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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 were originally filed on 08/09/2024 and claimed priority on DE10 2022 103 275, which was filed on 02/11/2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are not in English. The drawings should be translated to English. 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 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “the recorded bio-signals” in step B should be “the sensed bio-signal” and
“the customised decoding algorithm” in step G should be “the adapted decoding algorithm”. Also, the letters after the step letter should be lowercase and not capitalized (e.g. A sensing a bio-signal…B derivation of a user command…C deriving a task…E determine a deviation…F adapt the decoding algorithm…G control the robot). Furthermore, Applicant should provide a semicolon at the end of steps A-F.
Regarding Claim 4, “method step f” should be “method step F”.
Regarding Claim 5, “method step f” should be “method step F”.
Regarding Claim 7, “method step f” should be “method step F”.
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 1-8 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 1, the term “the decoding algorithm” in step F lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what decoding algorithm Applicant is referring to. Step F also lacks antecedent basis for “the organic signal”. It is unclear if the organic signal is referring to the bio-signal, or is referring to something else. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 2, the term “the robot controller” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what robot controller Applicant is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wheeler (US 20190370650 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Wheeler)
Regarding Claim 1, Wheeler teaches a method for controlling a robot (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0003, 0093, and Figure 1, the device that is controlled is a robotic device), comprising the following method steps:
A Sensing a bio-signal on a part of a user's body (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0025-0026, and 0039-0041)
B Derivation of a user command to control the robot from the recorded bio-signals (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0025, 0041, 0070-0071, 0093, 0096, and Figure 1, the output set of values/actions used to control the robot/device are interpreted as the user command)
C Deriving a task to be performed from the user command using an intention recognition module (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0053-0054, 0094, 0096, 0116, and Figure 1, the user intent is predicted, which is interpreted as deriving a task to be performed, from a log of historical actions, which are interpreted as user commands)
D calculate an optimal command that is most efficient to fulfil the task (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0053-0054, 0068, 0075, 0083, and Figure 1, the predictive set of values which minimize the error in actual control are interpreted as the optimal command)
E Determine a deviation between the user command and the optimal command (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0011, 0053, 0079, 0083, 0089, 0116, and 0125, the error/discrepancy between the predictive values/optimal command and actual values/user command is interpreted as the deviation)
F Adapt the decoding algorithm used to decode the user command from the organic signal on the basis of the deviation determined (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0010-0011, 0070-0072, 0078-0079, 0083, 0097, 0109, and Figure 1, the decoder that is used to decode the user command from the organic/bio-signal is adapted based on the deviation/error)
G Control the robot using the customised decoding algorithm (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0078-0079, 0083, 0093, 0096, 0104, and Figure 3, the customised/retrained decoder is used to operate the device/robot).
Regarding Claim 3, Wheeler teaches wherein by adapting the decoding algorithm, the user command is generated in such a way that a more efficient execution of the task is made possible (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0053, 0068, 0078-0079, 0083, 0097, 0104, 0109, and Figure 3, the decoder, which generates the user command, is adapted to reduce errors and improve system performance, which is interpreted as generating a more efficient execution of the task).
Regarding Claim 4, Wheeler teaches the robot is controlled according to method step f in real time during operation (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0083, 0097, and Figure 1, the co-adaptive function provides real-time error correction to tune a signal decoder).
Regarding Claim 5, Wheeler teaches wherein the control of the robot according to method step f takes place at a later point in time, while in real time the control of the robot takes place without adaptation of the decoding algorithm (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0010-0011, 0104, and Figure 3, the control using the retrained/adapted decoder takes places at a later time after the control of the robot takes place without adaptation).
Regarding Claim 8, Wheeler teaches wherein the bio-signals are EMG signals (See at least Wheeler Paragraph 0039).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler in view of Fay et al (US 20230234229 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Fay)
Regarding Claim 2, Wheeler teaches the robot controller has a description of the task to be performed (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0025 and 0075, the biological interface system, which is interpreted to be the robot controller, has a well-defined task, which is interpreted as a description).
Wheeler fails to disclose the task description… contains geometric or other constraint conditions which are required to perform the task.
However, Fay teaches geometric or other constraint conditions which are required to perform the task (See at least Fay Paragraphs 0003 and 0127, the task includes constraint conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Wheeler with Fay to have the task description contain geometric or other constraint conditions which are required to perform the task. This modification, as taught by Fay, would ensure the motion of the robot is constrained to a particular path in order to complete the task (See at least Fay Paragraph 0003), which would improve the performance of the task.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler in view of Takano et al (US 20240123614 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Takano)
Regarding Claim 6, Wheeler teaches wherein the derivation of the user command
PNG
media_image1.png
13
30
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is derived from the bio-signals using a…regression method (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0039-0040, and 0072, the control signals/user command derived from the bio-signals are derived using the regression model/method).
Wheeler fails to disclose using a Gaussian process regression method.
However, Takano teaches using a Gaussian process regression method (See at least Takano Paragraph 0097, the Gaussian process regression is used as the learning model to output the optimal control parameter in response to input data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Wheeler with Takano to use a Gaussian process regression method. Gaussian process regression methods, as taught by Takano, are well-known in the art for utilizing as learning models to output an optimal control parameter in response to input data (See at least Takano Paragraph 0097). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the Gaussian process regression method in order to generate an optimal control parameter in response to the received bio-signals.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Wheeler teaches the adaptation of the decoding algorithm according to method step f takes place on the basis of regression parameters which are provided by the decoding algorithm (See at least Wheeler Paragraphs 0018, 0072-0074, 0086, and 0100-0101, the parameters of the decoder, which include regression parameters, are updated).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Friedenberg et al (US 20230127031 A1) teaches recalibrating a decoder
Sparks et al (US 20210063972 A1) teaches controlling a robot using bio-signals
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657