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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendments filed on 02-08-2024. As directed, claims 1-19 have been amended and new claims 20-22 have been added. Thus, claims 1-22 are currently pending examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “force transmission locking mechanism” of claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, lines 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 11, it is suggested that the hyphen (-) that begins each line be eliminated.
At claim 2, lines 1, 2, and 3, it is suggested that “curved” be added before “movement path” for consistency with claim 1, lines 11-12.
At claim 3, lines 4 and 5, it is suggested that “curved” be added before “movement path” for consistency with claim 1, lines 11-12.
At claim 4, lines 2 and 3, it is suggested that “curved” be added before “movement path” for consistency with claim 1, lines 11-12.
At claim 4, line 3, it is suggested that “horizontal” be added before “lifting axis” for consistency with claim 1, lines 9-10.
At claim 4, line 3, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before “aligned” to more explicitly avoid claiming the human organism in line 5.
At claim 5, line 2, it is suggested that “curved” be added before “movement path” for consistency with claim 1, lines 11-12.
At claim 6, line 2, it is suggested that “the worn state” be replaced with “a worn state” as the term has not been previously introduced.
At claim 6, line 3, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before located to more explicitly avoid claiming the human organism in line 3.
At claim 6, line 3, it is suggested that “the shoulder” be replaced with “a shoulder” as the limitation has not been previously introduced.
At claim 6, line 3, it is suggested that “the user” be replaced with “a user” as the limitation has not been previously introduced.
At claim 6, lines 4-6, it is suggested that “so that the user can direct his arm supported by the support section upwards, through the free space past the joint chain” be replaced with “such that the free space is configured to allow the user to direct an arm supported by the support section upwards through the free space past the joint chain” to more clearly avoid claiming the human organism, and to avoid recitation of method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 8, line 1, it is suggested that “the axes” be replaced with “axes” as the term has not been previously introduced.
At claim 8, line 3, it is suggested that “are structured to” be added before “lie on corners” for clarity.
At claim 9, line 2, it is suggested that “the rotational axes” be replaced with “rotational axes” as the term has not been previously introduced.
At claim 9, line 3, it is suggested that “the rotational axes” be replaced with “rotational axes” as the term has not been previously introduced for the first main pivot bearing.
At claim 9, line 6, it is suggested that “the rotational axes” be replaced with “rotational axes” as the term has not been previously introduced for the second auxiliary pivot bearing.
At claim 9, line 7, it is suggested that “the rotational axes” be replaced with “rotational axes” as the term has not been previously introduced for the first auxiliary pivot bearing.
At claim 9, line 10, it is suggested that “a distance” be replaced with “the distance” as the distance between the second main pivot bearing and the second auxiliary pivot bearing was introduced in lines 6-7.
At claim 9, lines 11-12, it is suggested that “the rotational axes” be replaced with “rotational axes” as the term has not been previously introduced for the third and fourth auxiliary pivot bearings.
At claim 9, line 14, it is suggested that “a distance” be replaced with “the distance” as the distance between the second main pivot bearing and the second auxiliary pivot bearing was introduced in lines 6-7.
At claim 10, line 6, it is suggested that “overlaps” be replaced with “is configured to overlap” to avoid recitation of active verbs suggesting positive method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 10, line 7, it is suggested that “the respective longitudinal extension” be replaced with “a respective longitudinal extension” as the term has not been previously introduced.
At claim 11, line 4, it is suggested that “the user” be replaced with “a user” as the limitation has not been previously introduced.
At claim 13, line 7, it is suggested that “cannot be put on as an exoskeleton by a user as intended in the stowage configuration” be replaced with “and when in the stowage configuration, the exoskeleton is configured such that it cannot be worn as intended in the operation configuration” for clarity and to avoid claiming the human organism.
At claim 14, line 2, it is suggested that “that locks” be replaced with “that is configured to lock” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 15, line 2, it is suggested that “that locks” be replaced with “that is configured to lock” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 15, line 2, it is suggested that “shoulder joint assembly” be replaced with “shoulder joint arrangement” for consistency in the claims.
At claim 17, line 2, it is suggested that “that locks” be replaced with “that is configured to lock” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 17, line 3, it is suggested that “thus prevents” be replaced with “thus is configured to prevent” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 18, line 5, it is suggested that “the width direction” be replaced with “a width direction” as the limitation has not been previously introduced.
At claim 18, line 7, it is suggested that “the vertically downward direction” be replaced with “a vertically downward direction” as the limitation has not been previously introduced.
At claim 19, line 3, it is suggested that “curved” be added before “movement path” for consistency with claim 1, lines 11-12.
At claim 21, lines 2 and 3, it is suggested that “curved” be added before “movement path” for consistency with claim 1, lines 11-12.
At claim 21, line 2, it is suggested that “horizontal” be added before “lifting axis” for consistency with claim 1, lines 9-10.
At claim 21, line 2, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before “aligned” to more explicitly avoid recitation of the human organism in line 3.
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.
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:
A/the “first main joint element” and a/the “second main joint element” in claims 7-10, which are interpreted relative to the instant specification at Figure 6 to include linkages within the joint chain.
A/the “first auxiliary joint element” and a/the “second auxiliary joint element” om claims 7-10, which are interpreted relative to the instant specification at paragraph 111 to be coupling rods.
A/the “shoulder part” in claim 7-10 which is interpreted relative to paragraphs 82 and 98 and Figure 6 to be the linkage portion of the shoulder arrangement that includes the lifting pivot bearing, and to which the support section is attached.
A/the “adjustment mechanism”, to include the first and second adjustment mechanisms, in claims 11-12 which is interpreted relative to the instant specification at paragraph 156 to be a strip-shaped coupling element capable of slidable adjustment and functional equivalents thereof.
A/the “force transmission element” in claims 13 and 17, which is interpreted relative to the instant specification at paragraph 36 to be a strip-shaped and/or rigid element extending from the base section to a pelvic strap and functional equivalents thereof.
A/the “locking mechanism” in claims 14-16 which is interpreted relative to the instant specification at paragraph 183 to include an actuating element that locks and unlocks the exoskeleton’s shoulder joint arrangement to be used in either the stowage or operating configurations.
A/the “force transmission locking mechanism” of claim 17, which is interpreted relative to the instant specification at paragraph 184 to be an element for fixing the force transmission element relative to the back part/base section.
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 3, 6, and 10-17 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “can be” in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations which follow the phrase are a positively recited part of the claimed invention or not.
In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that “can be” be replaced with “is configured to be”. The claim will be interpreted as if written as such.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “can” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations which follow the phrase are a positively recited part of the claimed invention or not.
In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that “can be” be replaced with “configured to” language in accordance with the suggestion in the claim objection section above. The claim will be interpreted as if written as such.
Regarding claim 10, the term “minimal” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To overcome the rejection, Applicant may, if there is support in the originally filed specification, recite a range of degrees that satisfy the term “minimal”.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “can be” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations which follow the phrase are a positively recited part of the claimed invention or not.
In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that “can be” be replaced with “is configured to be”. The claim will be interpreted as if written as such.
Claim 12 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “can be” in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations which follow the phrase are a positively recited part of the claimed invention or not.
In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that “can be” be replaced with “is configured to be”. The claim will be interpreted as if written as such.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “leading in particular to a pelvic strap” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what structural relationship is being claimed between the force transmission element and the pelvic strap. Does the force transmission element itself transition into a pelvic strap? Is the force transmission element connected to a pelvic strap?
The rejection would be overcome if the force transmission element were claimed to be instead “connected to a pelvic strap”. The claim will be interpreted as if written as such.
Claims 14-17 are rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 13.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the locking mechanism" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that claim 15 be written to depend from claim 14, and will be interpreted as such.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “can be” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations which follow the phrase are a positively recited part of the claimed invention or not.
In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that “can be” be replaced with “is configured to be”. The claim will be interpreted as if written as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Doyle (US 2014/0158839), hereinafter referred to as Doyle, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Doyle (US 2014/0158839) in view of Doyle (US 2012/0184880), hereinafter referred to as Doyle ‘880.
Regarding claim 1, Doyle discloses an exoskeleton (900) (paragraph 188, lines 1-3; Figs. 31A-B), comprising:
a base section (910) for attachment to a torso of a human body (paragraph 188, lines 1-8; Fig. 31A, where 910 contacts the user’s torso),
a support section (505) for supporting an arm of the human body (paragraph 112, lines 1-8; see Figs. 31A-B, where analogous arm support assembly 505 is shown in the relied upon embodiment on the user’s arm),
an actuator device (920+926) acting on the support section (505) for providing a support force for the arm (paragraph 189, lines 1-9; note that the rollers 926 support and transmit load from the arm to the harness 910, and thus support the arm), and
a shoulder joint arrangement (584+930+932) via which the support section (505) is movably coupled to the base section (910) (paragraph 189, lines 10-13; see Fig. 31B and CTrp1 which indicates the motion of 505 relative to 910), wherein the shoulder joint arrangement (584+930+932) comprises a lifting pivot bearing (584), via which the support section (505) is mounted on the shoulder joint arrangement (584+930+932) so as to be pivotable about a horizontal lifting axis (axis Dahr) (paragraph 113, lines 7-16, note the connection between 505 and analogous harness 510 via 584; paragraph 126, lines 5-8; Figs. 31A-B), and
the shoulder joint arrangement (584+930+932) further comprises a joint chain (930+932) which defines a curved movement path (Ctrp1) for the lifting pivot bearing (584), relative to the base section (910) (paragraph 190, lines 1-13 and Figs. 31A-B for movement of 584).
In the event that the curved track 920 and the rollers 926 of Doyle are not considered an actuator device, then:
Doyle ‘880 teaches an actuator device (see “compensation elements”) comprised of any of electric, pneumatic, or hydraulic systems for an exoskeleton system which advantageously offset gravitational force acting on the user’s arm without impacting the natural motion of the arm (paragraph 7, lines 1-16; paragraph 51, lines 1-2; Fig. 2).
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 exoskeleton of Doyle to further include an actuator device, as taught by Doyle ‘880, in order to offset gravitational force acting on the user’s arm without impacting the natural motion of the arm during use of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Doyle further discloses wherein the movement path (CTrp1) has a curvature changing along the movement path (CTrp1), so that the movement path (CTrp1) is not circular (paragraph 190, lines 1-9; Fig. 31B, note that CTrp1 is shown with a shallower curvature at either extreme end of the arrow, which each approximate a straight line, and a middle of the arc has a defined concavity that differs from the ends, note in the annotation below where the imposed circle does not follow the entire arc).
Regarding claim 2, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, as discussed above.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Doyle further discloses wherein the joint chain (930+932) is designed to pivot the lifting pivot bearing (584) about an imaginary vertical axis of rotation (i.e., an axis extending through pivot 584 parallel to axis Uav) extending through the lifting pivot bearing (584) as a function of a path position of the lifting pivot bearing (584) on the movement path (CTrp1), so that, by performing a movement of the lifting pivot bearing (584) along the movement path (CTrp1), the support section (505) can be pivoted horizontally with respect to the base section (910) (paragraph 190, lines 1-5; Fig. 31B, and note that the identified imaginary axis, by virtue of its defined position extending through 584, would change position as pivot 584 moves horizontally as a function of path position on CTrp1).
Regarding claim 4, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Doyle further discloses wherein the joint chain (930+932) is designed to guide the lifting pivot bearing (584) on the movement path (CTrp1) in such a way that the lifting axis (Dahr) is aligned along the movement path (CTrp1) correspondingly to a horizontal shoulder joint axis of a shoulder of a user wearing the exoskeleton (900) (paragraph 126, lines 5-8; Figs. 31A-B, note that the position of Dahr changes as the user’s shoulder moves between the positions shown in Figures 31A and 31B, thus moving a horizontal shoulder joint axis of the user during user movement).
Regarding claim 5, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Doyle further discloses wherein a movement along the movement path (CTrp1) during operation of the exoskeleton (900) is the only degree of freedom for positioning the lifting pivot bearing (584) relative to the base section (910) (paragraph 113, lines 7-16, note the connection between 505 and analogous harness 510 via 584; paragraph 126, lines 5-8; Figs. 31A-B; further note Figure 14A, where up/down movement of the analogous support does not further translate the pivot bearing 584, as that motion is supplied by virtue of the support 505 pivoting about 584; in other words, 584 is only translationally moved in the arc CTrp1 shown in Fig. 31B).
Regarding claim 6, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Doyle further discloses wherein the exoskeleton (900) defines a free space which, in the worn state of the exoskeleton (900), is located above the shoulder of the user wearing the exoskeleton (900) and around which the joint chain (930+932) extends, so that the user can direct his arm supported by the support section (505) upwards through the free space past the joint chain (930+932) (paragraph 114, lines 7-11; paragraph 188, lines 5-8, see “in place of”; Figs. 31A-B, where the shoulder, as illustrated in Fig. 1, can be seen unencumbered by the joint chain in a free space above the shoulder).
Regarding claim 19, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Doyle further discloses a method for operating an exoskeleton (900) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above; paragraph 188, lines 1-10; paragraph 189, lines 1-13; paragraph 190, lines 1-14; Figs. 31A-B), comprising the step of: moving the lifting pivot bearing (584) along the movement path (CTrp1) relative to the base section (910) (paragraph 113, lines 7-16, note the connection between 505 and analogous harness 510 via 584; paragraph 126, lines 5-8; paragraph 190, lines 1-6; Figs. 31A-B).
Regarding claim 20, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Doyle further discloses wherein the curved movement path (CTrp1) lies in a horizontal plane (paragraph 190, lines 1-5; Figs. 31A-B, note rotation of the pivot 584 in the horizontal plane about a vertical axis Uav).
Regarding claim 21, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Doyle further discloses wherein the joint chain (930+932) is designed to guide the lifting pivot bearing (584) on the movement path (Ctrp1) in such a way that the lifting axis (Dahr) is aligned along the entire movement path (Ctrp1) coaxially to a horizontal shoulder joint axis of a shoulder of a user wearing the exoskeleton (900) (paragraph 126, lines 5-8; Figs. 31A-B, note that the position of Dahr changes as the user’s shoulder moves between the positions shown in Figures 31A and 31B, thus moving a horizontal shoulder joint axis of the user during user movement).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle’s (US 2014/0158839) first relied upon embodiment in view of Doyle’s (US 2014/0158839) additional relied upon embodiment, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Doyle (US 2014/0158839) in view of Doyle ‘880 (US 2012/0184880), and in further view of Doyle’s (US 2014/0158839) additional relied upon embodiment.
Regarding claim 11, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Presently modified Doyle fails to disclose an adjustment mechanism via which the shoulder joint arrangement can be positioned in an adjustment direction relative to the base section in order to adapt the exoskeleton to a shoulder width of the user.
However, in a separate embodiment, Doyle teaches an adjustment mechanism (38+42+attachment point 44 on each of the left and right sides) via which the shoulder joint arrangement (see at least shoulder bracket 50 on both the left and right sides) can be positioned in an adjustment direction relative to the base section (20) in order to adjustably adapt the exoskeleton (10) to a shoulder width of the user (paragraph 88, lines 1-10; Fig. 2, note point 44, and the additionally slots for positioning of bracket 50 to support 38, where the position at which attachment can be made between the two can be changed by translating the connection point to the right or left).
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 exoskeleton (900) of Doyle’s first relied upon embodiment to include an adjustment mechanism via which the shoulder joint arrangement can be positioned in an adjustment direction relative to the base section in order to adapt the exoskeleton to a shoulder width of the user, as taught by Doyle’s second relied upon embodiment, in order to provide the capability of adjusting the width of the shoulder joint arrangements relative to the base section to accommodate various shoulder widths for various users.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle’s (US 2014/0158839) first relied upon embodiment in view of Doyle’s (US 2014/0158839) additional relied upon embodiment, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Doyle (US 2014/0158839) in view of Doyle ‘880 (US 2012/0184880), and in further view of Doyle’s (US 2014/0158839) additional relied upon embodiment.
Regarding claim 13, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Presently modified Doyle fails to disclose wherein the exoskeleton is selectively movable into a stowage configuration or an operating configuration by folding the shoulder joint arrangement relative to the base section and/or by moving a force transmission element arranged on the base section and leading in particular to a pelvic strap of the exoskeleton, wherein the exoskeleton is more compact in the stowage configuration and has a smaller width and/or height than in the operating configuration and cannot be put on as an exoskeleton by a user as intended in the stowage configuration.
However, in a separate embodiment, Doyle further teaches wherein the exoskeleton (500) is selectively movable into a stowage configuration or an operating configuration by folding the shoulder joint arrangement (548+550) relative to the base section (510) (paragraph 113, lines 1-4; paragraph 182, lines 1-8; paragraph 184, lines 1-14; Fig. 29D, wherein the exoskeleton is more compact in the stowage configuration and has a smaller height than in the operating configuration and cannot be put on as an exoskeleton by a user as intended in the stowage configuration in order to provide a smaller form storage position for the device when it is not in use (Figs. 29A and D, note the reduced height in support 505 in Fig. 29A verses 29D, and also note that in the folded configuration of Fig. 29D, the support 505 is not configured to support the arm as in Fig. 29A; paragraph 184, lines 1-14, note the locking mechanism and engagement/disengagement thereof).
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 exoskeleton device of Doyle’s first relied upon embodiment, such that the exoskeleton were configured to be electively movable into a stowage configuration or an operating configuration by folding the shoulder joint arrangement relative to the base section, wherein the exoskeleton is more compact in the stowage configuration and has a smaller width and/or height than in the operating configuration and cannot be put on as an exoskeleton by a user as intended in the stowage configuration, as taught by Doyle’s additional embodiment, in order to provide a smaller form storage position for the device when it is not in use.
Regarding claim 14, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, as modified by Doyle’s additional relied upon embodiment, disclose the exoskeleton according to claim 13, as discussed above.
Modified Doyle further discloses a locking mechanism that locks the exoskeleton (900) in the operating configuration such that unlocking the locking mechanism is required to place the exoskeleton (900) in the stowage configuration (paragraph 184, lines 10-14, see “engaged” or “disengaged”).
Regarding claim 15, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, as modified by Doyle’s additional relied upon embodiment, disclose the exoskeleton according to claim 14, as discussed above.
Modified Doyle further discloses wherein the locking mechanism locks the shoulder joint assembly of the exoskeleton (900) in the operating configuration, thereby preventing the shoulder joint assembly from folding over into the stowage configuration (paragraph 184, lines 10-14, see “engaged” or “disengaged”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle’s (US 2014/0158839) first relied upon embodiment in view of Doyle’s (US 2014/0158839) additional relied upon embodiment and in further view of Moise (WO 2019/016629), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Doyle (US 2014/0158839) in view of Doyle ‘880 (US 2012/0184880), Doyle’s (US 2014/0158839) additional relied upon embodiment, and in further view of Moise (WO 2019/016629).
Regarding claim 12, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, as modified by Doyle’s additionally relied upon embodiment, discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, as discussed above.
As modified, Doyle further discloses wherein the shoulder joint arrangement (584+930+932) is a first shoulder joint arrangement (see right-hand 584+930+932 in Figs. 31A-B), the adjustment mechanism (38+42+attachment point 44) is a first adjustment mechanism (38+42+attachment point 44 on each of the right side) and the adjustment direction is a first adjustment direction, and wherein the exoskeleton (900) further comprises a second shoulder joint arrangement (see left-hand 584+930+932 in Figs. 31A-B) and a second adjustment mechanism (38+42+attachment point 44 on each of the left side), via which the second shoulder joint arrangement (see left-hand 584+930+932 in Figs. 31A-B) can be positioned in a second adjustment direction relative to the base section (910) (paragraph 88, lines 1-10; Fig. 2, note point 44, and the additionally slots for positioning of bracket 50 to support 38, where the position at which attachment can be made between the two can be changed by translating the connection point to the right or left on both sides of the bracket and with each of the left and right shoulder joint arrangements).
Doyle fails to disclose wherein the first adjustment direction and the second adjustment direction intersect at an obtuse angle.
However, Moise teaches right and left adjustment mechanisms (14+16 which includes 161) for an upper body exoskeleton (paragraph 63, lines 1-12 and Fig. 3), wherein the first adjustment direction and the second adjustment direction intersect at an obtuse angle in order to follow the subspinatus plane of the scapula (paragraph 63, lines 1-12 and Fig. 4, note where Y1 and Y2 extend backwards to form an angle greater than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees in the left/right translation directions).
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 placement of the adjustment mechanism of modified Doyle, such that first and second adjustment directions were positioned to intersect at an obtuse angle, as taught by Moise, in order to follow the subspinatus plane of the scapula.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle (US 2014/0158839) in view of Moise (WO 2019/016629), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Doyle (US 2014/0158839) in view of Doyle ‘880 (US 2012/0184880), and in further view of Moise (WO 2019/016629).
Regarding claim 18, Doyle, or in the alternative Doyle in view of Doyle ‘880, discloses the exoskeleton according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Doyle fails to disclose wherein the support section, in a position with its support section longitudinal axis directed maximally downwards, is oriented with its support section longitudinal axis laterally outwards relative to a vertical axis of the exoskeleton by an angle greater than zero in the width direction of the exoskeleton, so that a distance in the width direction between the support section longitudinal axis and the vertical axis increases in the vertically downward direction.
However, Moise teaches wherein the support section, in a position with its support section longitudinal axis directed maximally downwards, is oriented with its support section longitudinal axis laterally outwards relative to a vertical axis of the exoskeleton by an angle greater than zero in the width direction of the exoskeleton, so that a distance in the width direction between the support section longitudinal axis and the vertical axis increases in the vertically downward direction (see annotated Fig. 3 below, and note that the longitudinal axes of the support sections are oriented outwardly with respect to the vertical axis, contributing a longer width between the vertical axis and the longitudinal axes of the support sections shown by the horizontal lines in the annotation).
PNG
media_image2.png
590
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, by virtue of the illustrated body positioning of the support sections on each of the right and left arms shown in Moise, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when the Doyle exoskeleton is worn by the user, the support section, in a position with its support section longitudinal axis directed maximally downwards, can be oriented with its support section longitudinal axis laterally outwards relative to a vertical axis of the exoskeleton by an angle greater than zero in the width direction of the exoskeleton, so that a distance in the width direction between the support section longitudinal axis and the vertical axis increases in the vertically downward direction, as a result of the positioning of the user’s arms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 16-17, and 22 are 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, and if written to overcome any of the additional claim objections outlined above.
Claims 10 and 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Doyle (US 2014/0158839) does not include the particular arrangement of the joint elements and pivot bearing outlined in either of claims 7 and 16, and therefore cannot be relied on to anticipate and/or render obvious claims 7-10, 16, or 22.
The closest additional prior art document of record for the claimed joint elements and pivot arrangement detailed in claims 7 and 16 is Christensen (WO 2017/167349), as best seen in Figures 1A-B. While the appropriate number of bearing and linkages are present, Christensen does not reasonably disclose or teach the lifting pivot bearing as part of the shoulder joint arrangement for attaching the support section thereto as required in claim 1. Further, given the track assembly of Doyle’s Figures 31A-B, it is not clear how modification could reasonably be made to incorporate the joint assembly of Christensen with the track assembly relied on in Doyle’s joint chain. Additionally, Christensen does not contemplate a locking mechanism in connection with the joint elements as outlined in claim 16.
Claims 8-10 and 22 each depend from claim 7, and thus incur the same deficiencies with respect to the prior art as claim 7.
The closest identified prior art document with respect to claim 17 is Mizera (US 2020/0038219). As seen in Figures 22-23 and described at paragraph 114, Mizera includes a locking mechanism that includes a force transmission element that attaches to a pelvic strap. However, Mizera’s force transmission element 18 would have to be relied on in place of the Doyle base section, specifically if reliance on the pelvic strap were required for claims 13 and 17, as Mizera does not contemplate a base section and an addition force transmission element. Thus, combination of Doyle with Mizera would not result in the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights