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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s claim to priority to National Stage Application No. PCT/FR2021/052335 filed December 15, 2021 and to foreign priority to French Application No. FR2013340 filed December 16, 2020.
Status of Claims
The present office action is in response to the Remarks and Amendment filed 01/22/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 3-5, 11, and 15-16 have been amended, and claim 17 has been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-16, and 18-20 are presenting pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding figures 1-2, photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. See 37 CFR 1.84 (b)(1).
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Abstract is inconsistent with the specification as the limitation read “a force torsor”. Examiner suggest amending the abstract read --a wrench--.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Amended specification filed on 05/26/2026 recites “This application is the 35 U.S.C. §371 national stage application of PCT Application No. PCT/FR2021/052335, filed December 15, 2021,which application claims the benefit of French Application No. FR2013340 filed December 16, 2020, both of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein in their entireties.”
Examiner suggest replacing this paragraph with --This application is the 35 U.S.C. §371 national stage application of PCT Application No. PCT/FR2021/052335, filed December 15, 2021,which application claims the benefit of French Application No. FR2013340 filed December 16, 2020.--
Examiner notes that the filing date of the PCT is the filing date for the national stage application. Therefore, any amendment that comes in with or after the filing of the national stage application in the US is not part of the original disclosure. Per MPEP 608.01(p)(I)(B) states that to be effective an incorporation by reference statement must be filing at time of filing and cannot be added after an application’s filing date. Since a 371 application’s filing date is the date the PCT was filed, an amendment in the 371 application to add an incorporation by reference is not effective and improper as new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “Estimation of” in ln 9 which Examiner suggest amending to read --estimation of--
Claim 1 recites, “Determination of” in ln 11 which Examiner suggest amending to read --determination of--
Claim 1 recites, “at the next iteration” in ln 12 which Examiner suggest amending to read --at a next iteration-- as it has not been introduced previously.
Claims 2-16, and 18-19 are objected by virtue of dependency to claim 1
Claim 3 recites, “the next occurrence” in ln 5 which Examiner suggest amending to read --a next occurrence-- as it has not been introduced previously.
Claim 4 recites, “at the beginning of each iteration of the control loop, applying to the exoskeleton the wrench determined at a prior iteration by means of an admittance controller” in ln 2-4 which Examiner suggest amending to read --at a beginning of each iteration of the control loop, applying the wrench determined at a prior iteration by means of an admittance controller to the exoskeleton--
Claim 5 recites, “a wrench” in ln 2 and “an expected state” in ln 3 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the wrench-- and --the expected state--
Claim 6 recites, “positions and velocities of a Center of Mass CoM and/or of a divergent component of motion DCM, a position of a Center of Pressure CoP, and a position of a Zero Moment Point ZMP of the exoskeleton” in ln 5-6 which Examiner suggest amending to read --positions and velocities of a Center of Mass (CoM) and/or positions and velocities of a divergent component of motion (DCM), a position of a Center of Pressure (CoP), and a position of a Zero Moment Point (ZMP) of the exoskeleton--
Claim 7 recites, “a wrench” in ln 2 and “an expected state” in ln 3 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the wrench-- and --the expected state--
Claim 9 recites, “trajectory at least one term relative to” in ln 4 which Examiner suggest amending to read --trajectory, at least one term relative to--
Claim 9 recites, “between expected and estimated current positions” in ln 5-6 which Examiner suggest amending to read --between an expected position of the DCM and an estimated current position of the DCM-- for consistency and clarity
Claim 11 recites, “velocity” in ln 3 which Examiner suggest amending to read --a target velocity--
Claim 12 recites, “on actual stable walking” in ln 2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --on an actual stable walking--
Claim 13 recites, “from actual stable walking” in ln 2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --from an actual stable walking--
Claim 15 recites, “the server comprising data processing means configured” in ln 3-4 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the server comprising a second data processing means configured--
Claim 18 recites, “the positions of the Center of Mass CoM, of the divergent component of motion DCM and of the Center of Pressure CoP” in ln 2-4 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the positions of the CoM, the DCM and the CoP-- similar to other dependent claims for consistency.
Claim 19 recites, “positions of the CoP and of the DCM” which Examiner suggest amending to read --positions of the CoP and the DCM--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in accordance with the above presumptions:
data processing means in claims 1, 14, 15
The following is considered the corresponding structure for the above limitation:
the “data processing means” is interpreted as to a computer equipment or a processor or the processor type with the data storage means such as a computer memory, or a hard disc as described in ¶0028, 0040, 0049, 0131.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5, and 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.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation, “the state” in ln 5 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether it is referring to the estimated “current state of the exoskeleton as a function of said actual position” or the “expected state” of claim 1 or both states similar to claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation, “the state” in ln 2 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether it is referring to the estimated “current state of the exoskeleton as a function of said actual position” or the “expected state” of claim 1 or both states similar to claim 7.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer program, which is “software per se.” A software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. Examiner suggest amending the claim to replace “A computer program product comprising” with --A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-16 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome claim objections, and rejections set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the subject matter of claim 1, the closest identified prior art document of the record is Unluhisarcikli et al. (US 20130226048 A1).
Unluhisarcikli et al. discloses, a biped exoskeleton receiving a human operator (an exoskeleton 300, Fig 3 configured to receive a human operator), and a method comprising: a computer generating a desired joint angle estimate by measuring at least one gait related physiological parameter of a patient, estimating the gait phase based on at least the one gait related physiological parameter, estimating the cadence based on at least the one gait related physiological parameter, selecting a new reference gait trajectory based on at least the estimated cadence; and computing a desired joint angle based on the estimated gait phase and the new reference trajectory (¶0025) and a impedance controller configured to use the sensor data in a feedback loop that computes a desired knee angle and a desired torque (¶0051), but the prior art does not specifically teach or suggest a control loop involving
- Determination of a wrench to be applied to the exoskeleton at a next iteration of the control loop to compensate for a deviation between said estimated current state of the exoskeleton and an expected state of the exoskeleton in accordance with said theoretical elementary trajectory.
No other prior arts have been found that teaches or suggest all the claimed feature of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAEICK JANG whose telephone number is (703)756-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Kendra D Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785