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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference characters “212” and “211” are not found in the specification (Fig 4).
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 2, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the outside” should be changed to –an outside—since this is the first time this is mentioned (Claim 2, Lines 10-11).
The phrase “whose direction of provision has been changed by the lower end pulley” should have a comma before and after the phrase to correct the grammatical error (Claim 8, Lines 6-7).
The phrase “whose direction of provision has been changed by the moving pulley” should have a comma before and after the phrase to correct the grammatical error (Claim 9, Line 10).
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.
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 driving part of Claim 1. The corresponding structure is the overall component 100 shown in Figs 1 and 4.
A force transmitting part of Claim 1. The corresponding structure is the overall component 200 which has a fabric part 210 shown in Figs 1 and 4.
A driving module of Claim 2. The corresponding structure is the overall component 130 shown in Figs 1 and 4 and is described to be a motor (Page 24, Lines 1-2).
A guide part of Claim 4. The corresponding structure is the overall component 111-1 which has an elastic body or spring and a contact surface shown in Fig 6.
A fixing part of Claims 8 and 9. The corresponding structure is the component 230 which fixes one end of the fabric part 210 shown in Figs 4, 7, and 8.
A joining part of Claim 10. The corresponding structure is the component 220a-3 which joins the first body 220a-1 and the second body 220a-2 shown in Fig 8.
A first support part and a second support part of Claim 11. The corresponding structures are 300 and 400 which are wearable bands or similar wearable components configured to be worn on the user shown in Fig 3.
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 6 and 7 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 6 states “an area discharged” (Line 3). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the area discharged is the same area as the predetermined area of the fabric material. It appears the applicant was trying to say they’re the same. However, the wording of the claim can be interpreted as having multiple distinct areas involved. Therefore, the number of areas involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as they’re the same and the area discharged is part of the predetermined area.
Claim 7 is rejected for being dependent on rejected Claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 states “a first support part fixed at a first region of the user’s body” (Line 2) and “a second support part fixed at a second region of the user’s body” (Line 4). This statement is directed to a human organism since it requires the support parts to be fixed to two different regions of the user’s body. It appears the applicant was trying to say the first and second support parts are configured to be fixed to different regions of the user’s body. However, without the user’s body, there is nothing for the support parts to fix on to. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the first and second support parts are configured to be fixed to different regions of the user’s body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (English Machine Translation of CN-107486842-A provided by PE2E).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses a walking assistance device (Apparatus of Fig 1) utilizing a fabric (2 traction cloth belt, Abstract), the walking assistance device comprising: a driving part (driving unit 2, Fig 1) configured to generate a driving force (driving unit for retraction and release of the 2 traction belts, Page 3, middle paragraph); and a force transmitting part (5, 12, and 13, Figs 1 and 5) including a fabric part (traction cloth belt 5 made of flexible textile material, Page 4, bottom paragraphs), which is connected to the driving part (driving unit for retraction and release of the 2 traction belts, Page 3, middle paragraph), and configured to transmit a force to a part of a user’s body by unwinding or rewinding due to the driving force applied from the driving part (driving unit 2 by the traction belt 5 traction assisting the human hip joint, the realization of the human hip extension movement of traction power to reduce and sharing the thigh 7 as rear extension movement needed for force/moment so as to reduce energy consumption of human muscle so as to power the human walking motion, Page 4, bottom paragraphs).
Regarding Claim 11, Li discloses a first support part (3 and 6, Figs 1-3) fixed at a first region of the user’s body (3 and 6 around the user’s torso, Figs 1-3) and provided to be couplable to the driving part (3 and 6 shown to couple to 2, Figs 1-3; backpack assembly comprising a shoulder 8, 2, straps 6, waist belt 3, waist support seat 10, backpack assembly by 2 straps 6 on the shoulder, the knapsack 8 is fixed control unit and the battery module 9, and the lower fixed 2 driving unit 2, Page 4, bottom paragraph); and a second support part (4, Figs 1-3) fixed at a second region of the user’s body (4 shown to be around the user’s thighs, Figs 1-3) and provided to be couplable to the force transmitting part (4 is attached to 5, Figs 1-3; the traction belt 5 vertically attached on the leg loop strap 4, Page 5, top paragraphs).
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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (English Machine Translation of CN-107486842-A provided by PE2E) in view of Zhang et al. (English Machine Translation of CN-109620637-A provided by PE2E).
Regarding Claim 2, Li discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Li also discloses the driving part includes: a driving housing (29, 30, and 31, Fig 4; 29, 30, and 31 house the components of 2 in between their walls); a driving pulley (drum 11, Fig 5) provided in the driving housing and configured to rotate and have the fabric part coupled thereto (11 shown to have 5 wrapped around it, Fig 5); a driving module (16, Figs 5-6) configured to generate a driving force for rotating the driving pulley (the DC motor 16 through the speed reducer 17 transmits the power to the first grade transmission gear 23, the first-stage transmission gear 23 by driving gear two-stage transmission gear 18, the second-stage transmission gear 18 drive drum 11, Page 5, middle paragraph); a gear part (23 and/or 18, Figs 5-6) configured to transmit the driving force generated by the driving module to the driving pulley (the DC motor 16 through the speed reducer 17 transmits the power to the first grade transmission gear 23, the first-stage transmission gear 23 by driving gear two-stage transmission gear 18, the second-stage transmission gear 18 drive drum 11, Page 5, middle paragraph).
Li fails to disclose a fan configured to release heat generated in the driving housing to the outside.
However, Zhang, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a driving device for a flexible power-assisted garment (Abstract) including a fan configured to release heat generated in the driving housing to the outside (in order to ensure heat dissipation of the base 19 inside the base 19 two side are equipped with a heat dissipation fan 37 and matched with the protection cover 20, Page 5, middle paragraph) to dissipate buildup of heat inside of the device (Page 5, middle paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a fan to the device, as taught by Zhang, to dissipate buildup of heat inside of the device (Zhang: Page 5, middle paragraph). This would protect the device and keep it from overheating.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (English Machine Translation of CN-107486842-A provided by PE2E) in view of Guo et al. (English Machine Translation of CN-206837089-U provided by PE2E).
Regarding Claim 3, Li discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Li also discloses the driving housing includes: an upper groove provided upward (top groove defined and in between 29 and 30, Fig 4).
Li fails to disclose a protective member formed at a predetermined separation distance from the upper groove; and a through-groove having the shape of a groove through which the fabric part passes.
However, Guo, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a flexible wearable lower limb assisting exoskeleton suit (Abstract) including a protective member (108, Fig 2) formed at a predetermined separation distance from the upper groove (108 is at a predetermined separation distance from the groove defined by 110 and 109, Fig 2); and a through-groove having the shape of a groove through which the fabric part passes (the bottom plate are fixedly connected with traction belt opening on the shell side surface close to the drum, Page 2, bottom paragraph) since it is known to encapsulate the device within a housing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to encapsulate the device with a housing and add an opening to the housing, as taught by Guo, since it is known to encapsulate the device within a housing. The addition of the housing would merely further provide structural integrity to the device and ensure the internal components of the device are well-protected. This is especially important when the device is being used outdoors or in public spaces.
Regarding Claim 4, Li-Guo combination teaches the through-groove includes a guide part (Li: 14 and 15, Figs 5 and 8) configured to guide the fabric part (Li: 14 and 15 shown to guide 5, Fig 5); and the guide part includes a contact surface (Li: 14, Figs 5 and 8) provided to be able to come in contact with one side surface of the fabric part (Li: 14 shown to come into contact with one side surface of 5, Fig 5) and an elastic body (Li: 15, Figs 5 and 8; the right guide wheel 15 from sleeve 48 and mandrel 40, the shaft sleeve 48 is made from elastic material, and fit together with the mandrel 40, Page 5, bottom paragraph; 48 is part of 15, Fig 8) provided between the contact surface and the driving housing (Li: 15 is in between 14 and 31, Figs 5 and 8) to provide an elastic force to the contact surface (Li: the elastic surface of 48 on 15 would provide an elastic force to 14 via 5 in between 14 and 15, Figs 5 and 8). It is noted that Applicant has not claimed additional details regarding how the different components of the guide part are oriented.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (English Machine Translation of CN-107486842-A provided by PE2E) and Zhang et al. (English Machine Translation of CN-109620637-A provided by PE2E) as applied to Claim 2, and in further view of Gim (English Machine Translation of KR-200468250-Y1 provided by PE2E).
Regarding Claim 5, Li-Zhang combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 2. Li-Zhang combination also teaches the driving pulley includes a driving main body (Li: body of 11, 22, and 21, Fig 6) having a cylindrical shape (Li: body of 11 is cylindrical, Fig 6) and two support members respectively provided at both ends of the driving main body (Li: 19 and/or 20, Fig 6, 19 and 20 shown on both ends of 11, Fig 6).
Li-Zhang combination fails to teach the driving main body has an insertion fixing groove into which a fixing pin is able to be inserted formed therein.
However, Gim, reasonably pertinent to the problem of attaching a band to the drum of a pulley, teaches a lift dish dryer (Abstract) including the driving main body (12a, Fig 3) has an insertion fixing groove (12b, Fig 3) into which a fixing pin (15, Fig 3) is able to be inserted formed therein (15 is inserted into 12b, Fig 3) since this is a known way to attach a band to the drum of a pulley.
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 pulley to have a fixing groove and fixing pin and fix the traction belt to these components on the drum, as taught by Gim, since this is a known way to attach a band to the drum of a pulley. Since Li already teaches that the traction belt is fixed onto the drum 11, Gim is merely teaching an alternative, known way to attach the belt to the drum.
Regarding Claim 6, Li-Zhang-Gim combination teaches the fabric part is provided to have a predetermined area using a fabric material (Li: traction cloth belt 5 made of flexible textile material, Page 4, bottom paragraphs; area is predetermined by the length of the belt utilized in the device), provided to be wound around the driving main body (Li: 5 is shown to be wound around body of 11, Fig 5), and configured so that an area discharged to the outside of the driving part changes according to rotation of the driving main body (Li: area of 5 outside of 2 shown to change depending on movement of user and rotation of 11, Figs 1-3; driving unit for retraction and release of the 2 traction belts, Page 3, middle paragraph).
Regarding Claim 7, Li-Zhang-Gim combination teaches the fabric part is coupled to the fixing pin while fixed in a state in which at least some portions of the fabric part overlap each other with respect to the fixing pin (Gim: 30 is fixed onto 15 and shown to overlap each other by wrapping around 15, Fig 3; in order to fix the band 30 by the fixed shaft 15, an opening hole 12b is formed in the flange 12a of the winding drum 12, and the band 30 is wound around the opening hole 12b, Page 3, bottom paragraph), and the fabric part coupled to the fixing pin is inserted into the insertion fixing groove and connected to the driving part (Gim: in order to fix the band 30 by the fixed shaft 15, an opening hole 12b is formed in the flange 12a of the winding drum 12, and the band 30 is wound around the opening hole 12b, by inserting and fixing the shaft 15, the band 30 is eccentrically fixed to one side of the winding drum 12, Page 3, bottom paragraph).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (English Machine Translation of CN-107486842-A provided by PE2E), Zhang et al. (English Machine Translation of CN-109620637-A provided by PE2E), and Gim (English Machine Translation of KR-200468250-Y1 provided by PE2E) as applied to Claim 5, and in further view of Kim et al. (English Machine Translation of KR-101669763-B1 provided by PE2E).
Regarding Claim 8, Li-Zhang-Gim combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 5. Li-Zhang-Gim combination fails to teach the force transmitting part includes: a lower end pulley provided to have a predetermined separation distance from the driving part, connected to the fabric part extending from the driving part, and configured to change a direction of provision of the fabric part; and a fixing part to which one end of the fabric part whose direction of provision has been changed by the lower end pulley is fixed.
However, Kim of the same field of endeavor, teaches a walking aid (Abstract) including the force transmitting part includes: a lower end pulley (170, Fig 2) provided to have a predetermined separation distance from the driving part (170 has a predetermined separation distance from 160 based on the user’s movement, Figs 2-3), connected to the wire part extending from the driving part (170 and 160 are connected by 110, Figs 2-3), and configured to change a direction of provision of the wire part (the user pulls the handle 140 while walking, the wire 110 is pulled by the pulling force of the knob 140, at this time, the moving pulley 170 moves in the upward direction, The band 150 is also moved upward, Page 3, bottom paragraph); and a fixing part (130, Fig 2) to which one end of the wire part whose direction of provision has been changed by the lower end pulley is fixed (the wire 110 passing through the fixed pulley 160 is fixed to the wire fixing portion 130 via the lower portion of the moving pulley 170 so that the wire 110 is pulled when the user pulls the handle 140 when walking, Page 5, middle paragraph) to reduce the force required to lift the user’s thigh (Page 5, middle paragraph).
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 device to have a lower end pulley and a fixing part, as taught by Kim, to reduce the force required to lift the user’s thigh (Kim: Page 5, middle paragraph). This particular pulley configuration is a well-known mechanical concept known as compound pulleys which is known to allow the lifting of objects with a reduced effort or load.
Regarding Claim 9, Li-Zhang-Gim combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 5. Li-Zhang-Gim combination also teaches the force transmitting part includes: a fixing pulley (Li: 13 and/or 12, Fig 5) provided at the driving part and configured to change the direction of provision of the fabric part (Li: 13 and/or 12 shown to change the direction of 5, Fig 5). Li-Zhang-Gim combination fails to teach a moving pulley provided to have a predetermined separation distance from the driving part, connected to the fabric part extending from the driving part, and configured to change a direction of provision of the fabric part multiple times; change the direction of provision of the fabric part to a direction toward the moving pulley again; and a fixing part provided at the driving part and to which one end of the fabric part whose direction of provision has been changed by the moving pulley is fixed.
However, Kim of the same field of endeavor, teaches a walking aid (Abstract) including a moving pulley (170, Fig 2) provided to have a predetermined separation distance from the driving part (170 has a predetermined separation distance from 160 based on the user’s movement, Figs 2-3), connected to the wire part extending from the driving part (170 and 160 are connected by 110, Figs 2-3), and configured to change a direction of provision of the wire part multiple times (110 is able to change direction back and forth while the user is walking due to the alternating, rotational movement of 170, Figs 2-3); change the direction of provision of the wire part to a direction toward the moving pulley again (110 is able to change direction back and forth while the user is walking due to the alternating, rotational movement of 170, Figs 2-3); and a fixing part (130, Fig 2) provided at the driving part (130 near 160, Fig 2) and to which one end of the wire part whose direction of provision has been changed by the moving pulley is fixed (the wire 110 passing through the fixed pulley 160 is fixed to the wire fixing portion 130 via the lower portion of the moving pulley 170 so that the wire 110 is pulled when the user pulls the handle 140 when walking, Page 5, middle paragraph) to reduce the force required to lift the user’s thigh (Page 5, middle paragraph).
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 device to have a lower end pulley and a fixing part, as taught by Kim, to reduce the force required to lift the user’s thigh (Kim: Page 5, middle paragraph). This particular pulley configuration is a well-known mechanical concept known as compound pulleys which is known to allow the lifting of objects with a reduced effort or load.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 is dependent on Claim 9 and discusses the moving pulley including a first body and a second body, the second body having a predetermined separation distance from the first body and a joining part connecting the first body and the second body. This configuration is depicted in Fig 8.
Prior art similar to the claimed invention are explained below.
Li et al. (English Machine Translation of CN-107486842-A provided by PE2E) discusses a similar device to the claimed invention. Regarding Claim 10, Li does not have the moving pulley at the thigh portion of the user to begin with. Kim et al. (English Machine Translation of KR-101669763-B1 provided by PE2E) was brought in the cure the deficiencies of Li to teach the moving pulley. However, Kim does not teach the use of a first body and a second body and having a joining part to connect both bodies. Kim merely teaches the moving pulley 170 as depicted in Fig 2 of Kim. Though Kim teaches the possibility of a plurality of moving pulleys (Kim: Page 5, middle paragraph), Kim does not specify how these moving pulleys are arranged and does not teach any type of connection between the bodies or pulleys. It would not be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add additional pulleys to form this particular kind of claimed configuration since it would be hindsight. Therefore, the prior art does not disclose or teach Claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/BRIAN T KHONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights