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
Applicant claims priority to PCT/JP2020/049065, filed on 12/28/2020 which claims priority to JP 2020-026464, filed 02/19/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 8/9/2022, 9/19/2022, 8/2/2023, 5/1/2024, 9/9/2024, and 1/2/2025 were previously considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s response, filed 2/23/2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 5-10, 13, and 14 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Terminal Disclaimer
Examiner acknowledges the terminal disclaimer filed 2/23/2026 which overcomes the previous double patenting rejection in regard to the prior Patent No. 12,437,433.
Interview
Examiner contacted the attorney of record by phone to discuss the claims in view of the 101 rejection. No agreement was reached. See attached interview summary.
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, 5-10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the device, as claimed in claims 1 and 5-10 are directed to a machine, the method, as claimed in claim 13, is directed to a process, and the non-transitory computer-readable medium, as claimed in claim 14, is directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
An information provision:
configured to estimate, from captured image data, a skeleton of a living body in the captured image data showing an entire body of the living body;
configured to acquire attribute data including a body height of the living body;
configured to calculate a length of a target portion of the living body; and
configured to provide predetermined information about a posture of the living body based on the length of the target portion and information about a seating target on which the living body is able to sit, wherein
the target portion includes a leg, which is a length from a hip joint to an ankle, of the living body,
when calculating the length of the target portion of the living body, calculates the length of the target portion based on the estimated skeleton and on a specified value reflecting the body height, the specified value being a separation distance between predetermined portions of the living body previously stored, by calculating a first length equivalent to a first skeleton forming a part of the body height, the first length being obtained by subtracting the specified value from the body height, and calculates a length of the target portion of the living body using rations among skeletons including the first skeleton in the estimated skeleton, and the first length, and
the predetermined information includes information about foot grounding property of the living body,
performs a foot grounding property determination process of determining foot grounding property when the living body is seated on a predetermined seating part based on a calculated length of the leg,
in the foot grounding property determination process, acquires vehicle data related to a test ride vehicle on which a test ride is possible, determines an amount of compression of a suspension of the test ride vehicle due to a body weight included in the attribute data using the vehicle data, corrects a seat height of the predetermined seating part by the amount of compression determined, and determines the foot grounding property based on the seat height corrected, and
displays the foot grounding property determined.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because providing a determined foot grounding property (i.e., a recommendation) based on a process which includes correcting a seat height of a predetermined seating part by the amount of compression determined based on an estimate of a skeleton of a living body, attribute data including body weight, predetermined information, and vehicle data related to a test ride is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. See Specification paragraphs [0002]-[0004] and [0007] describing the business improvements of providing foot grounding information to a customer when purchasing a vehicle even when an actual test ride cannot be performed. Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “estimate” information, “acquire” information, “calculate” information, “subtracting” information, “provide” information, and “determine” information is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 13 and 14 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 13 and 14 as described above for independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
An information provision device that is a portable device, comprising a camera, processor, and a display, wherein the processor is:
configured to estimate, from captured image data of the camera, a skeleton of a living body in the captured image data showing an entire body of the living body;
configured to acquire attribute data including a body height of the living body;
configured to calculate a length of a target portion of the living body; and
configured to provide predetermined information about a posture of the living body based on the length of the target portion and information about a seating target on which the living body is able to sit, wherein
the target portion includes a leg, which is a length from a hip joint to an ankle, of the living body,
when calculating the length of the target portion of the living body, the processor calculates the length of the target portion based on the estimated skeleton and on a specified value reflecting the body height, the specified value being a separation distance between predetermined portions of the living body previously stored, by calculating a first length equivalent to a first skeleton forming a part of the body height, the first length being obtained by subtracting the specified value from the body height, and calculates a length of the target portion of the living body using rations among skeletons including the first skeleton in the estimated skeleton, and the first length, and
the predetermined information includes information about foot grounding property of the living body,
the processor performs a foot grounding property determination process of determining foot grounding property when the living body is seated on a predetermined seating part based on a calculated length of the leg,
in the foot grounding property determination process, the processor acquires vehicle data related to a test ride vehicle on which a virtual test ride is possible, determines an amount of compression of a suspension of the test ride vehicle due to a body weight included in the attribute data using the vehicle data, corrects a seat height of the predetermined seating part by the amount of compression determined, and determines the foot grounding property based on the seat height corrected, and
the processor displays the foot grounding property determined on the display.
In this case, claim 13 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
An information provision method, comprising:
causing a processor to estimate, from a captured image data of a camera disposed on a portable device, a skeleton of a living body;
causing the processor to calculate a length of a target portion of the living body; and
causing the processor to provide predetermined information about a posture of the living body based on the length of the target portion and information about a seating target on which the living body is able to sit, wherein
the target portion includes a leg, which is a length from a hip joint to an ankle, of the living body,
when calculating the length of the target portion of the living body, the processor calculates the length of the target portion based on the estimated skeleton and on a specified value reflecting the body height, the specified value being a separation distance between predetermined portions of the living body previously stored, by calculating a first length equivalent to a first skeleton forming a part of the body height, the first length being obtained by subtracting the specified value from the body height, and calculates a length of the target portion of the living body using rations among skeletons including the first skeleton in the estimated skeleton, and the first length, and
the predetermined information includes information about foot grounding property of the living body,
the information provision method further comprising causing the processor to perform a foot grounding property determination process of determining foot grounding property when the living body is seated on a predetermined seating part based on a calculated length of the leg,
in the foot grounding property determination process, causing the processor to acquire vehicle data related to a test ride vehicle on which a virtual test ride is possible, to determine an amount of compression of a suspension of the test ride vehicle due to a body weight included in the attribute data using the vehicle data, to correct a seat height of the predetermined seating part by the amount of compression determined, to determine the foot grounding property based on the seat height corrected, and to display the foot grounding property determined on a display disposed on the portable device.
In this case, claim 14 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium causing a computer disposed on a portable device to function as:
a skeleton estimation unit configured to estimate, from a captured image data of a camera disposed on the portable device, a skeleton of a living body in the captured image data showing an entire body of the living body;
an information acquisition unit configured to acquire attribute data including a body height of the living body;
a calculation unit configured to calculate a length of a target portion of the living body; and
an information providing unit configured to provide predetermined information about a posture of the living body based on the length of the target portion and information about a seating target on which the living body is able to sit, wherein
the target portion includes a leg, which is a length from a hip joint to an ankle, of the living body,
when calculating the length of the target portion of the living body, the processor calculates the length of the target portion based on the estimated skeleton and on a specified value reflecting the body height, the specified value being a separation distance between predetermined portions of the living body previously stored, by calculating a first length equivalent to a first skeleton forming a part of the body height, the first length being obtained by subtracting the specified value from the body height, and calculates a length of the target portion of the living body using rations among skeletons including the first skeleton in the estimated skeleton, and the first length, and
the predetermined information includes information about foot grounding property of the living body,
the computer performs a foot grounding property determination process of determining foot grounding property when the living body is seated on a predetermined seating part based on a calculated length of the leg,
in the foot grounding property determination process, the computer acquires vehicle data related to a test ride vehicle on which a virtual test ride is possible, determines an amount of compression of a suspension of the test ride vehicle due to a body weight included in the attribute data using the vehicle data, corrects a seat height of the predetermined seating part by the amount of compression determined, and determines the foot grounding property based on the seat height corrected, and
the computer displays the foot grounding property determined on a display disposed on the portable device.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 13, and 14 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Fig. 1; paragraph [0020] describing the information processing device as a generic device such as a smartphone or another portable device such as a tablet, or a personal computer, or the like; and paragraphs [0021]-[0025] describing generic and “well-known” components). This description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
In addition to the above, the recited receiving/acquiring and displaying/providing steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 13, and 14 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 13, and 14, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 13, and 14 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 13, and 14 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 13, and 14 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1, 13, and 14 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim(s) 5-10, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 5-10 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim 1. Dependent claims 5-10 do not introduce any further additional elements. Thus, dependent claims 5-10 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response filed 2/23/2026, have been entered. Applicant argues on page 9 of the arguments, with respect to the previous double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed 2/23/2026. Accordingly, the previous double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pages 9-12 of the arguments, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that the invention comprises “a specific process of generating a 3D model by combining image data of the test ride vehicle with image data of the human body model and displaying the 3D mode for the user to be able to determine whether or not it is possible to sit on the motorcycle when riding a motorcycle.” It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., generating a 3D model by combining image data of the test ride vehicle with image data of the human body model) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, these arguments are moot.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity because they do not recite any commercial transaction, sales agreement, pricing, marketing communication, or customer relationship management and the claims recite a specific technical process. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04, the Office has shifted its approach from the case-comparison approach in determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea and instead uses enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. According to the MPEP 2106.04, the question of whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception in Step 2A is now evaluated using a two-prong inquiry. Prong One asks if the claim “recites” an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Under that prong, the mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a method of organizing human activity in a claim means that the claim “recites” a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04 [“The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.”]). Additionally, MPEP 2106.04 instructs examiners to refer to the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities, and mental processes) in order to identify abstract ideas. As noted above and in the previous office action, the claims recite providing a determined foot grounding property (i.e., a recommendation) based on a process which includes correcting a seat height of a predetermined seating part by the amount of compression determined based on an estimate of a skeleton of a living body, attribute data including body weight, predetermined information, and vehicle data related to a test ride. This is an abstract idea because it is a concept of business relations between information related to a virtual test ride vehicle and a user (i.e., a living body). See also paragraphs [0002]-[0004] and [0006]-[0007] which describe the importance “for a customer to confirm the foot grounding property and the like in advance when purchasing a vehicle, and the improvement of the purchasing motivation of the customer can be expected if the information about the foot grounding property can be provided. In addition, if the information about the foot grounding property and the like can be provided, this can lead to the improvement of customer satisfaction, even vehicles on which an actual test ride is impossible.” Accordingly, the claims recite a judicial exception such as a method of organizing human activity in a claim (i.e., one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Applicant argues on page 11 the claims do not recite a mental process. As noted in the previous office actions, that in Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Examiner notes the limitation “calculate a length of a target portion of the living body” is a limitation that in addition to being included in the enumerated grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” can also be considered either a mental process as it is a concept that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)) and a mathematical concept as it is a mathematical calculation (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
Despite Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe abstract idea(s) for those reasons set forth previously.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea (prong one, step 2A: Yes).
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that the claims recite a specific technical process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued steps of “(1) capturing image data… (2) estimating a skeleton from that image data; (3) performing a multi-step calculation involving subtraction of a stored "specified value" from body height and application of skeletal ratio math; (4) acquiring external vehicle suspension data; (5) computing a suspension compression amount based on body weight using that vehicle data; (6) correcting a seat height value by the computed compression; and (7) displaying the result…” are steps directed to the abstract idea and encompassed within certain methods of organizing human activity and the stated abstract idea of providing information (i.e., a recommendation). While applicant argues the claims recite (1) capturing image data “with a camera” and (7) displaying the result “on a display”, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [0021]-[0025]). This description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks). Even assuming a relationship of the claimed invention to another technology or technical field, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). Unlike Enfish, the instant claims are directed to a judicial exception and, as claimed, the instant claims do not improve technology.
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, prong two).
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that the claims should be 101 patent eligible because the instant claims are similar to US 12,437,433 which was used in a double patenting rejection against the present claims, and the issued patent includes many of the same features as presented in the present application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Every case is fact specific and the eligibility determinations hinge of the facts of those specific cases and furthermore we rely on binding caselaw and PTO guidance and the determinations in an examination of an application (related to the instant application or not) have no bearing on our decision making.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains claims 1, 5-10, 13, and 14 are ineligible for patenting because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688