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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
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 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.
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 1 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.
The limitation “at least one from the group of robotic exoskeletons” is unclear. It is not apparent what constitutes the “group of robotic exoskeletons,” nor is it clear whether the claim is intended to invoke a Markush grouping. If a Markush group is intended, the claim fails to properly define the members of the group. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is uncertain. Additionally, the recitations “for improving a golf swing” and “for assisting patients in rehabilitation” are statements of intended use that do not provide clear structural limitations to the claimed “robotic device.”. It is unclear whether and how these intended uses limit the scope of the claim and the phrase “from the group of” lacks antecedent basis and does not identify what constitutes the group. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The claim recites a “robotic device” comprising at least one robotic exoskeleton “for improving a golf swing” and “for assisting patients in rehabilitation.” The claim therefore encompasses any robotic exoskeleton capable of achieving these results.
However, the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Specifically, while the specification generally describes desired results, such as improving a user’s golf swing and assisting rehabilitation, it fails to provide sufficient guidance s to how these results are achieved across the full scope of the claim. The specification does not adequately describe the mechanisms, control strategies or operational parameters required for a robotic exoskeleton to improve a golf swing or assist in rehabilitation. For example, the specification lacks sufficient detail regarding how the device interacts with a user’s body, how movement is guided or corrected, or how the device is configured to achieve the claimed functional outcomes. Any discussion of feedback, analysis, or user interaction is described at a high level without sufficient technical detail to enable implementation. Given the breadth of the claim, which covers any robotic exoskeleton capable of achieving the recited results, and the lack of specific guidance in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would be required to engage in undue experimentation to determine how to implement the claimed invention across its full scope. Accordingly, the claim is not enabled, and is rejected under 35 USC § 112 (a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites: “A robotic device comprising at least one from the group of robotic exoskeletons: for improving a golf swing, and for assisting patients in rehabilitation.” While the claim nominally recites a “robotic device,” the additional limitations “for improving a golf swing” and “for assisting patients in rehabilitation” are directed to intended results or purposes rather than structural or functional limitations of the device itself. The claim recites a generic “robotic device” and merely states intended results of “improving a golf swing” and “assisting patients in rehabilitation.” These recitations amount to an abstract idea, namely improving human performance and rehabilitation, which are methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes.. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “robotic device” is recited at a high level of generality and does not include any specific structural features or technological improvements that would meaningfully limit the claim. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim encompasses any generic robotic exoskeleton capable of being used for improving athletic performance or assisting rehabilitation. The claim therefore does not recite any specific technological improvement or meaningful structural limitation beyond a generic device.
Accordingly, the claim is effectively directed to the abstract idea of using a device to improve human movement or rehabilitation, without reciting significantly more to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
As best understood, the claim is rejected as disclosed below.
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hungelmann (US Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0089590).
Hungelmann discloses a robotic exoskeleton device (see Figures 1-8) that is capable of being used for improving a golf swing (see the title and the abstract) and for assisting patients in rehabilitation (see paragraph 40).
It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peterson (US Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0122014).
Peterson discloses a robotic exoskeleton device (see all Figures) comprising at least one from the group of robotic exoskeletons: for improving a golf swing, and for assisting patients in rehabilitation (see claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peterson (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0008801).
Peterson discloses a robotic exoskeleton device (see all Figures) comprising at least one from the group of robotic exoskeletons: for improving a golf swing, and for assisting patients in rehabilitation (see claim 1).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0198625).
Anderson discloses a robotic exoskeleton device that is capable of being used for improving a golf swing and for assisting patents in rehabilitation (see all Figures and paragraph 38. In paragraph 38 it is disclosed that the device could be used for movements of a golf swing).
It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peterson US Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0122014).
Peterson discloses a robotic exoskeleton device that is capable of being used for improving a golf swing and for assisting patents in rehabilitation (see all Figures and the specification).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Remington (US Patent 1,530,519).
Remington discloses a robotic exoskeleton device that is capable of being used for improving a golf swing and for assisting patents in rehabilitation (see all Figures).
It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stewart (US Patent 3,698,721).
Stewart discloses a robotic exoskeleton device that is capable of being used for improving a golf swing and for assisting patents in rehabilitation (see all Figures).
It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cox (US Patent 4,758,000).
Cox discloses a robotic exoskeleton device that is capable of being used for improving a golf swing and for assisting patents in rehabilitation (see all Figures).
It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ballard et al. (US Patent 1,530,519).
Ballard discloses a robotic exoskeleton device that is capable of being used for improving a golf swing and for assisting patents in rehabilitation (see all Figures).
It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lepley (US Patent 5,324,247).
Lepley discloses a robotic exoskeleton device that is capable of being used for improving a golf swing and for assisting patents in rehabilitation (see all Figures).
It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kossnar et al. (US Patent 6,551,196).
Kossnar discloses a robotic exoskeleton device that is capable of being used for improving a golf swing and for assisting patents in rehabilitation (see all Figures).
It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goel et al. (US Patent 8,360,942).
Goel discloses a robotic exoskeleton device that is capable of being used for improving a golf swing and for assisting patents in rehabilitation (see all Figures).
It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 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, Nicholas J. Weiss can be reached on (571) 270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NINI F LEGESSE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711