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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 21-40 remain pending in the present application. Despite the new claims, the present application is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-20 have been canceled and claims 21-40 are new claims.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 21 recites, “identifying first motions in the first images to form a first motion document;”, “identifying second motions in the second images;”, and “comparing the second motion vector coordinate data and the first motion vector coordinate data corresponding to the second motion vector coordinate data, to determine a qualified number of the second motions of each of the at least one second operation target;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of identifying motions given image data as well as comparing two sets of data to determine qualified motions which are limitations that can reasonably be performed in the human mind and thus falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, claim 21 includes the limitation of, “calculating a pass rate of the second motions of each of the at least one second operation target based on the qualified number.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations that involve mathematical calculations which falls within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 21 includes the additional limitations of, “generating guiding information based on the first motion vector coordinate data;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, includes limitations of generating information based on received data which simply applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claim 21 includes the limitations of, “controlling the cameras to capture first images of a first operation target, the first operation target being configured to execute reference operations on a machine of the at least one workstation, and the first images captured by the cameras being stored in the storing unit;” and “controlling the cameras to capture second images of at least one second operation target based on the guiding information;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, describes utilizing cameras to capture motion data, which adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 21 also includes the limitations of, “wherein the first motion document comprises first motion vector coordinate data of reference points of a body and a head of the first operation target, and each of the first motion vector coordinate data represents a motion track of the head and the body of the first operation target;”, “wherein the second motions comprise second motion vector coordinate data of reference points of a head and a body of the at least one second operation target;”, and “each of the second motion vector coordinate data represents a motion track of the head and the body of the at least one second operation target, and corresponds to one of the first motion vector coordinate data;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, provide description as to what type of data is captured during the recording process which just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Finally, the limitations of, “an electronic device”, “a processor”, “a storing unit”, “a workstation”, and “cameras”, each as generally recited represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering motion data from a device and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Independent claims 28 and 35 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are thus rejected using the same rationale as presented above.
Dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, claims 23, 26, 30, 33, 37, and 40, each include further limitations of setting error ranges, making comparisons based on the ranges, determining qualified motions based upon deviations regarding the error ranges, segmenting data, counting frequency of and occurrence of keywords, and deleting motions based on the frequency, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, are all limitations that can reasonably be performed in the human mind/with pen and paper, and thus fall within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, claims 22, 29, and 36, each include limitations involving the calculation of deviations and resulting qualified movements, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, involve limitations which include mathematical calculations and thus fall within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For instance, claims 27 and 34, each includes limitations of providing an alert if a pass rate is less than a threshold, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, simply provides an alert/notification when a specific condition exists which just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claims 24-25, 31-32, and 38-39, each includes limitations describing the order in which data is stored and further the type of format the data is stored as, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering motion data from a device and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
The recited electronic device has a specific architecture including a processor, a storing unit, and is in communication with a workstation and thus is not generic but a concrete technical environment.
The limitations of identifying, generating, and comparing, involve steps that include identifying/comparing multi-dimensional data which cannot be reasonably be performed by a human observer.
The step of controlling cameras to capture image data involves physical hardware interactions.
The present application provides a more accurate way to perform measurements and comparisons between multiple movements as it removes a human observer’s evaluation and thus removes uncertainty when making these judgements.
Regarding the first argument, though the present application now recites a device with a processor and memory that is in communication with a workstation, this is not sufficient enough to constitute a specialized device as all components listed are recited generically and thus do not represent a specialized system. The components listed are not integral for the machine to function and are merely an object in which the method operates and thus represents merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea. Details of this analysis is further supported in the MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)(II)(III), reproduced below:
“I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS[AltContent: rect]
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923). [AltContent: rect]
It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions). If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)[AltContent: rect]
II. WHETHER THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS IMPLEMENTS THE STEPS OF THE METHOD[AltContent: rect]
Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We are not persuaded by the appellant's argument that the claimed method is tied to a particular machine because it ‘would not be necessary or possible without the Internet.’ . . . Regardless of whether "the Internet" can be viewed as a machine, it is clear that the Internet cannot perform the fraud detection steps of the claimed method"). For example, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly"). [AltContent: rect]
III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE[AltContent: rect]
Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) ("[N]othing in claim 3 requires an infringer to use the Internet to obtain that data. The Internet is merely described as the source of the data. We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’" 654 F.3d at 1375, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citation omitted)). See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h) for more information on insignificant extra-solution activity and field of use, respectively. [AltContent: rect]
With regards to the second argument, and review of the specification, specifically paragraphs [0043]-[0047], describe the multi-dimensional data as being x,y coordinate values for given movements. The office argues, given visual data as described by the present application with an x,y coordinate background can very reasonably be viewed and interpreted using a human observer. Further, comparing two sets of movements given the same background can be easily compared in the two dimensional plane.
With regards to the third argument, the office understands that physical control is now applied to the cameras, however, the cameras in the present application are utilized for capturing data in the present application and not a result of the pass rate of various movements made. As such, these limitations simply add insignificant extra solution activity in the form or mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and don’t not integrate the application into a practical application as they merely perform a support role in the grand scheme of the invention.
With regards to the fourth argument, the office understands that the present application might indeed provide the improved features as described in the arguments, however, review of the specification is silent on any of these positive benefits. As such, these arguments appear to be more declaratory statements without any support from the specification to help demonstrate how the system actually achieves these described benefits, and as such, are moot points.
***Again, and only if the specification supports, if the system somehow has controlling features regarding the success/failure of the qualified movement rate, for instance, if the number of qualified movements fall below a threshold, controlling the motion device to stop movements, this could be a potential path to show the device taking control actions in response to the determinations being made and would thus show significantly more than the abstract idea.***
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ogata (US PGPUB 20190217468): disclose a robot tracking and control system and method in which a robot is instructed to operate on a set path, wherein after each motion, a comparison is made based upon a measured torque and expected torque, and adjustments are made to compensate subsequent movements if the comparison is not the same.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights