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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 recite(s):
receiving, by one or more computer processors, data associated with one or more tasks performed by a user;
identifying, by one or more computer processors, an activity in a first industry associated with the one or more tasks;
determining, by one or more computer processors, that one or more activities associated with a job in a second industry correspond to the activity in the first industry;
generating, by one or more computer processors, a mixed reality scenario representing a virtual work environment associated with the second industry using mixed reality technology;
generating, by one or more computer processors, the one or more activities associated with the job in the second industry in the mixed reality scenario, wherein the one or more act ivies are generated to allow user performance of the one mor more activities to be detected by one or more sensor device; and
displaying, by one or more computer processors, the virtual work environment associated with the second industry and the one or more activities associated with the job in the second industry to the user in a device for viewing the mixed reality scenario while the user performs the activity in the first industry; and
responsive to the one or more sensor device, detecting user performance of the one or more activities associated with the job in the second industry, evaluating in real time, by one more processor, the user performance of the one more activities using sensor data generated by the one or more sensor devices.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by one or more processor”, “one or more computer readable storage media”, “device for viewing the mixed reality scenario” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher analyzing similarities between two industries, creating lesson materials to bridge the knowledge gap between the first and second industries and presenting it to the student.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people or cover activities performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “by one or more processor”, “one or more computer readable storage media”, “device for viewing the mixed reality scenario”.
The “by one or more processor”, “one or more computer readable storage media”, “device for viewing the mixed reality scenario” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to the limitation “responsive to the one or more sensor device”, the examiner takes the position that these limitations are directed to particular field of use or technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 15 showing implementation on a generic computing device).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2-7, 8-14 and 15-20 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claims recites similar abstract idea or is directed to a field of use and technological environment or insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, the limitation of claims 2, 9 are directed to a data gathering step; claims 3, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 16, 18-19 and 20 are directed to the mental process of determining a similarity between jobs from different industry and similar mental activities, claims 4, 11 and 17 appear to be directed to a field use limitation. Specifically for claims 2, 9 the limitation directed to the limitation of “wherein the one or more sensor devices are selected from a group consisting of: a gaze point tracker, an imaging device, a microphone, environmental sensor, a global positioning system (GPS) device, an accelerometer, a pressure sensor, and a biometric sensor.” The examiner takes the position that these limitation amount to confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. Thus, the claims recite no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued that the current amendment of the “sensor device detecting user performance of the one or more activities associated with the job in the second industry” are no longer an abstract idea since it is no longer performed in the human mind. However, a claims can still recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. For example, in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’). In this particular case, the use of the computer appears to be a merely a tool in which the abstract idea operates.
With respect to applicant’s argument particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors have been found by the court to be sufficient overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101. Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Inthe Thales decisions, a claim directed to a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform did not merely recite “the abstract idea of using ‘mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame’.”). In this particular case, the current limitation is not directed to a particular configuration of sensors. Instead, the independent claim limitation is only directed to the use of sensors that is agnostic to the particular configurations. As such, the examiner takes the positions in this particular case is not related to the particular configurations of sensors that can be found in Thales. The examiner takes the position that additional amendment that specify the particular configuration of sensor(s) is needed to better align the current claim limitation to the teaching of Thales. As the applicant’s argument are not commensurate to the current claim limitation, the examiner takes the position that the current argument is not sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
Conclusion
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 ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715