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 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.
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:
“Extremity engagement unit” in claim 44 is considered straps or strap systems.
“Spacer element” in claim 44 is considered two rolls.
“Pull transmission element” in claim 44 is considered a cable or a belt.
“Passive actuator” in claim 45 is considered springs.
“Torso module” in claim 46 is considered a fixed point of the extremity support device
“Guide element” in claim 47 is considered a rail or groove.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the range of words in length is less than 50. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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) 44 – 54, 56, 58 – 61, 63 & 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Kroll-Orywahl et al. (DE 102018119755 A1).
Regarding claim 44, An extremity support device for supporting an extremity of a user, comprising:
an extremity engagement unit (Figure 7 - 8), which is configured to engage on the extremity of the user (Figure 4); an extremity lever 4, to which the extremity engagement unit is connected via an engagement connecting element 6 (Figure 7);
a swivel joint 34 about which the extremity lever 4 can be rotated (Page 7, Paragraph 3);
a pull transmission element 10, which engages on the extremity lever 4 on a side of the extremity lever 4 which is located opposite the engagement connecting element 6 in relation to the swivel joint 34 (Figure 7); and
a spacer element (Note: this is considered the part of 18 that moves based on the force), which limits, in at least one direction, a distance between the pull transmission element 10 and the swivel joint 34 at the point of contact between the pull transmission element 10 and the spacer element, with the spacer element being movable by means of a control mechanism for varying a spacer element distance between the spacer element and the swivel joint 34, and the control mechanism comprising a control actuator 14, by means of which a force can be exerted on the spacer element for varying the spacer element distance (Page 4, Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 45, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 44.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses wherein an end of the pull transmission element 10 which does not engage on the extremity lever 4 engages on a passive actuator 14, which is configured to exert a pulling force on the pull transmission element 10, the pulling force being transmittable to the extremity lever 4 by way of the pull transmission element 10 (Figure 5 – 6).
Regarding claim 46, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 44.
further comprising a torso module (Note: the examiner considers this to be 10 & 12), which is configured to engage on the torso of the user (Figure 4), the control mechanism (Note: the examiner considers this to be 16 & 18) being arranged at the torso module (Note: the examiner considers this to be 10 & 12), and extremity lever 4 being rotatable about the swivel joint 34 in relation to the torso module (Note: the examiner considers this to be 10 & 12). (Figure 4)
Regarding claim 47, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 44.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses comprising a guide element along which the spacer element can be moved for varying the spacer element distance (Figure 3 discloses the space in 18 that allows the space element to move varying the distance / Page 6, Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 48, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 47.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses wherein the guide element is connected via a guide joint (Note: this is considered the part of 18 that moves based on the force / Note: the examiner took into account the specification that discloses the guide joint to be the spacer element) to the control mechanism, the guide joint comprising a locking device, by way of which a rotation of the guide element about the guide joint can be locked. (Page 6, Paragraph 6)
Regarding claim 49, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 47.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses wherein the guide element comprises a rail by which the spacer element is guided, the rail being straight or curved. (Figure 3 & 7)
Regarding claim 50, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 44.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses wherein the spacer element limits the distance between the pull transmission element 10 and the swivel joint 34 in a direction away from the swivel joint 34, and the force for varying the spacer element distance which can be exerted by the control mechanism on the spacer element can be exerted in a direction toward the swivel joint 28 or in a direction away from the swivel joint 34. (Page 6, Paragraph 4 / Figure 2)
Regarding claim 51, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 44.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses wherein the pull transmission element 10 comprises a first pull transmission sub-element and a second pull transmission sub-element (Page 5, Paragraph 4), the first and second pull transmission sub-elements passing the spacer element on opposite sides, wherein the first and second pull transmission elements are dimensioned in such a way that at least one of the pull transmission sub-elements makes contact with the spacer element in any position of the extremity lever 4. (Figure 9 & 10 / Page 7, Paragraph 7)
Regarding claim 53, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 44.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses wherein the swivel joint 28 is fixedly connected to the torso module 12 via a connecting element (Note: the examiner considers this to be 16 & 10), the connecting element (Note: the examiner considers this to be 16 & 10) being configured so as to run along the torso of the user when the user wears the extremity support device 2 as intended, and a direction of the force action of the control actuator 14 extending parallel to the progression of the connecting element (Note: the examiner considers this to be 16 & 10) (Figure 3 & 7).
Regarding claim 54, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 44.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses wherein the control actuator 14 is arranged at the extremity lever 4 on the same side in relation to the swivel joint 28 as the extremity engagement unit 18 (Figure 3)
a direction of the force action of the control actuator extending parallel to a longitudinal direction of the extremity lever at the site where the control actuator is arranged. (Figure 8)
Regarding claim 56, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 44.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses wherein the control mechanism comprises at least one elastic element (Page 2, last paragraph), which is arranged so as to be deflectable by the control actuator 14, and causes a force that is oriented against to the force that can be exerted by the control actuator 14 and causes the change in the spacer element distance (Page 2, last paragraph / Page 3, Paragraph 1 / Page 4, Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 59, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 44.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses wherein the control mechanism comprises a first control pull transmission element 40, the first control pull transmission element 40 being connected, on the one hand, to the control actuator 14 in such a way that a pulling force can be exerted on the first control pull transmission element 40 by the control actuator 14, and the first control pull transmission element 40, on the other hand, being contacted with the spacer element (as claimed in claim 44) in such a way that the force for varying the spacer element (as claimed in claim 44) distance can be exerted on the spacer element (as claimed in claim 44) by way of the first control pull transmission element 40 (Page 7, Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 60, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 59.
Kroll-Orywahl does not disclose wherein the first control pull transmission element 40, during the progression thereof from the control actuator 14 to the spacer element (as claimed in claim 44), passes at least one deflection element 36 (Page 7, Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 63, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 59
Kroll-Orywahl discloses comprising a further control pull transmission element 40, which is contacted with the spacer element on a side of the spacer element located opposite the first control pull transmission element 40, and which is connected to the control actuator 14 in such a way that a pulling force, which is oriented opposite to the pulling force that can be exerted on the first control pull transmission element 40, can be exerted on the further control pull transmission element 40 by the control actuator 14. (Figure 7 / Page 7, Paragraph 5)
Regarding claim 65, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 44.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses wherein the spacer element is fixedly arranged directly at the control actuator 14. (Figure 7)
Regarding claim 69, Kroll-Orywahl discloses a method for lifting, holding and/or carrying a load and/or for carrying out overhead activities, wherein a user wears an extremity support device as claimed in claim 44, and, with support from the extremity support device, lifts the load, holds it and/or carries it and/or carries out an activity with his or her hands raised above the height of the head. (Page 3, Paragraph 2)
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.
Claims 52 & 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroll-Orywahl et al. (DE 102018119755 A1).
Regarding claim 52, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device as claimed in claim 44.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses the spacer element (as claimed in claim 44).
Kroll-Orywahl does not expressly disclose one roll.
However it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Kroll-Orywahl to include one roll for it to roll once the user raises as it would allow the user to raise the arm above a 90-degree angle between reference numbers 4 and 10. (Figure 1)
Based on this modification, Modified Kroll-Orywahl discloses comprises one roll (Note: the examiner considers the roll to be what is able to roll up and down 18) (Figure 6) for each direction in which it limits the distance between the pull transmission element 14 and the swivel joint 34 (Figure 7), the pull transmission element making contact with the respective roll (Note: the examiner considers the roll to be what is able to roll up and down 18), when the same limits the distance, on the side which is opposite the direction in which the respective roll limits the distance between the pull transmission element 14 and the swivel joint 34 (Figure 5 & 6 / Note: the examiner considers the limitation to be read as the roll is able to go back and forth to limit the distance).
Regarding claim 70, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the method as claimed in claim 69.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses wherein the spacer element distance prior to and/or while lifting, holding or carrying and/or carrying out the activity is set to a first value, the user thereafter lifts the load, holds it, carries it and/or carries out the activity with the hands raised above the height of the head, the user then sets the load down, and thereafter the spacer element distance is set to a second value, which is smaller than the first value. (Page 3, Paragraph 2 - 3)
Kroll-Orywahl does not expressly disclose the hands raised above the height of the head.
However, it does disclose the angle between the force applicator and the force transmission element consequently changes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Kroll-Orywahl to have the hands raised above the height of the head as it is obvious that when the user lifts the hands above the head the spacer element will have a different value then when the user sets the load down. (Page 3, Paragraph 2 – 3)
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroll-Orywahl et al. (DE 102018119755 A1) as claimed in claim 60, in further view of Chapman et al. (WO 2015/157803 A1).
Regarding claim 61, Kroll-Orywahl discloses the extremity support device according as claimed in claim 60.
Kroll-Orywahl discloses the control pull transmission element 10. (as claimed in claim 44)
Kroll-Orywahl does not disclose is guided in a Bowden cable sheath in at least a portion of the progression thereof.
Chapman discloses a Bowden cable sheath. (Paragraph 0024)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the pull transmission element of Kroll-Orywahl to be guided in a Bowden cable sheath in at least a portion of the progression thereof as the Bowden cable are known as steering or throttle cables that are arranged in outer sheaths that transfer the transfer load to the ground bypassing the user’s system. (Paragraph 0024)
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) 44, 55 & 57 - 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Ido et al. (WO 2006129599 A1).
Regarding claim 44, An extremity support device for supporting an extremity of a user, comprising:
an extremity engagement unit 1 (Figure 1), which is configured to engage on the extremity of the user (Figure 1);
an extremity lever 11L, to which the extremity engagement unit 1 is connected via an engagement connecting element 35 (Figure 1);
a swivel joint 29 about which the extremity lever 11L can be rotated (Figure 1);
a pull transmission element 22, which engages on the extremity lever 11L on a side of the extremity lever 11L which is located opposite the engagement connecting element 35 in relation to the swivel joint 29 (Figure 1); and
a spacer element 26, which limits, in at least one direction, a distance between the pull transmission element 22 and the swivel joint 29 at the point of contact between the pull transmission element 22 and the spacer element 26, with the spacer element 26 being movable by means of a control mechanism 27 for varying a spacer element 26 distance between the spacer element 26 and the swivel joint 29, and the control mechanism 27 comprising a control actuator, by means of which a force can be exerted on the spacer element 26 for varying the spacer element distance (Paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 55, Ido discloses the extremity support device according as claimed in claim 44.
Ido discloses wherein the control actuator 14 comprises a rotary drive 27, a spindle shaft 24f that can be rotated by the rotary drive 27, and a spindle nut 20f running on the spindle shaft 24f, the force on the spacer element 26 being effectuatable by the spindle nut 20f (Paragraph 0060 – 0061).
Regarding claim 57, Ido discloses the extremity support device according as claimed in claim 44.
Ido discloses wherein the control actuator 27 comprises a rotary drive, a linearization mechanism by way of which a torque effectuated by the rotary drive can be transformed into the force for varying the spacer element distance, and a coupling by way of which the transformation of the torque into the force can be established and released. (Paragraph 0086)
Regarding claim 58, Ido discloses the extremity support device according as claimed in claim 44.
Ido discloses wherein the control mechanism 27 comprises at least one blocking element 22 by way of which the spacer element distance between the spacer element 26 and the swivel joint 29 can be fixed. (Paragraph 0059)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim, 62, 64, 66 - 68 & 71 - 73 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
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.
/GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights