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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chikano (WO 2021157620 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chikano discloses an exoskeleton (exoskeleton 1, Figure 1 and Abstract) configured to be worn by a person to reduce muscle forces in a back of the person during forward lumbar flexion (exoskeleton 1 comprises a lumbar fixing plate 39, to therefore reduce muscle forces in a back of a user during lumbar flexion, Figures 1-4) the exoskeleton comprising: a frame configured to transfer a supporting torque (back frame 33 to transfer a supporting torque, Figure 1 and Page 7); a human interface configured to couple to a trunk of the person (shoulder belt 32 configured to couple to trunk of user, Figure 1 and Page 4); and a flexible mechanism configured to transfer tensile forces between the frame and the human interface (connecting member 34 comprising portion 34a and 34b, such that the portion 34b swings and bends, Figures 5-6 and Page 4; see also Page 4, fifth paragraph stating portion 34b has flexibility), wherein when the frame transfers the supporting torque, the flexible mechanism transfers the supporting torque to the human interface by means of the tensile forces (see Figures 5-6; flexible connecting member 34 fully capable of transferring supporting torque to the human interface by means of tensile forces, the Examiner also notes Chikano’s structural arrangement is nearly identical to that is shown in Applicant’s Figure 6, therefore fully capable of transferring torques/forces in the same manner).
Regarding claim 2, Chikano further discloses wherein the flexible mechanism (connecting member 34 comprising portion 34a and 34b, such that the portion 34b swings and bends, therefore is flexible, Figures 5-6 and Page 4), restricts a frontal translation motion between the human interface and the frame (the Examiner notes that Chikano’s arrangement of the flexible connecting member 34, human interface belt 32 and the frame 33 is the same general arrangement as what is shown in Applicant’s Figure 4, therefore fully capable of performing various motion/force transfers in the same manner as claimed).
Regarding claim 3, Chikano further discloses wherein the flexible mechanism (connecting member 34 comprising portion 34a and 34b, such that the portion 34b swings and bends, therefore is flexible, Figures 5-6 and Page 4) allows for a sagittal translation motion between the human interface and the frame (see sagittal translation motion as shown in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Chikano further discloses wherein the flexible mechanism (connecting member 34 comprising portion 34a and 34b, such that the portion 34b swings and bends, therefore is flexible, Figures 5-6 and Page 4) allows for a transverse translation motion between the human interface and the frame (see transverse translation motion as shown in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, Chikano further discloses wherein the flexible mechanism (connecting member 34 comprising portion 34a and 34b, such that the portion 34b swings and bends, therefore is flexible, Figures 5-6 and Page 4) allows for one or more of: a sagittal translation motion between the human interface and the frame, for a transverse translation motion between the human interface and the frame, a sagittal rotation motion between the human interface and the frame, a frontal rotation motion between the human interface and the frame, and a transverse rotation motion between the human interface and the frame (see Figures 4-5 of Chikano showing the various types of motion between the human interface 32 and the frame 33).
Regarding claim 6, Chikano further discloses when the person bends forward and the frame transfers the supporting torque, the flexible mechanism (connecting member 34 comprising portion 34a and 34b, such that the portion 34b swings and bends, therefore is flexible, Figures 5-6 and Page 4) restricts a frontal translation motion to transfer the supporting torque from the frame to the human interface, and the flexible mechanism allows for a sagittal rotation motion and a transverse translation motion between the frame and the human interface reduce relative motion between the human interface and the trunk of the person (see Figure 5 showing relative bending forward motion of the device; the Examiner notes that Chikano’s arrangement of the flexible connecting member 34, human interface belt 32 and the frame 33 is the same general arrangement as what is shown in Applicant’s Figure 4, therefore fully capable of performing various motion/force transfers in the same manner as claimed).
Regarding claim 7, Chikano further discloses when the person bends forward and the frame transfers the supporting torque, the flexible mechanism (connecting member 34 comprising portion 34a and 34b, such that the portion 34b swings and bends, therefore is flexible, Figures 5-6 and Page 4) restricts a frontal translation motion to transfer the supporting torque from the frame to the human interface, and the flexible mechanism provides a frontal rotation motion and a sagittal translation motion to allow the person to side bend (see Figure 4 showing relative side-bending motion of the device; the Examiner notes that Chikano’s arrangement of the flexible connecting member 34, human interface belt 32 and the frame 33 is the same general arrangement as what is shown in Applicant’s Figure 4, therefore fully capable of performing various motion/force transfers in the same manner as claimed).
Regarding claim 8, Chikano further discloses when the person bends forward and the frame transfers the supporting torque, the flexible mechanism (connecting member 34 comprising portion 34a and 34b, such that the portion 34b swings and bends, therefore is flexible, Figures 5-6 and Page 4) restricts a frontal translation motion to transfer the supporting torque from the frame to the human interface, and the flexible mechanism provides a transverse rotation motion to allow the person to twist (see Figure 6 showing relative twisting motion of the device; the Examiner notes that Chikano’s arrangement of the flexible connecting member 34, human interface belt 32 and the frame 33 is the same general arrangement as what is shown in Applicant’s Figure 4, therefore fully capable of performing various motion/force transfers in the same manner as claimed; see also page 12, fourth paragraph describing the string portion 34b’s flexibility allow the user to twist upper body).
Regarding claim 9, Chikano further discloses wherein the flexible mechanism provides for a range of motion selected from the group consisting of sagittal translation, transverse translation, frontal rotation, and transverse rotation to allow for hips of the person to move relative to the trunk of the person during walking (see Figures 4-6 showing the various ranges of motion of the device, see also Page 13, first paragraph describing the device being used by the person during walking motion).
Regarding claim 10, Chikano further discloses when the person performs a walking motion, the frame follows the motion of hips of the person, and the human interface moves in a sagittal translation motion to follow the motion of the trunk of the person (see Figures 4-6 showing the various ranges of motion of the device, see also Page 13, first paragraph describing the device being used by the person during walking motion).
Regarding claim 11, Chikano further discloses wherein when the person performs a side bending motion, the frame follows the motion of hips of the person, and the human interface moves in a frontal rotation motion and a sagittal translation motion to follow the motion of the trunk of the person (see Figures 4-6 showing the various ranges of motion of the device, to include side-bending motion, see also Page 13, first paragraph describing the device being used by the person during walking motion).
Regarding claim 12, Chikano further discloses when the person performs a twisting motion, the frame follows the motion of hips of the person, and the human interface moves in a transverse rotation motion to follow the motion of the trunk of the person (see Figures 4-6 showing the various ranges of motion of the device, to include side-bending motion, see also Page 13, first paragraph describing the device being used by the person during walking motion).
Regarding claim 13, Chikano further discloses wherein the flexible mechanism comprises a length of inextensible webbing, rope, or cable (portion 34b comprises a string, therefore comprises a rope/cable, Page 13, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Chikano further discloses wherein the flexible mechanism is coupled to the frame from its first end and is coupled to the human interface from its second end (see Figure 3 showing connecting member 34 having a first end coupled to the frame 33 and the second end coupled to belt 32).
Regarding claim 15, Chikano further discloses wherein the flexible mechanism is coupled to the human interface at both ends and is configured to at least partially encircle the frame, and wherein flexible mechanism is configured to slide relative to the frame (see Figure 3 showing portion 34b encircling the frame 33 and coupled to belt 32 such that it may slide relative to frame 33).
Regarding claim 16, Chikano further discloses wherein the human interface comprises a rigid back plate (rigid back plate 33b, Figure 1) configured to be coupled to the flexible mechanism (rigid back plate 33b coupled to connecting flexible member 34b), and a shoulder strap coupled to the rigid back plate configured to at least partially encircle the shoulders or chest of the person (shoulder belt 32 coupled to the back plate 34b configured to encircle the shoulders or chest of the user, Figures 1-6).
Regarding claim 17, Chikano further discloses wherein the human interface comprises a rigid back plate (rigid back plate 33b, Figure 1) configured to be coupled to the flexible mechanism (rigid back plate 33b coupled to connecting flexible member 34b), and a shoulder strap coupled to the rigid back plate at an upper location and a lower location configured to at least partially encircle the shoulders or chest of the person (shoulder belt 32 coupled to the back plate 34b configured to encircle the shoulders or chest of the user, Figures 1-6), wherein the flexible mechanism is coupled to the rigid back plate approximately halfway between the upper location and the lower location (see Figures 1 showing the flexible connecting member 34 coupled to back plate approximately halfway between upper and lower location of shoulder belt 32).
Regarding claim 18, Chikano further discloses wherein the human interface comprises a rigid back plate (rigid back plate 33b, Figure 1) configured to be coupled to the flexible mechanism (rigid back plate 33b coupled to connecting flexible member 34b), and a shoulder strap coupled to the rigid back plate at an upper location and a lower location configured to at least partially encircle the shoulders or chest of the person (shoulder belt 32 coupled to the back plate 34b configured to encircle the shoulders or chest of the user, Figures 1-6), wherein the flexible mechanism is coupled to the rigid back plate approximately inline with the lower location (see Figures 1 showing the flexible connecting member 34 coupled to back plate).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikano (WO 2021157620 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0315830 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Chikano discloses the exoskeleton of claim 1, however is silent on further comprising a cam element coupled to either the human interface or the frame, wherein the cam element is configured to create a space and provide a rolling contact surface between the human interface and the frame to allow for rotation motions.
However, Kim teaches an exoskeleton device (Abstract, Figure 1) comprising a frame (frame 120, Paragraph 0089 and Figures 1-2) and a human interface (arm module 700, Paragraph 0043 and Figures 1-2), further teaching a cam element coupled to the human interface such that rotational motion between the human interface and frame is permitted (rotational torque/forces may be permitted by the upper arm module 700 by providing a cam in the upper arm module, Paragraph 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chikano’s exoskeleton device by including a cam element between the human interface and the frame, as taught by Kim, as providing a cam element is an art-recognized means of generating rotational motion, and providing rotational motion to the exoskeleton device may provide more realistic motions to the exoskeleton device, making the device more comfortable and useful for the user.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikano (WO 2021157620 A1) in view of Hughes (US 7,833,182 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Chikano teaches the exoskeleton of claim 1, however is silent on further comprising a centering element coupled between the frame and the human interface, wherein the centering element is configured to apply a force to bring the human interface to a neutral position relative to the frame.
However, Hughes teaches an exoskeleton device (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a frame (bracket assembly 60, Figure 1) and a human interface (chest strap 30, Figure 1), further teaching a centering element coupled between the frame and the human interface such that a force is applied to bring the human interface to a neutral position relative to the frame (tensioning rods 80 may be used to provide a centering effect, Col. 11 lines 1-2 and Figure 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Roberts (5,951,591) and Kumeno et al. (US 10,710,237 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B LEDERER whose telephone number is 571-272-7274. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Brandy Lee can be reached on (571)-270-7410. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH B LEDERER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
