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 .
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites a method however no method steps are claimed. Thus the scope of the claim in unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. (2011/0172570).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu teaches a wearable motion assistance apparatus comprising: a waist plate (24) configured to be positioned on at least a rear of a waist of a user; a base frame (22) extending from opposite ends of the waist plate (24) and configured to accommodate at least part of a lumbar part of the user (as shown, a lumbar part can be accommodated); a main belt (44, 46) mounted on the base frame (22) and configured to wrap at least partially around an abdomen of the user; and a main band (36, 38) connected to the main belt (44, 46) and configured to closely fit the lumbar part of the user with elasticity ([0027] lines 1-5disclose flexible materials such a leather which includes at least low elasticity).
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu discloses the main band (36, 38) is connected to the waist plate (24) and configured to space the base frame (22) apart from the lumbar part of the user such that the base frame (22) is configured so as to not touch the lumbar part of the user ([0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu discloses the main belt (44, 46) comprises a first main belt (44) configured to wrap around a left abdomen of the user and a second main belt (46) configured to wrap around a right abdomen of the user ([0033]), wherein a length of the second main belt is equal to or different from a length of the first main belt (i.e. as shown, the lengths of the belts are about the same or different), and the main band (36, 38) comprises a first main band (36) configured to connect the first main belt to the waist plate and a second main band (38) configured to connect the second main belt to the waist plate ([0035] lines 1-6, [0036] lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu discloses the main band (36, 38) is configured to cause the main belt to open and close by applying tension to the main belt ([0032] lines 1-12, [0033] lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu discloses the main band (36, 38) is configured to be elastically deformed by the waist of the user ([0027] lines 1-5, [0033] lines 1-10, [0034] lines 1-8) and configured to apply tension to a predetermined part of the main belt in a first state in which the main belt is open ([0032]lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 10, Shimizu discloses the main belt (44, 46) comprises at least one belt link (53, 54) that is connectable to the main band ([0038]) and at least one bending point that is bendable at a predetermined angle, and the bending point is disposed between an end of the base frame and the belt link (as shown, the belt is curved/bent at a predetermined angle around the side to fit a user’s waist [0033]).
Regarding claim 13, Shimizu discloses a method of a wearable motion assistance apparatus worn by a user, the method comprising: a waist plate (24) configured to be positioned on at least a rear of a waist of a user; a base frame (22) extending from opposite ends of the waist plate (24) and configured to accommodate at least part of a lumbar part of the user (as shown, a lumbar part can be accommodated); a main belt (44, 46) mounted on the base frame (22) and configured to wrap at least partially around an abdomen of the user; and a main band (36, 38) connected to the main belt (44, 46) and configured to closely fit the lumbar part of the user with elasticity ([0027] lines 1-5disclose flexible materials such a leather which includes at least low elasticity).
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.
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) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Shimada et al. (2006/0052731).
Shimizu substantially teaches the claimed invention except for a bistable spring provided at least partially inside the main belt and maintained in one of two stable states through resilience. However, Shimada teaches a bistable spring (resilient member 1b, 1c) provided at least partially inside the main belt and maintained in one of two stable states(open/closed) through resilience ([0029]-[0034]). 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 of Shimizu to include a bistable spring as taught by Shimada to provide enhanced adjustability and adaptability for user preference and/or need.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the modified Shimizu discloses (see figs. 3 and 4 of Shimada) the main band is configured to deform the bistable spring from one stable state (i.e. closed state in which waist is fixed), which is a shape that extends straight in a longitudinal direction, to another stable state (open), which is a shape with one bend (i.e. in the open state, the waist part U can be put through elastic deformation of the member 1b, 1c; [0029]-[0034] of Shimada).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Shimizu discloses (see figs. 3 and 4 of Shimada) the bistable spring is configured to be deformed by tension applied by the main band from the first stable state to the second stable state (i.e. end portions of members 1b,1c can be deformed into an outwardly opened state a and closed state ; [0030-[0031] of Shimada), and the main belt is configured to be deformed from the first state in which the main belt is open to the second state in which the main belt is closed (i.e. end portions of members 1b,1c can be deformed into an outwardly opened state a and closed state ; [0030-[0031] of Shimada).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of JP (2010-000205) hereinafter JP’205.
Regarding claim 11, Shimizu substantially teaches the claimed invention except for when the main belt is in a second state in which the main belt is closed, a portion of the first main belt overlaps a portion of the second main belt and overlapping portions of the first main belt and the second main belt are attachable to or detachable from one another through an attachment element. However, JP’205 discloses left and right belts (26R, 26L) are overlapping and pivotally connected to the abdominal belts (24R, 24L) by attachment elements (25). 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 of Shimizu to be detachable via a connecting element as taught by JP’205 to provide enhanced adjustability for user comfort and fit.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Shimizu discloses the length of the first main band and the length of the second main band are adjustable (i.e. via length adjusting buckles 29A; fig. 1 of JP’205).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOYA M LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm - 6:30 pm ET.
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.
/LaToya M Louis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights