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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controller” in claim 16 for example.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application contain claim limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Such claim limitations are: “a controller” as recited in claims 16 and 29, and the associated functions of “determin[ing] a counterforce for the weight force of the object and . . . transmit[ting] the counterforce to the object,” and wherein “a torque of the motor is determined depending on the weight force of the object.”
Because these claim limitations use a generic placeholder (“controller”) coupled with functional language (“configured to determine a counterforce . . . and to transmit the counterforce,” and “a torque of the motor is determined”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited functions, and are not preceded by a structural modifier, they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The three-prong analysis of MPEP § 2181(I) is satisfied:
(A) The claim limitation uses the term “controller,” a nonce term that operates as a substitute for “means” and serves as a generic placeholder for the structure that performs the claimed function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc);
(B) The term “controller” is modified by functional language, namely, “configured to determine a counterforce for the weight force of the object and to transmit the counterforce to the object,” and the function whereby “a torque of the motor is determined depending on the weight force of the object”; and
C. The term “controller” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP § 2181(II)(B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16, 19–28, and 29–36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 29 recite a “controller” (interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as set forth above) that performs the specialized functions of: (1) “determin[ing] a counterforce for the weight force of the object”; (2) “transmit[ting] the counterforce to the object . . . such that the weight force of the object is counterbalanced by the counterforce directed counter to the weight force”; and (3) “with the counterbalancing operation, a torque of the motor [being] determined depending on the weight force of the object.”
Where a claimed function is performed by a “controller” or “control device” — i.e., a computer-implemented or processor-based limitation subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) — the corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose controller, but rather the special purpose controller programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm for accomplishing the recited function. To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must disclose that algorithm with sufficient particularity to demonstrate that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date. See MPEP §§ 2161.01(I) and 2163; Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008); * Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc.*, 782 F.3d 671 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The specification does not provide adequate written description of the algorithm by which the controller (control device 14) determines the counterforce or determines the torque of the motor depending on the weight force of the object. The specification describes the result to be achieved and the components involved, but does not disclose how the recited determination is performed. Specifically:
The specification describes that “the system is configured to determine a counterforce for the weight force of the object and to transmit same to the object” and that “a torque of the motor can be determined depending on the weight force of the object” (see, e.g., Specification ¶¶ [0007], [0023]), but these passages merely restate the claimed function without disclosing the manner of determination.
The specification states that “the counterbalancing operation preferably represents a control and regulating process” and that “the motor rotational speed in particular is regulated to the ‘zero’ rotational speed” (see ¶¶ [0008], [0018]), but does not disclose the control law, computational steps, sensor inputs, feedback mechanism, or mathematical relationship by which the weight force of the object is measured or determined, nor how the corresponding counterforce or motor torque is calculated therefrom.
The specification identifies that “the controlled variable being in particular the torque of the motor” (¶ [0018]) but does not disclose the algorithm — whether expressed as a mathematical formula, a series of steps, a flowchart, or in prose with sufficient detail — that relates the determined weight force to the commanded torque or counterforce.
Merely describing the desired outcome (counterbalancing the weight force) and reciting that the controller is “configured to” achieve it, without disclosing the specific means (algorithm) for achieving that outcome, amounts to a description of the problem to be solved rather than a description of the invention that solves it. This does not demonstrate possession of the claimed subject matter. See MPEP § 2161.01(I) (“The written description requirement for a software invention is generally satisfied by an appropriate description or means such as a mathematical formula, prose, or a flow chart with a reasonable amount of detail. . . . the specification must sufficiently describe an algorithm to perform the claimed functions.”).
Accordingly, the specification fails to convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date, of a controller programmed to perform the recited functions of determining the counterforce and determining the motor torque depending on the weight force of the object.
Dependent claims 19–28 and 30–36 do not cure the noted deficiency of the independent claims from which they depend and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same reasons. (Note: Claim 30 depends from Claim 29; Claims 19–28 and 31–36 depend from Claim 16.)
To overcome this rejection, applicant may direct the Examiner to specific portions of the original disclosure that describe the algorithm(s) for performing the claimed determination functions, or otherwise clarify the record consistent with the requirements of MPEP § 2161.01 and § 2163. No new matter may be added. See 35 U.S.C. 132(a); MPEP § 2163.06.
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 16 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Claims 19–28 and 30–36 are rejected as dependent upon a rejected base claim.
As set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above, the limitation “a controller” recited in claims 16 and 29 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means-plus-function limitation. The functions associated with this limitation are: (1) “determin[ing] a counterforce for the weight force of the object”; (2) “transmit[ting] the counterforce to the object . . . such that the weight force of the object is counterbalanced by the counterforce directed counter to the weight force”; and (3) “with the counterbalancing operation, a torque of the motor [being] determined depending on the weight force of the object.”
Because these functions are computer-implemented functions performed by the “controller” (control device 14), the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification must be a special purpose computer or controller programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm for accomplishing the recited functions. A general purpose controller, without an accompanying algorithm, is not sufficient corresponding structure. See MPEP § 2181; Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc).
Where a claim limitation is subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and invokes a computer-implemented function, but the specification fails to disclose an algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or a flowchart) that transforms the general purpose controller into a special purpose controller programmed to perform the disclosed function, the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure. See MPEP § 2181 (a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation that lacks a disclosed algorithm renders the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328.
In the present case, the specification fails to disclose any algorithm for performing the recited functions of the controller. Specifically:
The specification restates the claimed functions without disclosing how they are performed. For example, ¶ [0007] states that “the system is configured to determine a counterforce for the weight force of the object and to transmit same to the object,” and ¶ [0023] states that “a torque of the motor can be determined depending on the weight force of the object.” These passages describe what the controller does, but not how — i.e., they do not set forth the steps, computations, control law, or logic by which the counterforce or motor torque is determined.
The specification describes the counterbalancing operation only in terms of its nature and desired result. For example, ¶ [0008] describes the counterbalancing operation as “a control and regulating process,” and ¶ [0018] states that “the motor rotational speed in particular is regulated to the ‘zero’ rotational speed” and that “the controlled variable being in particular the torque of the motor.” These passages identify the controlled variable and the target condition, but do not disclose the algorithm — whether expressed as a mathematical formula, prose, or a flowchart with a reasonable amount of detail — by which the controller (a) determines or measures the weight force of the object, or (b) computes the corresponding counterforce or commanded motor torque from that weight force.
Because no algorithm is disclosed as corresponding structure for the “controller” limitation of claims 16 and 29, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed “controller” with reasonable certainty. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014). Accordingly, claims 16 and 29 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 16 and 29 have also been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of adequate written description of the same algorithm. These rejections are related but distinct: the § 112(a) rejection addresses the failure of the specification to demonstrate that the inventor possessed the claimed invention, whereas the present § 112(b) rejection addresses the failure of the specification to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (an algorithm) such that the metes and bounds of the § 112(f) limitation can be determined with reasonable certainty.
Dependent claims 19–28 and 30–36 do not cure the noted deficiency of the independent claims from which they depend and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons. (Claim 30 depends from claim 29; claims 19–28 and 31–36 depend from claim 16.)
To overcome this rejection, applicant may: (i) amend the claims to recite sufficient structure such that the limitation is no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); (ii) identify with specificity where in the original disclosure an algorithm corresponding to each recited function is described; or (iii) otherwise clarify the record consistent with MPEP § 2181. No new matter may be added. See 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Claims 19–28 and 31–36 are rejected as dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 16 recites, in relevant part, “a traction cable on which the object is fastenable and whereby the cable is guidable in the direction of a back structure of the system” (emphasis added). It is unclear whether the “back structure” is positively recited as a required element of the claimed system.
The ambiguity arises for the following reasons:
The “back structure” is introduced only within a functional recitation directed to the traction cable. The term appears solely as the object of the phrase describing the direction in which the cable “is guidable” — i.e., “guidable in the direction of a back structure.” It is not separately set forth in the body of the claim as a component of the system (e.g., in the manner that “a traction cable” and “an electronic module” are affirmatively recited). Consequently, it is unclear whether the claim requires the system to comprise a back structure, or whether the back structure is merely referenced as a directional reference point or intended environment toward which the cable can be guided.
The recitation “of the system” suggests the back structure is part of the claimed system, creating internal inconsistency. On one hand, the phrase “a back structure of the system” implies that the back structure belongs to, and is therefore part of, the claimed system. On the other hand, the back structure is never affirmatively recited as an element that the system “comprises,” unlike the traction cable and the electronic module. This creates ambiguity as to whether the back structure is a positively claimed, required structural element or merely a nominal reference.
The dependent claims presuppose a positively claimed back structure, compounding the ambiguity. Several dependent claims recite features “of the back structure” or interactions with the back structure — for example, claim 19 (“the winder . . . is arranged in a region of the back structure”), claim 21 (“the cantilever is accommodatable by the back structure”), and claim 23 (“the back structure includes a first contact region and a second contact region”). These dependent claims appear to treat the back structure as a positively recited element of claim 16, which is inconsistent with the manner in which the back structure is introduced in claim 16 (only as a directional reference within a functional recitation). This inconsistency renders the scope of claim 16 unclear.
As a result of the foregoing, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain, with reasonable certainty, whether the claimed system requires a back structure as a positively recited structural element. The metes and bounds of claim 16 are therefore unclear. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014); MPEP § 2173.05(e).
To overcome this rejection, applicant may amend claim 16 to clarify the intended scope. For example, if the back structure is intended to be a required element of the system, applicant may affirmatively recite it in the body of the claim as an element that the system comprises (e.g., “a back structure”; and, in the traction-cable limitation, “the back structure”). Alternatively, if the back structure is not intended to be positively claimed, applicant may amend the recitation to make clear that the back structure is referenced only as a directional reference or intended environment. No new matter may be added. See 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
Dependent claims 19–28 and 31–36 do not cure the noted deficiency of claim 16 and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons.
Old draft
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.
Claims 16, 19, 21–23, 26, 29, 33, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davezac (FR 2978690 A1, published Feb. 8, 2013) in view of CEA (WO 2020/043851 A1, published Mar. 5, 2020).
Regarding Claims 16, 29 Davezac discloses a system for counterbalancing a weight force of an object (Title — [Exoskeleton for lifting and carrying loads]; Description lines 63–66 — "The present invention intends to provide a solution to these three risks of injury, to the lower back, to the hips and knees and to the muscles of the arms. To do this, it implements on the one hand a system for lifting and maintaining the loads in suspension and on the other hand an interface between the latter and the body of the subject on which it is harnessed"), the system comprising:
a traction cable on which the object is fastenable (cable or rope (4) running through the cantilever to a lifting hook (5) to which the load is secured; Description lines 87–91 — "its cable or rope (4) running inside or outside the jib over several sheaves (11) to a pulley (12) and allowing the lifting hook (5) to be lowered electrically to the load on the ground") and whereby the cable is guidable in the direction of a back structure of the system (the cable runs from the hook at the front of the cantilever, through the cantilever over sheaves, to the motorized winch (3) located "at the rear of the back harness"; Description lines 87–90);
and an electronic module including:
an energy source for supplying the system with electrical energy (battery (10) of low voltage and amperage, 12V and 12A; Description line 88 — "powered by a battery (10) of low voltage and amperage, 12V and 12A for example");
a winder for winding up the traction cable (motorized winch (3) with cable wound on a drum with a diameter of 80mm; Detailed Embodiment § 5 — "a flexible cable with a section of 3mm, 25 braiding bundles of metal strands, wound on a drum with a diameter of 80mm, these elements being assembled within a double plastic shell") (the Examiner notes that the section heading in the original French text references element (10), which appears to be a typographical error, as the winch is consistently designated element (3) in the claims and general description of Davezac, while element (10) designates the battery; the content of this section clearly describes the motorized winch);
a motor for driving the winder (12V and 12A motor associated with reduction gears, capable of developing a tractive effort of 60kg; Detailed Embodiment § 5); and
a controller (the system includes a control handle (14) with a double variable speed switch (16) for winding/unwinding control; Description lines 92–94 — "The winch control handle (14) can be wired, its electric cable (15) can then be spiral, or wireless with high frequency emission. It may have a double variable speed switch (16), controlled by the index and middle fingers"; see also Detailed Embodiment § 6, describing a variable speed zoom-type control).
Davezac further discloses that the system is carried by a user by means of a back structure comprising a belt (6) enveloping the lower back and pulling on the hips, a backrest (7) forming a support in the upper back, and shoulder straps (8) (Description lines 72–78 — "the invention uses two independent and height-adjustable cushions, i.e. a belt of adjustable length (6) enveloping the lower back and pulling on the hips, and a wide backrest (7) forming a support in the upper back with a sufficient surface to distribute the effort comfortably without punching effect... The back of the harness has two straps (8) which brace it against the worker's body and secure it thereto").
Davezac does not expressly disclose that the system is configured to determine a counterforce for the weight force of the object and to transmit the counterforce to the object, nor that the counterforce is determined in a counterbalancing operation such that the weight force of the object is counterbalanced by the counterforce directed counter to the weight force, wherein, with the counterbalancing operation, a torque of the motor is determined depending on the weight force of the object.
Davezac discloses that the system includes a weigher located between the cable and the hook that measures the weight of the load (Detailed Embodiment § 6 — "The display communicates by high frequencies with the weigher located between the cable and the hook and indicates to the worker the weight of the load he is lifting thanks to the winch"; see also Description lines 100–101, disclosing a mechanical or electronic display (19) of the supported weight and an audible alarm (20) if a pre-programmed threshold is exceeded; see also Detailed Embodiment § 7, disclosing "the weight reading probe" and a spring (22) placed between the end of the winch cable and the hook), but Davezac uses this weight information only for display and alarm purposes, not for autonomous motor control.
Davezac discloses multiple embodiments and/or implementations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify, replace, and/or add additionally from any of the embodiments as all elements are known design alternatives. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that much of the embodiments options can easily be considered improvements, redundancies and or replacements for alternatives, which would all be obvious depending on the desired implementation or use needed of an end user. Such modifications would clearly achieve predictable results.
CEA teaches a method and system for automatically compensating a load in a body-worn actuator system (Abstract — "method for controlling an actuator functionally connected to a load to be manipulated"). CEA specifically teaches:
detecting the weight force of a load and using it to control an actuator autonomously (Claim 1; Description lines 84–85 — "use the recorded value reached by the control and/or by the sensor linked to the actuator to determine an estimate of a resistant force exerted by the load to be handled");
a counterbalancing operation in which a force servo-control law uses the estimation of the resistant force (weight force) to establish commands applied to the actuator (Claim 1; Description lines 89–91 — "controlling the actuator with the aid of a force control law using the estimate of the resistive force exerted by the load to be handled to establish the commands to be applied to the actuator");
determining motor torque depending on the weight force of the object (Description lines 269–294 — when the torque applied by the first gearmotor 11 exceeds the threshold torque Cs corresponding to the resistance exerted by the weight of the load, the first arm segment moves and the encoder records a non-zero speed; the control and command unit 5 then records the current value Isn reached by the supply current, uses this value to determine an estimate M50es of the mass of the load, and records this estimate in module 9, which "is then used by module 9 to parameterize a force servo law which establishes the commands to be applied to the first geared motor 11 by the command and control unit 5");
CEA acknowledges that force servo-control "in which the force setpoint represents a fraction (partial compensation) or all (total compensation) of a load to be handled" is known in the art (Background, line 40), and CEA's method implements such force servo-control by estimating the resistant force of the load and using it to parameterize a force control law that establishes compensation commands (Description lines 89–94, 283–294); and
applying this control in the context of a body-worn dorsal system with cables, drums, motors, and battery (Fifth Embodiment, Fig. 6 — dorsal segment (2) with first stem (60) and sixth geared motor (61) winding a first cable (66) around a first drum (65), second stem (70) and seventh geared motor (71) winding a second cable (76) around a second drum (75), battery (4), and control and command unit (5); Description lines 523–536).
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 system of Davezac to incorporate the automatic load compensation control method taught by CEA, specifically by configuring the controller of Davezac's system to receive the weight measurement from Davezac's existing weigher and to autonomously determine and apply a motor torque to the winch that generates a counterforce counterbalancing the weight force of the suspended load.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because: (a) CEA expressly teaches that automatic load compensation "no longer requires entering the mass of the load to be handled before it is handled by the actuator" and "makes it possible to handle loads whose masses are varied without this creating any constraint for the user" (Description lines 94–97); (b) Davezac's system already includes the necessary hardware for such control — a weight sensor (weigher between cable and hook), a motor, and a cable connecting the load to the motor — such that only the control logic need be added; (c) CEA teaches applying this automatic compensation in structurally analogous body-worn cable-and-drum systems (Fifth Embodiment, Fig. 6); and (d) both references are in the same field of endeavor (body-worn systems for assisting workers in handling loads) and address the same problem (reducing physical strain on the user when lifting and carrying heavy objects). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results).
The combination would yield a system in which the torque of the motor is determined depending on the weight force of the object (as sensed by the weigher) in a counterbalancing operation that generates a counterforce directed counter to the weight force, as required by Claim 16.
CEA also discloses multiple embodiments and/or implementations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify, replace, and/or add additionally from any of the embodiments as all elements are known design alternatives. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that much of the embodiments options can easily be considered improvements, redundancies and or replacements for alternatives, which would all be obvious depending on the desired implementation or use needed of an end user. Such modifications would clearly achieve predictable results.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16. Davezac further discloses that the winder (motorized winch (3)) is arranged in a region of the back structure (Description line 87 — "the invention provides at the rear of the back harness a motorized winch (3)") and that the traction cable is windable up using the motor and the winder (Detailed Embodiment § 5 — cable wound on drum driven by motor with reduction gears).
Davezac discloses multiple embodiments and/or implementations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify, replace, and/or add additionally from any of the embodiments as all elements are known design alternatives. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that much of the embodiments options can easily be considered improvements, redundancies and or replacements for alternatives, which would all be obvious depending on the desired implementation or use needed of an end user. Such modifications would clearly achieve predictable results.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16. Davezac further discloses a cantilever (potence (2)) that is accommodatable by the back structure (Detailed Embodiment § 4 — "a steel tube... crushed on its 600mm long vertical part to form a flat surface 30mm wide against which the backrest and the central rear part of the belt" are mounted; see also Detailed Embodiment § 1 — five holes aligned vertically every 30mm through which "the stem will be screwed there with a possibility of height adjustment over 150mm"; see generally Description lines 80–86, describing the cantilever's structural relationship to the harness). Davezac further discloses that the cantilever "can be designed to be easily detached from the harness" using dovetail or conical funnel fittings (Description lines 115–118 — "Bindings implementing the principle of dovetails or conical funnels are one embodiment").
