DETAILED ACTION
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/25/2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1, 3, 17, 21 and 24 have been amended; claims 14 and 15 have been canceled; and new claims 25 and 26 have been added. Therefore, currently claims 1-13 and 16-26 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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 1-13 and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1 as representative claim, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
present one or more images;
obtain user profile information and head pose information for a user;
determine a current accumulated muscle strain value based on a combination of translational movement values and rotational movement values indicated by the head pose information over a period of time, wherein the current accumulated muscle strain value is updated over time based on rotational and/or translational movement of the user represented by the pose;
in response to the current accumulated muscle strain value exceeding a threshold value, determine locations for a first plurality of visual cues within [an] environment for a first portion of a guided stretching session based on the user profile information and the combination of translational movement values and rotational movement values indicated by the head pose information, wherein the first portion of the guided stretching session corresponds to a first stretch direction;
present the first plurality of visual cues for the first portion of the guided stretching session at the determined locations within the environment and a directional indicator, wherein the first plurality of visual cues correspond to objects;
detect a change to the head pose information associated with the user; and
in response to detecting the change to the head pose information associated with the user:
updating a location for the directional indicator based on the change to the head pose information associated with the user; and
in accordance with a determination that the change to the head pose information associated with the user satisfies a criterion associated with a first visual cue among the first plurality of visual cues, wherein the criterion is satisfied when the updated location for the directional indicator coincides with the location for the first visual cue, provide at least one of audio, haptic, or visual feedback indicating that the first visual cue among the first plurality of visual cues has been completed for the first portion of the guided stretching session.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior; such as teaching or following instruction, wherein, based on a user’s profile and head pose information that includes translational movement values and rotational movement values indicated by head pose information, the user is presented—when an accumulated muscle strain value exceeding a threshold value—with one or more portions of a guided stretching session by displaying a plurality of visual cues at determined locations (e.g., visual cues that correspond to objects), including a directional indicator; and wherein, besides updating the head pose information over time, the location of the directional indicator is updated based on a change detected to the head pose information of the user; and the user is further presented with an audio, a haptic or visual feedback when the change to the head pose information satisfies a criterion associated with a corresponding visual cue, etc.
Similarly, given the limitations that recite the process of one or more of: determining a current accumulated muscle strain value based on a combination of translational movement values and rotational movement values indicated by the head pose information over a period of time; updating the head pose information over time, which includes a timestamp, a head pose descriptor, translational values for the head pose, and rotational values for the head pose; determining—when the muscle strain exceeds a threshold—locations for a plurality of visual cues based on the user profile information and the combination of translational movement values and rotational movement values indicated; detecting a change to the head pose information; determining that the change to the head pose information satisfies a criterion associated with a visual cue, wherein the criterion is satisfied when the updated location for the directional indicator coincides with the location for the first visual cue, etc., the current claims also correspond to mental processes—such as, an evaluation, an observation and/or a judgment process.
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong Two:
The claim(s) recite additional elements, wherein a computer-based system; namely, an electronic device in the form of a near-eye system that comprises computer elements (e.g., an image sensor, inertial sensors, a non-transitory memory, a display device, input devices, a communication interface, a processor, etc.) is utilized to facilitate the recited functions/steps regarding: presenting visual data (e.g., “presenting a three-dimensional (3D) environment via the display device, wherein presenting the 3D environment includes compositing rendered extended reality (XR) content . . . image frames of the 3D environment”); collecting information (“obtaining user profile information and head pose information for a user associated with the electronic device, wherein the head pose information is generated by a head/body pose tracking engine . . . translational values for the head pose, and rotational values for the head pose;”); analyzing the collected information (“determining, by a muscle strain engine, a current accumulated muscle strain value based on a combination of translational movement values and rotational movement values indicated by the head pose information over a period of time, wherein the current accumulated muscle strain value is updated over time using strain increase logic and strain decrease logic based on rotational and/or translational movement of the user represented by the pose characterization vector; in response to the current accumulated muscle strain value exceeding a threshold value, determining, by an interactive stretching engine, locations for a first plurality of visual cues within the 3D environment for a first portion of a guided stretching session based on the user profile information and the combination of translational movement values and rotational movement values indicated by the head pose information, wherein the first portion of the guided stretching session corresponds to a first stretch direction”); presenting further visual data (“presenting, via the display device, the first plurality of visual cues for the first portion of the guided stretching session at the determined locations within the 3D environment and a directional indicator, wherein the first plurality of visual cues correspond to objects composited with a representation of the physical environment”); collecting further information (“detecting, via the one or more input devices, a change to the head pose information associated with the user”); analyzing the collected information and determining one or more results (“in response to detecting the change to the head pose information associated with the user: updating a location for the directional indicator based on the change to the head pose information associated with the user”); presenting an audio, a haptic or a visual feedback based on the result of the analysis above (“in accordance with a determination that the change to the head pose information associated with the user satisfies a criterion associated with a first visual cue among the first plurality of visual cues, wherein the criterion is satisfied when the updated location for the directional indicator coincides with the location for the first visual cue, providing at least one of audio, haptic, or visual feedback indicating that the first visual cue among the first plurality of visual cues has been completed for the first portion of the guided stretching session”), etc.
However, the claimed additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions.
Accordingly, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole (e.g., see the discussion under Prong Two above regarding such consideration of the claim as a whole), none of the claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth noting, per the original disclosure, that the claimed invention is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the original disclosure describes the use of a computer-based system for presenting the guided stretch session to the user; and accordingly, besides the use a generic near-eye system ([0027]; [0028]), the system further comprises one or more commercially available computing devices—such as, a mobile phone, a tablet, a laptop, etc. (e.g., see [0058] to [0062], etc.)
It is further worth noting that the use of the conventional computer/network technology to provide guidance to a user, including the process of displaying one or more visual clue to the user based on position and/or motion data detected regarding the user, etc., is already directed to a well-understood, routine or conventional activity in the art (US 2017/0173394; US 2016/0346612; US 2016/0089573; US 2011/0306396, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-13, 16, 18-20 and 22-26). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 08/25/2026). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, regarding Prong One of Step 2A, while referring to the USPTO examples (Examples 37 to 42), and the section from the MPEP (MPEP 2106.04(a)), Applicant is asserting that “[t]he amended claim is not practically performable as a mental process. A person cannot, in the human mind, operate an exterior-facing image sensor to capture image data and composite rendered XR content with the captured imagery to produce rendered image frames . . . with regard to managing personal behavior, the amended claim is not focused merely on "teaching or following instruction" or otherwise managing a user's conduct. It recites device-side operations that control generation of the XR presentation: a near-eye device captures physical-environment . . . These limitations define how the device processes sensor-derived state and renders responsive XR content, rather than a rule governing how a person should behave” (see pages 13-14 of Applicant’s arguments, emphasis modified).
However, Applicant appears to fail to consider the crux of the analysis under Prong One of Step 2A. Particularly, when determining whether the claim is reciting an abstract idea (i.e., mental processes, or certain method of organizing human activity), the inquiry under Prong One does not consider any of the claimed computer elements, which Applicant is emphasizing above. Instead, while excluding the computer elements, which are the additional elements, Prong One of Step 2A requires one to identify only the limitations that recite the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.07(a), (emphasis added),
For Step 2A Prong One, the rejection should identify the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception. For example, if the claim is directed to an abstract idea, the rejection should identify the abstract idea as it is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is an abstract idea.
Thus, Applicant’s attempt to rely on the claimed computer elements (e.g., the use of “an exterior-facing image sensor to capture image data and composite rendered XR content”, the use of near-eye device to accomplish “vector and strain increase/decrease processing”, etc.) is not relevant to challenge—much less negate—the Office’s findings presented under Prong One of Step 2A (i.e., the findings regarding mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity). Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Secondly, regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, Applicant asserts that “the claim as a whole integrates any such concept into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The amended claim ties the processing to a particular near-eye device having an exterior-facing image sensor and inertial sensors and requires a concrete rendering pipeline in which captured physical-environment imagery and rendered XR content are composited into rendered image frames. The directional indicator is then spatially updated within the rendered environment in response to detected head-pose changes. The claimed components therefore are not invoked merely as generic tools for presenting information. Rather, they are used in a specific combination to implement the claimed XR sensing and rendering process” (emphasis modified).
However, here also Applicant fails to address the fundamentals of the inquiry under Prong Two of Step 2A. In particular, an integration (if any) of the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application is demonstrated by identifying a claimed feature (if any)—or a combination of claimed features (if any)—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. In contrast, Applicant is merely describing the computer elements utilized, including their purpose (e.g., an exterior camera to capture image; spatially updating the rendered environment in response to head pose changes; the use of XR sensing and rendering process, etc.). However, none of Applicant’s assertions addresses the fundamental inquiry set forth under Prong Two of Step 2A. Instead, Applicant is once again demonstrating the use of the existing technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate the process of presenting a task (one or more movements) that a user is required to perform, including analyzing the user’s performance based on data gathered regarding the user’s actions. Thus, Applicant still fails to demonstrate whether any of the current claims integrates the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application.
Applicant has also attempted to predict the decision that the Board may have regarding the current claims. Applicant asserts, “[t]his materially changes the record addressed by the Board. The Board agreed with the Examiner that the appealed claim did not improve computer functionality . . . The amended claim now expressly requires the near-eye device, exterior-facing imaging, inertial sensing, the head/body pose tracking engine, the muscle strain engine with strain increase/decrease logic, the interactive stretching engine, and compositing of rendered XR content with captured physical-environment imagery . . . Thus, the claimed sensing hardware is integral to the claimed XR-rendering operation. See MPEP § 2106.0S(b)” (emphasis modified).
However, the above appears to Applicant’s theory regarding what the Board may conclude based on the current claims. In particular, Applicant’s appears to be providing some subjective reasons regarding why the Board’s analysis may be different regarding the current claims. Thus, Applicant’s assertion above still does not address the critical inquiry under Prong Two of Step 2A; namely, demonstrating whether any of the current claims is implementing an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments fail to negate the Office’s findings under Prong Two of Step 2A. Nevertheless, it is recommended that Applicant file an appeal for further consideration.
Applicant also asserts, “[t]he amended claim is also materially different from the type of information-focused claim discussed in Electric Power Group . . . Claim 1 requires producing rendered XR image frames from captured physical-environment imagery and rendered XR content, updating a structured pose representation . . . The claim therefore recites a specific technological implementation for producing and updating XR output, rather than merely gathering, analyzing, and reporting information” (emphasis modified).
However, just because current claim 1 it is materially different from Electric Power Group, it does not necessarily mean that claim 1 is not reciting an abstract idea. Of course, such alleged difference also does not necessarily signify whether claim 1 is providing a technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology. Thus, Applicant’s attempt to compare current claim 1 to Electric Power Group also fails to address the critical inquiry required under Prong Two of Step 2A.
Applicant further asserts, “[t]he sensor- and pose-processing limitations likewise support treatment of the claim as a technological implementation rather than a disembodied calculation. In Thales Visionix . . .the Federal Circuit found claims eligible
where sensor data was used in a particular technological configuration to determine position and orientation. Here, the amended claim similarly anchors the claimed processing in a near-eye device having physical sensing components and requires time-updated head-pose information represented by a pose characterization vector, which is then used in the device's strain and XR-rendering pipeline. Applicant does not rely on the mere presence of sensors alone but, rather, the eligibility-relevant point is the claimed ordered combination of sensing, pose-state generation, strain-state updating, compositing, and responsive XR rendering” (emphasis modified).
However, none of the arrangements of the claimed (or the disclosed) components is analogous to Thales Visionix. In particular, as discussed in the court’s analysis, the claims of Thales Visionix “are directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame” (emphasis added). In contrast, neither the current claims nor the original disclosure even contemplates—much less implement—sensors (or any other components for that matter) that are arranged in a non-conventional manner (issue that relates to Step 2B). Similarly, again unlike Thales Visionix, neither the current claims nor the original disclosure provides a technological solution to a technical problem. Instead, the current claims—including the disclosure as a whole—is utilizing the existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate an abstract idea (see above the abstract idea identified under Prong One of Step 2A). Thus, Applicant’s attempt to substantiate an alleged technological improvement, while misapplying Thales Visionix, is certainly not persuasive.
Thirdly, regarding Step 2B, Applicant assert, “[t]he present claim, however, recites a materially different ordered combination that was not before the Examiner or the Board: captured physical-environment imagery is used in generating composited XR image frames . . . provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an alleged abstract idea to a particular technological environment and should qualify as ‘significantly more’ with regard to Step 2B. MPEP § 2106.0S(e) . . . the existing record does not establish that this newly claimed ordered combination, considered as a whole, is merely well-understood, routine, and conventional” (emphasis added).
However, unlike Applicant’s assertion, the current claims are also directed to the conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. This is because none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, implements an arrangement that is beyond the conventional computer/network technology. It is worth nothing that even the previous eligibility analysis considers the disclosure as a whole. This is because the eligibility inquiry requires the Office to evaluate the specification in order to determine any feature—or any combination of features—that may provide an inventive concept. Thus, Applicant’s original disclosure itself provides sufficient evidence that confirms the conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements.
In addition, the current claims may incorporate further computer elements, which the previous claims may—or may not—implicitly recite. For instance, previously presented claim 1 does not positively recite a sensor. However, it recites, “obtaining user profile information and head pose information for a user associated with the computing system; determining a muscle strain value based on a combination of translational movement values and rotational movement values indicated by the head pose information over a period of time” (see the claim filed on 12/11/2024, emphasis added). Thus, given the above limitation, one may arguably conclude that a sensor is implicitly implied since the system is gathering data representing the movements of the user. Thus, the current claims may explicitly recite the computer elements being used (e.g., sensors, a head/body pose tracking engine, muscle strain engine, etc.); however, this does not necessarily mean that the claims are beyond the generic and conventional arrangement of the claimed additional elements. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Note also that the lack of technological improvement also confirms the lack of inventive concept. In particular, besides Prong Two of Step 2A, Step 2B also evaluates whether the claim is providing a technological improvement; see MPEP 2106.05(a) (emphasis added),
While improvements were evaluated in Alice Corp. as relevant to the search for an inventive concept (Step 2B), several decisions of the Federal Circuit have also evaluated this consideration when determining whether a claim was directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A). See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, an examiner should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis.
Accordingly, given the lack of technological improvement, along with the generic and conventional arrangement of the claimed additional elements, none of the current claims—when considered as a whole—implements an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Prior Art
5. Considering each of claims 1, 17 and 21 as a whole (including their respective dependent claims), the prior art does not teach or suggest the current claims (regarding the state of the prior art, see the office-action mailed on 08/01/2024).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (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.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.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights