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 .
This action is in response to the filing on 3/13/2025. Since the initial filing, claims 1-14 have been cancelled, claims 15-28 have been added and no claims have been amended. Thus, claims 15-28 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 20, 23, 25 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 line 1: “the movement” should be “a movement”
Claim 15 line 5: “a movement” should be “the movement”
Claim 15 line 5: “is configured” should be “are configured”
Claim 15 line 11 and 20: please remove “(8a)”
Claim 15 line 12 and 36 and 41: “a first direction should be “the first direction”
Claim 15 line 12: “a second direction” should be “the second direction”
Claim 15 line 19-20: “a first joint” should be “the first joint”
Claim 15 line 22-23: “a second joint” should be “the second joint”
Claim 20 line 4-5: “a movement” should be “the movement”
Claim 23 line 8 and 11 and 14: “an electromagnetic force” should be “the electromagnetic force”
Claim 25 line 3 and 5: “when is” should be “when it is”
Claim 28 line 2: “a movement” should be “the movement”
Claim 28 line 2: “is configured” should be “are configured”
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “anchorage means” in claim 18 and “means for keeping” in claim 27.
See 112(b) Rejection below for further detail.
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 18-27 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 limitation ““anchorage means” in claim 18 and “means for keeping” in claim 27” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Further claims offer no structural limitations to define what these “means” are, neither does the instant specification. While the specification discuses anchorages in the general and points to reference number 20 on the figures, there is no accompanying structural elements or description by which to understand these elements. Additionally, while the instant specification does elaborate with respect to the “means for keeping”, it does so with equally indistinct descriptions of “sliding and guiding means” which does not resolve the uncertainty.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 20, 21 and 23, the phrase "preferably" and “more preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Examiner suggest removing this language to overcome this rejection.
Dependent claims inherit the rejection of their predecessors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woge (US 2020/0121478).
In regards to claim 15, Woge discloses a soft exoskeleton for assisting the movement of at least one limb of a user (device 10, paragraph 101), said at least one limb comprising a proximal portion and a distal portion which are connected by a joint (see Annotated Fig 1B), wherein said soft exoskeleton comprises a soft suit, which can be worn by the user on said at least one limb (paragraph 23-25, Fig 1B), a plurality of sensors (sensors 80 and 81, paragraph 127), which is configured to measure a movement of said at least one limb (paragraph 127 and 137), an actuation system (driving mechanism 30) powered by an electric motor (motor 32) comprising a main shaft (Fig 1B) and a transmission system (comprising at least tendons 20, spool or pulley 50, Fig 2A-2B), anchored to said soft suit and connected to said actuation system, comprising: a first cable (tendons 20) having a portion of the first cable wound around a first rotatable spool (spool or pulley 50, paragraph 103-104, Fig 2A-2B show tendon 20 wound around pulley or spool), the first cable extending from the first rotatable spool along said soft suit and being adapted to assist the movement of bending said proximal portion of the limb when the first cable is wound around the first rotatable spool during the rotation of the first rotatable spool in a first direction (paragraph 103-104); a second cable (tendons 20) having a portion of the second cable wound around the second rotatable spool (spool or pulley 50, paragraph 103-104, Fig 2A-2B show tendon 20 wound around pulley or spool), the second cable extending from the second rotatable spool along said soft suit and being adapted to assist the movement of bending of said distal portion of the limb when the second cable is wound around the second rotatable spool during the rotation of the second rotatable spool in a first direction (paragraph 103-104).
PNG
media_image1.png
331
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1B
The embodiment shown in Fig 1 and 2 does not show a first lateral shaft and a second lateral shaft; a first spool, rotatable in a first direction and in a second direction, connected to said first lateral shaft in such a way as to be rotated by said first lateral shaft; a second spool, rotatable in a first direction and in a second direction and connected to said second lateral shaft in such a way as to be rotated by said second lateral shaft; a first primary gearwheel for motion transmission for supporting a first joint and into which said main shaft is inserted; a second primary gearwheel for motion transmission for supporting a second joint and into which said main shaft is inserted; a first secondary gearwheel for motion transmission for supporting a first joint and constrained to rotate together with said first lateral shaft, said first primary gearwheel being meshed with said first secondary transmission gearwheel; a second secondary gearwheel for motion transmission for supporting a second joint and constrained to rotate together with said second lateral shaft, said second primary gearwheel being meshed with said second secondary gearwheel; a gearbox mechanism adapted to allow, in an automatic way, motion transmission from said main shaft to said first lateral shaft, by engagement of said first primary gearwheel with said main shaft, and/or motion transmission from said main shaft to said second lateral shaft, by engagement of said second primary gearwheel with said main shaft.
However, the embodiment of Fig 12D shows a configuration of the actuation system (driving mechanism 30) having a first lateral shaft and a second lateral shaft; a first spool, rotatable in a first direction and in a second direction, connected to said first lateral shaft in such a way as to be rotated by said first lateral shaft; a second spool, rotatable in a first direction and in a second direction and connected to said second lateral shaft in such a way as to be rotated by said second lateral shaft (see Annotated Fig 12D); a first primary gearwheel (self inhibiting gear 31) for motion transmission for supporting a first joint and into which said main shaft is inserted; a second primary gearwheel (self inhibiting gear 31) for motion transmission for supporting a second joint and into which said main shaft is inserted; a first secondary gearwheel for motion transmission for supporting a first joint and constrained to rotate together with said first lateral shaft (worm wheel 33), said first primary gearwheel being meshed with said first secondary transmission gearwheel (Fig 12D); a second secondary gearwheel for motion transmission for supporting a second joint and constrained to rotate together with said second lateral shaft (worm wheel 33), said second primary gearwheel being meshed with said second secondary gearwheel (Fig 12D); a gearbox mechanism adapted to allow, in an automatic way, motion transmission from said main shaft to said first lateral shaft, by engagement of said first primary gearwheel with said main shaft, and/or motion transmission from said main shaft to said second lateral shaft, by engagement of said second primary gearwheel with said main shaft (paragraph 128-129, see Annotated Fig 12D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment seen in Fig 1-2 of Woge to have a first lateral shaft and a second lateral shaft; a first spool, rotatable in a first direction and in a second direction, connected to said first lateral shaft in such a way as to be rotated by said first lateral shaft; a second spool, rotatable in a first direction and in a second direction and connected to said second lateral shaft in such a way as to be rotated by said second lateral shaft; a first primary gearwheel for motion transmission for supporting a first joint and into which said main shaft is inserted; a second primary gearwheel for motion transmission for supporting a second joint and into which said main shaft is inserted; a first secondary gearwheel for motion transmission for supporting a first joint and constrained to rotate together with said first lateral shaft, said first primary gearwheel being meshed with said first secondary transmission gearwheel; a second secondary gearwheel for motion transmission for supporting a second joint and constrained to rotate together with said second lateral shaft, said second primary gearwheel being meshed with said second secondary gearwheel; a gearbox mechanism adapted to allow, in an automatic way, motion transmission from said main shaft to said first lateral shaft, by engagement of said first primary gearwheel with said main shaft, and/or motion transmission from said main shaft to said second lateral shaft, by engagement of said second primary gearwheel with said main shaft as taught by the embodiment seen in Fig 12D of Woge as this a known structure which would provide a dual transmission mechanism to effectively provide support to multiple regions of a user’s limb.
PNG
media_image2.png
420
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 12D
In regards to claim 16, Woge teaches the device of claim 15 and Woge further teaches wherein said at least one limb of the user is an upper limb (Fig 1B).
In regards to claim 18, Woge teaches the device of claim 15 and Woge further teaches said first cable being anchored to said soft suit by means of anchorage means, placed at least at one first anchorage point, and said second cable being anchored to said soft suit by anchorage means, placed at least at one second anchorage point, said at least one first anchorage point being in a position other than said at least one second anchorage point (ends 201 of tendons 20 attached to user body by member 3a, paragraph 103, see Annotated Fig 1B).
In regards to claim 20, Woge teaches the device of claim 15 and Woge further teaches comprising a control unit (controller 321), said control unit being suitable for sending one command or a plurality of commands to said actuation system as a function of one signal or a plurality of signals coming from said plurality of sensors, said signal or plurality of signals concerning a movement of said at least one limb, preferably said control unit being configured to send said command and/or said plurality of commands to said electric motor and/or to said gearbox mechanism (paragraph 105 and 137).
Claim(s) 17 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woge (US 2020/0121478) in view of Lerner (US 2021/0267834).
In regards to claim 17, Woge teaches the device of claim 15.
Woge does not teach wherein said first cable and said second cable are Bowden cables.
However, Lerner teaches an exoskeleton which uses cables for power transmission wherein said cables are Bowden cables (paragraph 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woge wherein said first cable and said second cable are Bowden cables as taught by Lerner as such cables are commonly used in exoskeletons to provide transmission of power from the actuators to the body of the user.
In regards to claim 28, Woge teaches the device of claim 15.
Woge does not teach wherein said plurality of sensors that is configured to measure a movement of said at least one limb, comprises IMU sensors.
However, Lerner teaches wherein said plurality of sensors that is configured to measure a movement of said at least one limb, comprises IMU sensors (paragraph 77).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woge wherein said plurality of sensors that is configured to measure a movement of said at least one limb, comprises IMU sensors as taught by Lerner as these are known sensors to monitor and control assistance offered by exoskeletons.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woge (US 2020/0121478) in view of Walsh (US 2015/0173993).
In regards to claim 27, Woge teaches the device of claim 18.
Woge does not teach comprising means for keeping said first cable and said second cable pre-tensioned.
However, Walsh teaches comprising means for keeping said first cable and said second cable pre-tensioned (paragraph 131).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woge comprising means for keeping said first cable and said second cable pre-tensioned as taught by Walsh as this would increase the overall tension the device was able to supply (Walsh: paragraph 14 line 24-26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 21-26 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.
In regards to claim 19, while Woge provides general teaching of multiple joints being actuated by the device (paragraph 101), it provides no teachings regarding a shoulder joint or the exact positioning of the cable extensions along the limb of the user. While cable based exoskeletons wherein the cable extends along sections of the shoulder and upper arm, following anterior deltoid and biceps brachii, are known in the art, they are all for single cable devices and, as the positioning is linked to the nature of the movement assistance provided and specific within the instant application, it would be an unreasonable to modify the base device.
In regards to claim 21, Woge does not teach the ability of the gearing mechanism to shift configurations to selectively engage the first or second gear assemblies. Nor would the structure of the drive mechanism of Woge accommodate such modified structure without impermissible hindsight reasoning and undue modification.
In regards to claim 24, Woge does not teach a clutch which allows selective engagement of the first or second gear assemblies. Nor would the structure of the drive mechanism of Woge accommodate such modified structure without impermissible hindsight reasoning and undue modification.
For these reasons, claims 19, 21 and 24 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 22 and 23, being dependent on claim 21, and claims 25-26, being dependent on claim 24, are also allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights