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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the upper and lower arm members each comprising two tubular sections, where the resilient member is inserted into both tubular sections (claim 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Examiner notes that the term “each” in this claim indicates there are four total tubular members and this is not shown in the figures. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: element 23. Examiner notes that element 23 appears to be directed towards the left support arm in Fig. 2, which would align with the left lower arm member designated as 123. However, the specification and other figures define the left arm as element 22. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 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 3, 6, 8, and 18 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 3 recites “wherein the resilient member comprises two connecter portions and a neck portion therebetween wherein: a first connector portion is proximal the body support structure; a second connector portion is proximal the right or left support arm; and the neck portion has a smaller width than the connecter portions; and/or the left and right rotational joints allow a range of motion in a plurality of planes”, which is indefinite because it is unclear which limitations the term “and/or” is separating. Is the “and/or” recitation intended to be between only “the neck portion has a smaller width than the connector portions” and “the left and right rotational joints allow a range of motion in a plurality of planes”, meaning the first and second connector portions are required in both cases? Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully required.
Regarding claims 6, 8, and 18, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 13, 15-18, 21, 22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browning (US 20190382114 A1) in view of Murdock (US 20150210389 A1).
Regarding Claim 1
Browning teaches a wearable flight system for a user (flight system (100), Fig. 3a, for example) comprising: a right hand propulsion unit (propulsion devices (110) worn on right hand); a left hand propulsion unit (propulsion devices worn on left hand (110)); a body support structure for being worn on the user's body (Abstract “a support device configured to support a user’s waist or torso” such as control system (330) and energy storage device (310)); a right support arm extending from the body support structure to the right hand propulsion unit (frame (340)) and connected to the body support structure by a right rotational joint (actuator (345, 545, 645)); and a left support arm extending from the body support structure to the left hand propulsion unit and connected to the body support structure by a left rotational joint (frame (340) and actuator (345, 545, 645) on the other hand propulsion unit, Fig. 3a), but is silent on:
the right rotational joint comprising a resilient member; and
the left rotational joint comprising a resilient member.
Murdock teaches:
the right rotational joint comprising a resilient member (Para. [0008] “wing articulation and piloting capability is brought about, in part, by the action of cams, levers, gears, springs, wires and cables”, Para. [0083], Para. [0097], Para. [0121] “The areas matching with a pilot's shoulder blades are designed to be flexible by any of numerous means such as floating areas of back plate with a multiplicity of springs holding the movable portions in a default position”, for example); and
the left rotational joint comprising a resilient member (Para. [0008], [0083], [0097], and [0121], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flight system of Browning with the resilient members of Murdock with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means to bias the arms to a default position (Murdock: Para. [0097] and [0121]), for example, or to aid in the articulation of the joints.
Regarding Claim 2
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, wherein the resilient member is an elastic member and/or is formed of an elastomeric material (Murdock: Examiner notes that springs are elastic members).
Regarding Claim 5
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, wherein the resilient member provides a restoring force when displaced from a neutral position (Murdock: Para. [0097] and Para. [0121], for example).
Regarding Claim 6
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 5, wherein: the body support structure extends along a body axis between a top and a bottom (Browning: Examiner notes the support structures have a top and bottom extending along an axis as claimed, Fig. 3a, 3b), wherein the top is closer to a user's head than the bottom when worn (Browning: Fig. 3a, 3b); and in the neutral position the right and left support arms are downwardly inclined relative to the body axis (Browning: Para. [0076] “The actuators 345, 545, 645 may be controlled by the control system 330 to provide a force towards a position of stability (where horizontal components of the thrust are balanced)”, Claim 3 “wherein the support structure of the body propulsion assembly is configured to hold the user's body such that a line extending between the center of the user's head and the center of the user's waist extends, relative to an orientation of a net force provided by the body propulsion assembly during use, by a body propulsion elevation angle, the body propulsion elevation angle being greater than zero”, Examiner notes that as best understood, this can be considered the neutral position, Fig. 3a, 3b), preferably by an elevation angle in the range 20 to 50 degrees, the elevation angle being measured as the angle in a sagittal plane between the body axis and a line along which the support arms extend in the neutral position (see related 112(b) rejection, Examiner is interpreting the limitations following “preferably” as being optional).
Regarding Claim 7
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 5, wherein in the neutral positions the right and left support arms diverge from each other (Browning: Fig. 3-6).
Regarding Claim 8
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, wherein: the right support arm engages the right hand propulsion unit at a location displaced from an axis of thrust of the right propulsion unit (Browning: Fig. 1a), preferably displaced to the left and/or towards a centre of the body support structure (see related 112(b) rejection, Examiner is interpreting the limitations following “preferably” as being optional); and the left support arm engages the left hand propulsion unit at a location displaced from an axis of thrust of the left propulsion unit (Browning: Fig. 1a), preferably displaced to the right and/or towards a centre of the body support structure (see related 112(b) rejection, Examiner is interpreting the limitations following “preferably” as being optional).
Regarding Claim 13
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, wherein: the right support arm extends from the body support structure for positioning the right support arm under the user's right armpit (Browning: Fig. 3a); and the left support arm extends from the body support structure for positioning the left support arm under the user's left armpit (Browning: Fig. 3a), and/or the body support structure further comprises a harness and/or straps for engaging the user's body (Browning: Fig. 3a).
Regarding Claim 15
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, wherein the right and left support arms both comprise a rigid strut (Browning: Para. [0074] “The frame 340, 540, 640 would include composite materials and/or titanium”).
Regarding Claim 16
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, wherein the right support arm comprises: a rigid right upper arm member proximal to the body support structure (Browning: rod of frame (345) closest to the support body, Fig. 3a); a rigid right lower arm member proximal to the right hand propulsion unit (Browning: rod of frame (345) closest to the propulsion unit, Fig. 3a); and a right elbow joint joining the right upper arm member to the right lower arm member (Browning: Para. [0074] “a hinge on the elbow for allowing the arm to bend”, Fig. 3a); and the left support arm comprises: a rigid left upper arm member proximal to the body support structure (Browning: rod of frame (345) closest to the support body, Fig. 3a); a rigid left lower arm member proximal to the left hand propulsion unit (Browning: rod of frame (345) closest to the propulsion unit, Fig. 3a); and a left elbow joint joining the left upper arm member to the left lower arm member (Browning: Para. [0074] “a hinge on the elbow for allowing the arm to bend”, Fig. 3a).
Regarding Claim 17
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 16, wherein: the right support arm comprises complementary engageable surfaces on the right upper arm member and the right lower arm member for restricting a range of motion of the right elbow joint (Browning: Para. [0073] “a frame 340, 540, 640 is useful for less trained individuals to restrict the relative movement of the left-hand and right-hand propulsion assemblies 100. By providing a set of joints to articulate the frame 340, 540, 640, predetermined degrees of freedom may be provided”); and the left support arm comprises complementary engageable surfaces on the left upper arm member and the left lower arm member for restricting the range of motion of the left elbow joint (Browning: Para. [0073] “a frame 340, 540, 640 is useful for less trained individuals to restrict the relative movement of the left-hand and right-hand propulsion assemblies 100. By providing a set of joints to articulate the frame 340, 540, 640, predetermined degrees of freedom may be provided”).
Regarding Claim 18
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 16, but is silent on:
wherein the right and left elbow joints each have a range of motion less than 25 degrees, preferably less than 20 degrees, and even more preferably less than 15 degrees; and/or comprise a resilient member extending between the upper and lower arm members, wherein each upper and lower arm member comprises two tubular sections, and the resilient member is inserted into both tubular sections.
However, Examiner notes that due to the “and/or” recitation, the cited prior art only needs to teach one of the above sets of limitations. Therefore, Browning, in view of Murdock, discloses the invention except wherein the right and left elbow joints each have a range of motion less than 25 degrees. Murdock teaches “It will be understood by one of skill in the art that any range of degree arc can be contemplated between zero and ninety degrees swing but for practical reasons is limited to a smaller range of arc such as for example, between five and 50 degrees. In preferred embodiments, the ratio is adjusted to provide for lesser degrees of swing for the inner wing spars” (Para. [0104), but it is not explicitly stated that the range of motion is less than 25 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the joints each have a range of motion as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 21
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of any claim 16, wherein: the right lower arm member can move relative to the right upper arm member over a range of motion about a neutral elbow position in which the right upper arm member is at an obtuse angle relative to the right lower arm member (Browning: Fig. 3a shows arm members and an obtuse angle relative to one another and we know the joint allows articulation of the arm over a range of motion, Para. [0073]); and the left lower arm member can move relative to the left upper arm member over a range of motion about a neutral elbow position in which the left upper arm member is at an obtuse angle relative to the left lower arm member (Browning: Fig. 3a shows arm members and an obtuse angle relative to one another and we know the joint allows articulation of the arm over a range of motion, Para. [0073]).
Regarding Claim 22
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 21, wherein the resilient member provides a restoring force when displaced from a neutral position (Murdock: Para. [0097] and Para. [0121], for example).
Regarding Claim 27
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, further comprising a body propulsion assembly attached to the body support structure (Browning: propulsion assembly (200), Fig. 3e).
Claims 1, 3, 8, 13, 15-17, 21, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browning (US 20190382114 A1) in view of Gosselin et al. (US 20140366675 A1), hereinafter Gosselin.
Regarding Claim 1
Browning teaches a wearable flight system for a user (flight system (100), Fig. 3a, for example) comprising: a right hand propulsion unit (propulsion devices (110) worn on right hand); a left hand propulsion unit (propulsion devices worn on left hand (110)); a body support structure for being worn on the user's body (Abstract “a support device configured to support a user’s waist or torso” such as control system (330) and energy storage device (310)); a right support arm extending from the body support structure to the right hand propulsion unit (frame (340)) and connected to the body support structure by a right rotational joint (actuator (345, 545, 645)); and a left support arm extending from the body support structure to the left hand propulsion unit and connected to the body support structure by a left rotational joint (frame (340) and actuator (345, 545, 645) on the other hand propulsion unit, Fig. 3a), but is silent on:
the right rotational joint comprising a resilient member; and
the left rotational joint comprising a resilient member.
Gosselin teaches:
a rotational joint comprising a resilient member (elements (10.1, 10.2) with joint (6) connecting segments (2, 4), Fig. 1A, or inserts (710.1, 710.2) connecting segments (702, 704), Fig. 9A, for example); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flight system of Browning with the resilient members of Gosselin with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means to rotate the joint. Examiner notes that Browning does not teach any specific structure of the joints disclosed, and Gosselin merely teaches a known structure for joint articulation. Examiner further notes that when applying the teaching of Gosselin to the flight system of Browning, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this teaching could be applied to both the left and right rotational joints as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3
Browning, in view of Gosselin, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, wherein the resilient member comprises two connecter portions and a neck portion therebetween (Gosselin: elements (10.1, 10.2) with joint (6) connecting segments (2, 4), Fig. 1A, or inserts (710.1, 710.2) connecting segments (702, 704), Fig. 9A, for example) wherein: a first connector portion is proximal the body support structure (Gosselin: Fig. 1A, Examiner notes that the first connector portion can be defined on the side proximal the body support structure of Browning); a second connector portion is proximal the right or left support arm (Gosselin: Fig. 1A, Examiner notes that the second connector portion can be defined on the side proximal the right or left support arm of Browning); and the neck portion has a smaller width than the connecter portions (Gosselin: joint (6), Fig. 1A); and/or the left and right rotational joints allow a range of motion in a plurality of planes (see related §112(b) rejection regarding scope of said “and/or” recitation, Examiner notes this is an optional limitation).
Regarding Claim 8
Browning, in view of Gosselin, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, wherein: the right support arm engages the right hand propulsion unit at a location displaced from an axis of thrust of the right propulsion unit (Browning: Fig. 1a), preferably displaced to the left and/or towards a centre of the body support structure (see related 112(b) rejection, Examiner is interpreting the limitations following “preferably” as being optional); and the left support arm engages the left hand propulsion unit at a location displaced from an axis of thrust of the left propulsion unit (Browning: Fig. 1a), preferably displaced to the right and/or towards a centre of the body support structure (see related 112(b) rejection, Examiner is interpreting the limitations following “preferably” as being optional).
Regarding Claim 13
Browning, in view of Gosselin, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, wherein: the right support arm extends from the body support structure for positioning the right support arm under the user's right armpit (Browning: Fig. 3a); and the left support arm extends from the body support structure for positioning the left support arm under the user's left armpit (Browning: Fig. 3a), and/or the body support structure further comprises a harness and/or straps for engaging the user's body (Browning: Fig. 3a).
Regarding Claim 15
Browning, in view of Gosselin, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, wherein the right and left support arms both comprise a rigid strut (Browning: Para. [0074] “The frame 340, 540, 640 would include composite materials and/or titanium”).
Regarding Claim 16
Browning, in view of Gosselin, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, wherein the right support arm comprises: a rigid right upper arm member proximal to the body support structure (Browning: rod of frame (345) closest to the support body, Fig. 3a); a rigid right lower arm member proximal to the right hand propulsion unit (Browning: rod of frame (345) closest to the propulsion unit, Fig. 3a); and a right elbow joint joining the right upper arm member to the right lower arm member (Browning: Para. [0074] “a hinge on the elbow for allowing the arm to bend”, Fig. 3a); and the left support arm comprises: a rigid left upper arm member proximal to the body support structure (Browning: rod of frame (345) closest to the support body, Fig. 3a); a rigid left lower arm member proximal to the left hand propulsion unit (Browning: rod of frame (345) closest to the propulsion unit, Fig. 3a); and a left elbow joint joining the left upper arm member to the left lower arm member (Browning: Para. [0074] “a hinge on the elbow for allowing the arm to bend”, Fig. 3a).
Regarding Claim 17
Browning, in view of Gosselin, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 16, wherein: the right support arm comprises complementary engageable surfaces on the right upper arm member and the right lower arm member for restricting a range of motion of the right elbow joint (Browning: Para. [0073] “a frame 340, 540, 640 is useful for less trained individuals to restrict the relative movement of the left-hand and right-hand propulsion assemblies 100. By providing a set of joints to articulate the frame 340, 540, 640, predetermined degrees of freedom may be provided”); and the left support arm comprises complementary engageable surfaces on the left upper arm member and the left lower arm member for restricting the range of motion of the left elbow joint (Browning: Para. [0073] “a frame 340, 540, 640 is useful for less trained individuals to restrict the relative movement of the left-hand and right-hand propulsion assemblies 100. By providing a set of joints to articulate the frame 340, 540, 640, predetermined degrees of freedom may be provided”).
Regarding Claim 21
Browning, in view of Gosselin, teaches the wearable flight system of any claim 16, wherein: the right lower arm member can move relative to the right upper arm member over a range of motion about a neutral elbow position in which the right upper arm member is at an obtuse angle relative to the right lower arm member (Browning: Fig. 3a shows arm members and an obtuse angle relative to one another and we know the joint allows articulation of the arm over a range of motion, Para. [0073]); and the left lower arm member can move relative to the left upper arm member over a range of motion about a neutral elbow position in which the left upper arm member is at an obtuse angle relative to the left lower arm member (Browning: Fig. 3a shows arm members and an obtuse angle relative to one another and we know the joint allows articulation of the arm over a range of motion, Para. [0073]).
Regarding Claim 27
Browning, in view of Gosselin, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, further comprising a body propulsion assembly attached to the body support structure (Browning: propulsion assembly (200), Fig. 3e).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browning (US 20190382114 A1) in view of Murdock (US 20150210389 A1), as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-8, 13, 15-18, 21, 22, and 27 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (Machine Translation of CN 110450956 A), hereinafter Sun.
Regarding Claim 24
Browning, in view of Murdock teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein: the right hand propulsion unit is detachably connected to the right support arm; and the left hand propulsion unit is detachably connected to the left support arm.
Sun teaches:
propulsion units detachably connected to a body (Page 5 Para. 4 “power system 41 may optionally be a unit standardized and interchangeable, the unit is optionally can be easily mounted to the rotary-wing flying slider and line from the rotary-wing flying sliding removal of the replaceable unit”, 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 have modified the flight system of Browning, in view of Murdock, with the teachings of Sun with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of, for example, providing a means for the propulsion units to be easily replaced in the event of failure or malfunction.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browning (US 20190382114 A1) in view of Murdock (US 20150210389 A1), as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-8, 13, 15-18, 21, 22, and 27 above, and further in view of Colley (US 20180266424 A1).
Regarding Claim 26
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein: the right support arm comprises a protrusion and/or aperture at an end proximal to the right hand propulsion unit for engaging a complementary aperture and/or protrusion in the right hand propulsion unit for preventing rotation of the right hand propulsion unit relative to the right support arm; and the left support arm comprises a protrusion and/or aperture at an end proximal to the left hand propulsion unit for engaging a complementary aperture and/or protrusion in the left hand propulsion unit for preventing rotation of the left hand propulsion unit relative to the left support arm.
Colley teaches:
wherein: the support arm comprises a protrusion and/or aperture at an end proximal to the hand propulsion unit for engaging a complementary aperture and/or protrusion in the hand propulsion unit for preventing rotation of the hand propulsion unit relative to the support arm (mount (144) of the propulsion unit (116) connected to arm (102), Fig. 1, 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flight system of Browning, in view of Murdock, with the teachings of Colley with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of preventing any unwanted rotation of the propulsion units. Examiner notes that Browning teaches multiple joints along the frame connecting the support to the propulsion units, but it is unclear whether there is any section of each of the support arms attached rigidly to its respective propulsion unit. Examiner notes that while Browning does teach a joint to allow circumduction of the hand (Para. [0074]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an increased number of joints would increase the risk of chaotic, unstable movement of the propulsion units during use and would have been motivated to have at least a portion of the support arm attached rigidly to the propulsion unit as taught by Colley to reduce this risk. Examiner further notes that although Colley only teaches a single propulsion unit, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this teaching could be applied to both left and right propulsion units as claimed.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browning (US 20190382114 A1) in view of Murdock (US 20150210389 A1), as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-8, 13, 15-18, 21, 22, and 27 above, and further in view of Harrington et al. (US 20180206693 A1), hereinafter Harrington.
Regarding Claim 28
Browning, in view of Murdock, teaches the wearable flight system of claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the right rotational joint and left rotational joint each comprise a rigid sleeve and a resilient member, wherein a portion of the resilient member is retainable within the rigid sleeve; and/or a rigid sleeve and a resilient member with at least two portions of differing stiffnesses, wherein a portion of the resilient member with lower stiffness is retainable within the rigid sleeve.
Harrington teaches:
a rigid sleeve (collar (28)) and a resilient member (neck (18) and handle (14)), wherein a portion of the resilient member is retainable within the rigid sleeve (Fig. 3A-C); and/or a rigid sleeve and a resilient member with at least two portions of differing stiffnesses (neck (18) is flexible while handle (14) is rigid, Abstract), wherein a portion of the resilient member with lower stiffness is retainable within the rigid sleeve (Fig. 3A-C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flight system of Browning, in view of Murdock, with the teachings of Harrington with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing selective flexibility to the rotational joints. Examiner notes that although Harrington discloses use with a cleaning instrument, the purpose is the same—to provide variable flexibility to the system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this known technique and structure could be applied to the flight system of the primary references.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 32 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20200337934 A1 – “Power-Assist Lower Limb Exoskeleton Robot With Adjustable Stiffness Joints”
US 20190240102 A1 – “Force-Balancing Support, Mechanical Apparatus And Wearable Support Device”
US 20190202559 A1 – “Method, System, And Apparatus Of Flight System For Individual Users”
US 20170368696 A1 – “Biologically-Inspired Joints And Systems And Methods Of Use Thereof”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights