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
The amendment filed 1/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 25 and 37 have been amended. Claims 25-29 and 31-37 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 25, and claims 26-29 and 31-37 by dependency, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the driving source bracket and the first and second shafts are spaced apart from a side cover enclosing the driving source”, line 23-24. Applicant’s specification discloses that the first shaft and the second shaft are spaced apart from a side cover enclosing the driving source (par. 0022, 0065). However, Applicant’s specification does not disclose that the driving source bracket is spaced apart from the side cover, as recited in the claim. Applicant’s original disclosure fails to provide sufficient detail on how the driving source bracket is spaced apart from the side cover. Therefore, claim 25 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
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 25, and claims 26-29 and 31-37 by dependency, 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 25 recites the limitation “the driving source bracket and the first and second shafts are spaced apart from a side cover enclosing the driving source, such that deformation of the shafts is not directly transmitted to the side cover”, line 23-25. It is unclear how the driving source bracket is spaced apart from the side cover which encloses the driving source and the driving source bracket. For the purposes of this Office Action, this limitation is interpreted as the first and second shafts being spaced apart from the side cover with the driving source bracket being spaced apart from the side cover via the first and second shafts.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 25-26, 28-29, 31-33, and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2017/0128234 A1), hereafter Roh, in view of Lee et al. (US 20170056276 A1), hereafter Kim, in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0151120 A1), hereafter Lee, in view of Fujita et al. (US 2020/0069505 A1), hereafter Fujita.
Regarding claim 25, Roh discloses a wearable apparatus (Fig. 1; exercise assistance device worn by a user, par. 0034), comprising: a rear support configured to support a rear portion of a waist of a user (Fig. A, annotated below); a driving source, comprising a motor (Fig. 2, motor 110; par. 0079), configured to provide power to assist a motion of a hip joint and/or leg of the user (driving module assists rotary motion of hip joints, par. 0068); a thigh support configured to support a thigh of the user (Fig. A, annotated below); a waist frame including first and second shafts (Fig. A, annotated below) configured to connect at least the rear support and the driving source (Fig. A and 1-2, shafts connect rear support and motor 110); a driving source bracket structure connected to each of the first and second shafts of the waist frame (Fig. 4-6, frame 120 connects to both shafts), wherein the driving source bracket structure comprises: a clamp for receiving part of the first shaft (Fig. B, annotated below); a support configured to be connected to the second shaft (Fig. B, annotated below); and a bracket located between at least the clamp and the support, wherein the bracket comprises a space for receiving at least part of the driving source (Fig. B, annotated below, bracket receives motor 110), wherein the driving source is detachably mounted to the waist frame (Fig. 4-6, 8A shows the shafts are held in the bracket by clamping structures and would be detachable); and a front support (fixing module 30 and frame fixture; Fig. 1, Fig. C, annotated below) including a frame fixture (Fig. C, annotated below), and defining a closed- loop structure configured to enclose a waist of the user in conjunction with the rear support and the waist frame (Fig. A, annotated below, shows the front support, rear support, and the first and second shafts of the waist frame form a closed loop), wherein a first end of the frame fixture is connected to the driving source bracket (Fig. C, annotated below, shows a first end of the frame fixture is connected to the driving source bracket 120), and a second end of the frame fixture is connected to the front support (Fig. 1 shows the frame fixture connects to the fixing module 30).
PNG
media_image1.png
513
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A, adapted from Fig. 1 of Roh
PNG
media_image2.png
671
605
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B, adapted from Fig. 5 of Roh
PNG
media_image3.png
332
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. C, adapted from Fig. 3 of Roh
Roh does not explicitly disclose the front support includes a rotating portion and the frame fixture is connected to the rotating portion of the front support.
Kim teaches a wearable apparatus (apparatus 1; Fig. 1-2), comprising: a front support (front fixing module 120 including hard layer 130, soft layer 140, layer fastening portion 150; Fig. 1-4) including a rotating portion (Fig. E, annotated below) and a frame fixture (hinge portion 1144; Fig. 3-4) connected to the rotating portion (Fig. E, annotated below, shows hinge portion connected to rotating portion) for the purpose of deforming suitably for a body shape of the user to increase wearability (par. 0094).
PNG
media_image4.png
578
579
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. E, adapted from Fig. 3 of Kim
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Roh to include a rotating portion as taught by Kim for the purpose of deforming suitably for a body shape of the user to increase wearability (Kim par. 0094).
The modified Roh does not disclose the first and second shafts being slidably received in the rear support to allow adjustment of a horizontal width and a vertical height between the rear support and the driving source and wherein the rear support is detachably mounted to the waist frame.
Lee teaches a motion assistance apparatus (par. 0005) wherein the first and second shafts are slidably received in the rear support (Fig. 16, clamp 1122 controls insertion depth of shafts 1141 and 1143; par. 0123 ln 2-6) to allow adjustment of a horizontal width and a vertical height between the rear support and the driving source (Fig. 16, insertion depth of the shafts 1141 and 1143 can be controlled by control clamp 1122, par. 0123; adjusting the insertion depth of the shafts in the rear support would simultaneously adjust a horizontal width and vertical height between the rear support and driver and a horizontal distance between the rear and front supports due to the diagonal angle of the shafts as seen in Fig. 15 and 18) and wherein the rear support is detachably mounted to the waist frame (the use of clamps would render the rear support detachable from the waist frame) for the purpose of adjusting the device for users of various body sizes (par. 0123).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Roh to have the shafts slidably connected to the rear support as taught by Lee for the purpose of adjusting the device for users of various body sizes (See Lee: par. 0123 ln 6-10).
The modified Roh does not disclose wherein the driving source bracket and the first and second shafts are spaced apart from a side cover enclosing the driving source, such that deformation of the shafts is not directly transmitted to the side cover.
However, a shaft and cover arrangement in the modified Roh can only have two possible configurations; the hole in the cover can be the same size as the shaft so that there is no space between the two elements or the hole can have a larger size than the shaft so that the elements are spaced apart. Fujita teaches a wearable apparatus (Fig. 1, knee-ankle-foot orthosis; abstract ln 14) with a cover (Fig. G, annotated below) spaced apart from a shaft (Fig. G, annotated below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cover of the modified Roh to be spaced apart from the shafts as taught by Fujita as this is an art recognized effective configuration. Furthermore, this configuration would have the benefit of preventing the outer surface of the shafts from rubbing against the inner surface of the openings.
PNG
media_image5.png
544
570
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. G, adapted from Fig. 37 of Fujita
The modified Roh discloses the driving source bracket spaced apart from the side cover (the driving source bracket of Roh is spaced apart from the side cover via the shafts being spaced apart from the side cover, as taught by Fujita).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Roh discloses the wearable apparatus of claim 25 (shown above), wherein the clamp comprises an adjustable fastener configured to adjust clamping force on the first shaft (Fig. B, annotated above, and Roh Fig. 6 show shaft is held in the clamp by multiple fasteners).
The modified Roh does not disclose a plurality of adjustable fasteners.
However, it would have been obvious to modify Roh to comprise a plurality of adjustable fasteners since the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected results is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Roh discloses the wearable apparatus of claim 25 (shown above), wherein an end portion of the second shaft is detachable from the support (Roh Fig. 4, second shaft is connected to the support by fasteners making the shaft detachable).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Roh discloses the wearable apparatus of claim 28 (shown above), wherein the driving source bracket structure further comprises a frame extending around part of a periphery of the space (Fig. C, annotated above) and extending between at least the support and the clamp (Fig. C, annotated above).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Roh discloses the wearable apparatus of claim 29 (shown above), wherein the frame is connected between the clamp and the support (Fig. C, annotated above).
Regarding claim 32, the modified Roh discloses the wearable apparatus of claim 29 (shown above), wherein the frame comprises an arcuate flange (Fig. D, annotated below).
PNG
media_image6.png
371
456
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. D, adapted from Fig. 3 of Roh
Regarding claim 33, the modified Roh discloses the wearable apparatus of claim 25 (shown above), wherein the support comprises apertures therein for receiving fasteners for connecting the support to the second shaft (Fig. C, annotated above, upper section of support has fasteners to connect shaft).
Regarding claim 36, the modified Roh discloses the wearable apparatus of claim 25 (shown above), wherein an end portion of the first shaft and an end portion of the second shaft are parallel to each other (Lee Fig. 16, ends of shafts 1141 and 1143 are parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 37, the modified Roh discloses the wearable apparatus of claim 25 (shown above), wherein a gap between the rear support and the driving source is adjustable (Lee Fig. 16, changing the insertion depth of the shafts in the rear support adjusts the gap between the rear support and the driving source 3).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Kim, in view of Lee, in view of Fujita, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2013/0204248 A1), hereafter Singh.
Regarding claim 27, the modified Roh discloses the wearable apparatus of claim 25 (shown above).
The modified Roh does not disclose wherein an end portion of the first shaft has a non-circular cross-section which is to be received in the clamp.
Singh teaches an end portion of a shaft having a non-circular cross-section which is to be received in a complementary opening (Fig. 2-3, bearing section 52 fits into opening 10; par. 0050) for the purpose of preventing rotation of the shaft within the opening (par. 0050 ln 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cross-section of the first shaft and clamp of Roh to be non-circular as taught by Singh for the purpose of preventing rotation of the shaft within the clamp (see Singh: par. 0050 ln 1-4).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Kim, in view of Lee, in view of Fujita, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Ring (US 39751 A).
Regarding claim 34, the modified Roh discloses the wearable apparatus of claim 25 (shown above).
The modified Roh does not disclose the support comprises an insert configured to fit in an end portion of the second shaft. The support of Roh is connected to the shaft by insertion of the shaft into the support (Roh Fig. 6).
Ring teaches a connection between a support and a shaft wherein the support comprises an insert configured to fit in an end portion of a shaft (Fig. 2, upper portion of support A is inserted into shaft B).
The substitution of one known connection for another would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention since the substitution of the connection of Ring would have yielded predictable results, namely, a connection between the support and the shaft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support of Roh to comprise an insert configured to fit in an end portion of the shaft.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Kim, in view of Lee, in view of Fujita, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Hamaya et al. (US 2012/0316477 A1), hereafter Hamaya.
Regarding claim 35, the modified Roh discloses the wearable apparatus of claim 25 (shown above).
The modified Roh does not disclose the apparatus further comprising a cable extending within at least part of one of the shafts, the cable configured to electrically connect at least one electrical component and the driving source. The apparatus of Roh has an electrical component located on a front side of the waist (Fig. 1, control unit 20; par. 0040).
Hamaya teaches a walking assistance device (Fig. 1; par. 0032, ln 1-4) comprising a cable extending within at least part of one of the shafts (Fig. 2, cable 106 passes through hollow 107 of frame 22; par. 0054 ln 9-13), the cable configured to electrically connect at least one electrical component and the driving source (Fig. 2, cable 106 connects electric unit 25 to motor unit 26; par. 0054 ln 5-18). One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized that this alternative arrangement, wherein the electrical component is located at the rear side of the waist instead of the front side, would not affect the function of the apparatus. Further, the apparatus of Roh has a rear support and hollow shaft that would be capable of accommodating an electrical component and cable as taught by Hamaya.
For this reason and absent any showing of unexpected benefit, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Roh to have the electrical component located in the rear support with a connecting cable extending within the shaft to the driver as taught by Hamaya. This arrangement would provide the benefit of a sleeker apparatus by hiding the wire within the shaft and eliminating the need for a separate front module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Roh does not disclose the driver can be detached from the waist frame, the figures of Roh show that the shafts are attached using clamps and fasteners and thus, are detachable. Even if the driver and waist frame of Roh could not be detached, making them separable would have been an obvious modification if it were considered desirable for any reason (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)).
Applicant argues that the combination of Roh and Lee (referred to as Kim in the above rejection) would change the principle of operation of Roh. However, there is no indication in Roh that the waist frame could not include a rotating portion as taught by Lee. The inclusion of the rotation portion of Lee would still form a closed-loop structure which encloses a waist of the user while increasing wearability. Applicant argues regarding the rigidity of the waist frame. However, the claim does not require rigidity.
Applicant argues that the control clamps of Lee ‘120 (referred to as Lee in the above rejection) do not function as a dynamically adjustable waist-frame system that is slidably connected and detachably mounted in a manner maintaining load transmission and structure isolation during operation. However, the claims do not require any of these limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly added limitations of claim 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KELSEY RHEE whose telephone number is (703)756-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, BRANDY LEE can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/K.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights