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 drawings are objected to because:
Reference characters “P1”, “16”, “P2”, “84”, “86”, “76”, “52”, “54”, “56”, “92”, “90”, “102”, “P26”, “P22” are not found in the specification (Figs 1B, 2A, 3, 4A, 5A).
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “pivot assemblies” should be changed to –first and second pivot assemblies—for consistency with dependent Claims 14 and 15 (Claim 1, Line 4).
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:
Anti-rotation member of Claims 1, 16, and 24. The corresponding structures are 70 and 72 (Fig 2A; paragraph 00035).
Lumbar reaction member of Claims 1, 16, and 24. The corresponding structures are 80 and 82 (Fig 2A; paragraph 00035).
One or more compensation elements of Claims 6 and 24. The corresponding structures are springs or resilient members within cassette 7 (paragraph 00028).
Locking elements of Claim 10. The corresponding structures are lock buttons 46 (Fig 3; paragraph 00037).
Locking elements of Claim 12. The corresponding structures are pins 79 (Fig 3; paragraph 00039).
Locking mechanism of Claim 15. The corresponding structures are pins 94 (Fig 3; paragraph 00038).
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 2-6 and 16-18 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 2 states “a vertical axis” (Line 2). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same as the vertical axes mentioned earlier in Claim 1. It appears the applicant was trying to say they’re different. However, it is possible that these vertical axes could be the same. Therefore, the number of vertical axes involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as they’re different. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 16 (Line 13).
Claim 5 states “an arm support” (Line 1). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same arm support mentioned in Claim 2. It appears the applicant was trying to say they’re the same. However, multiple arm supports could be involved. Therefore, the number of arm supports involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as they’re the same. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 17 (Line 2) Claim 18 (Line 1).
Claim 17 states “each of the shoulder brackets” (Line 1). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear how many shoulder brackets are there. It appears the applicant was trying to say there is at least one shoulder bracket. However, the claim limitation implies multiple shoulder brackets despite Claim 16 only mentioning one. Therefore, the number of shoulder brackets involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as there is at least one shoulder bracket. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 18 (“one of the shoulder brackets”, Line 2).
Claim 18 states “an arm support comprising a connector for coupling to the connector on the lower end” (Lines 1-2). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear what comprises the connector and whether or not the connector of Claim 17 is the same. It appears the applicant was trying to say there are multiple connectors involved. However, the confusion arises since the connectors are referred in the same way in both Claims 17 and 18. It is unclear if it is the same connector or both the lower end and arm support each have a connector. Therefore, the number of connectors involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as there are multiple connectors involved, one for each the lower end and the arm support.
Claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected for being dependent on rejected Claim 2.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected for being dependent on rejected Claim 16.
Claims 18 is rejected for being dependent on rejected Claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 9-18, and 21-24 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 discusses a frame for an exoskeleton including a pair of elongate spine members, pivot assemblies at the upper ends of the spine members that define horizonal axes; an anti-rotation member pivotally coupled to the lower ends of the spine members to prevent the horizontal axes from changing horizontally as the spine members move; and a lumbar reaction member coupled to the upper ends of the spine members to provide linkage and transfer load.
Claim 16 discusses similar limitations to Claim 1 with a shoulder bracket.
Claim 24 discusses similar limitations to Claims 1 and 16 with a shoulder bracket, arm support, and compensation elements.
Claims 2-6, 9-15, 17, 18, and 21-23 contain allowable subject matter due to their dependencies on Claims 1 and 16.
Prior art similar to the claimed invention are explained below.
Kobayashi et al. (English Machine Translation of WO 2020204009 A1 provided by PE2E) discusses an arm assisting device. Regarding Claim 1, though Kobayashi has most of the claimed invention, Kobayashi lacks the anti-rotation member of the claimed invention that is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Specifically, Kobayashi does not have the anti-rotation member that prevents the horizontal axes of the pivot assemblies from changing horizontally as the spine members move. The equivalent component 270 is shown in Kobayashi to allow horizontal change between the equivalent pivot assemblies 240 (Kobayashi: Figs 15A and 15B). This horizontal change goes against the intention of the claimed invention and doing any modification to this component would destroy the prior art device or make the prior art device non-functional. The anti-rotation member of the claimed invention is described to maintain a desired fixed angle between the pivot assemblies (paragraph 00035) and basically lock the desired angle in place while still allowing other types of motion to occur. This is not found in Kobayashi. Therefore, the prior art fails to disclose Claim 1. Similar arguments are applied to Claim 16 and Claim 24.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for art cited of interest including:
US 20200198121 A1 discusses an exoskeleton with dual support structures on the back.
US 20120184880 A1 discusses an exoskeleton with dual support structures on the back.
US 20190321965 A1 discusses an exoskeleton with a rotatable back structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/BRIAN T KHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights