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 the Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are currently amended.
Claim 13 is canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, and 14-20 are currently pending following this response.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2025 and on 03/10/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’). Applicant’s arguments page 9, receiving a corresponding indication of posture risk level for each digital human model performing a task, wherein each received posture risk level is a result from a respective simulation performed using a respective digital human model; determining a weighted average of the received corresponding indications of posture risk level, wherein the determined weighted average is indicative of ergonomic risk to a real-world worker performing the task in the workplace; and outputting the determined weighted average, wherein the outputting reduces the ergonomic risk by causing a real-world modification in the workplace to at least one of: posture, the task, or a workstation at which the task is performed by real-world workers as cannot be performed by human mind are not persuasive. The Examiner submits that a skilled in the art can reasonably observe postures while a worker performing a task in a workplace and determine a weighted average of an ergonomic risk level of a posture such as reaching out too high or lifting weights by referring to a data structure indicating posture risk level (arguments page 11 “Applicant submits that one cannot simply view a worker performing a task and from said observation determine ergonomic risk”). Further, argument on page 11 “determining a weighted average of the received posture risk levels through modifying weightings as a function of risk level” can not be performed mentally is not persuasive because determining a weighted average is done using a simple mathematical equation which can be reasonably done using a pen and paper.
The additional elements in the claims (arguments page 10) do not integrate the abstract into a practical application simply because they are being performed by a computer. There is no technical improvements in the present claims (arguments page 12). Any improvement claimed by Applicant (arguments pages 11-12, reducing ergonomic risk in a workplace and combined scores, by assessing ergonomic risk of causing harm and, responsively, causing a real-world modification to reduce ergonomic risk, are nothing but a business improvement. In addition, Applicant’s arguments on page 11 regarding Applicant's claimed invention effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis are not persuasive because changing a workstation for example to prevent ergonomic risk does not have anything to do with medical treatment.
Arguments regarding “Applicant's Specification describes that "[t]here are some existing ergonomic assessment methods that yield a score for a given static posture maintained by a worker," such as, RULA and REBA, however, "the scores produced by these [existing] methods are specific to each posture analyzed ... [and] no method has been proposed ... for combining many scores." Specification as filed, paragraph [0008]. Applicant's Specification goes on to describe that "[e]mbodiments solve these problems." Specification as filed, paragraph [0009]” and “Claim 1 reflects the improvements to the existing methodologies for assessing and reducing ergonomic risk. For instance, Applicant submits that the claimed invention provides the improvements through the claimed functionality of "receiving a data structure in memory of [a] processor, the data structure including a corresponding indication of posture risk level for each computer aided design (CAD) digital human model of a plurality of CAD digital human models performing a task, wherein each received corresponding indication of posture risk level is a result from a respective computer-based simulation performed using a respective CAD digital human model of the plurality of CAD digital human models; using the data structure received, determining a weighted average of the received corresponding indications of posture risk level, wherein (i) determining the weighted average comprises modifying weightings of each received corresponding indication of posture risk level as a function of risk level and (ii) the determined weighted average is indicative of ergonomic risk to a real-world worker performing the task in the workplace; and outputting the determined weighted average, wherein the outputting reduces the ergonomic risk by causing a real-world” are part of the abstract idea because the argued limitations are free of technical additional elements needed to be considered by the Examiner. Scoring and other sort analyzing data by a generic processer are not technical improvements because the steps are performed using an ordinary processor performing generic computer functions. Please see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (2016), Resentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (2025), and OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2015).
Because the examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this Step 2B determination, the examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step, ’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B ” Id. In this part of the analysis, the examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps of the steps of determining posture risk level is accomplished in a non-conventional way (steps are performed by a generic processor). The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea of maintaining a group of determining ergonomic posture risk level and that there is no improvement to an “existing technology.”
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, and 14-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, and 14-20 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining and outputting an ergonomic risk level in a workplace to reduce ergonomic risk.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A method for modifying a workplace to reduce ergonomic risk by assessing ergonomic risk of causing harm to a worker in the workplace, the method comprising: receiving a data structure, the data structure including a corresponding indication of posture risk level for each human model of a plurality of human models performing a task, wherein each received corresponding indication of posture risk level is a result from a respective simulation performed using a respective human model of the plurality of human models; using the data structure received, determining a weighted average of the received corresponding indications of posture risk level, wherein (i) determining the weighted average comprises modifying weightings of each received corresponding indication of posture risk level as a function of risk level and (ii) the determined weighted average indicates location and severity of ergonomic risk to a real-world worker performing the task in the workplace; and based on the location and severity of ergonomic risk indicated by the determined weighted average, reducing the ergonomic risk by causing a real-world modification to location of at least one object in the workplace to modify at least one of: posture, the task, or a workstation at which the task is performed by real-world workers”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite Mental Process because an ordinary person can analyze postures in a workstation and determine ergonomic risk. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 11 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 11 and 20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-19 recite a Mental Process because the claimed elements describe a process for determining and outputting an ergonomic risk level in a workplace to reduce ergonomic risk. As a result, claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-19 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “computer-implemented”, “by a processor”, “in memory of the processor”, “computer aided design (CAD) digital”, “CAD digital”, “computer-based”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 11 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further recites “A system” and claim 20 further recites “A non-transitory computer program product”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 11 and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 20. As a result, claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-19 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “computer-implemented”, “by a processor”, “in memory of the processor”, “computer aided design (CAD) digital”, “CAD digital”, “computer-based”. The step of “receiving” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 11 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further recites “A system” and claim 20 further recites “A non-transitory computer program product”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 11 and 20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 20. As a result, claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-19 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
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) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (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 US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights