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 § 103
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) 1-9, 11-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (US 2017/0198728) in view of Sanz et al. (US 2017/0340504).
Regarding claim 1, Noda discloses a wearable support structure for at least partly relieving a human body during walking and while said human body is carrying a load at the back or the hip of said human body, said wearable support structure comprising: two foot attachments (at 109), wherein one of said two foot attachments is arranged to be connected to a left foot of said human body and wherein the other of said two foot attachments is arranged to be connected to a right foot of said human body; a load support (at 1) arranged to support said load while said human body is carrying said load; and two leg structures (Fig. 11), each of said two leg structures comprising: a first rigid member (at 114) arranged for supporting said load support and pivotally connected, via a first pivot (114 or R_HAA) arrangement, to said load support, wherein a pivot axis of a first pivot of said first pivot arrangement, during use, is extending in a virtual plane that is parallel to a transverse plane of said human body; a second rigid member (at 105) arranged for supporting said load support, via said first rigid member, and pivotally connected, via a second pivot arrangement (other 114), to said first rigid member; a third rigid member (at 108) arranged for supporting said load support via said first rigid member and said second rigid member, and pivotally connected, via a third pivot arrangement (other 114), to said second rigid member; wherein said first rigid member is movable between a first position and a second position such that a minimum distance between said second pivot arrangement and said load support varies during a gait cycle of said human body. See Figs. 11-19. Noda does not disclose additional rigid members and pivot arrangements as claimed.
Sanz, which is drawn to wearable support structure, discloses a fourth rigid member (at 28) pivotally connected, via a fourth pivot arrangement (at 35), to a third rigid member (at 45), and pivotably connected, via a fifth pivot arrangement (at 36), to a respective one of two foot attachments. See Figs. 1C and 5. Thus, it 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 to have additional rigid members and pivot members, as disclosed by Sanz, on the structure of Noda in order to allow for more degrees of freedom and movement. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have additional rigid members and pivot members, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 2, said first rigid member is further arranged for moving between said first position and said second position, such that, a minimum distance between said first pivot arrangement and said third pivot arrangement varies during said gait cycle. See Figs. 11-19.
Regarding claim 3, said first rigid member is further arranged for moving between said first position and said second position, such that, in a stance phase of said human body, a minimum distance between said second pivot arrangement and said load support is different for said two leg structures. See Figs. 11-19.
Regarding claim 4, a pivot axis of a first pivot of said second pivot arrangement, during a swing phase of a corresponding leg of said human body, is at least substantially parallel to a bending axis of a hip joint of said human body, and parallel to a bending axis of a hip joint of said human body. See Figs. 11-12.
Regarding claim 5, during a stance phase of a corresponding leg of said human body, a pivot axis of a first pivot of said third pivot arrangement can be at least substantially parallel to a bending axis of a knee joint of said corresponding leg of said human body, and parallel to a bending axis of a knee joint of said corresponding leg of said human body. See Figs. 11-19.
Regarding claim 6, during a stance phase of a corresponding leg of said human body, a pivot axis of a first pivot of said fourth pivot arrangement is at least substantially parallel to a bending axis of an ankle joint of said corresponding leg of said human body, and parallel to a bending axis of an ankle joint of said corresponding leg of said human body. See Figs. 11-19.
Regarding claim 7, said first pivot arrangement comprises a second pivot, wherein a pivot axis of said second pivot is perpendicular to said pivot axis of said first pivot of said first pivot arrangement, preferably wherein said second pivot of said first pivot arrangement is provided between said first rigid member and said first pivot of said first pivot arrangement. See Figs. 11-12.
Regarding claim 8, said second pivot arrangement comprises a second pivot and/or a third pivot, wherein pivot axes of said first pivot, second pivot and third pivot of said second pivot arrangement are arranged perpendicular to each other, and wherein said second pivot and/or said third pivot are provided between said first pivot of said second pivot arrangement and said second rigid member. See Figs. 11-12.
Regarding claim 9, said fourth pivot arrangement comprises a second pivot, wherein a pivot axis of said second pivot is perpendicular to said pivot axis of said first pivot of said third pivot arrangement, and wherein said second pivot of said fourth pivot arrangement is provided between said third rigid member and said first pivot of said fourth pivot arrangement. See Figs. 11-12.
Regarding claim 11, said second rigid member and said third rigid member are arranged for being provided, during use, at a side of a leg of said human body that is opposite to the other leg of said human body. See Figs. 11-19.
Regarding claim 12, said pivot axis of said first pivot of said first pivot arrangement, said pivot axis of said first pivot of said second pivot arrangement, said pivot axis of said first pivot of said third pivot arrangement and/or said pivot axis of said first pivot of said fourth pivot arrangement are arranged for being, during use, parallel to a coronal plane of said human body or substantially perpendicular to a sagittal plane of said human body. See Figs. 11-19.
Regarding claim 15, each of said two foot attachment is formed as a shoe. See Fig. 11.
Regarding claim 16, as modified above, the fifth pivot arrangement is releasably connected to the respective foot attachment by a fastener. See Sanz, [0105].
Regarding claim 17, the pivot axis of the first pivot of said first pivot arrangement, during use, is extending at least substantially horizontal, and wherein said first pivot arrangement is provided below said load support. See Figs. 11 and 13.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda as applied above in further view of Chu et al. (US 2005/0279796).
Regarding claim 10, Noda does not disclose the connection as claimed. Chu, which is drawn to a wearable support structure, discloses said wearable support structure being arranged for being only connected to said human body via said load support and said two foot attachments. See Fig. 2. Thus, it 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 to have the structure of Noda be connected as disclosed by Chu in order to firmly secure the device to a user while allowing for the most freedom of movement.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda as applied above.
Regarding claim 14, Noda discloses the claimed invention except for said fifth pivot arrangement being arranged for being provided, during use, behind the back of a foot of said human body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the fifth pivot arrangement behind the back of a foot of a user in order to manipulate the device, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK J BATTISTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5709. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm M-F.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/DEREK J BATTISTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734