereof. According to the Applicant’s specification para. [15], “an elastic mechanism…to impart…a moment” in claim 1 lines 9-10 is being interpreted as a spring, and equivalents thereof. According to the Applicant’s specification para. [0070], “a regulation device…for adjusting” in claim 1 line 11 is being interpreted as a screw or dial, and equivalents thereof. According to the Applicant’s specification para. [73], “a rotational stop assembly…to engage” in claim 37 lines 1-2 is being interpreted as a stop surface, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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.
Claim 30 is 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 30, the limitation “a fourth axis” in line 2 is confusing, as a third axis has not yet been claimed, and thus the scope of the claim is indefinite.
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 21-26, 28, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moise et al. (WO 2019/016629 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Moise discloses an exoskeleton system arranged to be worn by an operator and assume a position corresponding to a joint of the operator (system worn by an operator at a position corresponding to their joint for assisting the operator in exerting efforts) (abstract), the exoskeleton system comprising:
a compensation device operable to compensate resistive moments acting on the joint during an effort exerted by the operator (device designed to operate to compensate the resistive moments that act on the joint during the effort exerted by the operator) (Fig. 12; para. [48]), the compensation device comprising:
a first rotatable member and a second rotatable member engaging the first rotatable member at an engagement portion and arranged to be brought into relative motion about a first axis of rotation as a result of movement of the joint of the operator, the second rotatable member rotatable about a second axis of rotation (a first rotatable member 312 meshes with a second rotatable member 314 at a portion of their respective geared outer peripheries 313, 316; first rotatable member 312 is brought into relative motion about the axis of rotation I3 because of the movement of the joint of the operator’s body, and the second rotatable member 314 rotates about its own axis) (Fig. 12; para. [109]);
an elastic mechanism defining a first end connecting to the second rotatable member to impart on the first axis of rotation a moment opposite to the resistive moments (elastic mechanism 306 has an end at a first bracket 318 with mounts 320, 322 to couple to the second rotatable member 314; elastic mechanism 306 acts to impart a moment opposite to the resistive movements on the “assisted” axis or axis of rotation I3) (Fig. 12; para. [70]; para. [110]); and
a regulation device connecting to a second end of the elastic mechanism for adjusting tension in the elastic mechanism by adjusting a distance between the first and second ends thereof (elastic mechanism 306 has another end at a second bracket 332 with mounts 328, 330 which connects to a regulation device 308 having a cam assembly 310; regulation device 308 is used to modify tension in the elastic mechanism 306 by setting a different distance between the elastic mechanism’s spring extremities or ends) (Figs. 12-15B; para. [108]; para. [111]; para. [115]).
Regarding claim 22, Moise discloses wherein the regulation device for adjusting tension in the elastic mechanism comprises a cam and a follower, the follower connected to the second end of the elastic mechanism (first cam 338 and pin 342; pin 342 is connected to the second end of elastic mechanism 306 via the regulation device 308, second bracket 332, and second mounts 328, 330) (Figs. 12-15A; para. [111]; para. [116]).
Regarding claim 23, Moise discloses wherein the elastic mechanism comprises at least one elastic element tensioned between first and second bracket assemblies, a length of the at least one elastic element being arranged to be adjusted by linear movement provided by the regulation device (elastic mechanism 306 has springs 324, 326 tensioned between first bracket 318 and second bracket 332; pin 342 moves linearly back and forth according to the rotation of the interface mechanism 344 and cam 338 to adjust tension in the springs) (Figs. 12-15A; paras. [110-111]; paras. [115-117]).
Regarding claim 24, Moise discloses wherein a surface profile of the cam defines a plurality of predefined tension settings for the regulation device, said plurality of predefined tension settings corresponding to variations of the distance between the first and second ends of the elastic mechanism (cam assembly 310 has a first cam 338 with depressions 350A-350G on its surface corresponding to different assistance levels; each depression 350A-350G sets a different distance between the two spring extremities or ends) (Figs. 12-15A; para. [115-117]).
Regarding claim 25, Moise discloses further comprising a dial connected to the cam, wherein the plurality of predefined tension settings of the cam are manually adjustable by rotation of the dial (knob of an interface mechanism 344 including a coupling part 346 and boss 347 connected to a cam 338 to allow a user to manually rotate the interface mechanism 344 and cam 338 together, thereby setting the tension of the springs) (Figs. 12-15A; para. [85]; paras. [113-117]), the follower arranged to linearly move in first and second directions according to rotation of the dial and the cam to adjust the tension in the elastic mechanism (pin 342 moves linearly back and forth according to the rotation of the interface mechanism 344 and cam 338 to adjust tension in the springs) (Figs. 12-15A; paras. [115-117]).
Regarding claim 26, Moise discloses wherein the elastic mechanism comprises at least two coaxial springs (there are multiple axes that can intersect through both springs, for example an axis running in a vertical direction through both in Fig. 12) (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 28, Moise discloses wherein each of the at least two coaxial springs is connected to a first bracket assembly at the first end of the elastic mechanism (the springs of the elastic mechanism 306 each have ends at the end of the elastic mechanism 306 connected to the first bracket 318 with mounts 320, 322) (Fig. 12; para. [110]) and is connected to a second bracket assembly at the second end of the elastic mechanism (the springs of the elastic mechanism 306 each have other ends at the other end of the elastic mechanism 306 connected to the second bracket 332 with mounts 328, 330) (Fig. 12; para. [111]).
Regarding claim 40, Moise discloses wherein the first and second rotatable members having corresponding teeth engaging one another (the first rotatable member 312 meshes with the second rotatable member 314 via their respective geared outer peripheries 313, 316, i.e. respective teeth) (Fig. 12; para. [109]).
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 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moise as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Van Engelhoven et al. (US 10,639,785 B2).
Regarding claim 27, Moise discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein a first spring of the at least two coaxial springs is larger than a second spring, the second spring being provided inside the first spring.
However, Van Engelhoven teaches an exoskeleton (Van Engelhoven; abstract) wherein a first spring of the at least two coaxial springs is larger than a second spring, the second spring being provided inside the first spring (variable force generator 401 using extension springs has a smaller first spring 408 coaxially inside a larger second spring 411) (Van Engelhoven; Figs. 101-106; col. 26, lines 17-34).
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 Moise springs such that a first spring of the at least two coaxial springs is larger than a second spring, the second spring being provided inside the first spring, as taught by Van Engelhoven, for the purpose of enabling the device to exhibit two stiffness rates between elements at opposite ends of the springs (Van Engelhoven; col. 26, lines 17-34).
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moise as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of De Rossi et al. (US 2017/0202724 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Moise discloses the invention as previously claimed, including further comprising a pin securing the second bracket assembly of the elastic mechanism to the follower (central connection 336 connects the second bracket 332 to the regulation device 308, which includes pin 342 following the cam 338) (Moise; Figs. 12-13B; para. [111]; para. [116]), but does not teach the pin is a pivot pin such that the second bracket pivots about a third axis of rotation.
However, De Rossi teaches an assistive suit (De Rossi; abstract) wherein the pin is a pivot pin such that the second bracket pivots about a third axis of rotation (pivot pin 1805c allows attachment interface 1805b to pivot about the longitudinal axis of the pivot pin 1805c) (De Rossi; Fig. 18; para. [0194]).
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 Moise pin such to be a pivot pin, such that the second bracket pivots about a third axis of rotation, as taught by De Rossi, for the purpose of allowing the force transmission element, i.e. the springs in Moise, to freely rotate in a plane such that the applied force through the force transmission element does not kink or bend it (De Rossi; para. [0194]).
Regarding claim 30, as best understood, Moise discloses the first bracket assembly pivotally connecting about a pivot point to the second rotatable member about a fourth axis of rotation offset and parallel to the second axis of rotation (first bracket 318 couples to the second rotatable member 314; the point of coupling between them would be on an axis offset to axis of rotation I3 of the first rotatable member 312) (Moise; Fig. 12; paras. [109-110]), but does not teach the first bracket assembly pivotally connecting about a pivot point about a fourth axis of rotation parallel to the second axis of rotation.
However, De Rossi teaches an assistive suit (De Rossi; abstract) wherein the first bracket assembly pivotally connects about a pivot point about a fourth axis of rotation (pivot pin 1805c allows attachment interface 1805b to pivot/rotate about the longitudinal axis of the pivot pin 1805c) (De Rossi; Fig. 18; para. [0194]).
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 Moise first bracket assembly connection to the second rotatable member, such that the first bracket assembly pivotally connects about a pivot point about a fourth axis of rotation, as taught by De Rossi, for the purpose of allowing the force transmission element, i.e. the springs in Moise, to freely rotate in a plane such that the applied force through the force transmission element does not kink or bend it (De Rossi; para. [0194]).
With this modification, the modified Moise device would thus teach the fourth axis of rotation is parallel to the second axis of rotation (in Moise, there is a rotation of the arm about axis I3 in the sagittal plane, and De Rossi pivot pin 1805c also allows for rotation in sagittal plane; as both rotations are in the sagittal plane, each of their respective axes of rotation would be parallel to each other) (Moise, Fig. 5A, para. [69]; De Rossi, Fig. 18, para. [0194]).
Claims 31-34 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moise as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Opahle et al. (US 2005/0215931 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Moise discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose further comprising a rotational stop assembly arranged to engage a follower connected to the first rotatable member at least at a maximum extension angle of the first rotatable member.
However, Opahle teaches an orthosis (Opahle; abstract) including a rotational stop assembly arranged to engage a follower connected to the first rotatable member at least at a maximum extension angle of the first rotatable member (cover 19 has a longitudinal slit 59 with curved walls at each end of the slit 59; longitudinal slit 59 engages adjustment pins 57, 58 of each rotatable click-stop dial 14, 15; scale 60 indicates the position of limit stops 55, 56 for both flexion and extension directions; for dial 14, the limit stop position would be the maximum extension angle) (Opahle; Figs. 1-8; para. [0034]; paras. [0044-0045]).
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 Moise to include a rotational stop assembly arranged to engage a follower connected to the first rotatable member at least at a maximum extension angle of the first rotatable member, as taught by Opahle, for the purpose of providing a mechanism for the simple and precise adjustment of pivot limits in the flexion and/or extension directions (Opahle; para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 32, the modified Moise teaches wherein the rotational stop assembly includes a gear stop defining first and second stop surfaces arranged to engage the follower at least at the maximum extension angle, the gear stop fixed to a casing (cover 19 has a longitudinal slit 59 with curved walls at each end of the slit 59, each curved wall being a stop surface to stop a respective adjustment pin 57, 58 of a toothed dial 14, 15 from rotating further; scale 60 indicates the position of limit stops 55, 56 for both flexion and extension directions; for dial 14, the limit stop position would be the maximum extension angle; cover 19 and its slit 59 are fixed to a rotation part 18) (Opahle; Figs. 1-8; para. [0034]; paras. [0044-0045]).
Regarding claim 33, the modified Moise teaches wherein the rotational stop assembly is arranged to engage the follower connected to the first rotatable member at least at a maximum flexion angle of the first rotatable member (cover 19 has a longitudinal slit 59 with curved walls at each end of the slit 59, each curved wall being a stop surface to stop a respective adjustment pin 57, 58 of a toothed dial 14, 15 from rotating further; scale 60 indicates the position of limit stops 55, 56 for both flexion and extension directions; for dial 15, the limit stop position would be the maximum flexion angle) (Opahle; Figs. 1-8; para. [0034]; paras. [0044-0045]).
Regarding claim 34, the modified Moise teaches wherein the follower defines a protrusion arranged to engage first and second stop surfaces depending on the follower rotating to the maximum extension angle, the first and second stop surfaces defined by a gear stop fixedly connected to a casing (adjustment pin 57, 58 can engage the curved end walls of the longitudinal slit 59 to a limit stops 55, 56 position for both flexion and extension directions, the scale 60 indicating the angle; for dial 14, the limit stop position would be the maximum extension angle; cover 19 and its slit 59 are fixed to a rotation part 18) (Opahle; Figs. 1-8; para. [0034]; paras. [0044-0045]).
Regarding claim 37, the modified Moise teaches further comprising a rotational stop assembly (cover 19 with a longitudinal slit 59) (Opahle; Figs. 1-8; para. [0045]) and a safety lock (click-stop dials 14, 15 with adjustment pins 57, 58) (Opahle; Figs. 1-8; para. [0045]), the rotational stop assembly arranged to engage a manually adjustable locking element of the safety lock connected to the first rotatable member (cover 19 has a longitudinal slit 59 to engage a respective adjustment pin 57, 58 of a rotatable dial 14, 15; click-stop dials 14, 15 have adjustment pins 57, 58 that can be moved by the fingers, and so are manually adjustable) (Opahle; Figs. 1-8; para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 38, the modified Moise teaches wherein the rotational stop assembly includes a gear stop defining first and second stop surfaces, the first stop surface arranged to engage the locking element at least at a maximum extension angle, the gear stop fixed to a casing (cover 19 has a longitudinal slit 59 with curved walls at each end of the slit 59, each curved wall being a stop surface to stop a respective adjustment pin 57, 58 of a toothed dial 14, 15 from rotating further; scale 60 indicates the position of limit stops 55, 56 for both flexion and extension directions; for dial 14, the limit stop position would be the maximum extension angle; cover 19 and its slit 59 are fixed to a rotation part 18) (Opahle; Figs. 1-8; para. [0034]; paras. [0044-0045]).
Regarding claim 39, the modified Moise teaches the safety lock further comprising a selector switch arranged to actuate the locking element from an unlocked position disengaged with the rotational stop assembly to a locked position engaged with the first stop surface of the rotational stop assembly (adjustment pins 57, 58 of a respective dials 14, 15 are arranged to actuate the dials 14, 15 from a position not engaged with a curved wall end of longitudinal slit 59 to a position engaged with a curved wall end of longitudinal slit 59) (Opahle; Figs. 1-8; paras. [0044-0045]).
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moise in view of Opahle as applied to claims 31 and 33 above, and further in view of Han et al. (KR 20100069293 A, see translation attached).
Regarding claim 35, the modified Moise teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein the maximum extension angle is -30o.
However, Moise does suggest the maximum extension angle could be -30o, as Moise Fig. 6 illustrates the extension stop with a scale to -10 degrees listed last along the slit 59, but the slit 59 itself extends past the -10 degree mark to suggest further angles beyond -10 degrees are possible. Moreover, Han teaches a wearable type robot device for supporting arm movements (Han; see translation abstract) wherein the maximum extension angle is -30o (the limiting angle of the shoulder joint drive should be chosen from the range of 0 - 50 degrees for extension; please note that a positive or negative value for an angle is to indicate direction, and that a negative value angle can be assumed for the extension direction as long as the flexion direction is positive, and vice versa) (Han; see translation page 7, seventh paragraph).
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 Moise maximum extension angle to be -30o, as taught by Moise and Han, for the purpose of providing a specific suitable value for normal human shoulder joint extension (Han; see translation page 7, seventh paragraph).
Regarding claim 36, the modified Moise teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein the maximum flexion angle is 180o.
However, Moise does suggest the maximum flexion angle could be 180o, as Moise Fig. 6 illustrates the flexion stop with a scale to 150 degrees listed last along the slit 59, but the slit 59 itself extends past the 150 degree mark to suggest further angles beyond 150 degrees are possible. Moreover, Han teaches a wearable type robot device for supporting arm movements (Han; see translation abstract) wherein the maximum flexion angle is 180o (the limiting angle of the shoulder joint drive should be chosen from the range of 0-180 degrees for flexion) (Han; see translation page 7, seventh paragraph).
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 Moise maximum flexion angle to be 180o, as taught by Moise and Han, for the purpose of providing a specific suitable value for normal human shoulder joint flexion (Han; see translation page 7, seventh paragraph).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,240,108 B2, hereinafter ‘108. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 21, ‘108 discloses an exoskeleton system arranged to be worn by an operator and assume a position corresponding to a joint of the operator (‘108; claim 1), the exoskeleton system comprising: a compensation device operable to compensate resistive moments acting on the joint during an effort exerted by the operator (‘108; claim 1), the compensation device comprising: a first rotatable member and a second rotatable member engaging the first rotatable member at an engagement portion and arranged to be brought into relative motion about a first axis of rotation as a result of movement of the joint of the operator, the second rotatable member rotatable about a second axis of rotation (‘108; claim 1); an elastic mechanism defining a first end connecting to the second rotatable member to impart on the first axis of rotation a moment opposite to the resistive moments (‘108; claim 1); and a regulation device connecting to a second end of the elastic mechanism for adjusting tension in the elastic mechanism by adjusting a distance between the first and second ends thereof (adjusting a length of the elastic mechanism between the first and second ends thereof is equivalent to adjusting a distance between the first and second ends) (‘108; claim 1).
Regarding claim 40, ‘108 discloses wherein the first and second rotatable members having corresponding teeth engaging one another (‘108; claim 16).
Claims 21-22 and 24-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,801,596 B2, hereinafter ‘596, in view of Moise.
Regarding claim 21, ‘596 discloses an exoskeleton system arranged to be worn by an operator and assume a position corresponding to a joint of the operator (system for assisting an operator in exerting efforts, including a garment to be worn by the operator to engage the joint of the operator) (‘596; claim 1), the exoskeleton system comprising: a compensation device operable to compensate resistive moments acting on the joint during an effort exerted by the operator (‘596; claim 1), the compensation device comprising: a first rotatable member and a second rotatable member engaging the first rotatable member at an engagement portion (first rotatable member and second rotatable member are connected together, and so would have an engagement portion between them) (‘596; claim 1) and arranged to be brought into relative motion about a first axis of rotation as a result of movement of the joint of the operator, the second rotatable member rotatable about a second axis of rotation (‘596; claim 1); an elastic mechanism defining a first end connecting to the second rotatable member (elastic mechanism has an elastic element for acting on and engaging the second rotatable member, and so has an end connecting to the second rotatable member) (‘596; claim 1) to impart on the first axis of rotation a moment opposite to the resistive moments (‘596; claim 1); and a regulation device connecting to a second end of the elastic mechanism for adjusting tension in the elastic mechanism (a tension regulation device is connected to the elastic mechanism to regulate its tension, and so would be connected to a second end of the elastic mechanism at least indirectly) (‘596; claim 4), but does not disclose adjusting tension in the elastic mechanism by adjusting a distance between the first and second ends thereof.
However, Moise teaches a system for assisting an operator in exerting efforts (Moise; abstract) including adjusting tension in the elastic mechanism by adjusting a distance between the first and second ends thereof (tension regulation mechanism 150 adjusts tension by varying a distance between first and second ends of the elastic mechanism 105) (Moise; Figs. 5A-5B, 12-15B; para. [107]; para. [115]).
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 ‘596 regulation device to adjust tension in the elastic mechanism by adjusting a distance between the first and second ends thereof, as taught by Moise, for the purpose of providing a specific mechanism for adjusting tension in an elastic mechanism which one of ordinary skill in the art could feasibly expect to perform reasonably well.
Regarding claim 22, the modified ‘596 teaches wherein the regulation device for adjusting tension in the elastic mechanism comprises a cam and a follower, the follower connected to the second end of the elastic mechanism (first cam 338 and pin 342; pin 342 is connected to the second end of elastic mechanism 306 via the regulation device 308, second bracket 332, and second mounts 328, 330) (Moise; Figs. 12-15A; para. [111]; para. [116]).
Regarding claim 24, the modified ‘596 wherein a surface profile of the cam defines a plurality of predefined tension settings for the regulation device, said plurality of predefined tension settings corresponding to variations of the distance between the first and second ends of the elastic mechanism (cam assembly 310 has a first cam 338 with depressions 350A-350G on its surface corresponding to different assistance levels; each depression 350A-350G sets a different distance between the two spring extremities or ends) (Moise; Figs. 12-15A; para. [115-117]).
Regarding claim 25, the modified ‘596 further comprising a dial connected to the cam, wherein the plurality of predefined tension settings of the cam are manually adjustable by rotation of the dial (knob of an interface mechanism 344 including a coupling part 346 and boss 347 connected to a cam 338 to allow a user to manually rotate the interface mechanism 344 and cam 338 together, thereby setting the tension of the springs) (Moise; Figs. 12-15A; para. [85]; paras. [113-117]), the follower arranged to linearly move in first and second directions according to rotation of the dial and the cam to adjust the tension in the elastic mechanism (pin 342 moves linearly back and forth according to the rotation of the interface mechanism 344 and cam 338 to adjust tension in the springs) (Moise; Figs. 12-15A; paras. [115-117]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0315896 A1 by Bae et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses a strength assisting apparatus with an elastic body coupled between two brackets, wherein a tensile force is generated as the distance between the two ends of the elastic body increase.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:00.
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, Timothy 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.
/JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785