DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 09/20/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
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 § 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.
Claim 2 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 2 recites, “the user is a human with a disability in the user’s lower limbs”. The limitations in claim 2 are directed towards a human using the postural lifting exoskeleton rather than the postural lifting exoskeleton itself. As such, the claim is considered to be directed towards a human organism.
The examiner recommends amending claim 2 to recite functions of the postural lifting exoskeleton. For example, “the postural lifting exoskeleton of claim 1, wherein the postural lifting exoskeleton is configured for use by a human with a disability in the user’s lower limbs”.
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 1-20 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.
In claim 1, the term, “the footplate’s oscillatory movement” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites, “the user must put on the four-point supporting belt and the leg belt”. This limitation is directed towards an action of an individual user rather than the claimed product. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and a method step of using the apparatus is indefinite under 112(b) because there is confusion as to when direct infringement occurs (see MPEP 2173.05(p) II.).
In contrast, when a claim recites a product and additional limitations which focus on the capabilities of the system, not the specific actions or functions performed by the user, the claim may be definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 874 F.3d 1307, 124 USPQ2d 1618 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to the belt limitations of claim 3, the examiner recommends amending claim 3 to recite capabilities of the third control panel. For example, replacing, “the user must put on the four-point supporting belt and the leg belt” with “the third control panel ensures that the leg belt and the four-point supporting belt are in place” (see specification, paragraph [0086]).
In claim 3, the term “safety straps” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 4, it is unclear what the applicant means by, “the set of wheels transport to user from the first location to the second location”. The examiner believes that the applicant intended to recite, “the set of wheels transport the user from the first location to the second location”.
In claim 7, the terms, “the leg belt” and “the four-point supporting belt” lack proper antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 3-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record is Zeller (WO 2017121576 A1). Zeller discloses a postural lifting exoskeleton comprising a first portion and a second portion, first and second armrests, a plurality of frames, at least one electric actuator, and a footplate. The claimed invention differs from Zeller at least by claiming that “once the user is in the orthostatic position, the footplate’s oscillatory movement causes the user’s ankles to move upwards and downwards in order to improve the user’s blood circulation.
Prior art devices for improving blood circulation by moving a user’s feet are known, for example from Bryant (US 20120022412 A1). However; such prior art devices including the one disclosed by Bryant are configured for use by a seated patient because remaining in a seated position for long periods of time increases risk for the development of a deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Accordingly, such prior art devices do not suggest the oscillatory footplate once the user is in the orthostatic position. Suggestions to modify Zeller to have the footplate oscillate once the user is in the orthostatic position were not reasonably found in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and discloses postural lifting exoskeletons and devices for improving blood circulation in the lower extremities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6087. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (7:30 - 5:00 EST).
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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571) 272-2706. 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.
/MATTHEW D LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617