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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 12/29/23. Claim 8 has been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-12 are presently pending in this application.
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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length is greater than 150 words. 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).
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 2 "a hip joint area of a user" should be changed to --the hip joint area of the user--.
In claim 8, line 3 "a thigh area " should be changed to --the thigh area--.
In claim 8, line 4 "a chest or back area" should be changed to --the chest or back area--.
In claim 10, lines 2-3 "a hip joint area of the user" should be changed to --the hip joint area of the user--.
In claim 11, line 2 "a thigh area" should be changed to --the thigh area --.
In claim 12, line 2 "a chest or back area" should be changed to --the chest or back area--
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: first and second driving bodies in claim 1 and first guiding member and second guiding member in claim 5.
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 1-12 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “robot” in claims 1 and 8 are used by the claim to mean “a passive exoskeleton system,” while the accepted meaning is “a device that automatically performs complicated, often repetitive tasks (Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition).” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
All remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency of a rejected base 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)(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) 1-4, 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kreutel (2022/0079796).
PNG
media_image1.png
387
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 4 of Kreutel.
With respect to claim 1, Kreutel discloses a passive muscular strength support apparatus (10, fig 1) for an exoskeleton robot (fig 1), comprising a body (24/36, fig 4) comprising first (36, fig 4) and second (24, fig 4) driving bodies coupled to each other to have a driving space therein (see space between 24 and 36 where multiple structures are housed figs 4 and 6); a first connection (see annotated fig 4 of Kreutel) configured to connect a hip joint area of a user (see fig 1 and [0037]) and the first driving body (see fig 1 and 4); a second connection (see annotated fig 4 of Kreutel) configured to connect a thigh area of the user and the first driving body (see fig 1); a third connection (see annotated fig 4 of Kreutel) configured to connect a chest or back area of the user and the second driving body (see fig 1); an elastic portion (26, fig 6) provided in the driving space between the first and second driving bodies (see figs 4 and 6), wherein elasticity of the elastic portion is deformed (see [0038 and 45]); and an inducer (48, fig 7) for inducing deformation of the elastic portion in conjunction with movement of at least one of the first to third connections with respect to the body (see [0045]).
With respect to claim 2, Kreutel discloses the third connection is inserted into a guide hole provided in the second driving body (see locking device 44 in fig 4 that connects the third connection and second driving body as seen in fig 5 and [0042]), and a position thereof is adjusted along a guide rail provided in the guide hole (see elements fixed in a position via 44, fig 5 and [0042]).
With respect to claim 3, Kreutel discloses the guide rail has a stepped rail shape (see shape if 44 in figs 4-5) to adjust a position of the third connection in an adjustment angle range according to physical conditions of the user (see [0042-43]; note the locking position would allow an angle from 0°).
With respect to claim 4, Kreutel discloses the adjustment angle range comprises a range of 0 to 100° (see [0042-43] where the locking device allows adjusting angle).
With respect to claim 8, Kreutel discloses an exoskeleton robot (see fig 1 and [0036]), comprising first holders (6, fig 4) mounted on a hip joint area of a user (see fig 1 and [0051]); a second holder (2, fig 1) mounted on a thigh area of the user (see fig 1); a third holder (4, fig 1) mounted on a chest or back area of the user (see fig 1 and [0037]); and the passive muscular strength support apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) that provides driving force by storing elastic energy to support muscular strength, wherein the first to third connections are connected to the first to third holders, respectively (see figs 1 and [0037]).
With respect to claim 10, Kreutel discloses the first holders comprise at least one pair of first holding bodies (see annotated fig 4 of Kreutel) with a predetermined area to be in close contact with a hip joint area of the user (see fig 1 and [0051]), a mounting hole through which the first connection is connected is formed through the first holding bodies (see annotated fig 4 where the first connection is expanded from the holding body with dashed connection line), and a plurality of linker holes (see annotated fig 4 of Kreutel) through which a plurality of linkers are respectively connected are formed through the first holding bodies (see fig 1 where element 8 connects).
With respect to claim 11, Kreutel discloses the second holder comprises at least one pair of second holding bodies (two legs) curved to fit tightly against a thigh area of the user (see 2 in fig 1 curved around the thigh), and the second holding bodies and the second connection are linked by the first connection members (see figs 1 and 4).
With respect to claim 12, Kreutel discloses the third holder comprises a third holding body (upper body element; 4, fig 1) that is attached or detached to a chest or back area of the user, and the third holding body and the third connection are linked by the second connection members (see fig 1 and 4).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreutel in view of Yang (CN107553466).
With respect to claim 9, Kreutel discloses the first holders are connected to a plurality of linkers (see element 8 in multiple instances in fig 1 of Kreutel) a lower limb for supporting hips, knees, and ankles(see element 8 around thigh in fig 1) but is silent regarding an upper limb for supporting shoulders and elbows.
However, Yang teaches an exoskeleton device (fig 1) comprising a plurality of linkers (1, fig 1) for supporting shoulders and elbows (see chest plate in fig 1 with straps 1 for over the shoulder).
Therefore, 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 device of Kreutel to include linkers for supporting the upper body as taught by Yang so as to provide additional support and connectivity to the wearer when using the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Petrofsky (5,054,476), Shimizu (2012/0316476), Ferguson (2013/0131560), Killian (2014/0024978), Kazerooni (2016/0206498), Barnes (2017/0014993), Kim (2017/0049658), Ohta (2017/0181917), Ohta (2019/0358807), and DiPardo (2021/0282956) are cited to show additional assisting apparatuses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 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.
/KELSEY E BALLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights