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 “first woven strap is fixed by directly passing through the first fixing holes” recited in claims 3 and 8 (currently figure 3 shows the embodiment where the first woven strap directly passes through a single fixing hole/slot) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “and an elastic framework, comprising the elastic framework”. This limitation should be amended to remove the redundant limitation “comprising the elastic framework”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “and upper ends and lower ends of bilaterally symmetrical shoulder straps” in line 5. These limitations should each be amended to recite one of “a, at least one, a plurality, a pair” or similar to properly present each limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an end (of the first woven strap)” in line 8, and “an other end of the first woven strap” in line 10. These limitations should be amended to recite “a first end” and “a second end” respectively to avoid any potential lack of clarity.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an end of a second woven strap” in line 11, and “an other end of the second woven strap” in line 12. These limitations should be amended to recite “a first end” and “a second end” respectively to avoid any potential lack of clarity.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “by means of a length adjustment device” in line 11. This limitation should be amended to recite “means of”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “two ends of the transverse differential plate” in line 13. This limitation should be amended to recite “a first end, and a second end of the transverse differential plate” to properly present the limitations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “two vertical elastic pull cords” in line 14. This limitation should be amended to recite “a first vertical elastic pull cord, and a second vertical elastic pull cord” to properly present the limitations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “lower ends of the two vertical elastic pull cords” in line 14. This limitation should be amended to recite “a lower end of each of the first vertical elastic pull cord, and the second vertical elastic pull cord” to properly present the limitations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “two thigh tying straps” in line 15. This limitation should be amended to recite “a first thigh tying strap and a second thigh tying strap” to properly present the limitations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “two limiting guide sleeves” in line 16. This limitation should be amended to recite “a first limiting guide sleeve and a second limiting guide sleeve to properly present the limitations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the vertical elastic pull cords” in line 18. This limitation should be amended to be consistent with previously recited structures.
Claims 2-12 should be amended to be consistent with any amendments made to claim 1 to avoid further issues.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the differential plate” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “the transverse differential plate” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “first fixing holes” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite one of “at least one, a plurality, a pair” or similar to properly present the limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the differential plate” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “the transverse differential plate” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “second fixing holes” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite one of “at least one, a plurality, a pair” or similar to properly present the limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “upper ends of the vertical elastic pull cords” in line 4. This limitation should be amended to recite “an upper end of each of the first vertical elastic pull cord, and the second vertical elastic pull cord” to properly present the limitations and to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “by means of connecting rings” in line 5. This limitation should be amended to remove “means of”, and should be amended to recite “a first connecting ring and a second connecting ring respectively” to properly present the limitations.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “second collars” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite one of “at least one, a plurality, a pair” or similar to properly present the limitation.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “by means of the connecting rings” in line 6. This limitation should be amended to remove “means of”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “by means of a third woven strap” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to remove “means of”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the differential plate” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “the transverse differential plate” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “first fixing holes” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite one of “at least one, a plurality, a pair” or similar to properly present the limitation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the differential plate” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “the transverse differential plate” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “second fixing holes” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite one of “at least one, a plurality, a pair” or similar to properly present the limitation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “upper ends of the vertical elastic pull cords” in line 4. This limitation should be amended to recite “an upper end of each of the first vertical elastic pull cord, and the second vertical elastic pull cord” to properly present the limitations and to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “by means of connecting rings” in line 5. This limitation should be amended to remove “means of”, and should be amended to recite “a first connecting ring and a second connecting ring respectively” to properly present the limitations.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “second collars” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite one of “at least one, a plurality, a pair” or similar to properly present the limitation.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “by means of the connecting rings” in line 6. This limitation should be amended to remove “means of”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “by means of a third woven strap” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to remove “means of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation “a lower end of the elastic framework” in line 16. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which of the aforementioned structures of the elastic framework “a lower end” is referring to (i.e. a lower end of the upper cross beam, a lower end of the lower cross beam, or respective lower ends of either of the left or right supporting bars). For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the limiting guide sleeves…are sleeved outside the vertical elastic pull cords”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limiting guide sleeves form sleeves outside the vertical elastic pull cords, are housed in separate sleeves to be “sleeved”, or what is being claimed by the recitation. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on a rejected claim and thus, contain the same offending limitations.
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, and the claim objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter not disclosed either singly or in combination is that of “wherein the elastic framework is a frame formed by an upper cross beam, a lower cross beam, a left supporting bar, and a right supporting bar… the upper cross beam is connected to a first collar, a first woven strap passes through the first collar and has an end connected to a middle of a transverse differential plate, the transverse differential plate is capable of swinging relative to the first woven strap… two ends of the transverse differential plate are respectively connected to two vertical elastic pull cords, lower ends of the two vertical elastic pull cords are respectively connected to two thigh tying straps, and two limiting guide sleeves fixed at a lower end of the elastic framework are sleeved outside the vertical elastic pull cords”.
The closest prior art found in the Examiner’s search of relevant CPC areas to the claimed invention is that of Holgate et al. (US 2023/0137939 A1) which discloses a similar flexible waist and abdomen-assistive exoskeleton with a differential structure (See figure 1). However, Holgate fails to disclose an elastic framework, first and second woven straps, two vertical elastic pull cords, and the two limiting guide sleeves as claimed. Furthermore, no art could be found in the Examiner’s search of the relevant CPC areas to the claimed invention which reasonably disclosed or taught the claimed structures and configurations. It is for at least this reason that claim 1 is considered free from art.
Claims 2-12 are considered free from art insofar as the claims depend from claim 1 and thus, contain the same limitations.
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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights