DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to claims filed on 8/12/2025 in relation to application 17/549,464.
The instant application claims benefit to provisional application #62/861, 971 with a priority date of 6/14/2019.
The Pre-Grant publication # 2024/0013669 is published on 1/11/2024.
Claims 15-28 canceled.
Claims 14,29-47 pending.
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 14, 29-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is to a system and a computer method . Thus fall within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Claims 14 is directed to communication of a set of functions to include sensing, receiving, determining input and output values for movements of patients and comparing of data with first references. They involve steps drawn to concept categorized as an actions that are observation, evaluation and judgement of textual inputs. A concept of mental processes. Capturing trainer images or a trainer image sequences, performing a training task, routine, or program and trainee images or a trainee image sequence, constructing a trainer construct corresponding to the captured trainer images or image sequence on an image by image basis and determining differences between the trainer and the trainee construct on an image by image basis to figure out if repeating needed until a stop function is invoked or determining criteria indicating successful trainee completion of the training task, routine, or program involved mental evaluations and judgment . Generating of VR or VR/AR/MR environment and hot spot features as in Claim 14 for trainer/trainee image sequences. The claimed invention to an extent is directed towards training a human subject and can be characterized as a method of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(“ The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to…managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”. They are generally categorized as a grouping of an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1 YES).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to be significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “a computer system”, “a processor’, “a memory’, "sensors", " computer generated trainer construct on an image by image and on a feature by feature basis”, “image sensor” and in the instant case scaling the computer generated trainee construct and the computer generated trainer construct on an image by image and on a feature by feature basis so that the trainee image features are conformed to the trainer image features, comparing the scaled computer generated trainee construct and the scaled computer generated trainer construct on an image by image basis and on a feature by feature basis, determining differences between the scaled computer generated trainer construct and the scaled computer generated trainee construct on an image by image basis, are merely use of generic computer functions and computer parts performing comparisons and executing rules based on mathematical calculations to execute desired results under certain rules. No improvement in functionality of computers achieved. Hence not indicative of integration of a practical application (Step 2A: Prong 2 No).
The steps in the recited claims that are highlighted are a well-understood, routine, and conventional (WRC) activities known in art. The additional elements are well-understood or routine or conventional, or an equivalent term as available in a commercially available product. They are like in precedential Electric Power Group LLC, v. Alstom Limited (EPG) case where court found there that the claims are directed to collecting, monitoring of rule based filtered data and are abstract idea in itself. Further, there found to be no additional elements here in the claim recitation that improves the functioning of a computer itself for extended reality to overcome the abstract idea rejection (Step 2B: No).
The dependent claims of the instances, case, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. For instance,
a. Claims highlights overlaying of constructs, adjusting of positions, avatar training and configuration for trainer and trainee interactions, feedback on trainer and trainee data in VR or AR/MR/XR environment.
b. Claims highlights the percentage difference criteria for conformity gesture, difference levels, computer generated constructs like polygon, tessellated and finite element constructs etc. body portions comparisons, image frame type, and corresponding spatial, temporal scaling for an orientation in 3D space and general use of AI sub-system for user feedback and performance gap specifics from movement information. .
c. Claims defines session descriptions, like question answer session, analyzing of trainer, trainee data, modification’s thereof, spatial and temporal dimension of augmented reality environment that are interactive based on processing types like motion, hard select, gesture etc. The dependent claims are also describing hot-spot association for specific aspects, attributes, properties etc.
d. The all above dependent claims are merely an involvement of activities generally categorized as insignificant extra pre and post solution activity as those relates to an abstract idea of manipulation, categorization, monitoring, collection, comparison and outputting of processed or pre-processed information. They are like in precedential case where court found there that the claims are also directed to monitoring, collection and comparison of data in electric grids but found to be abstract idea. (Step 2A: Prong 1 YES). The operation of the instant case is further based on generic computer processing of comparison, calculations and aggregation of information from components and peripherals such as from input devices, output interface and interactive network elements. There are parameters reference, but all are operating under generic conditions. The recitations are not improving the functioning of a computer itself that could qualify this to be as significantly more (Step 2A: Prong 2 No). The courts have found such recognized computer functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. For example in receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 i.e. utilizing an intermediary computer servers to forward information. All these elements are interpreted as part of generic "computing device” or “system” as identified above to implement the abstract idea and thus not enough to qualify as significantly more. They do not improve the functionality of the computer or another technology (Step 2B: No).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed on 8/12/2025 considered.
Applicant has amended claim 14, canceled claims 15-28 and added new claims 29-47 comprising 20 total claims and two independent claims.
Applicant asserted that amended claim 14 and new claims 29-47 addresses the 101 issues as the claims ‘focused’ on hardware processing and not on thought steps or idea/concept. But no explanation or clarification provided in that regard to respond how the amendments overcoming 35USC101 rejection.
35USC101
Applicant's arguments on pages 13-14 of remarks is mostly copy of office action and hence is likewise unpersuasive because as the CAFC observed in that case, where subject matter is directed to collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing an output based on that analysis should be found to be abstract and thereby patent ineligible. Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to collecting various data regarding a user, applying certain analysis to that data (in VR or AR/MR/XR environment with hotspots), and providing an output based on that analysis. No “technical improvement” or improvement in the functioning of computer found since in it yield results “in real-time’. The efficiencies and applications of avatar etc. are gained by claiming otherwise abstract subject matter in a computer embodiment. They do not necessarily yield patent eligible subject matter. See the CAFC’s opinion in Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, slip. op. at page 21 in that regard.
35USC103 (from previous office action)
Applicant has indicated on pages 16 of arguments/remark 12/4/2025 has agreed that the prior art Javanbakht and Wallace disclose methods to assist trainee to perform a given task but the virtual reality environment therapy there is entirely a computer generated. They may limitations that do not effectively translate or generalize to an actual patient environment via traditional techniques.
Examiner finds that the claim is a computer-generated virtual environments and are limited by a number of specifics as set forth in the descriptions. The present claims are directed to generating computer generated constructs, scaling the computer generated constructs, and using the scaled computer generated constructs to analyze differences between trainer and trainee performance. In fact, the scaled computer generated constructs are designed so that the scaled computer generated trainee construct can be conformed to the trainer scaled computer generated construct viewable in a virtual reality environment in an overlaid configuration so that differences may be easily determined. Additionally, the claims in dependent form are in three different formats for the computer generated constructs - polygon constructs, tessellated, and finite element constructs. All of these types constructs permit scaling so that the trainee performance may be compared to the trainer performance and their differences when viewed in an overlaid configuration allowing the trainee to repeat each exercise until the differences are less than or equal to minimum performance criteria. Thus, the present claims utilize the very techniques are not taught by prior art combination.
The prior art disclosures are indicative of only augmented reality environments where as a trainee or patient performance task are superimposed or overlaid onto the patient performance and augmentations environment evidencing a proper way to perform the entire task or some aspect of the task. As the constructs are computer generated after the fact, the displayed environment is virtual and not augmented.
The 35USC103 patentability for claims 1-3,5-17, 19, 21-25 are withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2018/237172A1 (62/546,651/ 17.08.2017) Josephson et al.
Systems, apparatuses, interfaces and methods for virtual control constructs, eye movement object controllers and virtual training.
US 10762988 B2 to Sánchez Vives et al.
A method for motor training comprising: receiving from one or more sensors an orientation of a head mounted display of the subject; adapting a base video signal representing an avatar of the subject in a virtual reality to be displayed
US 20170139556 A1 Josephson
Apparatuses, systems and methods for vehicle interfaces.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADARUZ ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3137. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm CST.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.Z/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
October 18, 2025
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights