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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walsh (US Pub No.: 2017/0027735).
Regarding claim 1, Walsh (US Pub No.: 2017/0027735) discloses a garment for coupling an exosuit (exosuit in the abstract, garment in [0232], figures 8A and 8C) comprising: a first portion of a fabric for accommodating a first side of the exosuit (the left side of the device of figure 8C, with fabric portion 840); a second portion of the fabric for accommodating a second side of the exosuit (the right side of the device in figure 8C, where the portion around part 810 is still part 840 that is defined in [0092]), wherein at least one of the first portion or the second portion of the fabric includes a channel for receiving at least one of the first side and second side of the exosuit (shown in figure 8C where webbing loops are present to secure the exosuit to the fabric portion), the channel comprises: an inside layer positioned towards a limb of a user; and an outside layer positioned towards surface of the garment (being the inner and outer portions of the webbing loops, where, as per figure 8E, the garment of figure 8C is worn on a user), wherein the at least one of the first side and the second side of the exosuit is coupled between the inside layer and the outside layer (shown in figure 8C where the left and right side of the exosuit are coupled to a left and right side of the fabric), wherein a thickness of the fabric at the first portion and the second portion is less than a thickness of the fabric at a portion other than the first portion and the second portion (in figure 8C, the fabric is thicker about the webbing loops, where said webbing loops are portions other than a first or second portion of part 840).
Regarding claim 2, Walsh discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the channel is provided in form of a pocket sewn into the at least one of the first side and the second side of the garment (the loops in figure 8C are equivalent to pockets).
Regarding claim 3, Walsh discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the first side and the second side of the exosuit is coupled with between the inside layer and the outside layer using an attachment means (an attachment means is shown in figure 8C).
Regarding claim 4, Walsh discloses the garment of claim 3, wherein the attachment means includes at least one of buttons, snaps, zippers, and sewing means (sewing of an exosuit rigid bar into a fabric in [0102]).
Regarding claim 8, Walsh discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the exosuit is configured to place the at least one of the first side and the second side along a medial side or lateral side of: an upper portion of an arm of the user; a lower portion of the arm of the user; an upper portion of a leg of the user; or a lower portion of the leg of the user (placement along an upper and lower leg of a user shown in figures 8D-8E).
Regarding claim 9, Walsh discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first side of the exosuit and the second side of the exosuit comprises: a first structure configured to be placed along an upper portion of the limb of the user; and a second structure configured to be placed along a lower portion of the limb of the user (shown in figures 8C-8E, where a structure about part 820 is above a knee of a user and a part 818 is below the knee joint of a user).
Regarding claim 10, Walsh discloses the garment of claim 9, wherein the exosuit comprises an actuator (disclosed in [0033] and [0098]) that is configured to cause movement of the first structure relative to the second structure of the exosuit (as the actuator is used to straighten the leg in [0114], and as the exosuit device is on both sides of the leg about the user’s knee joint in figures 8C-8E, the actuator has to move one side of the exosuit with respect to the other to straighten the leg).
Regarding claim 11, Walsh discloses the garment of claim 10, wherein the actuator is placed adjacent of a body joint when the exosuit is worn by the user (the device is worn adjacent to a knee joint in figures 8D-8E).
Regarding claim 12, Walsh discloses the garment of claim 11, wherein the body joint comprises at least one of a knee, an elbow, a hip, and a shoulder of the user (knee actuation shown in figures 8D-8E, providing assistive torques to a knee in [0114]).
Regarding claim 13, Walsh discloses the garment of claim 10, wherein the actuator is one of an electric motor, a hydraulic actuator, and a pneumatic actuator (pneumatic actuator in [0218], electric motor in [0240]).
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh (US Pub No.: 2017/0027735) in view of Rubin (US Pub No.: 2016/0139666).
Regarding claim 5, Walsh discloses the garment of claim 1. However, Walsh does not further comprise an opening for enabling removal of the exosuit from the garment.
Instead, Rubin (US Pub No.: 2016/0139666) teaches an opening for enabling removal of the exosuit from the garment (in [0268] a hook and loop fastener allows for veneer 2706 to be removable from exoskeleton 703, where the hook and loop fastener comprises an opening in the loop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the means to remove a garment as presented in Rubin with the hook and loop fasteners to provide a means to remove the garment that is not explicitly taught in Walsh, while the removing of the garment in Rubin allows for maintenance of a garment, as per [0268]-[0269]
Regarding claim 6, Walsh teaches the garment of claim 1. However, Walsh does not teach wherein the fabric is composed of a composite material with reinforced fibers.
Instead, Rubin teaches wherein the fabric is composed of a composite material with reinforced fibers (a fabric-metal composite and polyethylene fiber in [0265] constitute reinforced fibers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material details of Rubin into the garment of Walsh to provide a material for the exosuit of Walsh known in the art, where the fibers of Walsh provide the benefit of allowing for a “thin, elastic, thermally conductive, and substantially liquid-impermeable material” as per [0265]
Regarding claim 7, Walsh in view of Rubin teach the garment of claim 6, wherein Rubin teaches that the reinforced fibers include at least one of a carbon fiber, a polypropylene fiber, and a polyethylene fiber (polyethylene fiber in [0265] constitute reinforced fibers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material details of Rubin into the garment of Walsh to provide a material for the exosuit of Walsh known in the art, where the fibers of Walsh provide the benefit of allowing for a “thin, elastic, thermally conductive, and substantially liquid-impermeable material” as per [0265]
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh (US Pub No.: 2017/0027735) in view of Walsh (US Pub No.: 2015/0173993).
Regarding claim 14, Walsh discloses the garment of claim 1. However, Walsh does not teach wherein the garment includes one or more windows for attaching an external equipment with the exosuit.
Instead, Walsh (2015/0173993) teaches wherein the garment includes one or more windows for attaching an external equipment with the exosuit (window for visual inspection with a guide slot for a cable in [0269], where the cable falls under “external equipment”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the window of Walsh 2015 into Walsh for the purpose of providing a means to view the drive system of Walsh while also providing a means to hold the cables of Walsh that perform a movement.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh (US Pub No.: 2017/0027735) in view of Branson (US Pub No.: 2009/0282595).
Regarding claim 15, Walsh discloses the garment of claim 1. However, Walsh does not teach an instance further comprising a quick-release mechanism configured to attach couple and decouple the garment with an external object.
Instead, Branson (US Pub No.: 2009/0282595) teaches a quick-release mechanism configured to attach couple and decouple the garment with an external object (in [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the quick release links of Branson, disclosed in [0042], to be between the garment and exosuit device of Walsh for the purpose of providing a means to releasably couple and decouple both parts from each other, as per [0042] or Branson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi (US Pub No.: 2021/0128390) considered for an assist device that is deformable is disclosed in the abstract. Thompson (US Pub No.: 2020/0121479) disclosed for a glove device that has actuatable parts to drive a motion of the fingers of a user, in the abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AREN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0144. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:30 M-Th.
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, Jerrah C. Edwards can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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.
/AREN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights