DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the specification are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1-13 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s addition of claim 29 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s cancelation of previously withdrawn claim 24 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 4 has overcome the previous drawing objections. Therefore, the previous drawing objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1-13 has overcome the previous claim objections. Therefore, the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-13 has overcome most of the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The remaining rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are described below.
Claims 1-23 and 25-29 are pending in the current application. Claims 14-23 and 25-28 are withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1-13 and 29 are subject to examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 with respect to the specification objections and the claim interpretations of claims 11 and 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments of the specification objections. Applicant’s amendment of paragraph [0010] includes the term “neoprene”. As discussed in the previous specification objections: “The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term”. The amended paragraph neither capitalizes, or includes the proper symbol. Thus, the specification objection is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments of the claim interpretations of the adjusters of the length of the belt recited in claim 11, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0047] explicitly defines the adjusters of the length of the belt as being buckles and prongs. Paragraph [0047] does not state that the adjusters of the length of the belt may be one or more motor-actuated spooling mechanisms. Paragraph [0048] discusses that the bands could comprise one or more motor-actuated spooling mechanisms, but does not disclose that the mechanism could potentially be used on the belt as a length adjuster. Therefore, the interpretations of the adjuster of the length of the belt recited in claim 11 and the separate adjuster of the length of the at least one band recited in claim 12 are maintained, and the adjuster of claim 11 is not considered to encompass one or more motor-actuated spooling mechanisms as argued by Applicant.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same primary reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term Neoprene™, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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:
Adjusters configured to adjust a length of the belt in claim 11. Applicant’s specification [0047] states “buckle 226 and/or prong 228 allow for at least a length of outer belt 216 to pass through buckle 226 and/or prong 228 in order to adjust the overall length of outer belt 216”, thus “adjusters” as recited in claim 11 are considered to encompass buckles and their known equivalents.
Adjusters configured to adjust the length of the at least one band in claim 12. Applicant’s specification paragraph [0048] recites “one or more motor-actuated spooling mechanisms”, and figure 7f are seen embodied as a buckle. Thus, the adjusters configured to adjust the length of the at least one band recited in claim 12 are considered to encompass buckles, spooling mechanisms, and their known equivalents.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 13 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the group" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a group”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the group" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a group”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11, 13, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruprecht et al. (US 2019/0343670 A1) (hereinafter Ruprecht) in view of Yewer Jr. (US 5,586,969 A) and Lopez et al. (US 8,220,073 B2).
In regards to claim 1, Ruprecht discloses a soft exosuit device (10; see [0037]; see figure 1; 10 functions to assist a user’s mobility using elastic bands and straps and thus, is considered a soft exosuit device as claimed), comprising:
a belt (18; see [0037]; see figure 1) comprising a plurality of attachment regions (regions in which 30 are positioned; see figures 1 and 2), configured to be positioned around a subject (see figures 1 and 2);
one or more brackets (30; see [0037]; see figure 1) slidably attached to the belt and positionable within the plurality of attachment regions (anchors 30 which are not fixed but are slidably positionable to any point on the waist belt 18; see [0042]), the one or more brackets comprising one or more belt attachment points (see figures 1-2 that each 30 defines an attachment point for attaching 28 to 18);
at least one brace (32; see [0037]; see figure 1; 32 encircles a user’s limb and is capable of providing assistive bracing or compression to the limb and thus, is considered a brace); comprising one or more attachment points configured to be positioned around a body part of the subject (see figure 1 and 2; anchors 30 which are not fixed but are slidably positionable to any point on the limb belts 32; see [0042]); and
at least one band (28; see [0041]; see figures 1 and 2) comprising a first fastener (upper 52; see [0054]; see figure 6) at a proximal end removably attached to one of the one or more belt attachment points (see figures 1 and 2; hooks with spring loaded closure facilitate a removable attachment to the attachment points defined by 30 which are located on 18); and a second fastener (lower 52; see figure 6) at a distal end, removably attached to one of the one or more brace attachment points (see figures 1 and 2; hooks with spring loaded closure facilitate a removable attachment to the attachment points defined by 30 which are located on 32), wherein each one of the one or more belt attachment points further comprise at least one protrusion (36; see [0043]; see figures 1 and 2), the at least one protrusion is configured to restrict movement of the first fastener to along an arcuate path (36 when engaged with upper 52 restricts upper 52 to a path along the arc of 52).
Ruprecht does not disclose the belt comprising a plurality of loops attached thereto, and the plurality of attachment regions between each loop on the belt.
However, Yewer Jr. teaches an analogous supportive belt (10; see [col 3 ln 43-45]; see figure 3) comprising an belt component (14; see [col 3 ln 43-45]; see figure 3), the belt comprising a base layer (12; see [col 3 ln 43-45]; see figure 3); the belt comprising a plurality of loops (18; see [col 3 ln 54]; see figure 3) attached thereto for the purpose of holding the belt adjacent to the surface of the base layer (see [col 3 ln 60-64]) and for allowing the belt to be comfortably worn when the strap is threaded through the loops (see [col 4 ln 27-28]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the belt as disclosed by Ruprecht and to have included the base layer which comprises a plurality of loops for receiving the strap component as taught by in order to have provided an improved belt that would add the benefit of holding the belt adjacent to the surface of the base layer (see [col 3 ln 60-64]) and for allowing the belt to be comfortably worn when the strap is threaded through the loops (see [col 4 ln 27-28]).
Thus, as now combined Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the plurality of attachment regions (regions in which 30 are positioned of Ruprecht) are between each loop (included 18 of Yewer Jr.) on the belt (18 of Ruprecht; 30 of Ruprecht being slidably attached to 18 to be desirably positioned are capable of being positioned within attachment regions defined between the loops of Yewer Jr.).
In regards to claim 2, Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. further discloses wherein the belt comprises a base layer (included 12 of Yewer Jr.) and an outer belt (18 of Ruprecht), both extending the length of the belt (see Yewer Jr. figure 3 that both components extend the length of the belt, thus 18 of Ruprecht and included 12 of Yewer Jr. extend the length of the belt of Ruprecht), the base layer (included 12 of Yewer Jr.) comprising the plurality of loops (18 of Yewer Jr.), and the outer belt (18 of Ruprecht) passing through the plurality of loops of the base layer (see Yewer Jr. figure 3; 18 of Ruprecht when modified to include 12 of Yewer Jr. would pass through loops 18 similar to structure 14 seen in Yewer Jr. figure 3), with the one or more brackets (30 of Ruprecht) slidably attached to the outer belt (see Ruprecht [0042]); the one or more brackets positioned within an attachment region of the plurality of attachment regions (30 of Ruprecht being slidably attached to 18 to be desirably positioned are capable of being positioned within attachment regions defined between the loops of Yewer Jr.)
In regards to claim 3, Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ruprecht further discloses wherein the one or more brackets (30) comprise a first bracket (30 attached to 18 seen in figure 1) in a medial attachment region of the plurality of attachment regions on the belt (18) providing a medial attachment point of the one or more belt attachment points (see figure 1 that 30 attached to 18 and the associated attachment point for attaching 28 to 18 seen in figure 1 is in a medial attachment region on a medial portion of the user’s leg), and a second bracket (30 attached to 18 seen in figure 2) positioned in a lateral attachment region of the plurality of attachment regions on the belt providing a lateral belt attachment point of the one or more belt attachment points (30 are slidable along 18 to position 30 in a desired position (see [0042]) and thus, the 30 attached to 18 seen in figure 2 is capable of being slid into a lateral position similar to figure 3 if desired).
In regards to claim 4, Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ruprecht further discloses wherein the one or more brace attachment points comprise a lateral brace attachment point (30 attached to 32 as seen in figure 2 is 30 are slidable along 32 to position 30 in a desired position (see [0042]) and thus, the 30 attached to 32 seen in figure 2 is capable of being slid into a lateral position similar to figure 3 if desired) and a medial brace attachment point (see figure 1 that 30 attached to 32 and the associated attachment point for attaching 28 to 32 seen in figure 1 is a medial attachment point on a medial portion of the user’s leg).
In regards to claim 5, Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ruprecht further discloses wherein the at least one band (28) comprises a first band (28 seen in figure 1) attached to the medial belt attachment point and the medial brace attachment point (see figure 1), and a second band (28 seen in figure 2) attached to the lateral belt attachment point and the lateral brace attachment point (as discussed in claims 3 and 4 above, the pair of 30 attached to 18 and 32 respectively and associated attachment points are slidable along 18 and 32 and can be positioned in a lateral belt/brace attachment point and thereby attaching 28 seen in figure 2 in a lateral position as claimed).
In regards to claim 6, Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ruprecht further discloses further comprising a pair of adjustable suspenders (14 and 16; see [0037]; see figure 1; 14 and 16 are adjustable via 24 and 26 (see [0039])) fixedly attached to the belt (18; see [0040]) and configured to be positioned over the shoulders of the subject (see figure 1).
In regards to claim 8, Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ruprecht further discloses wherein the at least one band (28) is selected from the group consisting of: an elastic band (see [0041]), a resistance band (elastic bands provide resistances and thus, are resistance bands), a linear actuator, a motor-actuated cable, a spring, and a strut.
In regards to claim 9, Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. further discloses wherein the plurality of loops ranges between 2 and 40 loops (see Yewer Jr. figure 3 that the number of included 18 is 7).
In regards to claim 11, Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ruprecht further discloses wherein the belt (18) comprises one or more adjusters (24; see [0038]; see figure 1) along a length of the belt configured to adjust the length of the belt (24 allows a user to cinch and tighten 18 to be different circumferences (i.e. lengths) to accommodate different sized users; see [0038]).
In regards to claim 13, Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ruprecht further discloses wherein the first fastener (upper 52) and second fastener (lower 52) are selected from the group consisting of: a hook (see [0054]), a clip, a buckle, a clasp, a button, a snap (see [0054]), a toggle, and a hook and loop.
In regards to claim 29, Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ruprecht further discloses wherein the first band (28 as seen in figure 1) is not directly attached to the second band (28 as seen in figure 2; see figures 1 and 2 that the two 28 are not directly attached).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruprecht in view of Yewer Jr. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bartenbach et al. (US 2022/0071794 A1) (hereinafter Bartenbach).
In regards to claim 7, Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ruprecht further discloses wherein the at least one band (28) is an elastic resistance band (see [0041] elastic bands provide a resistance and thus, 28 are elastic resistance bands) having an adjustable stiffness (elastic bands 28 which, as noted, may be adjusted for resistive force, by a change in the diameter or durometer thereof and changing the material forming the elastic bands 28; see [0041]).
Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. does not explicitly disclose wherein the stiffness ranges between 1 N/m and 1000 N/m.
However, Bartenbach teaches an analogous soft exosuit (1; see [0105]; see figure 1) which utilizes analogous elastic resistance bands (40; see [0105]; see figure 1; see [0050] that the elastic band may be in the shape of a rope which is similar to that of Ruprecht) for applying an assistive force to a user (see [abstract]); wherein the elastic resistance bands (40) have a stiffness ranging between 1 N/m and 1000 N/m (see [0046] that the spring rate (stiffness) of the elastic bands are between .2 and 6 N/m) for the purpose of applying a sufficient force to the body (see [abstract]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustable stiffness of the elastic resistance band as disclosed by Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. and to have used stiffness ranging between .2 and 6 N/m as taught by Bartenbach in order to have provided an improved soft exosuit that would add the benefit of applying a sufficient force to the body (see [abstract]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stiffness of the elastic resistance band as disclosed by Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr., and Bartenbach from .2-6N/m to 1-1000 N/m as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Specification [0010], and [0049] stating “in some embodiments elements 206 have a stiffness ranging from about 1 N/m to about 1000 N/m” thereby implying that there are embodiments which do not have the claimed stiffness range and that such a range is a design choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruprecht in view of Yewer Jr. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gorsen (US 2007/0237808 A1).
In regards to claim 10, Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. does not disclose wherein the base layer comprises polychloroprene and the outer belt comprises nylon.
However, Yewer Jr. further teaches that the outer belt (14) comprises nylon (see [col 4 ln 48-50] in reference to 36 and 38 of 14 being formed from nylon) for the purpose of providing an outer belt which is extremely strong for all practical uses (see [col 4 ln 50-52]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer belt as disclosed by Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. and to have formed the outer belt from a nylon material as further taught by Yewer Jr. in order to have provided an improved outer belt that would add the benefit of being made from a material which is extremely strong for all practical uses (see [col 4 ln 50-52]).
Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. still does not disclose wherein the base layer comprises neoprene.
However, Gorsen teaches an analogous belt (100; see [0010]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous base layer (102; see [0010]; see figure 1); wherein the base layer (102) comprises polychloroprene (see [0010]) for the purpose of providing a base layer which has some stretch to provide additional support or pressure (see [0010]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base layer as disclosed by Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. and to have formed the base layer to comprise neoprene as taught by Gorsen in order to have provided an improved base layer that would add the benefit of having some stretch to provide additional support or pressure (see [0010]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruprecht in view of Yewer Jr. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maclean (US 5,203,754 A).
In regards to claim 12, Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. does not disclose wherein the at least one band comprises one or more adjusters along a length of the at least one band configured to adjust the length of the at least one band.
However, Maclean teaches an analogous soft exosuit (20; see [col 3 ln 25]; see figure 1) comprising analogous at least one band (40; see [col 3 ln 49-50]; see figure 1) for the analogous purpose of providing elastic resistance to allow a user to reach their biomechanical goals (see [col 1 ln 18-20]); wherein the at least one band (40) comprises one or more adjusters (54; see [col 4 ln 1-10]; see figure 8) along a length of the at least one band (40; see figure 8) configured to adjust the length of the at least one band (see [col 4 ln 12-20]) for the purpose of providing a means for adjusting the length of the element such that the elastic resistance can be quickly and easily adjusted to the desired resistance (See [col 1 ln 20-25] and [col 7 ln 29-41]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one band as disclosed by Ruprecht as now modified by Yewer Jr. and to have included the one or more adjusters along the length of the at least one band as taught by Maclean in order to have provided an improved at least one band that would add the benefit of providing a means for adjusting the length of the band such that the elastic resistance can be quickly and easily adjusted to the desired resistance (See [col 1 ln 20-25] and [col 7 ln 29-41]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights