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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 2/4/26 are hereby entered.
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 1-3, 6-12, and 15-17 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-17 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being, a method of organizing human activity, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment.
In regard to Claims 1, 9, and 10, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or recite a method of organizing human activity in terms of claiming the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as being a method of organizing human activity, in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] method for […] estimating information on a golf swing posture […] the method comprising the steps of:
[…]
[receiving data regarding] a two-dimensional image of the user’s golf swing […];
[…] generating a two-dimensional heat map by inputting the two-dimensional image to [a mathematical/statistical] model, wherein a value of each pixel of the two-dimensional heat map indicates a probability that corresponding pixel corresponds to a joint of the user;
[…] estimating a trajectory of a golf ball according to the user's golf swing from the […] image using the [mathematical/statistical] model;
[…] adjusting a determination criterion for a golf swing of a user on the basis of the […] two-dimensional heat map;
[…] estimating information on a golf swing posture of the user on the basis of the adjusted determination criterion, and
[…] pointing out a problem in the user's golf swing posture to the user with reference to the information on the golf swing posture,
wherein in the adjusting step, the determination criterion is adjusted on the basis of the trajectory of the golf ball,
wherein in the adjusting step, a ball flight of the golf ball is determined on the basis of the trajectory of the golf ball, and the determination criterion is adjusted with reference to the determined ball flight, and
wherein in the adjusting step, the determination criterion is more tightly adjusted in response to determining that the user's golf swing posture is more likely to have a problem influencing the ball flight of the golf ball, with reference to the […] image.
In regard to Claims 1, 9, and 10, the following limitations claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment which has held by the CAFC to be abstract in, e.g., Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp (2023-2437; 4/18/25), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[…] light-weighting an artificial neural network model using depthwise convolution and pointwise convolution to obtain a light-weighted artificial neural network model, wherein a depth of each kernel in the depthwise convolution is reduced to 1 and each of a width and a height of each kernel in the pointwise convolution is reduced to 1;
[…] estimating a trajectory of a golf ball according to the user's golf swing from the […] image using the light-weighted artificial neural network model.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being, a method of organizing human activity, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executing on a generic computer processor; and/or light-weighting an artificial neural network model, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executing on a generic computer processor; and/or light-weighting an artificial neural network model, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements 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). See, e.g., F1 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same; and see, e.g., F2B and p55 in regard to light-weighting an artificial neural network model.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101 that it does not claim an abstract idea because “light-weighting an artificial neural network model” alleged cannot “practically [be] performed in the human mind”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because these limitations are not identified in the 101 rejection as being part of the abstract idea alleged to be a mental process.
Applicant further argues in this regard that it allegedly claims patent eligible subject matter because employing a “light-weighted artificial neural network” employs fewer computing resources than employing some other algorithm instead. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. The fact that Applicant may claim an abstract idea that is, e.g., shorter and/or faster than some other abstract idea when it Applicant’s abstract idea is embodied as computer software is simply an artifact of that embodiment and not, in other words, a general improvement to a computing device’s ability to run any computer program more quickly. In other words, Applicant does not claim some improvement to light-weighting neural networks generally. Furthermore, Applicant’s claimed limitations in regard to the “light-weighted artificial neural network” cannot constitute an improvement to computing technology because the disclosure in Applicant’s specification is so minimal it would not be enabling were this technology not already well-known, routine, and conventional. The entirety of Applicant’s disclosure in regard to “light-weighted artificial neural network” is a diagram which offers virtually no detail in regard to what it depicts:
PNG
media_image1.png
236
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And one paragraph in Applicant’s specification:
PNG
media_image2.png
284
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
By contending in its argument that the “light-weighted artificial neural network” is itself an improvement to computing technology, Applicant is essentially contending that this one diagram and one paragraph were they filed as a stand-alone patent application would be enabling. This is simply not credible. The patent application for the alleged improvement that was the subject of the Ex parte Desjardins decision, by comparison, is 96 paragraphs long.
Applicant’s arguments in regard to the Berkheimer finding are largely addressed by the Response made in the FOA dated 7/16/25 to similar arguments that were prior made by the Applicant. Furthermore, Applicant cites a great number of limitations on page 13 of its Remarks (“where in the adjusting step, the determination criterion…swing”) as not being well-known, routine, and conventional. Applicant’s argument is mis-placed because almost all of these limitations are identified in the rejection as being part of the abstract idea and not claimed in addition to that abstract idea. And the fact that these limitations may allegedly be novel and/or non-obvious is not germane to the question of whether or not they are abstract.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 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 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.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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715