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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on July 23, 2026 for the patent application 17/993,460 filed on November 23, 2022. Claims 1, 11 and 21 are amended. Claims 15-20 are cancelled. Claims 1-14 and 21-25 are pending. The first office action of August 28, 2025; the second office action of January 2, 2026; and the third office action of April 23, 2026 are fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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 1-14 and 21-25 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a synthetic training system” (i.e. a machine) and claims 11 and 21 are directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “synthetic training,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“…receive user input based on user actuation… and to transmit the user input;
…measure physical information… and to transmit the physical information…;
…capture calibration information…or to input the calibration information…
from a configuration file, wherein the calibration information comprises at least one of a geometric property, functional property, positional property, orientational property, acceleration property, or inertial property…, and to store the calibration information…or to transmit the calibration information;
…transmit user information …receive simulation information…, the user information based on the user input, based on the physical information, and
based on the calibration information, and the simulation information based on the
user input, based on the physical information, and based on a mapping of aspects of…to a model …based on the calibration information of the live training object;
wherein the processing device is configured to modify at least one of the user input or the physical information based on the calibration information, and wherein the simulation information is based on the modified at least one of the user input or the physical information and on a mapping, generated based on the calibration information, of movements and actuations …to corresponding movements and actuations of a model …within the simulation; and
…present a simulation to the user, wherein the simulation is based on the simulation information.
Per claim 11:
“receiving user input based on user actuation… and transmitting the user input…;
measuring physical information … and transmitting the physical information …;
…capturing calibration information …or inputting the calibration information …from a configuration file, wherein the calibration information comprises at least one of a geometric property, functional property, positional property, orientational property, acceleration property, or inertial property…, and storing the calibration information…or transmitting the calibration information …;
transmitting user information …and receiving simulation information …, the user information based on the user input, based on the physical information, and based on the calibration information…, and the simulation information based on the user input, based on the physical information, and based on a mapping of aspects … to a model …based on the calibration information …;
modifying at least one of the user input or the physical information based on the calibration information, wherein the simulation information is based on the modified at least one of the user input or the physical information and on a mapping, generated based on the calibration information, of movements and actuations…to corresponding movements and actuations of a model within the simulation; and
presenting a simulation to the user, wherein the simulation is based on the simulation information.”
Per claim 21:
“detecting physical attachment of a modular adaptive control device to a live training object;
entering a calibration mode based on determining that the live training object is a new connection for the modular adaptive control device;
while in the calibration mode, configuring calibration information for control of the live training object in a simulated environment, wherein the configuring of the calibration information establishes control over the live training object based on identifying physical specification information pertaining to the live training object, wherein the calibration information comprises at least one of a geometric property, functional property, positional property, orientational property, acceleration property, or inertial property of the live training object, and calibrating sensor information for sensors attached to the modular adaptive control device based on user input detected from user interaction with the live training object while the modular adaptive control device is attached; and
storing the configured calibration information for control of the live training object in the simulated environment.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a processing device,” “a memory device,” “an input interface,” “a live training object,” “a measurement device,” “a simulation server,” “a communications interface” and “an output device,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “synthetic training,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a processing device,” “a memory device,” “an input interface,” “a live training object,” “a measurement device,” “a simulation server,” “a communications interface” and “an output device,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these 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), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a processing device,” as described in paras. [0030] and [0031] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0030] Processing device 202 includes any suitable hardware and/or software for displaying a simulation and receiving input from a user. For example, in some implementations, processing device 202 includes a central processing unit (CPU) and/or a graphics processing unit (GPU). In some implementations, processing device 202 includes a personal computer, smart phone, and/or programmable microcontroller, such as an Arduino™ or Raspberry Pi™ device. Processing device 202 also includes a memory 214, however it is noted that, as with other aspects of interface device 200, memory 214 may be in communication with but outside of processing device 202 instead.”
“[0031] In some implementations, processing device 202 includes processor 102 as shown and described with respect to FIG. 1, or aspects thereof. In some implementations, processing device 202
includes further elements as shown and described with respect to FIG. 1, such as memory 104, storage 106, input driver 112, output driver 114, input devices 108, and/or output devices 110.” As such, the Applicant’s claimed “a processing device,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional computer component.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a memory device,” as described in para. [0020] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0020] Some implementations provide a synthetic training system. The system includes a processing device, and a memory device. The system also includes an input interface configured to receive user input based on user actuation of a live training object and to transmit the user input to the processing device. The system also includes a measurement device physically coupled to the live training object and configured to measure physical information of the live training object and to transmit the physical information to the processing device. The processing device is configured to capture calibration information via the measurement device or the input interface and to store the calibration information in the memory device or to transmit the calibration information to a simulation server.” As such, the Applicant’s claimed “a memory device,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional computer component.
Further, the Applicant’s claimed “an input interface,” and “a measurement device,” as described in para. [0021] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0021] In some implementations, the processing device is configured to modify the user input based on the calibration information. In some implementations, the input interface comprises a button, pressure sensor, angle sensor, or switch. In some implementations, the measurement device comprises a position sensor, level sensor, or accelerometer.” As such, the Applicant’s claimed “an input interface,” and “a measurement device,” are reasonably interpreted as any generic, well-known, conventional and commercially available hardware components.
Continuing, the Applicant’s claimed “a live training object,” as described in para. [0021] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0021] … In some implementations, the live training object comprises a piece of equipment or a surrogate for the piece of equipment. In some implementations, the live training object comprises a infrared zoom laser illuminator designator (IZLID), laser rangefinder, or lightweight laser designator rangefinder (LLDR).” As such, the Applicant’s claimed “a live training object,” is reasonably interpreted as any generic, well-known, and conventional component.
Also, the Applicant’s claimed “a simulation server,” as described in para. [0043] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0043] Simulation server 212 includes a computer server, laptop, cloud computing system, or any other suitable hardware and/or software configured to run a training simulation program and provide a simulated and/or synthetic training environment to a user, e.g., via a user interface device such as device 200.” As such, the Applicant’s claimed “a simulation server,” is reasonably interpreted as any generic, well-known, conventional and commercially available computer product.
Still further, the Applicant’s claimed “a communications interface” as described in para. [0040] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0040] Communications interface 210 includes any suitable device for communications between processing device 202 and simulation server 212. Communications interface 210 communicates with simulation server 212 via any suitable wired or wireless communications interface and/or medium. For example, in some implementations, such as a Universal Serial Bus™ (USB). For example, in some implementations, communications interface 210 includes a wireless network transceiver, such as a dual-band WiFi transceiver, or a wired interface, such as a USB receiver and transmitter. Communications interface 210 can be considered an input and/or output device, in some implementations, however it is described separately herein for clarity and ease of description.”As such, the Applicant’s claimed “a communications interface” is reasonably interpreted as any generic, well-known, conventional and commercially available computer interface product.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “an output device,” as described in para. [0021] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0021] …In some implementations, the output device comprises a display, projector, haptic inter-face, and/or virtual reality headset.” As such, the Applicant’s claimed an output device,” is reasonably interpreted as any generic, well-known, and conventional commercially available computer display product. Therefore, these elements (i.e. “a processing device,” “a memory device,” “an input interface,” “a live training object,” “a measurement device,” “a simulation server,” “a communications interface” and “an output device”) are regarded as ubiquitous computer elements that are part of commercially available products which do not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-10, 12-14 and 22-25 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-10, 12-14 and 22-25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 11 or 21. Therefore, claims 1-14 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks filed on July 23, 2026 related to claims 1-14 and 21-25 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Even assuming, solely for purposes of argument, that some portion of claim 1 could be characterized as involving an abstract idea, the claim as a whole integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. USPTO guidance recognizes that a claim can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when the claim reflects an improvement to another technology or technical field, applies the exception using a particular machine integral to the claim, or imposes meaningful limits beyond merely applying an exception on a generic computer.
Here, the claim addresses a concrete technical problem in synthetic training systems; i.e., that prior systems required a simulated replica to be designed or purchased for each device to be added to the simulation. The application discusses an interface that can attach to real-world equipment and translate that equipment into the simulation, can be calibrated to provide a more accurate representation of the live training device, and can turn real-world equipment into a simulation or video-game controller.
The amended claim reflects that technical solution. The claimed processing device enters a calibration mode and, during that calibration mode, captures or loads calibration information of the live training object. The calibration information includes object-specific properties, such as geometric, functional, positional, orientational, acceleration, or inertial properties of the live training object. The specification expressly supports this calibration capability and explains that such properties are captured and applied to the simulation to more accurately represent the live training device and/or user in the simulation.
The amended claim also requires more than simply receiving and displaying data. It requires that the processing device modify at least one of the user input or the physical information based on the calibration information, and that the simulation information be based on a mapping of aspects of the live training object to a model of the live training object within the simulation based on the calibration information. The specification describes this same technical operation: the input and/or measurements may be modified based on calibration information; movements of the live training device may be mapped to the simulation based on calibration information; and aspects of the live training device may be mapped to a model of the live training device within the simulation based on calibration information.
Thus, amended claim 1 is not merely using a computer to perform training. The claim recites a particular physical-machine interface in which a measurement device is physically coupled to a live training object, an input interface receives actuation of that live training object, calibration information of that live training object is captured or loaded, and that calibration information is used to modify physical/user input data and map aspects of the live training object to a corresponding simulation model. These limitations improve the technical field of synthetic training by allowing real-world or organic equipment to be accurately integrated into simulated environments without requiring a specialized simulation replica for each item of equipment.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, arguments with regard to “addresses a concrete technical problem” are best suited for arguing rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The test for 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility requires claims to be examined using the “two-part Mayo test” for determining subject-matter eligibility, as previously performed above. As such, the argument is not proper for facilitating a 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility discussion. Second, the Applicant is misconstruing the proper analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, the Applicant is merely using the computer as a tool to carry out the abstract idea by applying it to a different medium. Finally, it is unclear as to what “particular physical-machine interface,” the Applicant is refereeing to, since the claimed elements of “a processing device,” “a memory device,” “an input interface,” “a live training object,” “a measurement device,” “a simulation server,” “a communications interface” and “an output device,” are discussed in step 2B of the analysis as generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Nor can the amended limitations reasonably be characterized as a mental process. Capturing measurements from a measurement device physically coupled to a live training object, entering a calibration mode, modifying physical information based on object-specific calibration information, and generating simulation information based on calibration-based mapping of a live object to a simulation model are not operations that can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. USPTO guidance confirms that eligibility analysis should focus on whether the claim reflects a technological solution to a technological problem, and that improvements to computer-related or other technical fields can integrate an alleged exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, amended claim 1 is patent eligible at least under Step 2A, Prong Two, because the claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application: an improved synthetic-training interface architecture for calibrating and mapping a physical live training object to a model of that object within a simulation.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required, Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the independent claim limitation performs steps that are performed on a generic “processing device,” to further provide a solution in a computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept.
Second, the Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Alternatively, amended claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea under Step 2B. The ordered combination of a physically coupled measurement device, an input interface receiving actuation of a live training object, calibration-mode capture or loading of object-specific calibration information, calibration-based modification of input or physical information, and calibration-based mapping of the live training object to a simulation model is not a mere instruction to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer. The rejection therefore fails to establish that amended claim 1 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
For at least these reasons, withdrawal of the §101 rejection of claim 1 is respectfully requested. Claims depending from claim 1 are patent eligible for at least the same reasons.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is conclusory and provides no evidence supporting the statement that “a simulation model is not a mere instruction to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer.” Instead, the Applicant’s claimed elements of “a processing device,” “a memory device,” “an input interface,” “a live training object,” “a measurement device,” “a simulation server,” “a communications interface” and “an output device,” are nothing more than generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements as previously described above in the rejection. As such, the Applicant’s claimed elements are reasonably interpreted as ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computer networking and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and for the reasons stated here and above, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Applicant’s arguments are moot, since rejections under 35 U.S.C.§102 are no longer warranted.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Applicant’s arguments are moot, since rejections under 35 U.S.C.§103 are no longer warranted.
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 ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached on (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 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 P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights