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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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(s) 1-4, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renishaw online case study titled “RLS magnetic encoders enable Marsi Bionics to build ‘life-changing’ exoskeletons” (hereinafter referred to as “Renishaw”) in view of SKYFI youtube video for ATLAS 2030 Marsi Bionics dated 11/07/2023 (hereinafter referred to as “SKYFI video”), and further in view of Marsi Bionics online product pages published 07/19/2022 and 09/20/2022 titled “Effects of the ATLAS 2030 gait exoskeleton on strength and range of motion in children with spinal muscular atrophy II: a case series” and “Use of a robotic exoskeleton at home: A case study of activity tolerance in a child with spinal muscular atrophy” (hereinafter referred to as “Marsi Bionics studies”).
Regarding claim 1, Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video combined teach the following: a support apparatus for storing an object (see reproduced photo A below showing ATLAS 2030 support structure for storing an lower body medical exoskeleton robot (object); Note: Atlas 2030 being in storing mode in photo A below, while being usage mode in annotated photo B below), the support apparatus comprising: a main rod (see annotated photo B below) configured to be supported by a floor or wall surface (see annotated photo B below); a coupling unit (see annotated photo B below) at an end of the main rod (see annotated photo B below); and a support frame supported by the main rod and movably coupled to the coupling unit (see annotated photo C below; note: support frame is movable up/down and forward/backward) in a configuration so that a first center of gravity of the support apparatus storing the object is movable (center of gravity of support structure of ATLAS 2030 is movable due to capability of entire assembly being movable alongside patient movement during therapy treatment in view of presence of wheels shown), wherein the support frame comprises: a support part having an upper surface configured to receive the object (SKYFI video at 2:36 min ~ 2:51 min showing support part and upper surface thereof of the support frame configured to receive the robot exoskeleton), and a guide part extending from one side of the support part in a horizontal direction and configured such that the coupling unit is slidably coupled to the guide part (see annotated photo D below).
Photo A taken from Renishaw
PNG
media_image1.png
502
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Photo B taken from Marsi Bionics studies
PNG
media_image2.png
681
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Photo C taken from Renishaw
PNG
media_image3.png
502
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Photo D taken from Marsi Bionics studies
PNG
media_image4.png
809
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video based on the following rationales: First, Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video all belong to the same product Atlas 2030 which is for pediatric lower body medical exoskeleton robot from the same company Marsi Bionics. Secondly, many of the information relating to Atlas 2030 from Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video, respectively, are not redundant but are complementary with respect to one another and together serve to augment one another for better understanding of the Atlas 2030 exoskeleton robot implementation. Thirdly, ATLAS 2030 exoskeleton is an award-winning pediatric robot device invented by Elena Garcia Armada which has earned the 2022 European inventor award,
(https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/press-centre/press-release/2022/452230)
as well as helped many Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) and cerebral palsy handicapped children for rehab training. As a result, above discussed benefits thereby serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to gather known related information for the ATLAS 2030 product, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video are all belong to same analogous art, in the technical field of pediatric lower body medical exoskeleton robot, and support thereof.
Regarding claim 2, SKYFI video discloses wherein the support part has a plate shape (see annotated video capture E below), and wherein the guide part is on a lower surface of the support part (see annotated video capture E below).
Annotated video capture E taken from SKYFI video
PNG
media_image5.png
784
1349
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, SKYFI video discloses wherein the guide part extends from a first end of the support part to a second end opposite to the first end of the support part so that the guide part passes through a second center of gravity of the support part (see annotated video capture E above; note: guide part is duplicated for both left and right sides, thus extends from both ends of the support part, and pass through center of gravity of support part itself).
Regarding claim 4, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video combined teach the following: wherein the coupling unit comprises: a first sliding part coupled to the guide part and configured to be slidable in a first direction (see annotated photo D above, slidable in up/down direction); and a sliding fixing part coupled to the first sliding part with a configuration so as to be movable toward the guide part and configured to fix relative positions of the first sliding part and the guide part (see annotated video capture F below)
Annotated video capture F taken from SKYFI video
PNG
media_image6.png
730
1373
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, SKYFI video discloses wherein the coupling unit comprises a rotation base part (see annotated video capture G below) at an end of the main rod (see annotated video capture G below) and configured to support the first sliding part so that the first sliding part is pivotable (see annotated video capture G below).
Annotated video capture G taken from SKYFI video
PNG
media_image7.png
726
1381
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, SKYFI video discloses wherein the coupling unit comprises a rotation fixing part coupled to the rotation base part so as to be movable toward the sliding part and configured to fix relative positions of the first sliding part and the rotation base part (video at 10:36 min ~ 11:10 min).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renishaw in view of SKYFI video and further in view of Marsi Bionics studies and further in view of Kim (US 20210275379A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding claim 10, Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video, singular or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein a plurality of rotation fixing holes are in the sliding part and arranged in a radial direction relative to the main rod, and wherein the rotation fixing part comprises a rotation fixing body movably coupled to the first sliding part and having a first side configured to be selectively inserted into any one of the plurality of rotation fixing holes.
However, Kim teaches wherein a plurality of rotation fixing holes are in the sliding part and arranged in a radial direction relative to the main rod, and wherein the rotation fixing part comprises a rotation fixing body movably coupled to the first sliding part and having a first side configured to be selectively inserted into any one of the plurality of rotation fixing holes (Figs 2-4, height adjuster 800, [0053]: height adjuster 800 has plurality of through holes, base 100 may include a pin, fitted and held in one of the through holes in the height adjuster 800).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video by Kim based on the rationales as follow: referring to the wheeled metal support frame of ATLAS 2030 shown in figures above which appear to be relatively complex in structure and occupy relatively large size during storing mode. On the other hand, Kim teaches a very small footprint height adjustable stand for storing exoskeleton/wearable robot in Fig 4. As a result, benefit of using the much smaller and simple height adjustable stand of Kim for storing exoskeleton/wearable robot over the much larger and complicated wheeled metal support frame for storing ATLAS 2030 robot, especially in scenario where many robot exoskeleton assemblies are stored, would serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine ATLAS 2030 and Kim, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because ATLAS 2030 of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video and robot exoskeleton assembly of Kim both belongs to same analogous art, in the technical field of wearable robot exoskeleton support system.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renishaw in view of SKYFI video and further in view of Marsi Bionics studies and further in view of Kim (US 20210275379A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”), and further in view of Lee Byeong Kyu (KR101429740B1, hereinafter referred to as “LEE”).
Regarding claim 11, Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies, SKYFI video and Kim, singular or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the rotation fixing part comprises a rotation fixing elastic member configured to press the rotation fixing body toward the sliding part.
However, LEE teaches wherein the rotation fixing part comprises a rotation fixing elastic member configured to press the rotation fixing body toward the sliding part (Figs 2-4, coil spring (elastic member) 210 press lift block 200 along guide bar 110 toward support plates 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video by LEE based on the rationales as follow: referring to the wheeled metal support frame of ATLAS 2030 shown in figures above which appear to be relatively complex in structure and occupy relatively large size during storing mode. On the other hand, LEE teaches a smaller footprint height adjustable stand for storing exoskeleton/wearable robot in Figs 1-2. In addition, LEE offer features for elastic restoring force using multiple coil springs 210 to provide assistance in lifting the exoskeleton wearable robot without requiring any motor. On the other hand, the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video do not have such multiple coil springs nor electrical motor to provide the lifting force, and thus requires lifting heavy assembly by hand. As a result, benefits of using height adjustable stand of LEE with extra coil springs for storing exoskeleton/wearable robot over the metal support frame ATLAS 2030 robot, especially in operation scenario where many robot exoskeleton assemblies are stored together, would serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine ATLAS 2030 and LEE, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because ATLAS 2030 of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video and robot exoskeleton support assembly of LEE belong to same analogous art, in the technical field of wearable robot exoskeleton support system.
Regarding claim 12, Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies, SKYFI video and Kim, singular or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the rotation fixing part comprises: a rotation fixing rod extending to an outside of the rotation base part from a lateral portion of the rotation fixing body; and a rotation fixing handle at an end of the rotation fixing rod.
However, LEE teaches wherein the rotation fixing part comprises: a rotation fixing rod (Figs 1-5, guide bar 110) extending to an outside of the rotation base part (Fig 3-5, 150) from a lateral portion of the rotation fixing body (Figs 3-5); and a rotation fixing handle at an end of the rotation fixing rod (Fig 3, handle (shown but not numbered) near 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video by LEE based on same rationale previously discussed for claim 12 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renishaw in view of SKYFI video and further in view of Marsi Bionics studies and further in view of Kim (US 20210275379A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”), and further in view of Lee Byeong Kyu (KR101429740B1, hereinafter referred to as “LEE”), and further in view of Park (KR 20210106779A, hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
Regarding claim 13, Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies, SKYFI video and Kim and LEE, singular or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the main rod comprises a plurality of sub-rod parts coupled to one another in series so that the plurality of sub-rod parts is attachable to or detachable from one another.
However, Park teaches wherein the main rod comprises a plurality of sub-rod parts coupled to one another in series so that the plurality of sub-rod parts is attachable to or detachable from one another (Fig 5, sub-rod parts 120, 130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video by Park based on the rationales as follow: referring to the wheeled metal support frame of ATLAS 2030 shown in figures above which appear to be designed for accommodating exoskeleton/wearable robot sized for children. On the other hand, Park is specifically designed to be a stand to handle a large robot (i.e. large exhibition robot in [0004]), thus more sturdy and structurally capable and height adjustable as discussed in [0004] and [0022] and [0024] in English translation copy, which advantages for Park would serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine ATLAS 2030 and Park, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because ATLAS 2030 of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video and robot support stand of Park both belongs to same analogous art, in the technical field of wearable robot exoskeleton support system.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renishaw in view of SKYFI video and further in view of Marsi Bionics studies and further in view of Hyundai motor robotics lab X-ble MEX online product post dated 06/15/2023, (hereinafter referred to as “Hyundai X-ble MEX”).
Regarding claim 14, Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video, singular or in combination, fails to disclose or teach further comprising a base frame configured to be capable of being placed on the floor, wherein the main rod extends from the base frame.
However, Hyundai X-ble MEX teaches further comprising a base frame configured to be capable of being placed on the floor, wherein the main rod extends from the base frame (see reproduced photo H below).
Reproduced photo H
PNG
media_image8.png
469
1085
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video by Hyundai X-ble MEX based on the rationales as follow: referring to the wheeled metal support frame of ATLAS 2030 shown in figures above which appear to be relatively complex in structure and occupy relatively large size during storing mode. On the other hand, Hyundai X-ble MEX teaches a much smaller footprint stand for storing exoskeleton robot shown in photo H above. As a result, benefits of using small stand of Hyundai X-ble MEX for storing exoskeleton/wearable robot over the metal support frame ATLAS 2030 robot, especially in operation scenario where many robot exoskeleton assemblies are stored together, would serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine ATLAS 2030 and Hyundai X-ble MEX, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because ATLAS 2030 of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video and robot exoskeleton support assembly of Hyundai X-ble MEX belong to same analogous art, in the technical field of wearable robot exoskeleton support system.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renishaw in view of SKYFI video and further in view of Marsi Bionics studies and further in view of Hyundai motor robotics lab X-ble MEX online product post dated 06/15/2023, (hereinafter referred to as “Hyundai X-ble MEX”), and further in view of Lee Byeong Kyu (KR101429740B1, hereinafter referred to as “LEE”).
Regarding claim 15, Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video, singular or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the base frame comprises: a base part configured to support the main rod and generally having a plate shape; and a wheel rotatably coupled to one base side of the base part and configured to be rollable relative to the floor.
However, Hyundai X-ble MEX and LEE combined teach wherein the base frame comprises: a base part configured to support the main rod and generally having a plate shape (Hyundai: see reproduced photo H above); and a wheel rotatably coupled to one base side of the base part and configured to be rollable relative to the floor (LEE: Fig 2, wheels 120 on base frame 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video by LEE based on the rationales as follow: referring to the wheeled metal support frame of ATLAS 2030 shown in figures above which appear to be relatively complex in structure and occupy relatively large size during storing mode. On the other hand, LEE teaches a smaller footprint height adjustable stand for storing exoskeleton/wearable robot in Figs 1-2. In addition, LEE offer features for elastic restoring force using multiple coil springs 210 to provide assistance in lifting the exoskeleton wearable robot without requiring any motor. On the other hand, the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video do not have such multiple coil springs nor electrical motor to provide the lifting force, and thus requires lifting heavy assembly by hand. As a result, benefits of using height adjustable stand of LEE with extra coil springs for storing exoskeleton/wearable robot over the metal support frame ATLAS 2030 robot, especially in operation scenario where many robot exoskeleton assemblies are stored together, would serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine ATLAS 2030 and LEE, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because ATLAS 2030 of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video and robot exoskeleton support assembly of LEE belong to same analogous art, in the technical field of wearable robot exoskeleton support system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video by Hyundai X-ble MEX based on same rationale previously discussed for claim 14 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Regarding claim 16, Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video and Hyundai X-ble MEX, singular or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the main rod is positioned to be off center relative to a central portion of the base part with a position biased toward the wheel from the central portion of the base part.
However, LEE teaches wherein the main rod (Fig 2, 110) is positioned to be off center relative to a central portion of the base part (Fig 2, central part of 100) with a position biased toward the wheel from the central portion of the base part (Fig 2, 110 being closer to rear set of wheels 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video by LEE based on the rationales as follow: referring to the wheeled metal support frame of ATLAS 2030 shown in figures above which appear to be relatively complex in structure and occupy relatively large size during storing mode. On the other hand, LEE teaches a smaller footprint height adjustable stand for storing exoskeleton/wearable robot in Figs 1-2. In addition, LEE offer features for elastic restoring force using multiple coil springs 210 to provide assistance in lifting the exoskeleton wearable robot without requiring any motor. On the other hand, the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video do not have such multiple coil springs nor electrical motor to provide the lifting force, and thus requires lifting heavy assembly by hand. As a result, benefits of using height adjustable stand of LEE with extra coil springs for storing exoskeleton/wearable robot over the metal support frame ATLAS 2030 robot, especially in operation scenario where many robot exoskeleton assemblies are stored together, would serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine ATLAS 2030 and LEE, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because ATLAS 2030 of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video and robot exoskeleton support assembly of LEE belong to same analogous art, in the technical field of wearable robot exoskeleton support system.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renishaw in view of SKYFI video, and further in view of Marsi Bionics studies, and further in view of Dogonews online posting by Maitreyi titled “Hyundai Unveils Stylish Iron Man-Inspried Robotic Suits” dated 01/27/2017, (hereinafter referred to as “Maitreyi”).
Regarding claim 17, Renishaw, SKYFI video, and Marsi Bionics studies, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the main rod comprises: a first rod part configured to be extending from the wall surface; and a second rod part extending upward from the first rod part, wherein the coupling unit is provided at an upper end of the second rod part (see reproduced photo I below; pair of main rods, each has two rod parts/sections extending upward).
Reproduced photo I taken from Maitreyi
PNG
media_image9.png
569
275
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renishaw in view of SKYFI video and further in view of Marsi Bionics studies and further in view of Lee Byeong Kyu (KR101429740B1, hereinafter referred to as “LEE”).
Regarding claim 18, Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video combined teach the following: a support apparatus for storing an object (see reproduced photo A above showing ATLAS 2030 support structure for storing an lower body medical exoskeleton robot (object); note: Atlas 2030 being in storing mode in photo A above, while being usage mode in annotated photo B above), the support apparatus comprising: a main rod (see annotated photo B above) configured to be supported by a floor or wall surface (see annotated photo B above); a coupling unit (see annotated photo B above) at an end of the main rod (see annotated photo B above); and a support frame supported by the main rod and movably coupled to the coupling unit (see annotated photo C above; note: support frame is movable up/down and forward/backward) in a configuration so that a first center of gravity of the support apparatus storing the object is movable (center of gravity of support structure of ATLAS 2030 is movable due to capability of entire assembly being movable alongside patient movement during therapy treatment in view of presence of wheels shown), wherein the support frame comprises: a support part having an upper surface configured to receive the object (SKYFI video at 2:36 min ~ 2:51 min showing support part and upper surface thereof of the support frame configured to receive the robot exoskeleton), and wherein the support frame comprises a guide part extending from one side of the support part in a horizontal direction and configured such that the coupling unit is slidably coupled to the guide part (see annotated photo D above).
However, Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video, singular or in combination, fails to disclose or teach a fixing unit coupled to a first side of the support part and configured to fix the object placed on the upper surface of the support part, wherein the fixing unit comprises: a length adjustment part coupled to the support part so as to be movable in an outward direction and configured to adjust a distance by which an end of the length adjustment part is spaced apart from the support part; and a fixing part extending upward from the end of the length adjustment part and configured to fix the object placed on the upper surface of the support part.
However, LEE teaches a fixing unit (Figs 1-3, block 300 and 200) coupled to a first side of the support part and configured to fix the object (Figs 1-2, robot 400) placed on the upper surface of the support part (abstract: wearable robot mounting apparatus), wherein the fixing unit (300) comprises: a length adjustment part coupled to the support part so as to be movable in an outward direction (Figs 5 and 6, spring 310 coupled to block 300, movable in direction indicated by arrowed line) and configured to adjust a distance by which an end of the length adjustment part is spaced apart from the support part (Fig 6); and a fixing part (Fig 2, a protruding part from 300) extending upward from the end of the length adjustment part (200) and configured to fix the object (400) placed on the upper surface of the support part (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video by LEE based on the rationales as follow: referring to the wheeled metal support frame of ATLAS 2030 shown in figures above which appear to be relatively complex in structure and occupy relatively large size during storing mode. On the other hand, LEE teaches a smaller footprint height adjustable stand for storing exoskeleton/wearable robot in Figs 1-2. In addition, LEE offer features for elastic restoring force using multiple coil springs 210 to provide assistance in lifting the exoskeleton wearable robot without requiring any motor. On the other hand, the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video do not have such multiple coil springs nor electrical motor to provide the lifting force, and thus requires lifting heavy assembly by hand. As a result, benefits of using height adjustable stand of LEE with extra coil springs for storing exoskeleton/wearable robot over the metal support frame ATLAS 2030 robot, especially in operation scenario where many robot exoskeleton assemblies are stored together, would serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine ATLAS 2030 and LEE, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because ATLAS 2030 of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video and robot exoskeleton support assembly of LEE belong to same analogous art, in the technical field of wearable robot exoskeleton support system.
Regarding claim 19, Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video, singular or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the fixing part is hingedly and pivotably coupled to the end of the length adjustment part.
However, LEE teaches wherein the fixing part is hingedly and pivotably coupled to the end of the length adjustment part (Figs 2 and 3, a protruding part from block 300 hingedly and pivoably coupled to block 300 and to block 200).
Regarding claim 20, Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video, singular or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the fixing unit comprises an object fixing elastic member configured to press the fixing part toward the length adjustment part.
However, LEE teaches wherein the fixing unit comprises an object fixing elastic member configured to press the fixing part toward the length adjustment part (Fig 3, spring 210 pressing support plate 150 towards block 200, alternatively, pressing spring 310 towards protruding part from block 300).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify the ATLAS 2030 robot exoskeleton system of Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies and SKYFI video by LEE based on same rationales previously discussed for claim 18 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are 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. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Cited prior art Renishaw, Marsi Bionics studies, SKYFI video, LEE, Park, Maitreyi, Hyundai Ble-Mex, and Kim, singularly or in any combinations thereof, fails to disclose or teach “wherein a plurality of sliding fixing holes are in the guide part and arranged in the first direction, and wherein the sliding fixing part comprises: a sliding fixing body movably coupled to the first sliding part; and a sliding fixing protrusion extending from the sliding fixing body and configured to be selectively inserted into any one of the plurality of sliding fixing holes” of claim 5. By virtue of dependency upon claim 5, claims 6-7 likewise also contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koren (US 10130547B2) discloses an exoskeleton device with sitting support. Goffer (US 10137050B2) discloses a gait device with a crutch. Kappel (US 20180296426A1) discloses an apparatus for controlling exoskeleton device. Kim (US 20230329956A1) disclose a walking assisting device. Teng (US 20200281803A1) discloses an exoskeleton robot control system. Hoenhause (US 8567804B1) disclose a mobile device for supporting a user with a base platform. Zhang (CN117798889A) discloses a load-bearing lower limb exoskeleton robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am MT--5:00pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632