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 . Claims 1-20 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 10/25/2023 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/17/2023 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 10/25/2023 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15, each include the limitations of:
“receiving a plurality of data from a user and devices;
analyzing one or more problems associated with the plurality of data;”
Then dependent claims 3, 10, and 16 recite:
“wherein analyzing the one or more problems associated with the plurality of data, wherein the one or more problem comprises of, an auto accident and a car breakdown and the analysis is performed by a CPS (central platform service).”
It is unclear how what is being analyzed in this particular case. In the independent claims, it would seem the system is analyzing the data from the user/device to identify a problem with the data. However, in the dependent claims, the problem is now defined as a car accident/breakdown. How can user/device data be defined as an accident/breakdown? Is the user/device data analyzed and it’s determined that based on the data that a problem exists that is identified as a car accident/breakdown? In order to further prosecution, any art identifying any problem based on any received data will be considered to read on the limitations until corrections are made. Appropriate corrections are required.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 each depend upon their respective rejected base claims and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
Additionally, claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 13, 16, and 19, each include the limitation of “comprises of,”, followed by a list of elements. It is unclear whether one element or each element is required based upon this wording. The office recommends amending the claims to recite, “comprise all of,” or “comprises one or more of,” to make clear what is required by the claim. In order to further prosecution, any reference containing at least one element will be considered to read upon the claim until further clarified. Appropriate corrections are required.
Dependent claims 7, 14, and 20 each depend upon their rejected claims 6, 13, and 19 respectively and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 recites the limitation "optimizing the group function…" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, the rest of the claim refers to, “group objective function”, which the office believes is what the applicant intended for the identified limitation, however it needs to be amended to reflect the same terminology throughout the claim for clarity. In order to further prosecution, the term “group function” will interpreted as being synonymous with “group objective function”. Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed towards a “computer readable-storage media”, which is interpreted as being directed towards signals per se. In the specification, specifically paragraph [0141], does disclose that “computer readable storage medium” is not to be construed as signals per se, however, there is no such language regarding the claimed “computer readable-storage media” as presented in the claims. The office recommends amending the claims to recite, “computer readable storage medium” to align with the specification, or amend the claims to recite, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media”, in order to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boone et al. (US PGPUB 20250077996).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15; Boone teaches; A computer-implemented method for assisting users with physical activities by using one or more exoskeleton suits, the computer-implemented method comprising: (Boone; at least paragraphs [0003] and [0015]; disclose a system and method for monitoring workers utilizing robotic systems (i.e. exoskeleton suits) and further provides steps such that the robotic system controls the movement of the user to perform tasks)
receiving a plurality of data from a user and devices; (Boone; at least paragraphs [0047]-[0050]; disclose a plurality of sensors used for collecting data from user’s and devices)
analyzing one or more problems associated with the plurality of data; (Boone; at least paragraph [0015]; disclose wherein the system and method includes analyzing real-time data feed from the plurality of sensors and can detect if a user is performing a task incorrectly)
determining one or more solutions for the one or more problems based on the analysis; (Boone; at least paragraph [0015]; disclose wherein the system and method includes determining a plurality of steps needed to complete a task correctly)
identifying an optimal solution from the one or more solutions; (Boone; at least paragraph [0017]; disclose wherein the system and method includes optimizing efficiency of the determined task and creating an optimal sequence of steps to complete the task)
instructing the one or more exoskeleton suits with the optimal solution, wherein the user wears the one or more exoskeleton suits; and (Boone; at least paragraphs [0015] and [0017]; disclose wherein the system and method includes providing instructions to one or more robotic systems worn by a user that can perform the optimal solution)
performing the instructions, by the exoskeleton suits, based on the optimal solution. (Boone; at least paragraphs [0015] and [0017]; disclose controlling the robotic suit to control the user’s movements based on the optimal solution).
Regarding Claims 2 and 9; Boone teaches; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving a plurality of data from a user, wherein the plurality of data comprises of, environmental data, user data and exoskeleton data. (Boone; at least paragraphs [0047]-[0049]).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 18; Boone teaches; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein instructing the one or more exoskeleton suits with the one or more solutions: converting the one or more solutions into actional instructions set; and sending the actional instruction set to the exoskeleton suits. (Boone; at least paragraphs [0015] and [0017]).
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.
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.
Claims 3, 6-7, 10, 13-14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone et al. (US PGPUB 20250077996) in view of Horn et al. (US PGPUB 20170220998).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 16; Boone appears to be silent on; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the one or more problems associated with the plurality of data, wherein the one or more problem comprises of, an auto accident and a car breakdown and the analysis is performed by a CPS (central platform service).
However, Horn teaches; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the one or more problems associated with the plurality of data, wherein the one or more problem comprises of, an auto accident and a car breakdown and the analysis is performed by a CPS (central platform service). (Horn; at least Fig. 15; paragraphs [0051]-[0053], [0069], and [0102]; disclose a service platform (1550) (i.e. central platform service) for analyzing a plurality of data from a user which can detect whether a car accident has occurred, and in response initiate appropriate responses to help the individual in need).
Boone and Horn are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, of user assistance and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of identifying car wrecks using a central service as taught by Horn with the known system of a user assistance and control system as taught by Boone in order to provide a way to determine when problems have occurred and automatically initiating help without user intervention resulting in faster, more efficient response to these situations as taught by Horn (paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 19; the combination of Boone and Horn teach; The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the CPS comprises of components, data intelligence bot, service actuator, service optimizer, service monitor, KB database and exoskeleton actuator. (Horn; at least Figs. 10 and 15; paragraph [0065]).
Regarding Claims 7, 14, and 20; the combination of Boone and Horn teach; The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the analysis comprises: identifying, by one or more bots, one or more services based on the plurality of data; searching, by one or more bots, through the KB database by one or more bots belonging to the data intelligence component; generating, by one or more bots, one or more instruction sets, wherein the one or more instruction sets includes an overall goal set and an individual priority set; determining, by one or more bots, an optimal solution based on the one or more instruction sets; and generating, by one or more bots, a final execution order set based on the optimal solution. (Horn; at least paragraphs [0079]-[0082]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, and 17 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.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 also have outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101 rejections that also must be overcome prior to consideration of being allowable.
However, the identified claims recite: “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the optimal solution based on the one or more instruction sets, further comprises:
identifying one or more capabilities and constraints of devices;
saving data points of the one or more capabilities and constraints as one or more vectors;
identifying a group objective function based on the one or more vectors in order to optimize the data points;
setting the local and group optima for the group objective function;
optimizing the group function until a threshold criteria has been met; and
identifying the optimal solution after meeting the threshold criteria.”
The present claim provides a detailed set of steps for determining an optimal solution for performing a process by an exoskeleton suit in response to a detected problem. The set of steps identify various capabilities and constraints of the devices, identify a group objective function in order to optimize the various data points, perform optimization until a threshold criteria has been met, and utilize the optimized function to identify an optimal solution. This allows the system to determine the best solution given a plurality of options in the face of various constraints. For instance, as detailed in the specification, if the system determines a user is unable to complete a task due (i.e. replace a tire) due to physical constraints, determinations can be made to utilize the exoskeleton suit to complete the task.
The closest prior art of record is Boone et al. (US PGPUB 20250077996). Boone discloses a system and method for determining various exoskeleton suits that should be worn by user’s based upon the limits of the exo suit as well as the user’s constraints. This allows for selection of an appropriate suit the is capable of assisting the user successfully complete a given task. However, the system is only capable of determining an exo suit capable of assisting a task and not necessarily selecting the optimal suit/solution for performing a given function. As such, Boone is silent with regards to, “saving data points of the one or more capabilities and constraints as one or more vectors;
identifying a group objective function based on the one or more vectors in order to optimize the data points;
setting the local and group optima for the group objective function;
optimizing the group function until a threshold criteria has been met; and
identifying the optimal solution after meeting the threshold criteria.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kiehl et al. (US Patent 11,772,259): disclose an enhanced exoskeleton suit and method that utilizes a plurality of sensor to monitor a user and suit, and based on the data, make anticipatory movement commands thus enhancing a user’s abilities without using their own strength.
Wilson et al. (US PGPUB 20220084433): disclose a wearable device that is capable of assisting visually impaired user’s by collecting various data from sensors as well as user intent data, and in response providing assistance using a plurality of actuators to help control/guide a user to achieve the desired outcome.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117