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 .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The equations in the specification are difficult to read as they are reproduced blurry. In particular, the equations in paragraph [0042] [0064] [0066] are illegible. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the supplied equations are blurry and difficult to see as presented. Examiner has attempted to recreate them in this action but amendments with clear equations are required. 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 3, 9-14, and 17 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 3 all variables of the equation do not appear to be adequately described in the equation. In particular “R” from equation
w
t
=
u
(
t
)
T
*
R
*
u
(
t
)
; is not clearly define as to what the variable represents. Appropriate correction is required. Additionally, claims 10 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons as those above.
Regarding claim 9 the preamble recites “The control device of claim 1” while no control device is found in claim 1 resulting in improper antecedent basis. Examiner believes applicant intends the preamble to refer instead to claim 8. Appropriate correction is required. Additionally, claims 10-14 are rejected for similar reasons as those found above.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mathematical concept without significantly more. The claims recite “determining a state space equation corresponding to the lower limb exoskeleton using dynamic analysis; determining an objective function for trajectory planning of the lower limb exoskeleton according to the state space equation, wherein a phase variable corresponding to the objective function is a time-related phase variable; and performing trajectory planning of the lower limb exoskeleton according to the objective function to obtain a first gait trajectory corresponding to the lower limb exoskeleton, wherein the first gait trajectory is a gait trajectory corresponding to the time-related phase variable.”, “determining an initial function for trajectory planning of the lower limb exoskeleton according to the state space equation, wherein the initial function comprises boundary objectives and path integrals along the entire trajectory;
splitting the entire trajectory into N interpolation segments, and determining a time length for each of the interpolation segments, wherein each of the interpolation segments comprises a start point, a midpoint and an end point; for each interpolation segment of the interpolation segments, determining an integral of state variables in the interpolation segment between the start point and the end point of the interpolation segment according to the time length of the interpolation segment, the start point of the interpolation segment, the midpoint of the interpolation segment and the end point of the interpolation segment, and determining a constraint relationship between the state variable at the midpoint of the interpolation segment, the state variable at the start point, and the state variable at the end point of the segment; and determining the objective function according to the boundary objectives, an integral of each of the N interpolation segments and the constraint relationship”, “wherein the objective function is expressed as follows:
min
t
o
t
f
x
i
-
-
x
n
j
i
,
,
u
k
J
t
θ
,
t
f
,
x
t
0
,
x
t
F
+
∑
k
=
0
N
-
1
h
k
6
w
k
+
4
w
k
+
1
2
+
w
k
+
1
;
h
k
=
t
k
+
1
-
t
k
;
w
k
=
w
t
k
,
w
k
+
1
/
2
=
w
t
k
+
1
2
,
w
k
+
1
=
w
(
t
k
+
1
)
;
w
t
=
u
(
t
)
T
*
R
*
u
(
t
)
;
x
k
+
1
-
x
k
=
∫
t
k
t
k
+
1
x
˙
d
t
=
∫
t
k
t
k
+
1
f
x
,
u
d
t
=
h
k
6
(
f
x
k
,
u
k
+
4
f
x
k
+
1
2
,
u
k
+
1
2
+
f
x
k
+
1
,
u
k
+
1
)
;
x
k
+
1
2
=
1
2
x
k
+
x
k
+
1
+
h
k
8
(
f
x
k
,
u
k
-
f
x
k
+
1
,
u
k
+
1
;
x
0
=
∆
x
f
;
where J(*) represents the boundary objectives, w(*) represents the path integrals along the entire trajectory, to represents an initial time, tF represents a termination time, x(to) and xo are state variables at time to, x(tF) and
x
F
are state variables at time tF,
x
i
is a state variable at time
t
i
,
u
i
is a control variable at time
t
i
, 1<i<N, N is a number of the interpolation segments into which the entire trajectory is divided, and hk represents a time length of one of the interpolation segments.”, “wherein the first gait trajectory is a discrete gait trajectory, and the method further comprises, after performing trajectory planning of the lower limb exoskeleton according to the objective function to obtain the first gait trajectory corresponding to the lower limb exoskeleton, processing each interpolation segment in the first gait trajectory to obtain a continuous gait trajectory corresponding to each interpolation segment in the first gait trajectory; and based on the continuous gait trajectory corresponding to each interpolation segment in the first gait trajectory, obtaining a second gait trajectory for the lower limb exoskeleton, wherein the second gait trajectory is a continuous gait trajectory.” “wherein each interpolation segment in the first gait trajectory is processed using the following equations:
x
t
=
∫
0
t
˙
x
(
τ
)
d
τ
=
x
i
+
(
f
x
k
,
u
k
*
τ
h
k
+
1
2
(
-
3
f
x
k
,
u
k
+
4
f
x
k
,
1
2
,
u
k
,
1
2
-
f
x
k
+
1
,
u
k
+
1
*
τ
h
k
2
+
1
3
2
f
x
k
,
u
k
-
4
f
x
k
,
1
2
,
u
k
,
1
2
+
2
f
x
k
,
1
2
,
u
k
,
1
2
*
τ
h
k
3
*
h
k
;
τ
=
t
-
t
k
;
and
h
k
=
t
k
+
1
-
t
k
; where x(t) is the continuous gait trajectory corresponding to an interpolation segment,
x
k
is a state variable at time
t
k
,
x
k
+
1
2
is a state variable at time
t
k
+
1
2
,
x
k
+
1
is a state variable at time
t
k
+
1
,
u
k
is a control variable at time
t
k
,
u
k
+
1
2
is a state variable at time
t
k
+
1
2
,
u
k
+
1
is a control variable at time
t
k
+
1
,
h
k
is a time length of the interpolation segment, and t is a time variable.” which calculates a trajectory for the using mathematical relationships.
Step 1: These claims are directed to a method, control device, and memory for determining a gait trajectory.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The limitations of taking an equation for an exoskeleton, applying an objective function for planning the movement, and using initial states, time segments, and various other state and control variables is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematic relationships without any inventive concepts. That is, other than reciting “A computer-implemented… for a lower limb exoskeleton” or “A control device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance” or “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a control device, cause the at least one processor to perform a method, the method comprising:” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from relating to a purely mathematical concept with physical elements that relate to variables in the claimed formulas. For example, the “exoskeleton, controller, processors, and memory” relates to the components and variables utilized in the equations in order to allow for the gait trajectory to be calculated. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers and abstract idea of using mathematical equations for determining a trajectory for an exoskeleton then it falls within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite additional elements: “A computer-implemented… for a lower limb exoskeleton” or “A control device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance” or “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a control device, cause the at least one processor to perform a method, the method comprising:” The step of using a device to control this method and the physical components such as the processors and exoskeleton are all recited in a means for merely applying the exception using generic components. Further stated, using a computer or device to apply an abstract mathematical concept is recited as “apply it” additional elements recited here in the MPEP 2106.05(f) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined whether there is significantly more than the abstract idea. The rationale for prong 2 of step 2A applies equally here. Furthermore, the specification does not provide any indication that the device is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf control components such as a personal computer in specification paragraph [0016]. As such, the claims are ineligible. Examiner suggests including limitations such as controlling the exoskeleton similar to what is found in claim 6 in order to overcome the currently cited 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 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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brossette et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2023/0069928 A1 hereinafter “Brossette”).
Regarding claim 1 Brossette discloses:
A computer-implemented trajectory planning method for a lower limb exoskeleton, the method comprising: (Brossette [0052] wherein the robot exoskeleton is for lower limbs) determining a state space equation corresponding to the lower limb exoskeleton using dynamic analysis; (Brossette [0067] wherein the exoskeleton is controlled as a function of time or a phase)
determining an objective function for trajectory planning of the lower limb exoskeleton according to the state space equation, (Brossette [0067-0069] wherein the robot is controlled based on the function of time or a phase and the periodic trajectory elements) wherein a phase variable corresponding to the objective function is a time-related phase variable; and (Brossette [0067-0069] wherein the robot is controlled based on the function of time or a phase and the periodic trajectory elements) performing trajectory planning of the lower limb exoskeleton according to the objective function to obtain a first gait trajectory corresponding to the lower limb exoskeleton, (Brossette clm 1, [0094] wherein the trajectory is generated and implemented for the exoskeleton based on defined parameters and sequences) wherein the first gait trajectory is a gait trajectory corresponding to the time-related phase variable. (Brossette [0067-0069] wherein the robot is controlled based on the function of time or a phase and the periodic trajectory elements).
Regarding claim 8 Brossette discloses:
A control device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of operations comprising: (Brossette [0065] wherein the system uses processors and a memory to control the exoskeleton) determining a state space equation corresponding to the lower limb exoskeleton using dynamic analysis; (Brossette [0067] wherein the exoskeleton is controlled as a function of time or a phase) determining an objective function for trajectory planning of the lower limb exoskeleton according to the state space equation, (Brossette [0067-0069] wherein the robot is controlled based on the function of time or a phase and the periodic trajectory elements) wherein a phase variable corresponding to the objective function is a time-related phase variable; (Brossette [0067-0069] wherein the robot is controlled based on the function of time or a phase and the periodic trajectory elements) and performing trajectory planning of the lower limb exoskeleton according to the objective function to obtain a first gait trajectory corresponding to the lower limb exoskeleton, (Brossette clm 1, [0094] wherein the trajectory is generated and implemented for the exoskeleton based on defined parameters and sequences) wherein the first gait trajectory is a gait trajectory corresponding to the time-related phase variable. (Brossette [0067-0069] wherein the robot is controlled based on the function of time or a phase and the periodic trajectory elements).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brossette in view of Seo (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2024/0399187 A1 hereinafter “Seo”).
Regarding claim 15 Brossette discloses:
A … computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a control device, cause the at least one processor to perform a method, the method comprising: (Brossette [0065] wherein the system uses processors and a memory to control the exoskeleton) determining a state space equation corresponding to the lower limb exoskeleton using dynamic analysis; (Brossette [0067] wherein the exoskeleton is controlled as a function of time or a phase) determining an objective function for trajectory planning of the lower limb exoskeleton according to the state space equation, (Brossette [0067-0069] wherein the robot is controlled based on the function of time or a phase and the periodic trajectory elements) wherein a phase variable corresponding to the objective function is a time-related phase variable; and (Brossette [0067-0069] wherein the robot is controlled based on the function of time or a phase and the periodic trajectory elements) performing trajectory planning of the lower limb exoskeleton according to the objective function to obtain a first gait trajectory corresponding to the lower limb exoskeleton, (Brossette clm 1, [0094] wherein the trajectory is generated and implemented for the exoskeleton based on defined parameters and sequences) wherein the first gait trajectory is a gait trajectory corresponding to the time-related phase variable. (Brossette [0067-0069] wherein the robot is controlled based on the function of time or a phase and the periodic trajectory elements).
Brossette does not appear to explicitly disclose:
… non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Seo discloses:
“… non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (Seo [0059] wherein a non-transitory memory is used.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the non-transitory medium of Seo with the exoskeleton of Brossette with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a variation on the control scheme for the exoskeleton using a tangible non-transitory known memory device (Seo [0059]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 6 the relevant art Brossette in view of Seo discloses an exoskeleton trajectory planner and controller (Brossette [0086]) with changes in gait based on different parameters (Brossette [0071]) but fails to disclose converting a second gait into a third gait based on a conversion equation. Specifically, the relevant art fails to disclose “The method of claim 4, further comprising, after obtaining the second gait trajectory for the lower limb exoskeleton, converting the second gait trajectory into a third gait trajectory using a preset conversion equation, wherein the third gait trajectory is a gait trajectory corresponding to a state-related phase variable; and controlling the lower limb exoskeleton according to the third gait trajectory.”
Claim 7 would also be allowed due to their dependence on claim 6. Additionally claim 20 would be allowed for similar reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2021/160967 A1 discloses a trajectory generator for an exoskeleton based on periodic sequences of different movements
US 2020/0276698 A1 discloses a wearable exoskeleton with assistive functions based on maximizing or minimizing an objective function
JP 2004073649 A discloses a walker exoskeleton providing autonomous walking support
CN 113183128 A discloses a lower limb exoskeleton to reduce the load on a lower limb of a user
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is (303)297-4339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/KYLE T JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights