DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-6, 12-20) in the reply filed on 7/22/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that there would not be a serious search burden if Invention II was examined and searched with Invention I. This is found persuasive. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-20 are elected and examined below; claims 21-27 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Recitations to “the frame as a ground” (claims 1, 7 12, 17), “the shank coupler link as a ground” (claims 2, 7), “the quad coupler link as a ground” (claim 3) and “the torso coupler link as a ground” (claims 8, 13) are unclear, overly vague and indefinite. A person ordinary skill in the art cannot properly ascertain the metes and bounds of these limitations because it is unclear how a mechanical component can be “as a ground” portion of a four-bar linkage. The specification detailed description and drawings fail to provide context bringing clarity to the term. For examining purposes, these phrases will be broadly and reasonably construed in view of applicant’s specification.
Claim 3 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. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the shank mechanism” and “the rocker”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 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. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the foot mechanism link”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 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. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the ground”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moroever, it is unclear how the referenced wheel can pull the animal motion simulator across “the ground” when claim 1 uses “a ground” in reference to “the frame”. It is recommended to amend to “a ground support” or the like.
Claim 8 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. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the rocker”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The recitation in claim 15 of “one or more of the four-bar linkages” creates an indefinite scope as base claim 12 only requires “a first four-bar linkage”. Correspondingly, claim 15 recites the limitation "the four-bar linkages”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 11 and 16 recite the limitation "the ground”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moroever, it is unclear how the referenced wheel can pull the animal motion simulator across “the ground” when claims 7 and 12 use “a ground” in reference to “the frame” (claims 7 and 12) and “the shank coupler link”. It is recommended to amend to “a ground support” or the like.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The recitation in claim 19 of “one or more of the four-bar linkages” creates an indefinite scope as base claim 17 only requires “a four-bar linkage”. Correspondingly, claim 19 recites the limitation "the four-bar linkages”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 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. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the ground”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moroever, it is unclear how the referenced wheel can pull the animal motion simulator across “the ground” when claim 17 uses “a ground” in reference to “the frame”. It is recommended to amend to “a ground support” or the like.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 12, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bach (US Pub. No. 2022/0161115)
With respect to claim 12, Copenhaver teaches: a frame structure 28; a crank subassembly 66 coupled to the frame structure 28; a torso link pair comprising a torso mechanism link 92 coupled with a torso coupler link 94; and a quad link pair comprising a quad coupler link 98 coupled with a quad rocker link 100 (“rocker arm”); wherein a first four-bar linkage comprises the frame 28 as a ground, the crank subassembly 66 as a crank, the quad coupler link 98 as a coupler, and the quad rocker link 100 as a rocker (columns 6-7; Fig.’s 2-7B).
With respect to claims 15-16, Copenhaver teaches a transmission system coupled to the frame structure 28, the transmission system configured to drive one or more of the four-bar linkages through the crank subassembly 66 (via driver pulley 78), and further comprising a wheel 24 coupled to the frame structure 28, the wheel supplying rotary power to the transmission system when the animal motion simulator is pulled across the ground (column 3, lines 65-67; Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 17, Copenhaver teaches an animal motion simulator 10 comprising: a frame structure 28; a crank subassembly 66 coupled to the frame structure 28; a torso link pair comprising a torso mechanism link 90; and a quad link pair comprising a quad coupler link 70; wherein a four-bar linkage comprises the frame 28 as a ground, the crank subassembly 66 as a crank, the quad coupler link 70 as a coupler, and the torso mechanism link 90 as a rocker (columns 6-7; Fig.’s 2-7B; examiner notes torso mechanism link 90 comprises rocker arm 96).
With respect to claims 19-20, Copenhaver teaches a transmission system coupled to the frame structure 28, the transmission system configured to drive one or more of the four-bar linkages through the crank subassembly 66 (via driver pulley 78), and further comprising a wheel 24 coupled to the frame structure 28, the wheel supplying rotary power to the transmission system when the animal motion simulator is pulled across the ground (column 3, lines 65-67; Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 13-14 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272 4463. 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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711