DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for non-provisional application 18/705,121 filed April 26, 2024, which is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/080498 filed November 2, 2022, which claims foreign priority from ATA 60272/2021 filed in the Republic of Austria on November 2, 2021. Claims 23-44, as presented in the preliminary amendments filed April 26, 2024, are currently pending.
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 . 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 26, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language (DE 102018116569). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 23-44 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 23 recites the limitations “Limiting physiological movements of body segments” and “driving a coupled blocking mechanism upon extending which completely or partially blocks further rotation upon a specific speed being exceeded” which appear to be recitations of steps in a method while claim 24 recites the limitation “a blocking system according to claim 23” and appears to be directed to structural elements. Further, claims 25-44, which depend from claim 24, include additional structural elements and their functional capabilities rather than method steps. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 23 is intended to be directed to a method of limiting physiological movements of body segments or a blocking system for limiting physiological movements of body segments.
If claim 23 is intended to be directed to a blocking system rather than a method, then the limitation “driving a coupled blocking mechanism upon extending which completely or partially blocks further rotation upon a specific speed being exceeded”, which is directed to the process of using the blocking system, would render the scope of the claim unclear since a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). MPEP 2173.05(p).
If claim 23 is intended to be directed to a method rather than a blocking system, then the scope of claim 24 would be unclear since “a blocking system” is not recited in claim 23 and would be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
For examination purposes, claim 23 has been interpreted as being directed to “A blocking system for limiting physiological movements of body segments” and the limitation “driving a coupled blocking mechanism upon extending which completely or partially blocks further rotation upon a specific speed being exceeded” has been interpreted as “and a blocking mechanism configured to completely or partially block further rotation of the winding mechanism upon a specific speed being exceeded”.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “a change in length”; however, it is unclear what element has a change in length. For examination purposes, the above limitation has been interpreted as “a change in length of the extending element”.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “a resetting winding mechanism which allows a change in length … and prevents the change in the length” rendering the scope of the claim unclear as to what function the resetting winding mechanism actually provides. For examination purposes, claim 27 has been interpreted such that the blocking mechanism prevents the change in the length.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “such as” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “such as” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the mechanical connection”; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted as “a mechanical connection”.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “a blocking system”; however, since the claims previously refer to “the blocking system”, it is unclear if claim 39 is intended to refer to the same previously recited blocking system or introducing another blocking system in addition to “the blocking system”. For examination purposes, the above limitation has been interpreted as “the blocking system” in order to refer to the same blocking system throughout the claims.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one blocking unit can be coupled to oppositely disposed parts and itself via deflection”; however, it is unclear what is encompassed by this. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpretation such that a coupling between the at least one blocking unit and other oppositely disposed parts is bendable.
Claim 41 recites the limitation “wherein two tension elements are wound on a coil body atop each other in one winding chamber or in two separate winding chambers in a same directionality”; however, it is unclear how two tension elements can be wound on a coil body atop each other in two separate winding chambers. Therefore, it appears that this limitation should only require the two tension elements being wound in one winding chamber. Clarification is required.
Claim 41 recites the limitation “wherein two tension elements are wound on a coil body … in a same directionality such that that the two tension elements exit the coil body in an opposite direction”; however, it is unclear how the two tension elements are wound in the same direction but exit the coil body in an opposite direction. Clarification is required.
Claim 44 recites the limitation “the circumference”; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims and it is unclear what the circumference is of. Clarification is required.
Claim 44 recites the limitation “the stator”; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claims 24-27, 29-32, 34-38, 42, and 43 are included in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependence from rejected claims 23 and/or 27.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 23-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the body segments are connected together by an extending element and a blocking element”; however, this limitation positively includes “the body segments” to define the invention. For examination purposes, the above limitation has been interpreted as “an extending element and a blocking element are configured to connect together the body segments”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “at least one blocking unit worn on a body”; however, this limitation positively includes “a body” to define the invention. For examination purposes, the above limitation has been interpreted as “at least one blocking unit configured to be worn on a body”.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “wherein different ones of the body segments connected to each other individually or in combination via different joints” which is also directed to body segments of a user’s body rather than the invention. For examination purposes, claim 28 has been interpreted as “wherein the blocking system is configured to fit with different body segments connected to each other via joints”.
Claims 25-27 and 29-44 are included in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act based on their dependence from rejected claims 23 and 24.
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.
Claims 23-29, 34-40, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2021/0137722) in view of Frantz et al. (US 2018/0037191).
Regarding claim 23, Arai discloses a blocking system (assist device 10) for limiting physiological movements of body segments, wherein an extending element (belt body 13) and a blocking element (actuator 14) are configured to connect together the body segments such that the extending element (13) is wound onto a winding mechanism (drive puller 35) in the blocking element (14), and a blocking mechanism (controller 15) configured to completely or partially block further rotation of the winding mechanism (35) based on a signal from a rotation detector (36) configured to detect rotation speed of a motor (33) which winds the winding mechanism (35) (Figs. 1-6; ¶ 0011, 0055, 0064-0065, 0067, 0080, & 0091).
However, Arai fails to teach that the blocking mechanism is configured to completely or partially block further rotation of the winding mechanism upon a specific speed being exceeded.
Frantz discloses a blocking system (retractor 10) comprising an extending element (webbing 42), a blocking element (frame 12) such that the extending element (42) is wound onto a winding mechanism (spool 14) in the blocking element (12), and a blocking mechanism (inertia locking system 18) configured to completely or partially block further rotation of the winding mechanism (14) upon a specific speed being exceeded (Figs. 1-3 & 5; ¶ 0016, 0018-0019, 0027, 0037, & 0067).
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 blocking system taught by Arai such that the blocking mechanism is configured to completely or partially block further rotation of the winding mechanism upon a specific speed being exceeded as taught by Frantz for the purpose of protecting a user from injury upon sudden and rapid movement.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Arai further discloses that the blocking system (10) consists of at least one blocking unit (control box 30) configured to be worn on a body by way of at least two fixed connection points (shoulder belts 22) on variably connected ones of the body segments (Fig. 1; ¶ 0057 & 0061).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Frantz further discloses that the blocking system (10) is movable below a speed threshold (¶ 0063-0064).
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 blocking system taught by the combination of Arai and Frantz such that the blocking system is movable below a speed threshold as further taught by Frantz for the purpose of not restricting a user’s normal movement.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Frantz further discloses that the blocking system (10) initiates blockage below a speed threshold via the blocking mechanism (18) (¶ 0065).
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 blocking system taught by the combination of Arai and Frantz such that the blocking system initiates blockage below a speed threshold via the blocking mechanism as further taught by Frantz for the purpose of protecting a user from injury upon sudden and rapid movement
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Frantz further discloses that the blocking system (10) comprises a resetting winding mechanism (rewind spring 16) which allows a change in length of the extending element (42) in a specific range and is coupled to the blocking mechanism (18) to transmit a force, wherein the blocking mechanism (18) is configured to block the winding mechanism (14) by positive locking or friction and prevents the change in length of the extending element (42) and thus absorbs the force that occurs (¶ 0018-0023).
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 blocking system taught by the combination of Arai and Frantz such that the blocking system comprises a resetting winding mechanism which allows a change in length in a specific range and is coupled to the blocking mechanism to transmit a force and the blocking mechanism is configured to block the winding mechanism by positive locking or friction and prevents the change in length and thus absorbs the force that occurs as further taught by Frantz for the purpose of biasing the winding mechanism in a retraction direction and locking the winding mechanism against unwinding.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Arai further discloses that the blocking system (10) can be fit with different ones of the body segments connected to each other individually or in combination via different joints (Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Arai further discloses that oppositely disposed parts of the blocking system (10) can be connected to a body attachment structure (first harness 11, second harnesses 12) by sewing, riveting, tying, gluing, welding, screwing, or wiring (projection 46 of first harness 11 is engageable with recess portion 47 of control 30) (Fig. 7; ¶ 0098).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Frantz further discloses that the blocking mechanism (18) comprises a mechanical coupling in a form of a mounted receiving disk (spool disc 68) in which at least one contact element (locking pawl 66) is rotatably mounted (Fig. 2; ¶ 0023).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Frantz further discloses that the blocking mechanism (18) can be activated by tension or pressure (load) and is in mathematical relation to a cited threshold value (¶ 0027-0028).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Arai further discloses contact elements (knee belts 25) are mounted by means of pins or positive locking (locking members) (¶ 0058).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Frantz further discloses contact elements (locking teeth 96) forming a bonding surface by way of positive connection with a surrounding housing (frame teeth 106) upon a threshold value being exceeded and thus effecting blockage (¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Frantz further discloses that the blocking mechanism (18) triggers by mechanically, electrically, electromagnetically, viscously, by centrifugal force, or combination thereof depending on a threshold value (¶ 0065-0068).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Arai further discloses that the at least one blocking unit (30) can either be triggered mechanically, electronically, or by a combination thereof as well as in the blocking system (10) in which the at least one blocking unit (30) is connected wirelessly or via control lines to a central control (controller 15) and triggering device (¶ 0068 & 0082-0083).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Arai further discloses that the at least one blocking unit (30) can be coupled to oppositely disposed parts and itself via deflection (Fig. 4; ¶ 0060).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Arai and Frantz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Arai further discloses one or more sensors (rotation detector 36) are used to measure revolutions of a rotor (motor 33) of the blocking element (14) which measure a position of a contact element either optically with reflected light sensors, magnetically with a detector coil, or a Hall sensor, or with an ultrasonic sensor, and are positioned in a stator housing (cover 32) on a circumference facing an interior or laterally in height facing the interior (Fig. 5; ¶ 0065).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-33, 41, 42, and 44 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 30 is indicated as including allowable subject matter because neither Arai nor Frantz discloses that the change in length of the extending element is realized by a coil or a reel one which a flexible tension element is rolled or looped around, wherein the flexible tension element is in the form of a cord, a wire, a cable, a strap, a belt, or a chain in combination with the limitations of claims 23, 24, and 27.
Claim 31 is indicated as including allowable subject matter because neither Arai nor Frantz discloses that the resetting winding mechanism is powered by an energy store situated in a linear voltage range in combination with the limitations of claims 23, 24, and 27.
Claims 32 and 33 are indicated as including allowable subject matter based on their dependence from claim 30.
Claim 41 is indicated as including allowable subject matter because neither Arai nor Frantz discloses two tension elements wound on a coil body atop each other in one winding chamber such that the two tension elements exit the coil body in opposite directions and lead to body attachment structures and the blocking element is positioned between the body attachment structures in combination with the limitations of claims 23 and 24.
Claim 42 is indicated as including allowable subject matter based on their dependence from claim 41.
Claim 44 is indicated as including allowable subject matter because neither Arai nor Frantz discloses a rotation is used to generate energy by a permanent magnet being positioned in a rotating part and a moving field inducing voltage in a coil of a stator in combination with the limitations of claims 23 and 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keri J. Nelson whose telephone number is 571-270-3821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachael E. Bredefeld, can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 2/27/2026