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 .
Response to Amendments
The Amendment filed 4/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-40 were canceled, and claims 41-54 were new. Thus, claims 41-54 are pending in the application.
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: “at least one elastic element tensioned…arranged to be adjusted” in claim 43 lines 2-3, and “a rotational stop assembly…to engage” in claim 46 lines 1-2 and claim 52 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. [15], “at least one elastic element tensioned…arranged to be adjusted” in claim 43 lines 2-3 is being interpreted as a spring, and equivalents thereof. According to the Applicant’s specification para. [73], “a rotational stop assembly…to engage” in claim 46 lines 1-2 and claim 52 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 43 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 43, the limitation “at least one elastic element tensioned between first and second bracket assemblies” in lines 2-3 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from the limitation of “each of the at least two coaxial springs is connected to a first bracket assembly…a second bracket assembly” in claim 41. For the purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same limitation.
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.
Claims 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moise et al. (WO 2019/016629 A1) in view of Van Engelhoven et al. (US 10,639,785 B2) and De Rossi et al. (US 2017/0202724 A1).
Regarding claim 41, 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 gear member and a second gear member engaging the first gear 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 gear 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 gear 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 assembly connecting to a second end of the elastic mechanism for adjusting tension in the elastic mechanism by adjusting a distance between the first end and the second end of the elastic mechanism (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]).
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);
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]);
wherein the second bracket assembly of the elastic mechanism is secured to a cam follower of the regulation assembly by a pin (central connection 336 connects the second bracket 332 to the regulation device 308, which includes pin 342 following the cam 338) (Figs. 12-13B; para. [111]; para. [116]); and
wherein the first bracket assembly is pivotally and eccentrically connected to the second gear member about a fourth axis of rotation offset to the second axis of rotation (first bracket 318 has an eccentric point 323 and 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) (Fig. 12; paras. [109-110]).
Moise 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).
Moise does not teach the pin is a pivot pin such that the second bracket assembly pivots about a third axis of rotation; wherein the first bracket assembly is pivotally connected 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 pin is a pivot pin such that the second bracket assembly 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]); wherein the first bracket assembly is pivotally connected 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]) parallel to the second axis of rotation.
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; wherein the first bracket assembly is pivotally and eccentrically connected 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]).
Regarding claim 42, the modified Moise teaches wherein the regulation assembly for adjusting tension in the elastic mechanism comprises a cam and the cam follower, the cam 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 43, as best understood, the modified Moise teaches 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 assembly (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) (Moise; Figs. 12-15A; paras. [110-111]; paras. [115-117]).
Regarding claim 44, the modified Moise teaches wherein a surface profile of the cam defines a plurality of predefined tension settings for the regulation assembly, said plurality of predefined tension settings corresponding to variations of the distance between the first end and the second end 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 45, the modified Moise teaches 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 cam 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]).
Claims 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moise et al. (WO 2019/016629 A1) in view of Southern Springs (see “What are the Benefits of Nested Springs?” article attached) and De Rossi et al. (US 2017/0202724 A1).
Regarding claim 41, 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 gear member and a second gear member engaging the first gear 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 gear 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 gear 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 assembly connecting to a second end of the elastic mechanism for adjusting tension in the elastic mechanism by adjusting a distance between the first end and the second end of the elastic mechanism (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]).
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);
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]);
wherein the second bracket assembly of the elastic mechanism is secured to a cam follower of the regulation assembly by a pin (central connection 336 connects the second bracket 332 to the regulation device 308, which includes pin 342 following the cam 338) (Figs. 12-13B; para. [111]; para. [116]); and
wherein the first bracket assembly is pivotally and eccentrically connected to the second gear member about a fourth axis of rotation offset to the second axis of rotation (first bracket 318 has an eccentric point 323 and 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) (Fig. 12; paras. [109-110]).
Moise 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, Southern Springs teaches a nested spring mechanism (Southern Springs; pages 1-2) 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 (an outer spring of a pair of nested springs is of a larger diameter than the inner spring) (Southern Springs; Figure; pages 1-2).
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 Southern Springs, for the purpose of enabling the device to have more loadbearing material in a fixed space to support a greater load, reduce the working stresses in each spring to thereby increase the probable working life of the springs, and reduce the length of the spring to in turn reduce the chance of buckling (Southern Springs; pages 1-2).
Moise does not teach the pin is a pivot pin such that the second bracket assembly pivots about a third axis of rotation; wherein the first bracket assembly is pivotally connected 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 pin is a pivot pin such that the second bracket assembly 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]); wherein the first bracket assembly is pivotally connected 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]) parallel to the second axis of rotation.
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; wherein the first bracket assembly is pivotally and eccentrically connected 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]).
Regarding claim 42, the modified Moise teaches wherein the regulation assembly for adjusting tension in the elastic mechanism comprises a cam and the cam follower, the cam 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 43, as best understood, the modified Moise teaches 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 assembly (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) (Moise; Figs. 12-15A; paras. [110-111]; paras. [115-117]).
Regarding claim 44, the modified Moise teaches wherein a surface profile of the cam defines a plurality of predefined tension settings for the regulation assembly, said plurality of predefined tension settings corresponding to variations of the distance between the first end and the second end 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 45, the modified Moise teaches 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 cam 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]).
Claims 46-49 and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moise in view Van Engelhoven and De Rossi of as applied to claim 41 above, or alternatively over Moise in view Southern Springs and De Rossi of as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Opahle et al. (US 2005/0215931 A1).
Regarding claim 46, the modified Moise teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach further comprising a rotational stop assembly arranged to engage a stop follower connected to the first gear member at least at a maximum extension angle of the first gear member.
However, Opahle teaches an orthosis (Opahle; abstract) including a rotational stop assembly arranged to engage a stop follower connected to the first gear member at least at a maximum extension angle of the first gear 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 stop follower connected to the first gear member at least at a maximum extension angle of the first gear 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 47, the modified Moise teaches wherein the rotational stop assembly includes a gear stop defining first and second stop surfaces arranged to engage the stop 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 48, the modified Moise teaches wherein the rotational stop assembly is arranged to engage the stop follower connected to the first gear member at least at a maximum flexion angle of the first gear 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 49, the modified Moise teaches wherein the stop follower defines a protrusion arranged to engage first and second stop surfaces depending on the stop follower rotating to the maximum extension angle, the first and second stop surfaces being 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 52, 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 gear 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 53, 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 54, 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 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moise in view of Van Engelhoven, De Rossi, and Opahle as applied to claims 46 and 48 above, or alternatively over Moise in view Southern Springs, De Rossi, and Opahle as applied to claims 46 and 48 above, and further in view of Han et al. (KR 20100069293 A, see translation attached).
Regarding claim 50, 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 51, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 in the “Drawings” section of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the drawings have been amended to overcome the drawing objections of the previous office action. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn that drawing objection.
On page 8 in the “Claim Objections” section of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims resolve the claim objection of the previous office action. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn that claim objection.
On pages 8-9 in the “Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)” section of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations of the previous office action no longer apply. The Examiner partially agrees, and has thus withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations for which the amended claims recite sufficient structure. However, there remain some claims with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations which do not recite sufficient structure to perform their function as detailed above.
On page 9 in the “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)” section of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the previous office action. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn that 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. However, the newly added claims raise a new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection as detailed above.
On pages 9-10 in the “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 102” section of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of the previous office action as the independent claim now includes limitations not disclosed by the Moise reference. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections. However, the claims currently remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as detailed above.
On page 10 in the last three paragraphs of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the Van Engelhoven reference cannot be used to teach first and second bracket assemblies, the pivot pin, and the pivotal and eccentric connection of the first bracket assembly to the second gear member limitations of the new independent claim 41. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Van Engelhoven reference is not being used to teach those claim limitations. Rather, the Moise and De Rossi references are used to teach them as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 41 above. Thus, this argument is moot, and the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention.
On page 11 in the first three paragraphs of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the De Rossi reference cannot be used to teach the nested coaxial spring arrangement and bracket assemblies limitations of the new independent claim 41. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The De Rossi reference is not being used to teach those claim limitations. Rather, the Moise and Van Engelhoven or Moise and Southern Springs reference combinations are used to teach those limitations as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 41 above. Thus, this argument is moot, and the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention.
On page 11 in the last two paragraphs to page 12 in the first paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the new claim set has a narrower base claim 41, and so the prior rational cannot be used to teach the new claims 46-54 depending on claim 41. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The new independent claim 41 can be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Moise in view of Van Engelhoven and De Rossi or over Moise in view of Southern Springs and De Rossi as detailed above. Therefore, the prior rational of modifying the Moise apparatus to include a rotational stop assembly arranged to engage a stop follower connected to the first gear member at least at a maximum extension angle of the first gear 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]) can still be applied. Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention.
On page 12 in the second to fourth paragraphs of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the prior rational to teach the claimed angles cannot be used as claims reciting the angles are dependent on the new claim 41. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the new claims 50-51 reciting the angles are dependent on respective claims 46 and 48, which are in turn dependent on claim 41. The new claims 46 and 48 can be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Moise in view of Van Engelhoven, De Rossi, and Opahle or over Moise in view of Southern Springs, De Rossi, and Opahle as detailed above. Therefore, the prior rational of modifying the Moise apparatus to include the claimed angles as taught by Han of providing a specific suitable value for normal human shoulder joint extension/flexion (Han; see translation page 7, seventh paragraph) can still be applied. Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention.
On pages 12-13 in the “Nonstatutory Double Patenting” section of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that claims have been amended to overcome the double patenting rejections of the previous office action. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn those double patenting rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights