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 .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/032,595 filed on 03/01/20246/12/2023.
Claims 11-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-10 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 05/26/2023 is considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claim 11, and all dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitations of: “a method for controlling a computer program with the aid of an input device for detecting electromyography signals or actuation movement signals of a user”.
The limitation of controlling a computer program with the aid of an input device for detecting electromyography signals or actuation movement signals of a user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claims preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using an input device to detect electromyography signals or actuation movement signals of a user; selecting the selecting probable program sequences from possible program sequences; executing the selected probable sequences. The input device recites at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer processing electrical activity of muscle and nerves to detect neuromuscular disorders of users) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In the instant case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of selecting an effective program sequence from the program sequences that have been executed, at least in part, in advance, the effective program sequence being made operational, the probable program sequences being selected taking a predicted user input or detected electromyography signal into account, and the effective program sequence being selected taking detected electromyography signals or detected actuation movement signals into account, and are determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Thus, the additional element fails to ensure the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 11-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Young Andrew et al. (US PG PUB 2019/0354173).
As per claims 11 and 15-20, Young discloses a method that involves tracking movement of an eye of a user with a gaze tracking system located in a head mounted (see., Young, abstract), comprising:
Controlling a computer program with the aid of an input device to detect electromyography signals or actuation movement signals of a user; selecting probable program sequences from possible program sequences; executing the selecting probable program sequences;
selecting an effective program sequence from the program sequences that have been executed, at least in part, in advance, the effective program sequence being made operational, the probable program sequences being selected taking a predicted (paragraphs 0038-0040, predicting the landing points on the display) user input or detected electromyography signal into account, and the effective program sequence being selected taking detected electromyography signals or detected actuation movement signals into account (see., paragraphs 0021, 0022, 0054, 0038, 0039-0042).
As per claim 12, Young discloses the claimed limitations as stated in claim 11 above, wherein a program sequence involves a state determination and an output synthesis, and the state determination or the output synthesis is executed when the selected probable program sequences are executed, at least in part, in advance (see., paragraphs 0021, 0022, 0054, 0038, 0039-0042).
As per claim 13, Young discloses the claimed limitations as stated in claim 11 above, wherein the computer program is executed in a client server structure that includes at least one client and at least one server (see., paragraphs 0021, 0022, 0054, 0038, 0039-0042).
As per claim 14, Young discloses the claimed limitation as stated in claim 11 above, wherein a user input is predicted on the client side or on the server side (see., paragraphs 0038-0040).
Conclusion
US PG PUB 2008/0161113 Hansen, Andrew S. et.
9. This patent teaches a performance parameter of a video game that can be predictive performance parameter where the prediction is associated with a real-life prediction of a player’s performance and/or team’s performance in an upcoming sporting event.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 7:30PM. Hoteler.
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, Hu Kang can be reached on 571 270 1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights