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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action.
In response to Examiner's communication of 9/5/2025, Applicant responded on 12/5/2025. Amended claim 1, 10, 16, 26 and 27. Cancelled claims 7-8, 15, 21-22 and 24. Added claim 28.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 10, 13-14, 16, 19-20, 23, 25-28 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 10, 16, 26 and 27 are not sufficient to overcome the claim objections set forth in the previous action. The claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 10, 16, 26 and 27 are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 10, 16, 26 and 27 are sufficient to overcome the prior art rejections set forth in the previous action. The prior art rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits, “…Applicant traverses this allegation and questions the relevance of the vague notion of the "realm" in which a problem "arises." It is unclear how this type of subjective and non-specific contention properly impacts the MPEP-based and caselaw-based §101 rubric. In contrast, Applicant submits that the following limitations, at the least, unquestionably render the claimed solution in the "realm of computer technology":… Applicant also points to the August 4, 2025 USPTO Memo entitled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101," which reiterates and emphasizes Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind....Claim limitations that encompass AI in a way that cannot be practically performed in the human mind do not fall within this grouping...Applicant respectfully submits that the independent claims require limitations that encompass AI in a way that cannot be practically performed in the human mind, and as such, the claims should properly be deemed as not falling within the mental processes grouping. For example, the independent claims require the following AI-specific limitations which cannot be practically performed in the human mind: (i) calculating one or more elbow angles attributed to the individual using at least one posture-related ergonomic model, (ii) calculating one or more leg angles attributed to the individual using the at least one posture-related ergonomic model, and (iii) calculating one or more back angles attributed to the individual using the at least one posture-related ergonomic model. (Emphasis added)…page 5 of the above-noted August 4, 2025 USPTO Memo states that Examiners are reminded that if it is a "close call" as to whether a claim is eligible, they should only make a rejection when it is more likely than not (i.e., more than 50%) that the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. A rejection of a claim should not be made simply because an examiner is uncertain as to the claim's eligibility. In order to make a rejection of a claim under any of the statutory bases (i.e., 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, 112), unpatentability must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Applicant respectfully submits that, in light of the amended independent claims and related arguments above, a rejection of the independent claims cannot be established by a preponderance of the evidence, and as such, the claims should be deemed eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Further still, as stated in Ex Parte Desjardins et al., No. 2024-000567 (PTAB Appeals Review Panel, September 26, 2025), "[c]ategorically excluding AI innovations from patent protection in the United States jeopardizes America's leadership in this critical emerging technology," and AI-based improvements to device-specific configurations represent improvements to computer functionality. Accordingly, even if one assumes for purposes of argument only that amended independent claims 1, 10 and 16 could somehow be construed as reciting an abstract idea, these claims are not directed to an abstract idea for reasons similar to those set forth in Ex Parte Desjardins et al., as amended independent claims 1, 10 and 16 clearly integrate any such abstract idea into practical applications that provide improvements in computer technology….By way of support for the amendments, Applicant points, for example, to page 8, lines 22-25 of the specification, which states as follows regarding non-limiting illustrative embodiments of the claimed arrangements: Also, in one or more embodiments, to determine an ergonomic score associated with user position from a given screen, input for such a computation can include the actual distance (d,) that the user is from screen, which can be determined and/or retrieved using, for example, a webcam associated with the given screen. By way of further support for the amendments, Applicant points, for example, to page 10, lines 6-10 of the specification, which states as follows regarding non-limiting illustrative embodiments of the claimed arrangements: In at least one embodiment, one or more ambient light sensors can be utilized to obtain and/or determine one or more actual environmental illuminance…” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Applicant’s amendments further prosecution, unlike 2025 AI Memo, Desjardins, the claims do not recite any specific AI models. Thus, the claims and the argued elements, are directed to, …automatically determining work environment-related ergonomic data…, is a problem directed to organizing human activity (i.e. human recommending and instructing human workers on proper ergonomic postures and changing lighting conditions of work environment based on human observation) and a mental process (i.e. human observing human posture and work environment, human evaluating human posture and work environment, human providing recommendation on observed posture and work environment), as established in Step 2A Prong 1. This problem does not specifically arise in the realm of computer technology, but rather, this problem existed and was addressed long before the advent of computers. Thus, the claims do not recite a technical improvement to a technical problem. Additionally, pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer, performing extra solution activities, according to Applicant’s specification, …in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, and further detailed herein, one or more embodiments includes implementing at least one illumination-related ergonomic model, which can process inputs in the form of, for example, illumination values captured and/or obtained using one or more ambient light sensors, one or more cameras (e.g., webcam(s)) associated with a given screen and/or work environment, etc. Such a model can be implemented to determine one or more parameters related to illumination, such as, for example, lighting brightness in a given space and/or room within a work environment. In one or more embodiments, such a model can process inputs such as screen brightness values L, which can be determined and/or indicated (e.g., as a percentage value) via the corresponding operating system (OS). Based at least in part on the determined screen brightness value, at least one embodiment includes computing a recommended environmental illuminance value (iR) using, for example, a formula such as follows: iR= 0.36 * L2. In such an embodiment, 0.36 is a coefficient value (and it is to be appreciated that one or more other embodiments can include one or more different coefficient values). In at least one embodiment, the recommended environmental illuminance (iR) value can represent a room lighting metric that is recommended for the user's eyes, and la can represent actual illumination in the room. Accordingly, in such an embodiment, if la<iR, the user can be notified to turn the room lights up or on, and if la>iR, the user can be notified to turn the room lights down or off… an alert can be generated and output to the user indicating the ergonomic index and/or one or more of the individual parameter scores, as well as one or more recommendations automatically generated and output to the user and/or one or more external and/or automated systems, wherein such recommendations include recommendations for improving one or more aspects of the provided ergonomic data…such recommendations are determined based at least in part on the individual ergonomics. For example, if the ergonomics index is poor, but within it, the posture and the screen-to-user distance is good while the brightness of the room is poor, a recommendation can be generated to adjust the brightness of the room, wherein such a recommendation is delivered and/or output to the user, e.g., via text on the screen…. Therefore, as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2.
Further, according to, https://web.archive.org/web/20220910022112/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_and_ergonomics, 9/10/2022, “…Some have stated that human ergonomics began with Australopithecus prometheus (also known as “little foot”), a primate who created handheld tools out of different types of stone, clearly distinguishing between tools based on their ability to perform designated tasks.[30] The foundations of the science of ergonomics appear to have been laid within the context of the culture of Ancient Greece. A good deal of evidence indicates that Greek civilization in the 5th century BC used ergonomic principles in the design of their tools, jobs, and workplaces. One outstanding example of this can be found in the description Hippocrates gave of how a surgeon's workplace should be designed and how the tools he uses should be arranged.[31] The archaeological record also shows that the early Egyptian dynasties made tools and household equipment that illustrated ergonomic principles…Bernardino Ramazzini was one of the first people to systematically study the illness that resulted from work earning himself the nickname “father of occupational medicine”. In the late 1600s and early 1700s Ramazzini visited many worksites where he documented the movements of laborers and spoke to them about their ailments. He then published “De Morbis Artificum Diatriba” (Latin for Diseases of Workers) which detailed occupations, common illnesses, remedies.[32] In the 19th century, Frederick Winslow Taylor pioneered the "scientific management" method, which proposed a way to find the optimum method of carrying out a given task. Taylor found that he could, for example, triple the amount of coal that workers were shoveling by incrementally reducing the size and weight of coal shovels until the fastest shoveling rate was reached.[33] Frank and Lillian Gilbreth expanded Taylor's methods in the early 1900s to develop the "time and motion study". They aimed to improve efficiency by eliminating unnecessary steps and actions. By applying this approach, the Gilbreths reduced the number of motions in bricklaying from 18 to 4.5,[clarification needed] allowing bricklayers to increase their productivity from 120 to 350 bricks per hour.[33] However, this approach was rejected by Russian researchers who focused on the well-being of the worker. At the First Conference on Scientific Organization of Labour (1921) Vladimir Bekhterev and Vladimir Nikolayevich Myasishchev criticised Taylorism. Bekhterev argued that "The ultimate ideal of the labour problem is not in it [Taylorism], but is in such organisation of the labour process that would yield a maximum of efficiency coupled with a minimum of health hazards, absence of fatigue and a guarantee of the sound health and all round personal development of the working people."[34] Myasishchev rejected Frederick Taylor's proposal to turn man into a machine. Dull monotonous work was a temporary necessity until a corresponding machine can be developed. He also went on to suggest a new discipline of "ergology" to study work as an integral part of the re-organisation of work. The concept was taken up by Myasishchev's mentor, Bekhterev, in his final report on the conference, merely changing the name to "ergonology"[34]…The dawn of the Information Age has resulted in the related field of human–computer interaction (HCI). Likewise, the growing demand for and competition among consumer goods and electronics has resulted in more companies and industries including human factors in their product design. Using advanced technologies in human kinetics, body-mapping, movement patterns and heat zones, companies are able to manufacture purpose-specific garments, including full body suits, jerseys, shorts, shoes, and even underwear…”
Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018).
Simply reciting specific limitations that narrow the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea non-abstract. 79 Fed. Reg. 74631; buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (2014); see SAP America at p. 12. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at p. 3.
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). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Response to Arguments – Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
However, Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the closest prior art US Patent Publication to US20230099570A1 to Bobert et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Bobert”) in view of US Patent Publication to US20180005386A1 to Thangappan et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Thangappan”).
The prior art rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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, 5-6, 9, 10, 13-14, 16, 19-20, 23, 25-28 is/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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 10, 16 recites “…adjustment of at least one screen brightness value in the operating system of the at least one computing device…”. However, Applicant’s Specification does not expressly or inherently require adjustment of at least one screen brightness value in the operating system of the at least one computing device.
In order to satisfy the written description requirement, each claim limitation must be expressly or inherently supported by the disclosure. MPEP 2163 (emphasis added). "The 'written description' requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor's obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent's term. See MPEP 2163. For claims directed toward computer-implemented functions, like the presently claimed invention, "[i]f the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made." MPEP 2161.01.
Applicant Specification discloses:
Such an embodiment includes implementing an evaluation index referred to herein as a human computer ergonomics index, which includes one or more weightages of one or more parameters. The parameters can include real-time input data from one or more work environment-related sources (e.g., computer webcams, light sensors, microphones, etc.) and/or user feedback (e.g., user inputs pertaining to computer screen size, screen resolution, screen brightness, etc.).
illumination values captured and/or obtained using one or more ambient light sensors, one or more cameras (e.g., webcam(s)) associated with a given screen and/or work environment, etc. Such a model can be implemented to determine one or more parameters related to illumination, such as, for example, lighting brightness in a given space and/or room within a work environment.
In one or more embodiments, such a model can process inputs such as screen brightness values L, which can be determined and/or indicated (e.g., as a percentage value) via the corresponding operating system (OS). Based at least in part on the determined screen brightness value, at least one embodiment includes computing a recommended environmental illuminance value (iR) using, for example, a formula such as follows: iR= 0.36 * L2.
To determine the ergonomic score for lighting in room, such an embodiment can include implementing a formula which uses a recommended environmental illuminance (iR) and an actual environmental illuminance value (ia). Additionally, in such an embodiment, let Lmax be 100(%) which is the maximum screen brightness, in connection with a formula such as follows: iR= k * Lmax2.
such recommendations are determined based at least in part on the individual ergonomics. For example, if the ergonomics index is poor, but within it, the posture and the screen-to-user distance is good while the brightness of the room is poor, a recommendation can be generated to adjust the brightness of the room, wherein such a recommendation is delivered and/or output to the user, e.g., via text on the screen.
another example use case can include a user using a room that is brightened up by natural light during the day, resulting in acceptable ergonomics scores.
However, as the day becomes evening, and the natural light diminishes, the illumination in the room reaches a particular threshold (e.g., crosses below a predetermined level of brightness), and an alert is generated and output to the user, as well as an automatically generated recommendation that the user can then switch on one or more supplemental light sources in the room to improve the ergonomics index.
The support for “screen brightness” refers to human inputting and human feedback and input variable used in ergonomics index calculation. The specifications do not does not expressly or inherently require “screen brightness” being a recommendation output or actual specific adjustments to the operating system. Accordingly, the specification does not provide express or inherent support for “adjustment of at least one screen brightness value in the operating system of the at least one computing device” as recited in claim 1, 10, 16
Dependent claims do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies of claim 1, 10, 16, and thus, the respective dependent claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1, 10, 16 as a result.
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, 5-6, 9, 10, 13-14, 16, 19-20, 23, 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (similarly 10 and 16) recites, “A … method comprising:
obtaining ergonomic-related data pertaining to an individual within a work environment, at least one computing device being used by the individual within the work environment, and the work environment, wherein obtaining the ergonomic-related data comprises:
capturing the ergonomic-related data pertaining to the individual within the work environment by determining a distance of the individual from a screen associated with the at least one computing device, using at least … positioned within the work environment capturing the ergonomic-related data pertaining to the work environment by automatically determining one or more illuminance values, …, attributed to at least a portion of the work environment, using at least one ... positioned within the work environment; and
capturing the ergonomic-related data pertaining to the at least one computing device by automatically accessing an operating system of the at least one computing device and processing one or more screen brightness values, attributed to the screen associated with the at least one computing device, from the operating system;
determining ergonomic parameter values by processing at least a portion of the obtained ergonomic-related data using one or more models, wherein determining ergonomic parameter values comprises:
determining at least one ergonomic parameter value pertaining to the individual's distance from the screen associated with the at least one computing device in the work environment, at least one ergonomic parameter value pertaining to illumination in the work environment, and at least one ergonomic parameter value pertaining to the individual's posture, wherein determining the at least one ergonomic parameter value pertaining to the individual's posture is based at least in part on: (i) calculating one or more elbow angles attributed to the individual using at least one posture-related ergonomic model, (ii) calculating one or more leg angles attributed to the individual using the at least one posture-related ergonomic model, and (iii) calculating one or more back angles attributed to the individual using the at least one posture-related ergonomic model; and
generating at least one ergonomic index by aggregating the ergonomic parameter values in conjunction with weights applied to the ergonomic parameter values;
generating and outputting at least one notification based at least in part on the at least one ergonomic index; and
performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on one or more of the at least one ergonomic index and the at least one notification, wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically initiating, by transmitting action instructions to one or more … associated with the work environment, modification of one or more physical components within the work environment, the modification pertaining to at least one illumination device within the work environment and configuration adjustment of at least one screen brightness value in the operating system of the at least one computing device in the work environment;
wherein the method is performed by ….”
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitations regarding, …obtaining ergonomic-related data pertaining to an individual within a work environment, at least one computing device being used by the individual within the work environment, and the work environment, wherein obtaining the ergonomic-related data comprises: capturing the ergonomic-related data pertaining to the individual within the work environment by determining a distance of the individual from a screen associated with the at least one computing device, using at least … positioned within the work environment capturing the ergonomic-related data pertaining to the work environment by automatically determining one or more illuminance values, …, attributed to at least a portion of the work environment, using at least one ... positioned within the work environment; and capturing the ergonomic-related data pertaining to the at least one computing device by automatically accessing an operating system of the at least one computing device and processing one or more screen brightness values, attributed to the screen associated with the at least one computing device, from the operating system; determining ergonomic parameter values by processing at least a portion of the obtained ergonomic-related data using one or more models, wherein determining ergonomic parameter values comprises: determining at least one ergonomic parameter value pertaining to the individual's distance from the screen associated with the at least one computing device in the work environment, at least one ergonomic parameter value pertaining to illumination in the work environment, and at least one ergonomic parameter value pertaining to the individual's posture, wherein determining the at least one ergonomic parameter value pertaining to the individual's posture is based at least in part on: (i) calculating one or more elbow angles attributed to the individual using at least one posture-related ergonomic model, (ii) calculating one or more leg angles attributed to the individual using the at least one posture-related ergonomic model, and (iii) calculating one or more back angles attributed to the individual using the at least one posture-related ergonomic model; and generating at least one ergonomic index by aggregating the ergonomic parameter values in conjunction with weights applied to the ergonomic parameter values; generating and outputting at least one notification based at least in part on the at least one ergonomic index; and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on one or more of the at least one ergonomic index and the at least one notification, wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically initiating, by transmitting action instructions to one or more … associated with the work environment, modification of one or more physical components within the work environment, the modification pertaining to at least one illumination device within the work environment and configuration adjustment of at least one screen brightness value in the operating system of the at least one computing device in the work environment;…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can include a human using their mind and using pen and paper to perform the identified limitations; therefore, the claims are directed to a mental process.
Further, …obtaining ergonomic-related data pertaining to an individual within a work environment, at least one computing device being used by the individual within the work environment, and the work environment, wherein obtaining the ergonomic-related data comprises: capturing the ergonomic-related data pertaining to the individual within the work environment by determining a distance of the individual from a screen associated with the at least one computing device, using at least … positioned within the work environment capturing the ergonomic-related data pertaining to the work environment by automatically determining one or more illuminance values, …, attributed to at least a portion of the work environment, using at least one ... positioned within the work environment; and capturing the ergonomic-related data pertaining to the at least one computing device by automatically accessing an operating system of the at least one computing device and processing one or more screen brightness values, attributed to the screen associated with the at least one computing device, from the operating system; determining ergonomic parameter values by processing at least a portion of the obtained ergonomic-related data using one or more models, wherein determining ergonomic parameter values comprises: determining at least one ergonomic parameter value pertaining to the individual's distance from the screen associated with the at least one computing device in the work environment, at least one ergonomic parameter value pertaining to illumination in the work environment, and at least one ergonomic parameter value pertaining to the individual's posture, wherein determining the at least one ergonomic parameter value pertaining to the individual's posture is based at least in part on: (i) calculating one or more elbow angles attributed to the individual using at least one posture-related ergonomic model, (ii) calculating one or more leg angles attributed to the individual using the at least one posture-related ergonomic model, and (iii) calculating one or more back angles attributed to the individual using the at least one posture-related ergonomic model; and generating at least one ergonomic index by aggregating the ergonomic parameter values in conjunction with weights applied to the ergonomic parameter values; generating and outputting at least one notification based at least in part on the at least one ergonomic index; and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on one or more of the at least one ergonomic index and the at least one notification, wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically initiating, by transmitting action instructions to one or more … associated with the work environment, modification of one or more physical components within the work environment, the modification pertaining to at least one illumination device within the work environment and configuration adjustment of at least one screen brightness value in the operating system of the at least one computing device in the work environment;…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are human observing human workspace posture and ergonomics to make recommendations to improve human work posture and ergonomics, therefore it is, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Thus, the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea identified under Step 2A, Prong 1, such as:
Claim 1, 10, 16: computer-implemented, automated systems, processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, A non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device causes the at least one processing device, An apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory; the at least one processing device, one or more systems, one web-based camera, measured in lumen per square meter, ambient illumination sensor, operating system of the at least one computing device
, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer.
Additionally, with respect to, “…obtaining …”, “capturing…”, “…measured…”, “…accessing an operating system of the at least one computing device and processing one or more screen brightness values, attributed to the screen associated with the at least one computing device, from the operating system…”, “generate and output…”, “automatically initiating, by transmitting action instructions to…”, “perform one or more automated actions…”, “…modification of one or more physical components within the work environment, the modification pertaining to at least one of illumination within the work environment and configuration of the at least one device screen in the work environment…”, “…configuration adjustment of at least one screen brightness value…”, these elements do not add a meaningful limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are extra-solution activity, pre and post solution activity - i.e. data gathering – “…obtaining …”, “capturing…”, “…measured…”, “accessing an operating system of the at least one computing device and processing one or more screen brightness values, attributed to the screen associated with the at least one computing device, from the operating system…”, data output –“ generate and output…”, “automatically initiating, by transmitting action instructions to…”, “perform one or more automated actions…”, “…modification of one or more physical components within the work environment, the modification pertaining to at least one of illumination within the work environment and configuration of the at least one device screen in the work environment…”, “…configuration adjustment of at least one screen brightness value…”
Analyzing under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because, as an order combination, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it).
Additionally, as an order combination, the additional elements append the recited abstract idea to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field as individually evinced by the applicant’s own disclosure, as required by the Berkheimer Memo, in at least:
assessing work environments of individuals working at home and/or remotely and generating and outputting one or more suggestive values in real-time to evaluate ergonomics associated with the individuals. Such an embodiment includes implementing an evaluation index referred to herein as a human computer ergonomics index, which includes one or more weightages of one or more parameters. The parameters can include real-time input data from one or more work environment-related sources (e.g., computer webcams, light sensors, microphones, etc.) and/or user feedback (e.g., user inputs pertaining to computer screen size, screen resolution, screen brightness, etc.).
Step 306 includes performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on one or more of the one or more ergonomic values and the at least one notification. In one or more embodiments, performing one or more automated actions includes generating and outputting, to the individual via one or more automated systems, one or more recommendations for improving at least one of the one or more ergonomic parameter values.
in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, and further detailed herein, one or more embodiments includes implementing at least one illumination-related ergonomic model, which can process inputs in the form of, for example, illumination values captured and/or obtained using one or more ambient light sensors, one or more cameras (e.g., webcam(s)) associated with a given screen and/or work environment, etc. Such a model can be implemented to determine one or more parameters related to illumination, such as, for example, lighting brightness in a given space and/or room within a work environment. In one or more embodiments, such a model can process inputs such as screen brightness values L, which can be determined and/or indicated (e.g., as a percentage value) via the corresponding operating system (OS). Based at least in part on the determined screen brightness value, at least one embodiment includes computing a recommended environmental illuminance value (iR) using, for example, a formula such as follows: iR= 0.36 * L2. In such an embodiment, 0.36 is a coefficient value (and it is to be appreciated that one or more other embodiments can include one or more different coefficient values). In at least one embodiment, the recommended environmental illuminance (iR) value can represent a room lighting metric that is recommended for the user's eyes, and la can represent actual illumination in the room. Accordingly, in such an embodiment, if la<iR, the user can be notified to turn the room lights up or on, and if la>iR, the user can be notified to turn the room lights down or off
an alert can be generated and output to the user indicating the ergonomic index and/or one or more of the individual parameter scores, as well as one or more recommendations automatically generated and output to the user and/or one or more external and/or automated systems, wherein such recommendations include recommendations for improving one or more aspects of the provided ergonomic data
In one or more embodiments, such recommendations are determined based at least in part on the individual ergonomics. For example, if the ergonomics index is poor, but within it, the posture and the screen-to-user distance is good while the brightness of the room is poor, a recommendation can be generated to adjust the brightness of the room, wherein such a recommendation is delivered and/or output to the user, e.g., via text on the screen.
However, as the day becomes evening, and the natural light diminishes, the illumination in the room reaches a particular threshold (e.g., crosses below a predetermined level of brightness), and an alert is generated and output to the user, as well as an automatically generated recommendation that the user can then switch on one or more supplemental light sources in the room to improve the ergonomics index.
As is apparent from the above, one or more of the processing modules or other components of system 100 may each run on a computer, server, storage device or other processing platform element. A given such element is viewed as an example of what is more generally referred to herein as a "processing device." The cloud infrastructure 400 shown in FIG. 4 may represent at least a portion of one processing platform. Another example of such a processing platform is processing platform 500 shown in FIG. 5.
Also, numerous other arrangements of computers, servers, storage products or devices, or other components are possible in the information processing system 100. Such components can communicate with other elements of the information processing system 100 over any type of network or other communication media. For example, particular types of storage products that can be used in implementing a given storage system of an information processing system in an illustrative embodiment include all-flash and hybrid flash storage arrays, scale-out all-flash storage arrays, scale-out NAS clusters, or other types of storage arrays. Combinations of multiple ones of these and other storage products can also be used in implementing a given storage system in an illustrative embodiment.
It should again be emphasized that the above-described embodiments are presented for purposes of illustration only. Many variations and other alternative embodiments may be used. Also, the particular configurations of system and device elements and associated processing operations illustratively shown in the drawings can be varied in other embodiments. Thus, for example, the particular types of processing devices, modules, systems and resources deployed in a given embodiment and their respective configurations may be varied. Moreover, the various assumptions made above in the course of describing the illustrative embodiments should also be viewed as exemplary rather than as requirements or limitations of the disclosure. Numerous other alternative embodiments within the scope of the appended claims will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art.
Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Moreover, the remaining elements of dependent claims do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these remaining elements merely recite further abstract limitations that provide nothing more than simply a narrowing of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components to “apply” the recited abstract idea, perform insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1, 5-6, 9, 10, 13-14, 16, 19-20, 23, 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PO HAN MAX LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3821. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 8:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. 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.uspto.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.
/PO HAN LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights