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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/22/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 11-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 states the limitations of “using a physics-based model” and this subject matter does not have written description support.
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 11-13 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one integrated digital camera of the mobile device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-3 and 11-13 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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by human being and/or claim training/employing a machine learning model in a particular technological environment.
In regard to Claims 1 and 11, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group and University of Florida Research Foundation; and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
a method comprising:
[…]
training a [mathematical/statistical] model using a training set of recorded trials of performances executed by skilled individuals;
validating the [mathematical/statistical] model using recorded trials of exercises performed by other individuals;
receiving […] sensor data […] where the […] sensor data comprises a sequence of image frames captured over time;
applying the trained [mathematical/statistical] model to the received […] sensor data to:
detect an object and a position of the object in the received […] sensor data;
model a movement of the object present in the received […] sensors data; and
predict a position of the object present in the received […] sensor data using a physics-based incorporating gravitational acceleration and prior frame positions.
In regard to Claims 1 and 11, to the extent that the Applicant claims training/employing a machine learning model in a particular technological environment that has been held by the CAFC in Recentive Analytics to be an abstract idea.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process that can be performed by human being and/or claim training/employing a machine learning model in a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a computer with a processor and memory, a mobile device with an integrated camera, employing digital image comprising pixels and video data, embodying Applicant’s abstract idea in “programming instructions” that execute in “real time”, training/employing “machine learning”, and/or one or more distributed computing resources, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a computer with a processor and memory, a mobile device with an integrated camera, employing digital image comprising pixel and video data, embodying Applicant’s abstract idea in “programming instructions” that execute in “real time”, training/employing “machine learning”, and/or one or more distributed computing resources, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements and are claimed for the generic, well-known, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are generic, well-known, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1-2 in Applicant’s specification and text regarding same; p31-33 specifically regarding employing “machine learning”; and e.g., p94 specifically regarding training/employing distributed computing resources.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB US 20180099201 A1 by Marty et al (“Marty”), in view of PGPUB US 20200320719 A1 by Lee et al (“Lee”), further in view of PGPUB US 20200265745 A1 by Buras et al (“Buras”).
In regard to Claim 1 and 11, Marty teaches a system, comprising:
a computing device with a processor and memory, the computing device being in communication with a mobile device having a processor, a display […], and the computing device having a plurality of programming instructions embodied on a non-transitory storage medium that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to:
(see, e.g., F1, 1504 in regard to “computing device”; see, e.g., p24 in regard to “mobile device”);
receive electronic sensor data captured by […] at least one digital camera […], wherein the electronic sensor data comprises a sequence of images captured over time;
(see, e.g., p14);
apply [a] trained machine learning model to […] electronic sensor data to:
detect an object and a position of the object present in the received electronic sensor data;
model a movement of the object present in the received electronic sensor data; and
predict a next position of the object present in the received electronic sensor data using a physics-based incorporating gravitational acceleration and prior frame positions.
(see, e.g., p97-100);
Furthermore, while Marty teaches employing a mobile device as well as teaches employing one or more cameras to capture a sequence of images it may not teach the device itself having a camera that is used for that purposes, however, in an analogous reference Lee teaches this functionality (see, e.g., p31);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the functionality of Lee to the apparatus otherwise taught by the otherwise cited prior art in order to increase the overall flexibility of the system by using off the shelf mobile digital camera.
Furthermore, to the extent to which the cited prior art may fail to teach the remaining claimed limitations in regard to training and validating a machine learning model, however, in an analogous reference Buras teaches this functionality (see, e.g., F6);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the functionality of Buras to the apparatus otherwise taught by the otherwise cited prior art in order to help increase the accuracy of the machine learning model.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty, in view of Lee, further in view of Buras, further in view of PGPUB US 20220362629 A1 by Rankin et al (“Rankin”).
In regard to Claims 2 and 12, Marty teaches capturing and generating electronic sensor data including detected object coordinates and predicted coordinates (see, e.g., p96-97), and to the extent that Marty may not teach sending that data to be received by a distributed computing device Rankin teaches that functionality (see, e.g., p109);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the functionality of Rankin to the apparatus otherwise taught by Marty in order to help increase data security.
In regard to Claims 3 and 13, Marty teaches capturing and generating electronic sensor data including detected object coordinates and predicted coordinates (see, e.g., p96-97), and to the extent that Marty may not teach that function being performed by a distributed computing device Rankin teaches that functionality (see, e.g., p29);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the prior art contains a device/method/etc. which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components/steps/elements with other components; the substituted components and their functions were known in the art; one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another; and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have substituted the functionality of Rankin to the apparatus otherwise taught by Marty by off-loading some of the data analysis functions to a server in order to centralize that function.
Furthermore, to the extent to which Marty may fail to specifically teach predicting object coordinates “a minimum of ten images” that feature is not disclosed by the Applicant has having any criticality (see, e.g., p45 in Applicant’s PGPUB) and is, therefore, a matter of design choice and does not distinguish over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101 and applying the Mayo test are not persuasive. Applicant claims collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis and such subject matter has been repeatedly held by the CAFC to be directed to an abstract idea in the form of a mental process in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician (non-precedential). Applicant argues that it has claimed a “practical application” and thereby claimed patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Mayo test is a legal test and “practical application” is not part of the Mayo test but is, instead, a burden placed on examiners by the Office when they are making a 101 rejection employing the Mayo test. Simply invoking “practical application” but without citing specific legal authority in support of Applicant’s argument that it has claimed patent eligible subject matter under the two-part Mayo test, therefore, does not provide a proper basis or rationale as to why the 101 rejection being made is allegedly deficient.
Applicant’s arguments in regard to the art rejections are addressed by the updated statements of rejection made supra, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights