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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 02/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election in the reply filed on 02/03/2026 was made without presenting arguments to traverse the restriction requirement. Thus, the election is considered to be made without traverse.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, wherein the one or more attachment points on the brace comprise a left lateral brace attachment point and a right lateral brace attachment point as recited in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Currently the figures show attachment points 240 and 242 on the brace. However, only 240 is seen to be on a “lateral” side on the user’s leg. 242 is not explicitly shown in the drawings, but appears to be positioned on a medial side of the user’s leg.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each loop” in line 3. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the plurality of loops” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each bracket” in line 5. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the one or more brackets” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claims 2-13 each recites the limitation “The device” in line their preambles. These limitations, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “The soft exosuit device” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the loops” in line 3. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the plurality of loops” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the brackets slidably attached to the outer belt, each bracket” in line 3. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the one or more brackets slidably attached to the outer belt, the one or more brackets” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the one or more attachment points on the brace” in line 1. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the one or more brace attachment points” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the brace” in line 1”. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the at least one brace” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Each limitation in the group of claim 8 should be amended to recite “a” or “an” to properly present the limitations.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the belt has a total number of loops”. This limitation, while not unclear that Applicant is referring to the plurality of loops” recited in claim 1, should be amended to recite “wherein the plurality of loops ranges between 2 and 40 loops” to maintain consistency and clarity in the claims.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the fasteners”. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the first fastener and second fastener” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Each limitation in the group of claim 8 should be amended to recite “a” or “an” to properly present the limitations, and to remove their plural nature as Applicant is not claiming the first and second fastener are each multiple structures, Applicant is claiming the first and second fastener are one of the structures recited.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “toggles and hook and loop”. This limitation should be amended to recite “toggles, and hook and loop”.
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 the 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 elements 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 elements 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 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation “the one or more attachment regions” in line 4. This limitation lacks antecedent basis, and is unclear as to if the one or more attachment regions recited in line 4 includes the plurality of attachment regions, or if these are new attachment regions. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the plurality of attachment regions”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one element” in line 8. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear in the claim as to what structures, features, or aspects of the exosuit device are encompassed in the recitation of “at least one element”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “at least one band”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a belt attachment point” in line 8. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to if the belt attachment point recited in line 8 is one of the one or more belt attachment points recited earlier in the claim, or is a new belt attachment point. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “to the one or more belt attachment points”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a brace attachment point” in line 9. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to if the brace attachment point recited in line 9 is one of the one or more brace attachment points recited earlier in the claim, or is a new brace attachment point. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “to the one or more brace attachment points”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the length" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a length”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an attachment region” in line 4. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to if the attachment region recited in claim 2 is one of the plurality of attachment regions recited earlier in claim 1, or is a new attachment region. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “an attachment region of the plurality of attachment regions”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a medial attachment region” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to if the medial attachment region recited in claim 3 is one of the plurality of attachment regions recited earlier in claim 1, or is a new attachment region. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a medial attachment region of the plurality of attachment regions”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a medial belt attachment point” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to if the medial attachment point recited in claim 3 is one of the plurality of attachment points of the belt recited earlier in claim 1, or is a new attachment point. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a medial attachment point of the one or more of attachment points of the belt”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a lateral attachment region” in line 3. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to if the lateral attachment region recited in claim 3 is one of the plurality of attachment regions recited earlier in claim 1, or is a new attachment region. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a lateral attachment region of the plurality of attachment regions”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a lateral belt attachment point” in line 3. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to if the lateral attachment point recited in claim 3 is one of the plurality of attachment points of the belt recited earlier in claim 1, or is a new attachment point. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a lateral attachment point of the one or more of attachment points of the belt”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the one or more attachment points on the brace comprise a left lateral brace attachment point and a right lateral brace attachment point” which renders the claim indefinite in view of the figure 7g. In figure 7g, the left lateral attachment point 242 is first, on a right side of 204, and second, appears to be on a medial side of the knee which renders the claim unclear as to if Applicant is claiming left and right attachment points positioned on a lateral (outside) aspect of the user’s knee, or if Applicant is claiming attachment points on left and right sides of the at least one brace when positioned around a body part of the subject. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “wherein the one or more attachment points on the brace comprise a left brace attachment point and a right brace attachment point”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the elements” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, and it is unclear as to if the elements recited in claim 7 are new elements in addition to the at least one element recited in claim 1, or if Applicant is claiming the at least one element is a plurality of elements. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “wherein the at least one element”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the elements” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, and it is unclear as to if the elements recited in claim 7 are new elements in addition to the at least one element recited in claim 1, or if Applicant is claiming the at least one element is a plurality of elements. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “wherein the at least one element”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the elements comprise elements”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as to what is being claimed. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “wherein the at least one element is selected”.
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 8 recites the limitation “springs and struts” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear as to if Applicant is claiming the group consists of a separate spring structure, and strut structure, or if Applicant is claiming a combination of springs and struts. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “springs, and struts”.
Claim 10 contains the trademark/trade name Neoprene™. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe polychloroprene material and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the length" 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 length”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the elements” in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, and it is unclear as to if the elements recited in claim 12 are new elements in addition to the at least one element recited in claim 1, or if Applicant is claiming the at least one element is a plurality of elements. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret these limitations as “the at least one element”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the length" 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 length”.
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”.
Claims 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on a rejected claim, and thus, containing the same offending limitaitons.
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, 9, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicassio (US 7,608,026 B1) in view of Yewer Jr. (US 5,586,969 A) and Lopez et al. (US 8,220,073 B2).
In regards to claim 1, Nicassio discloses A soft exosuit device (20; see [col 3 ln 4]; see figure 1; 20 lacks metallic or rigid supports, and is a wearable device that enables, assists, or enhances motion or physical activity through mechanical interaction with force applied to the user's body (see [col 1 ln 8-13], and thus, is a soft exosuit device), comprising:
a belt (32; see [col 4 ln 67-col 5 ln 5]; see figure 7) comprising a plurality of attachment regions (attachment regions where 90 are attached to 32; see figures 1 and 2), configured to be positioned around a subject (see [col 4 ln 67]; see figures 1 and 2);
one or more brackets (95; see [col 4 ln 29]; see figure 6) attached to the belt (32; see figures 1 and 2) and positioned within the one or more attachment regions (see figures 1 and 2), each bracket comprising one or more belt attachment points (92 attached to 32; see [col 3 ln 53]; see figure 6);
at least one brace (60; see [col 3 ln 15]; see figure 1) comprising one or more brace attachment points (92 of 60; see figures 1 and 8) configured to be positioned around a body part of the subject (see figures 1 and 8);
at least one element (80; see [col 3 ln 25-26]; see figures 8 and 9) comprising a first fastener at a proximal end removably attached to a belt attachment point (upper 91 attached to 92 of 32; see [col 3 ln 50-52]; see figures 6, 8, and 9) and a second fastener at a distal end, removably attached to a brace attachment point (lower 91 attached to 92 of 60; see figures 6, 8, and 9).
Nicassio does not disclose the belt comprising a plurality of loops attached thereto, and the plurality of attachment regions between each loop on the belt; and
the one or more brackets are slidably attached to the belt and positionable within the one or more attachment regions
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 (10) 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 Nicassio 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 Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. disclose the plurality of attachment regions (attachment regions where 90 are attached to 32 of Nicassio) are between each loop (included 18 of Yewer Jr.) on the belt (32 of Nicassio).
Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. still does not disclose the one or more brackets are slidably attached to the belt and positionable within the one or more attachment regions.
However, Lopez teaches an analogous exosuit device (10; see [col 3 ln 59-60]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous belt (40; see [col 3 ln 60-62]; see figure 1) and analogous one or more brackets (47; see [col 4 ln 10-15]; see figure 1) for attaching to an at least one element (60; see [col 4 ln 5-10]; see figure 1); wherein the one or more brackets (47) are slidably attached to the belt (40; see [col 4 ln 15-20] in reference to 47 being “selectively coupled” around the belt; thereby able to slidably attach to 40) and positionable within the one or more attachment regions (attachment regions in which 60 attaches to 40; a slidable engagement facilitates selective positioning as desired).
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 one or more brackets of the soft exosuit device as disclosed by Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. to be brackets which are selectively and slidably attached to the belt as taught by Lopez in order to have provided an improved soft exosuit device that would add the benefit of decreasing the cost of manufacturing the soft exosuit of Nicassio by removing the need for the additional unutilized brackets as two slidable brackets of Lopez may be attached to the belt and positioned as desired for attaching the at least one element to the belt, and thereby removing the need for the unutilized brackets as seen in figures 7, 8, and 11 of Nicassio.
In regards to claim 2, Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez further discloses wherein the belt (32 of Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr.) comprises a base layer (included 12 of Yewer Jr.) and an outer belt (32 of Nicassio), both extending the length of the belt (see Yewer Jr. figure 3 that both components extend the length of the belt, thus 32 of Nicassio and included 12 of Yewer Jr. extend the length of the belt of Nicassio), the base layer (included 12 of Yewer Jr.) comprising the plurality of loops (18 of Yewer Jr.), and the outer belt (32 of Nicassio) passing through the loops of the base layer (see Yewer Jr. figure 3; 32 of Nicassio 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 brackets slidably attached to the outer belt (32 of Nicassio; 95 of Nicassio is attached to 32; thus, 95 as now modified by Lopez are each slidably attached to 32), each bracket positioned within an attachment region (95 of Nicassio as now modified by Lopez are slidable along 32 of Nicassio, and thus, are capable of being positioned within an attachment region defined between the included loops of Yewer Jr.).
In regards to claim 3, Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nicassio as now modified by Lopez wherein the one or more brackets (95 of Nicassio as now modified by Lopez) comprise a first bracket positioned in a medial attachment region on the belt providing a medial belt attachment point, and a second bracket positioned in a lateral attachment region on the belt providing a lateral belt attachment point (see Nicassio annotated figure 9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nicassio further discloses wherein the one or more attachment points on the brace comprise a left lateral brace attachment point and a right lateral brace attachment point (see Nicassio annotated figure 9 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
242
517
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nicassio further discloses wherein the at least one element (80) comprises a first element attached to the medial belt attachment point and the right lateral brace attachment point, and a second element attached to the lateral belt attachment point and the left lateral brace attachment point (see annotated figure 9 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
467
411
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 6, Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nicassio further discloses further comprising a pair of adjustable suspenders (35; see [col 5 ln 4]; see figure 1) fixedly attached to the belt (32; see figures 1 and 2) and configured to be positioned over shoulders of the subject (see figures 1 and 2).
In regards to claim 9, Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. further discloses wherein the belt (32 of Nicassio) has a total number of loops ranging between 2 and 40 loops (see Yewer Jr. figure that the number of included loops is 7).
In regards to claim 11, Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nicassio further discloses wherein the belt (32) comprises one or more adjusters (34; see [col 5 ln 1-5]; see figure 14) along the length of the belt (32; 34 is positioned along the length of 32 with excess 32 extending from 34; see figure 14) configured to adjust the length of the belt (32; the length of 32 is configured to be adjusted via the buckle of 34 as evidenced by the excess 32 extending from 34 which is indicative of 34 functioning as a well-known strap lengthening and shortening mechanisms).
In regards to claim 13, Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nicassio further discloses wherein the fasteners (upper and lower 91) are selected from the group consisting of hooks, clips (see [col 3 ln 47-53]), buckles, clasps, buttons, snaps, toggles and hook and loop.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicassio in view of Yewer Jr. and Lopez 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, Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez does not explicitly disclose wherein the elements are elastic resistance bands having a stiffness ranging between 1 N/m and 1000 N/m.
However, Bartenbach teaches an analogous soft exosuit (1; see [0105]; see figure 1) which utilizes analogous elements (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 Nicassio) for applying an assistive force to a user (see [abstract]); wherein the elements (40) are elastic resistance bands (see [0105]) having 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 elements as disclosed by Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez and to have formed the elements as elastic resistance bands having a 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 between .2 and 6 N/m.
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 Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr., Lopez, 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).
In regards to claim 8, Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez does not explicitly disclose wherein the elements comprise elements selected from the group consisting of: elastic bands, resistance bands, linear actuators, motor-actuated cables, springs and struts.
However, Bartenbach teaches an analogous soft exosuit (1; see [0105]; see figure 1) which utilizes analogous elements (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 Nicassio) for applying an assistive force to a user (see [abstract]); wherein the elements (40) comprise elements selected from the group consisting of: elastic bands (see [0105]) 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 elements as disclosed by Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez and to have formed the elements as elastic bands as taught by Bartenbach in order to have provided improved elements that would add the benefit of applying a sufficient force to the body (see [abstract]), and because Bartenbach teaches that elastic ropes (such as those disclosed by Nicassio) and elastic bands are known equivalents in the field of physiotherapy (see [0050]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicassio in view of Yewer Jr. and Lopez as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gorsen (US 2007/0237808 A1).
In regards to claim 10, Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez does not disclose wherein the base layer comprises neoprene 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 Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez 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]).
Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez 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 neoprene (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 Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez 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 Nicassio in view of Yewer Jr. and Lopez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maclean (US 5,203,754 A).
In regards to claim 12, Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez does not disclose wherein the elements comprise one or more adjusters along the length of the elements configured to adjust the length of the elements.
However, Maclean teaches an analogous soft exosuit (20; see [col 3 ln 25]; see figure 1) comprising analogous elements (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 elements (40) comprise one or more adjusters (54; see [col 4 ln 1-10]; see figure 8) along the length of the elements (40; see figure 8) configured to adjust the length of the elements (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 element as disclosed by Nicassio as now modified by Yewer Jr. and Lopez and to have included the one or more adjusters along the length of the at least one element as taught by Maclean in order to have provided an improved at least one element that would add the benefit 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]).
Conclusion
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