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 .
Drawings
The provided figures are objected to for use of black and white photographs in replacement of drawings. Black and white photographs are acceptable in situations where the claimed invention cannot be practically illustrated. It is seen that the subject matter of the application permits illustration by a drawing, therefore drawings are required in place of the photographs. (See 37 CFR 1.84(b)).
Formal drawings require that every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. (37 CFR 1.84(l)). The drawings are of inadequate reproduction quality. For instance, the figures appear to be gray-scaled version of color photographs, and it is resultingly difficult to follow the lead lines for element #24, 100 and 132 of fig 1a; #130 and 132 of fig 1b; #150 in fig 4; #140, 142 and 144 of fig 5; #20, 140, 142, 144 and 148 of fig 6a; #120 and 140 fig 6b, and additionally difficult to see the structural details of the shown components.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 is listed as dependent upon claim 1, however the claim should be dependent upon claim 5 to resolve the lack of antecedent basis for “the one or more elastic elements”
Claim 17 recites “defines the maximum displace out the outer plate” should read ---defines the maximum displacement of the outer plate---
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim 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: “movable connecting mechanism” in claims 2 and 17.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-4, 7-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Romo (US 2018/0303699 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Romo in view of Kazerooni (US 2015/0230964 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Romo discloses a harness for a wearable assistance device (abstract) comprising: an inner support (#156 fig 4) configured to be attached to a first side of a body interface (#104 fig 3); a movable outer support (#102 fig 3-4) slidably coupled to the inner support (par 0075) and configured to connect to a wearable assistance device (see fig 7a/7b showing slots 115 of outer support allowing for connection of arm/shoulder assistance device 117, par 0079); and a strap attachment connected to the movable outer support and configured to be attached to a second side of the body interface that is opposite the first side of the body interface (see fig 7 showing straps 108/116 connecting to the outer support and wrapping around to connect to front side/second side/opposite side), wherein the movable outer support moves axially relative to the inner support from an unloaded position to a loaded position upon application of a load from the wearable assistance device (par 0075 discloses the outer support being able to slide axially along the slots 159/ see arrow in fig 4, it is therefore seen that this structure allows for axial movement from an unloaded to a loaded position).
In the event that applicant sees Romo as failing to discloses this free sliding allowing for axial movement, and instead sees Romo as disclosing an adjustable length securable by fasteners, Kazerooni teaches a similar harness for a wearable assistance device (abstract), with an inner support (#160 fig 7-8) and a movable outer support (#140 fig 7-8) capable of freely moving in the axial direction (see arrows 146 in fig 7-8, par 0063 disclosing freely sliding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the fastener and slots of Romo to allow free sliding as taught by Kazerooni as doing so allows for improved bending motion (Kazerooni: par 0063).
Regarding claim 2, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 1. Romo further discloses a movable connecting mechanism (#157/159 fig 4) is positioned at the inner support, at the outer support, or between the inner support and outer support (#159 is at outer support and #157 at inner support and thus the mechanism functions between the two supports), the movable connecting mechanism being configured to allow the outer support to be slidably coupled to the inner support (par 0075).
Regarding claim 3, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 2. Romo further discloses the movable connecting mechanism comprises at least one fastener (#157 fig 4, par 0075) receivable in at least one corresponding slot (#159 fig 4, par 0075).
Regarding claim 4, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 3. Romo further discloses a length of the at least one corresponding slot defines the maximum displacement of the outer support with respect to the inner support (as the length of slot #159 limits the extent of movement of fastener 157 it is seen that the slot length defines a maximum displacement).
Regarding claim 7, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 1. Romo further discloses a top portion of the inner support is configured to connect to the first side of a body interface (see fig 3-4 showing the inner support being surrounded by body interface component 104 therefore the inner support connects at a top portion to the first side of the body interface, portion of 104 between the users lumbar and the support), and a bottom portion of the outer support is configured to connect to the second side of the body interface via the strap attachment (see fig 14 showing straps 318 connecting to the bottom portion of the outer support and connecting to the front of the users body with other straps of the body interface).
Regarding claim 8, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 7. Romo further discloses the first side of the body interface is at a user's posterior trunk (see fig 14 showing inner support plate placed at posterior trunk), and the second side of the body interface is at a user's anterior trunk (see fig 14 showing straps 318 connecting the outer support to the anterior trunk).
Regarding claim 9, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 1. Romo further discloses the strap attachment includes at least one strap connected at one end to the outer support and at an opposite end to the second side of the body interface (#318 fig 14 connected to outer support at one end and other straps/body interface straps 332 in fig 15a).
Regarding claim 10, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 1. Romo further discloses each of the inner and outer supports is a plate (see fig 3-5).
Regarding claim 11, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 1. Romo further discloses the outer support is connected to at least one element of the wearable assistance device that provides assistive force (#117 fig 7a-b, par 0079-0082).
Regarding claim 12, Romo discloses a wearable assistance device (abstract, 117 fig 7a-b, par 0079-0082) comprising the harness of claim 1 (see Romo/modified Romo of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Romo discloses a harness for a wearable assistance device (abstract) comprising: an inner plate (#156 fig 4) configured to be attached to a first side of a body interface wearable by a user (#104 fig 3); a movable outer plate (#102 fig 3-4) slidably coupled to the inner plate (par 0075) and configured to connect to at least one element of a wearable assistance device that provides assistive force (see fig 7a/7b showing slots 115 of outer support allowing for connection of arm/shoulder assistance device 117, par 0079); and a strap attachment connected to the movable outer plate and configured to be attached to a second side of the body interface that is opposite the first side of the body interface (see fig 7 showing straps 108/116 connecting to the outer support and wrapping around to connect to front side/second side/opposite side), wherein the movable outer plate moves axially relative to the inner plate from an unloaded position to a loaded position upon application of a load from the wearable assistance device to balance against the assistive force (par 0075 discloses the outer support being able to slide axially along the slots 159/ see arrow in fig 4, it is therefore seen that this structure allows for axial movement from an unloaded to a loaded position).
In the event that applicant sees Romo as failing to discloses this free sliding allowing for axial movement, and instead sees Romo as disclosing an adjustable length securable by fasteners. Kazerooni teaches a similar harness for a wearable assistance device (abstract), with an inner plate (#160 fig 7-8) and a movable outer support (#140 fig 7-8) capable of freely moving in the axial direction (see arrows 146 in fig 7-8, par 0063 disclosing freely sliding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the fastener and slots of Romo to allow free sliding as taught by Kazerooni as doing so allows for improved bending motion (Kazerooni: par 0063).
Regarding claim 14, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 13. Romo further discloses the strap attachment includes at least one strap connected at one end to the outer plate and at an opposite end to the second side of the body interface (#318 fig 14 connected to outer support at one end and other straps/body interface straps 332 in fig 15a).
Regarding claim 15, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 14. Romo further discloses a bottom portion of the outer plate is connected to the one end of the at least one strap of the strap attachment (see fig 14 showing straps 318 connecting to the bottom portion of the outer plate at the one end and connecting to the front of the users body at the other end with other straps of the body interface).
Regarding claim 16, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 15. Romo further discloses the at least one strap runs under the arm of the user (see fig 14).
Regarding claim 17, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 13. Romo further discloses a movable connecting mechanism (#157/159 fig 4) is positioned at the inner plate, at the outer plate, or between the inner plate and outer plate (#159 is at outer support and #157 at inner support and thus the mechanism functions between the two supports), the movable connecting mechanism being configured to allow the outer plate to be slidably coupled to the inner plate (par 0075) and defines the maximum displacement of the outer plate with respect to the inner plate (as the length of slot #159 limits the extent of movement of fastener 157 it is seen that the slot length defines a maximum displacement).
Regarding claim 18, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 17. Romo further discloses the movable connecting mechanism comprises at least one fastener (#157 fig 4, par 0075) receivable in at least one slot (#159 fig 4, par 0075).
Regarding claim 21, Romo discloses a wearable assistance device (abstract, 117 fig 7a-b, par 0079-0082) comprising the harness of claim 1 (see Romo/modified Romo of claim 1 above).
Claims 5-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo/modified Romo as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Zelik (US 2019/0358074 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 1. Romo is silent to one or more elastic elements couple the outer support to the inner support, and wherein the elastic element is configured to deform when the outer support moves relative to the inner support.
Zelik teaches a wearable assistive device that utilize elastic elements configured to deform when the spine/spinal support is elongated (par 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an elastic band as taught by Zelik between the inner and outer support of Romo/modified Romo as doing so allows for the elastic to provide an assistive force during leaning and lifting activities (Zelik: par 0075).
Regarding claim 6, modified Romo discloses the device of claim 5. Zelik further discloses the one or more elastic elements are elastic bands (par 0075).
Regarding claim 19, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 1. Romo is silent to one or more elastic elements couple the outer and inner plates, and wherein the elastic element is configured to deform when the outer plate moves relative to the inner plate.
Zelik teaches a wearable assistive device that utilize elastic elements configured to deform when the spine/spinal support is elongated (par 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an elastic band as taught by Zelik between the inner and outer support of Romo/modified Romo as doing so allows for the elastic to provide an assistive force during leaning and lifting activities (Zelik: par 0075).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo/modified Romo as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Van Engelhoven (US 2016/0339583 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Romo/modified Romo discloses the device of claim 13. Romo is silent to the body interface is a body armor vest.
Van Engelhoven teaches a wearable assistance device harness with a vest as a body interface (#114 fig 20-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a body armor vest as taught by Van Engelhoven for the body interface of Romo/modified Romo as doing so can provide a more secure attachment to the wearer than straps and help to distribute the force throughout a larger contact with the wearer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sandifer US 2010/0204630 A1 discloses a spina orthosis device utilizing slots and fasteners for length adjustment
Burke US 2014/0100501 A1 discloses a wearable device with a bias spring at a spinal elongation component
Carter US 8,992,452 B2 discloses a load carrier frame with slot and fastener adjustment
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRA B DAHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/KIRA B DAHER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785