Davezac discloses multiple embodiments and/or implementations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify, replace, and/or add additionally from any of the embodiments as all elements are known design alternatives. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that much of the embodiments options can easily be considered improvements, redundancies and or replacements for alternatives, which would all be obvious depending on the desired implementation or use needed of an end user. Such modifications would clearly achieve predictable results.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16. Davezac further discloses a cantilever (potence (2)) that includes a back section and a head section arranged perpendicular to one another (Detailed Embodiment § 4 — a steel tube "crushed on its 600mm long vertical part" forming the back section, "then crushed according to the plane orthogonal to the first in the curved part at a radius of 200 mm to reinforce it, then crushed again according to the plane orthogonal to the previous one on the horizontal part at least 200 mm long at the end of which the pulley will be fixed," forming the head section; see also Fig. 1 showing the cantilever's L-shaped profile passing over the user's skull with a vertical back portion and horizontal front portion).
Davezac discloses multiple embodiments and/or implementations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify, replace, and/or add additionally from any of the embodiments as all elements are known design alternatives. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that much of the embodiments options can easily be considered improvements, redundancies and or replacements for alternatives, which would all be obvious depending on the desired implementation or use needed of an end user. Such modifications would clearly achieve predictable results.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16. Davezac further discloses that the back structure includes a first contact region and a second contact region for contact with a user of the system (the belt (6) enveloping the lower back and pulling on the hips constitutes a first contact region analogous to a hip belt; the wide backrest (7) forming a support in the upper back constitutes a second contact region analogous to back padding; Description lines 72–77 — "a belt of adjustable length (6) enveloping the lower back and pulling on the hips, and a wide backrest (7) forming a support in the upper back with a sufficient surface to distribute the effort comfortably without punching effect").
Davezac discloses multiple embodiments and/or implementations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify, replace, and/or add additionally from any of the embodiments as all elements are known design alternatives. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that much of the embodiments options can easily be considered improvements, redundancies and or replacements for alternatives, which would all be obvious depending on the desired implementation or use needed of an end user. Such modifications would clearly achieve predictable results.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 23, including the first contact region (belt (6)) and the second contact region (backrest (7)). Davezac further discloses that the distance between the first contact region and the second contact region is adjustable (Description line 76 — "The position of the backrest is height adjustable on the stem"; Detailed Embodiment § 1 — "five holes aligned vertically every 30mm: the stem will be screwed there with a possibility of height adjustment over 150mm"; Detailed Embodiment § 3 — the backrest is fixed to the stem "on a hole oblong allowing height adjustment").
Davezac further teaches that this adjustment accommodates different user body sizes (Description line 75 — "universal size"), which inherently adapts the system to the user. With respect to counterbalancing a tilting moment caused by the object, Davezac discloses that lateral cylinders (9) "make it possible to take up a good part of the moments of force exerted on the backrest by the stem and to lower them to the worker's belt and hips" (Description lines 83–86). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adjusting the distance between the belt (hip contact) and the backrest (upper back contact) affects the lever arm available to resist the forward tilting moment caused by a suspended load, and would have been motivated to maximize this distance for the user's body size in order to improve moment resistance. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16. Davezac further discloses a support strut in order to introduce a tilting moment caused by the object into a first contact region of the system (lateral cylinders (9) attached to the backrest and the sides of the belt; Description lines 83–86 — "Lateral cylinders (9) attached to the backrest and the sides of the belt make it possible to take up a good part of the moments of force exerted on the backrest by the stem and to lower them to the worker's belt and hips: their length adjustment allows to adjust the amount of effort taken up").
The lateral cylinders (9) of Davezac function as structural struts connecting the upper portion of the back structure (backrest (7)) to the lower portion (belt (6) at the hips), and their express purpose is to transfer moments of force (tilting moments) from the cantilever/backrest down to the belt and hips (first contact region). This meets the structural and functional requirements of the claimed support strut.
Davezac discloses multiple embodiments and/or implementations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify, replace, and/or add additionally from any of the embodiments as all elements are known design alternatives. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that much of the embodiments options can easily be considered improvements, redundancies and or replacements for alternatives, which would all be obvious depending on the desired implementation or use needed of an end user. Such modifications would clearly achieve predictable results.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16. Davezac further discloses a cantilever (potence (2)) that is guidable over a head of a user or next to the head of the user (Description lines 80–82 — "a bracket (2), the bending of which marries the back of the worker's skull and brings the lifting hook just above and in front of him"; see also Fig. 1 showing the cantilever curving over the rear of the user's skull).
Davezac discloses multiple embodiments and/or implementations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify, replace, and/or add additionally from any of the embodiments as all elements are known design alternatives. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that much of the embodiments options can easily be considered improvements, redundancies and or replacements for alternatives, which would all be obvious depending on the desired implementation or use needed of an end user. Such modifications would clearly achieve predictable results.
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16. Davezac further discloses a cantilever (potence (2)) that is guidable over a head of a user (Description lines 80–82 — "a bracket (2), the bending of which marries the back of the worker's skull and brings the lifting hook just above and in front of him"; Fig. 1 — the cantilever extends upward behind the user's head and curves forward over the skull to position the hook above and in front of the user).
Davezac discloses multiple embodiments and/or implementations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify, replace, and/or add additionally from any of the embodiments as all elements are known design alternatives. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that much of the embodiments options can easily be considered improvements, redundancies and or replacements for alternatives, which would all be obvious depending on the desired implementation or use needed of an end user. Such modifications would clearly achieve predictable results.
Regarding Claim 35, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16. Davezac further discloses that the traction cable is guided via at least one pulley (pulley (12) at the end of the horizontal arm, and multiple sheaves (11) inside the cantilever; Description lines 89–90 — "cable or rope (4) running inside or outside the jib over several sheaves (11) to a pulley (12)"). Davezac further discloses that the cable is wound on a drum with a diameter of 80mm (Detailed Embodiment § 5), which falls within the claimed range of 40 to 120mm. To the extent that the drum constitutes a pulley via which the traction cable is guided, the diameter limitation is met. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a pulley or sheave diameter within the range of 40 to 120mm as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable, given the cable diameter of 3mm disclosed by Davezac and the need to maintain an appropriate bending radius for cable longevity and consistent force transmission. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Davezac discloses multiple embodiments and/or implementations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify, replace, and/or add additionally from any of the embodiments as all elements are known design alternatives. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that much of the embodiments options can easily be considered improvements, redundancies and or replacements for alternatives, which would all be obvious depending on the desired implementation or use needed of an end user. Such modifications would clearly achieve predictable results.
Regarding Claim 36, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16. Davezac discloses that the system is intended for use across a broad industrial spectrum including "workers in the metallurgical and other industries, logistics platforms, etc." (Description lines 263–265). CEA discloses the method generically for "a load (50) to be manipulated" (Claim 1) without restriction to any particular type of load object, and further teaches that the invention applies to various types of resistant forces including "the resistance to the translation of a wheel load or the driving resistance of a pile into the ground" (Description lines 694–697), indicating that the method is not limited to any specific load type. The use of the combined system with a chiseling device, which is a power tool of the type commonly used in industrial and construction settings, represents a mere selection of a known type of heavy tool as the load to be handled. A chiseling device is a tool whose weight creates the same gravitational force that the system of Davezac and CEA is designed to counterbalance. The selection of a particular type of load-object does not patentably distinguish the claimed system absent a showing that the chiseling device imposes a structural requirement on the system itself. See MPEP § 2115 ("[I]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Davezac discloses multiple embodiments and/or implementations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify, replace, and/or add additionally from any of the embodiments as all elements are known design alternatives. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that much of the embodiments options can easily be considered improvements, redundancies and or replacements for alternatives, which would all be obvious depending on the desired implementation or use needed of an end user. Such modifications would clearly achieve predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davezac (FR 2978690 A1) in view of CEA (WO 2020/043851 A1) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Kubota (EP 3 403 775 A1, published Nov. 21, 2018.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16 as set forth above. The combination discloses cable guidance via sheaves and pulleys (Davezac, Description lines 89–90 — "cable or rope (4) running inside or outside the jib over several sheaves (11) to a pulley (12)") but does not expressly disclose that the traction cable is guided via a Bowden cable.
Kubota teaches an assistance device for lifting loads in which the traction cables (wires 18, 19) are each constituted by a Bowden wire (Bowden cable) that includes an inner wire (inner cable) 18a and an outer wire (outer cable) 18b (¶ [0085] — "the right and left wires 18 can each be constituted by a Bowden wire (Bowden cable) that includes an inner wire (inner cable) 18a and an outer wire (outer cable) 18b"; see also ¶ [0193], providing the same disclosure for the second embodiment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Bowden cable routing, as taught by Kubota, for the sheave-based cable routing of the Davezac/CEA combination, because Bowden cables are a well-known alternative for routing flexible cables through a curved path, provide cable protection from environmental damage, reduce friction by eliminating the need for multiple sheaves, and offer routing flexibility for body-worn systems where the cable path must accommodate user movement. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davezac (FR 2978690 A1) in view of CEA (WO 2020/043851 A1) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of KR 101500525 B1 (Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine, granted Mar. 9, 2015).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16 including a cantilever. Davezac discloses that the cantilever is detachable from the harness for vehicle transport (Description lines 115–118 — "The bracket can be designed to be easily detached from the harness and allow the worker who wears it to circulate in a motor vehicle without removing it and thus save further time") but does not expressly disclose that the cantilever has at least one joint so that the cantilever is foldable.
KR 101500525 teaches a work unit for a wearable robot having a frame structure substantially similar to Davezac's cantilever (perpendicular frame (110) extending vertically from a backpack unit (220) and a horizontal frame (120) extending forward over the operator's head), wherein the frame includes at least one joint (first folding means (310), second folding means (320), and third folding means (330), each comprising hinge joints (313, 323, 333) and clamp sections (314, 324, 334)) so that the frame is foldable (¶¶ [0019]–[0023]; Figs. 2–4). KR 101500525 teaches that the folding feature "secures mobility" of the operator when not handling loads and allows the frame to be folded "into the small size" for compact stowage (¶¶ [0018], [0027], [0048]–[0055]).
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 cantilever of the Davezac/CEA combination to incorporate at least one folding joint, as taught by KR 101500525, in order to enable the cantilever to be folded into a compact configuration when not in use, thereby improving the operator's mobility during non-load-handling activities and reducing the overall size of the system during transport and storage. Both Davezac and KR 101500525 are directed to body-worn load-lifting systems with overhead frame structures carrying a wire rope/cable from a motorized winch, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the applicability of the folding mechanism of KR 101500525 to Davezac's cantilever. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (the combination of familiar elements according to known methods yields predictable results).
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davezac (FR 2978690 A1) in view of CEA (WO 2020/043851 A1) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Fuehrle (US 11,027,951 B2, issued Jun. 8, 2021).
Regarding Claims 31 and 32, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16, including the counterbalancing operation in which the motor torque is determined depending on the weight force of the object. CEA teaches a force servo-control law that compensates for load weight (Description lines 89–94, 283–294). However, the combination does not expressly disclose that the counterbalancing operation counterbalances the object such that a velocity of the object is less than 5 mm/s (Claim 31) or such that a rotational speed of the motor is less than 1 rad/s (Claim 32).
Fuehrle teaches a lifting device with a hoisting gear controller that adjusts motor torque to exactly match a detected hoisting load, such that when the brake is released, "the hoisting load is balanced out with the hoisting force provided by the starting torque so that undesired pendular movements can be avoided" (Col. 2, lines 24–27). Fuehrle teaches that the goal of the control is to achieve a condition in which "the hoisting force provided by the starting torque of the hoisting gear corresponds to the detected, current hoisting load" (Col. 2, lines 20–23), which results in zero net force on the load — i.e., the load neither rises nor falls, and the motor is effectively at or near standstill.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the counterbalancing control of the Davezac/CEA combination such that the force servo law achieves substantial force equilibrium — i.e., a condition in which the object velocity is minimized (approaching zero) and the motor rotational speed is minimized (approaching zero or standstill) — because Fuehrle teaches that matching the hoisting force exactly to the load force eliminates undesired movements, and because CEA teaches that total compensation of the load is a desirable operating mode (Background, line 40 — acknowledging "total compensation" as a known force servo-control approach; implemented by CEA's method at Description lines 89–94, 283–294).
The specific parameters of object velocity less than 5 mm/s and motor rotational speed less than 1 rad/s represent a near-equilibrium condition that one of ordinary skill in the art would have achieved through routine optimization of the force servo-control law, given the express teachings of both CEA and Fuehrle that exact force matching (zero net force, zero movement) is the desired outcome of load compensation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). The claimed velocity and speed values merely quantify the degree to which the counterbalancing approaches perfect equilibrium.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CEA (WO 2020/043851 A1, published Mar. 5, 2020) in view of Davezac (FR 2978690 A1, published Feb. 8, 2013).
Please note the order of pieces of prior art are reverse for primary and secondary references.
Regarding Claim 29, CEA discloses an electronic module for counterbalancing a weight force of an object fastenable to the electronic module with a traction cable (Fifth Embodiment, Fig. 6 — dorsal segment (2) housing control unit (5), battery (4), geared motors (61, 71) with drums (65, 75) and cables (66, 76); Description lines 523–536), the electronic module comprising:
an energy source for supplying a system with electrical energy (battery (4); Description line 230 — "The dorsal segment comprises a battery 4 supplying a power supply unit control and command 5");
a winder for winding up the traction cable (drums (65, 75); Description lines 523–525 — "the dorsal segment 2 of the exoskeleton 1 comprises a first stem 60 and a sixth gear motor 61 for winding around a first drum 65 of a first cable 66");
a motor for driving the winder (sixth and seventh geared motors (61, 71); Description lines 523–536);
a controller (control and command unit (5) comprising a correction algorithm (8) of the speed proportional-integral type and a memory and calculation module (9); Description lines 240–242 — "The control and command unit 5... notably comprises a correction algorithm 8 of the speed proportional-integral type as well as a memory module 9 and Calculation");
the electronic module configured to determine a counterforce for the weight force of the object and to transmit the counterforce to the object (Description lines 554–577 — the system detects the force applied by the geared motor on the cable, records the output torque value when the drum moves, and uses the recorded torque values to determine an estimate M50es of the mass of the load, which "is recorded in the module 9 and is then used by the module 9 to parameterize a force servo law which establishes the commands to be applied to the sixth geared motor 61 and to the seventh geared motor 71"),
the counterforce being determined in a counterbalancing operation such that the weight force of the object is counterbalanced by the counterforce directed counter to the weight force (CEA acknowledges that force servo-control "in which the force setpoint represents a fraction (partial compensation) or all (total compensation) of a load to be handled" is known in the art (Background, line 40), and CEA's method implements such force servo-control by estimating the resistant force and using it to parameterize a force control law that establishes compensation commands (Description lines 89–94, 283–294)),
wherein, with the counterbalancing operation, a torque of the motor is determined depending on the weight force of the object (Description lines 557–574 — "The control and command unit 5 then records and maintains the value C6i of the output torque of the sixth geared motor 61"; "The control and command unit 5 then uses the values C6i and C7i of output torque to determine an estimate M50es of the mass of the load 50").
CEA does not expressly disclose that the electronic module is structured as a single unified module with all components integrated therein. However, CEA's dorsal segment (2) houses the battery (4), control unit (5), geared motors, and drums in a single body-worn dorsal structure.
Davezac teaches integrating a winch motor, reduction gears, cable, drum, and battery within a single back-mounted compact assembly (Detailed Embodiment § 5 — motor, cable, and drum "assembled within a double plastic shell"; "A round-shaped battery (10) is clipped onto the engine block in a removable manner").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the electronic components of CEA's body-worn system as a unified electronic module as taught by Davezac's integrated winch/battery shell assembly, in order to provide a compact, modular design that facilitates maintenance and replacement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Regarding Claim 30, Claim 30 depends from Claim 29, which recites an electronic module. CEA discloses the electronic module as set forth in the rejection of Claim 29 above. CEA further teaches that the invention "also applies to other types of cobot such as, for example, fixed base load manipulators with parallel input (Figure 9) or input by the user (Figure 10)" (Description lines 659–661), establishing that the electronic module/control system is applicable in configurations other than body-worn exoskeletons, including standalone configurations.
Claim 30 further requires a kit comprising the electronic module, the traction cable, and at least one deflection pulley for counterbalancing the weight force of the object. CEA discloses cables (66, 76) for transmitting force between the actuator and the load (Description lines 523–526) and teaches fixed-base configurations in which the system is not body-worn (Figs. 9, 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure CEA's control system and motor/drum assembly as a standalone kit with a traction cable and at least one deflection pulley for use in a non-body-worn configuration, because: (a) CEA expressly teaches that the same control principle applies to fixed-base manipulators (Description lines 659–661); (b) the use of deflection pulleys to route cables from a fixed-position actuator to a load is well-known in the hoisting art (see Davezac's disclosure of sheaves (11) and pulley (12) for cable routing, Description lines 89–90; see also Fuehrle, disclosing "deflection pulleys" in hoisting systems, Fig. 1); and (c) such a kit configuration would allow the system to be used in workplaces where a body-worn system is impractical, expanding the utility of the automatic load compensation feature.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davezac (FR 2978690 A1) in view of CEA (WO 2020/043851 A1) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16, including a cantilever (Davezac's potence (2)) extending above and in front of the user. The combination does not expressly disclose that the cantilever includes a support point for supporting the system on a wall.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art of body-worn tool support systems and construction work practices to provide a contact point or support on a structure extending in front of a user, such that the system can be braced against a work surface (e.g., a wall being drilled or chiseled), thereby transferring forward-directed reaction forces and moments into the wall rather than into the user's body. Construction workers routinely brace tools and tool-support structures against work surfaces to achieve stability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a support point at the forward end of Davezac's cantilever, such that the system can be supported on a wall during use, in order to transfer the tilting moment caused by the suspended load/tool directly into the wall, thereby further relieving the user of forward-directed forces and improving working stability. This represents a straightforward application of well-known construction ergonomics principles to the body-worn load-support system of the combination.
Applicant is invited to traverse this Official Notice. If Applicant traverses this notice, the Examiner will provide documentary evidence in support of this finding in a subsequent Office action. See MPEP § 2144.03.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davezac (FR 2978690 A1) in view of CEA (WO 2020/043851 A1) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding Claim 34, the combination of Davezac and CEA renders obvious the system of Claim 16, including a winder (winch drum) for winding the traction cable. The combination does not expressly disclose that the traction cable is windable up in a single layer within the winder.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that single-layer cable winding on drums is well known in the hoisting and cable winding arts. Single-layer winding is a recognized technique that provides consistent cable tension, eliminates cable damage from cross-winding or crushing in multiple layers, ensures predictable cable payout characteristics, and avoids the lever arm variations that occur with multi-layer winding. Such single-layer winding can be achieved through the use of grooved drums or movable cable guides, both of which are conventional in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the winch drum of the Davezac/CEA combination for single-layer cable winding, in order to ensure consistent force transmission characteristics, protect the cable from damage, and maintain predictable winding behavior, all of which are desirable in a precision force-control application where motor torque must correspond accurately to load weight.
Applicant is invited to traverse this Official Notice. If Applicant traverses this notice, the Examiner will provide documentary evidence in support of this finding in a subsequent Office action. See MPEP § 2144.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua J Michener whose telephone number is (571)272-1467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30am - 4pm 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, TC 3600 Director Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
JOSHUA J. MICHENER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
