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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
This is a response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 21 October 2025, wherein:
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-10 are amended.
Claim 3 and 5 are canceled.
Claim 11 is previously presented.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(b) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how the at least one processor can store to the one or more memories when it is only “coupled to at least one of the one or more memories”. In other words, being coupled to at least one of the one or more memories includes not being coupled to all of the memories in the system while the storing limitation includes storing to all of the memories in the system. Thus, it is unclear how the at least one processor can store to one or more memories that it is not coupled to. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. To rectify this issue, Applicant can either amend “coupled to at least one of the one or more memories” to “coupled to the at least one of the one or more memories”. Dependent claims, 2, 4, and 6-9 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear how the feature is “a pressure value obtained from a pressure sensor with which a body part of the subject corresponding to the first part of the subject is in contact” when independent claim 1 recites that the feature is “a difference between the estimated posture of the subject and a reference posture included in a range within which the specific posture falls, and the unit fatigue level is corrected with a greater amount of correction as the difference increases”. These are two different embodiments of what the feature is, and thus the feature cannot be both at the same time as claimed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(a) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the estimating the fatigue level of the subject comprises: obtaining object detection information indicating presence or absence of the object” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, the disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim without any description of the structure, steps, or calculations necessary to perform the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 29, 31, 32, and 81-84 of the specification. The most information is provided in para. 32 of the specification which recites, in results-based language, "that the detection of an object in the vicinity of subject 11 is performed based on images obtained from imaging device 101."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(b) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-11 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 including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
STEP 1
The instant claims are directed to a product which falls under the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
STEP 2A, PRONG 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A fatigue estimation system comprising:
a display;
one or more memories; and
at least one processor coupled to at least one of the one or more memories and configured to perform operations comprising:
outputting information regarding locations of body parts of a subject;
storing, to the one or more memories, postural fatigue information, the postural fatigue information being information in which a specific posture of the subject is associated with a unit fatigue level, the unit fatigue level indicating a level of fatigue accumulated in the subject as a result of the subject keeping the specific posture for a unit time; and
estimating a fatigue level of the subject in a predetermined time period, the fatigue level indicating a level of fatigue accumulated in the subject, wherein
the estimating the fatigue level of the subject comprises:
estimating a posture of the subject in the predetermined time period based on the information output in the predetermined time period;
determining whether the estimated posture of the subject matches the specific posture;
estimating, as the fatigue level of the subject in the predetermined time period, a calculated value obtained by the unit fatigue level being accumulated in accordance with a time period in which the estimated posture of the subject is determined to match the specific posture;
when determining that the estimated posture of the subject matches the specific posture, the estimating the fatigue level of the subject comprises:
obtaining a feature of the estimated posture of the subject;
correcting the unit fatigue level using the feature; and
estimating, as the fatigue level of the subject in the predetermined time period, a calculated value obtained by the corrected unit fatigue level being accumulated in accordance with the time period in which the estimate posture of the subject is determined to match the specific posture;
the feature is a difference between the estimated posture of the subject and a reference posture included in a range within which the specific posture falls, and the unit fatigue level is corrected with a greater amount of correction as the difference increases; and
the operations further comprise displaying the fatigue level of the subject on the display.
Independent claim 10 recites:
A fatigue estimation method comprising:
obtaining information regarding locations of body parts of a subject;
reading postural fatigue information from a storage device, the postural fatigue information being information in which a specific posture of the subject is associated with a unit fatigue level, the unit fatigue level indicating a level of fatigue accumulated in the subject as a result of the subject keeping the specific posture for a unit time;
estimating a fatigue level of the subject in a predetermined time period, the fatigue level indicating a level of fatigue accumulated in the subject;
estimating a posture of the subject in the predetermined time period based on the information output in the predetermined time period;
determining whether the estimated posture of the subject matches the specific posture;
estimating, as the fatigue level of the subject in the predetermined time period, a calculated value obtained by the unit fatigue level being accumulated in accordance with a time period in which the estimated posture of the subject is determined to match the specific posture; wherein
when determining that the estimated posture of the subject matches the specific posture, the estimating the fatigue level of the subject comprises:
obtaining a feature of the estimated posture of the subject;
correcting the unit fatigue level using the feature; and
estimating, as the fatigue level of the subject in the predetermined time period, a calculated value obtained by the corrected unit fatigue level being accumulated in accordance with the time period in which the estimate posture of the subject is determined to match the specific posture;
the feature is a difference between the estimated posture of the subject and a reference posture included in a range within which the specific posture falls, and the unit fatigue level is corrected with a greater amount of correction as the difference increases; and
the method further comprise displaying the fatigue level of the subject on a display.
All of the foregoing underlined elements amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because they amount to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. Additionally, the steps identified above are interpreted as a series of steps that could reasonably be performed by mental processes with the aid of pen and paper because the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Lastly, the estimating and determining steps amount to the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts because they recite mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations as defined in MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(I) which recites that a “mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers [that] may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols” such as “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” and that a “claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping” because a “mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation."
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
STEP 2A, PRONG 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claim(s) above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a fatigue estimation system (claim 1), a display (claims 1 and 10), one or more memories (claim 1), at least one processor coupled to at least one of the one or more memories and configured to perform operations (claim 1), a pressure sensor (claim 4), an object (claims 6 and 7), and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the method (claim 11). Although the claims recite the components, identified above, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic functions (i.e., collecting, processing, outputting data). This is evidenced in Fig. 1 which illustrates the components as a collection of non-descript black boxes. Furthermore, the method is silent regarding any structural element actively performing any step. Thus, the method is construed as performed entirely by a human. Additionally, the specification identifies that the apparatus is not comprised of a particular machine nor consists of a particular arrangement. See, for example, at least para. 12-24 and 91-107. Therefore, the process does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims also do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology as the claims are focused on collecting data, analyzing data, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. In other words, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to implementation in a computer environment. This also evidences that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of a computer system. The information output device and pressure sensor, as claimed and organized, merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). Similarly, the storage device, as claimed and organized, merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere extra-solution data storage in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, the additional elements, both individually and as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore are directed to the abstract idea. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
STEP 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. Consideration of these factors, in viewing the claimed invention as a whole, weighs against patentability. As identified in Prong 2 of Step 2A, above, the claimed invention does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed 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 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Furthermore, this also evidences that the components are an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. The lack of improvement to the computer or other technology is also evidenced by the lack of incorporation of specific rules which enable the automation of a computer-implemented task that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans. None of the recited hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed both individually and as a whole, any possible additional claim element does not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC 101 because they are directed to judicial exceptions (abstract ideas), and the claims as a whole do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exceptions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) have been fully considered. The amendments render the interpretations moot. Thus, these interpretations have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered. The amendments obviate the associated rejection. Thus, this rejection has been withdrawn. However, it is noted that the amendments necessitate new rejections of the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that amendments obviate the rejection.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejection which has been updated to address the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that amendments obviate the rejection.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejection which has been updated to address the amendments to the claims.
Under Prong 2 of Step 2A, Applicant asserts that the claimed system (i) outputs information regarding body part locations, (ii) estimates fatigue based on posture and time information, and (iii) displays the estimated fatigue level on a display. These operations are performed by a processor coupled with memory and a physical display, forming a specific combination of elements that performs a technical function, namely, real-time fatigue monitoring and visualization based on postural analysis.
Examiner is not persuaded. All of the steps (i)-(iii) are wholly encompassed in the judicial exception. Furthermore, Applicant’s assertion of merely being performed by a processor coupled with memory and a physical display is a direct admission that the elements are merely using a computer as tool to implement the judicial exception, particularly when a common computing device comprises a processor coupled with memory and a display (and thus is not a specific combination of elements).
Applicant also asserts that MPEP 2106.05(a)(c), (d), and (f) discuss that the claimed display element provides a meaningful limitation that applies the abstract idea in a concrete way. Here, Applicant further asserts that it enables users to visually perceive fatigue information derived from sensor data.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant misrepresents the discussion in the MPEP regarding a display as claimed. In particular, the MPEP clearly identifies that merely using a display to output information is wholly encompassed in the judicial exception. See, for example, at least example (iii) that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) – gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. Similarly, the courts have repeatedly identified the mere use of a display to output information as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that amendments obviate the rejection.
Examiner is not persuaded.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 and 9-11 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered. The amendments obviate the associated rejections. Thus, these rejections have been withdrawn.
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 DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights