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. This office action is in response to the claims filed 11/21/23. Claims 1-14 are pending in the instant application. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 30. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Note: the term “comprise” is improper language for an abstract; Examiner suggests amending to read –include--. Claim Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the language “the strap length” (line 1) is objected to as this lacks antecedent basis in the claim; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a strap inherently has a length. Examiner suggests amending to read –a length of the strap—for example. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The claim limitation “the shape of a J” (claim 4) is being interpreted in light of the disclosure, in particular Fig. 1-2 having an elongate leg, a radiused curve portion and ending with a shorter end forming a hook shape. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-14 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 second slot" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the plurality of holes" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 5, the limitation of the plurality of holes “that is coupled to a robotic system …” (line 1-2) is unclear if Applicant is intending to positively claim the robotic system having the joint with an actuator and if so, it is unclear how the “limb support for a robotic system” (claim 1 line 1) can also include the robotic system as these elements appear to be separate from each other and intended for use together. Examiner suggests amending to read –are configured to be coupled to a robotic system …--. Regarding claim 7, the language “the buckle” (line 1) is unclear as claim 6 sets forth the possibility of plural buckles with the language “at least one buckle” and it is unclear if the language in claim 7 is referring to each of, or a particular one of, the possible plural buckles. Examiner suggests amending to read –the at least one buckle--. Regarding claim 8, the language “the buckles” (line 1) is unclear if Applicant is intending to claim plural buckles as claim 6 only positively sets forth one buckle with the language “at least one buckle”. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the user’s limb" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 10, the language “the first body can have a plurality of holes” (line 1-2) is indefinite as it is not known if Applicant is intending to positively claim plural holes in the first body as this language appears to merely claim that a first body can have holes and not that it positively does have holes. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the strap" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 11, the language “the user’s limbs” (line 4) is unclear as it is not known how the limb support can function to support limbs, plural, of the user, or if Applicant is intending to claim plural limbs of the user being supported as line 2 only sets forth a user’s limb, singular. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the user’s body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-4, 6, 9, 12, and 14 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim. 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)(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) 1-2, 5, and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zimmermann et al. (2024/0307249) . Regarding claim 1, Zimmermann discloses a limb support for a robotic system (see Fig. 1-9, abstract, and para. 0002 , limb support 30 ) which includes a first body having a first end and a second end wherein the first end extends to a transition wherein the transition wraps around to the second end creating a radius (see Fig. 2-4, first body 1 having two ends and a curved transition that wraps to the second end creating a radius, para. 0066) ; a first slot on the transition and the second slot on the second end (see Fig. 3-5, slots where strap 50 extend through located on curved transition portion and upper end portions, para. 0068) ; and a strap extending between the first slot and the second slot (see Fig. 3-5, element 50 being a strap extending between slots, para. 0068, also element 40 reads on a strap which extends between slots as shown, also para. 0071 discloses element 9 realized by “a strap” which extends through eyelet/slot and extending between the two slots noted above, see Fig. 2) . Regarding claim 2, the Zimmermann device’s first body is manufactured from polycarbonate, plastic, or a metal alloy (see para. 0055). Regarding claim 5, the Zimmermann device includes a plurality of holes that is coupled to a robotic system having a joint with an actuator by at least one fastener (see para. 0002 which discloses an exoskeleton which is known in the art to include joints and actuators, Figs. 3-4 and 7 showing plural holes 7, other holes such as 9 in Fig. 3 which also acts as a fastener to secure to the user’s limb 20, 60 and 61 being fasteners to connect to the exoskeleton, para. 0080). Regarding claim 9, the Zimmermann device’s strap length is adjustable (see Fig. 3-4 which shows 50 being adjusted in length to provide clamping force, Fig. 2-3 showing how “a strap” of para. 0071 is doubled back through 9 to adjust the effective strap length and provide tightening). Regarding claim 10, the Zimmermann device’s first body can have a plurality of holes extending from the first end to the transition (see Fig. 3-4 and 7 which show plural holes 7 from first end, i.e. one end 2 of first body 1, to central, curved transition, para. 0068; note the first body can also have additional holes). Regarding claim 11, the use of the Zimmermann device includes a method of applying a limb support for a robotic system (see Fig. 1-9, abstract, and para. 0002) including positioning a user’s limb within the limb support wherein the user’s limb come into contact with the strap without a force loaded (see Fig. 2 showing limb 20 being positioned within limb support 30, contact with element 50, indirectly, being a strap extending between slots, para. 0068, also element 40 reads on a strap which extends between slots and comes into contact with limb 20 as shown, also para. 0071 discloses element 9 realized by “a strap” which extends through eyelet/slot and extending between the two slots noted above, see Fig. 2 which shows this strap in contact with limb 20; first placing the limb 20 in the limb support 30 provides contact without a loaded force, i.e. before limb support 30 is tightened and clamped on the limb 20 ) ; applying a force wherein the force pushes the limb support against the user's limbs wherein the limb support applies a clamping force against the user's limb (see Fig. 2-4 which shows after tightening via straps, elements 50, 40, and the strap shown in Fig. 2 tightened via 9, a clamping force is applied against the user’s limb via loading forces from 50, 40 and the strap in Fig. 2, see para. 0066-0071) ; and releasing the load and the clamping force is released (removal of the user’s limb from limb support 30 release the load provided by straps and the clamping force provided is released, para. 0066-0071). Regarding claim 12, the Zimmermann method’s clamping force varies with force applied by the robotic system (exoskeleton para. 0002 and 0080, applying force which is transferred to the limb 20 through limb support 30 and therefore clamping force will vary). Regarding claim 13, the Zimmermann method strap reacts on first and second ends which clamp around a portion of the user’s body or a portion of an accessory (see Fig. 2 and para. 0066-0071, first and second ends 2 of first body 1 clamps around user’s limb 20 ). Regarding claim 14, the Zimmermann method’s portion of the user’s body is a user’s limb and/or portion of the accessory is a user’s knee pad (see Fig. 2 and para. 0066-0071, user’s limb 20). 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) 3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann in view of Romo et al. (2016/0235578) . Regarding claim 3, the Zimmermann device is silent as to the strap being made of fabric or some other flexible and inextensible material; however, such a material is well-known in the art for a strap and Romo teaches a similar limb support device including straps made of such material (see Romo Fig. 1-2, 7, 11-12 showing straps, para. 0104 disclosing use of fabric material). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zimmermann device’s strap to be made of a fabric material, as taught by Romo, as this is a well-known type of material for such an element and would have been obvious substitution of one known element or another and one would expect the modified Zimmerman device to perform equally as well. Regarding claim 6, the Zimmermann device is silent as to the strap being coupled to the first body by at least one buckle; however, such an element is well-known in the art for connecting and tightening straps and Romo teaches a similar limb support device including straps connected via buckles (see Romo Fig. 1-2, 7, 11-12, buckles 484, 160, para. 0107, 0137). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zimmermann device’s strap to be coupled via buckles, as taught by Romo, as this is a well-known element and would provide adjustable tightening of the limb support to the user’s limb. Regarding claim 7, the modified Zimmermann device’s buckle is a feed-through buckle, hinged buckle, or spring loaded buckle (see Romo Fig. 1-2, 7, 11-12 showing buckles 106, 484 being feed-through as the straps are fed through, 484 also having a hinge 494). Regarding claim 8, the modified Zimmermann device’s strap loops through the buckle(s) and couples itself to create secure structure for the user’s limb to come into contact with (see Zimmermann Fig. 2 and para. 0071 showing/disclosing strap fed through eyelet and coupled to itself, Zimmermann modified in view of Romo Fig. 1-2, 7, and 11-12 showing strap fed through buckle and coupled to itself, see also para. 0141). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann . Regarding claim 4, the Zimmermann device is silent as to the first body being in the shape of a J; however, this would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and one would expect the modified Zimmermann device to perform equally as well with such a J-shaped body. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV B. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Bonutti et al. (5,848,979), Saringer et al. (5,951,499), Bonutti et al. (2009/0030353), and Hollander et al. (2014/0330431) disclose limb support devices for robotic/exoskeleton systems similar to the claimed/disclosed invention . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7490 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 9-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Timothy Stanis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5139 . 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. /COLIN W STUART/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785