DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. In response to the amendment filed 02 December 2025, claims 1, 3-13 and 15-20 remain pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
3. 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, 3-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 13 recites a method comprising:
obtaining motion data comprising myoelectric data collected by sensors of a wearable device;
determining a target force contribution ratio of muscles;
obtaining reference motion corresponding to the myoelectric data;
determining a reference force contribution ratio of the target muscles; and
generating a virtual user character and virtual reference character on an interface.
The limitations of obtaining motion data, determining a ratio, obtaining reference motion, determining a reference force ratio, and generating virtual characters, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processor” and “user interface”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” and “user interface” language, “obtaining”, “generating” and “displaying” in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually obtaining the motion data by reading or observing sensor data, generating a model, for example as a purely mental exercise or using a pen and paper, and displaying the character for example using a pen and paper. The claims are akin to those in Electric Power Group, which the court found to be directed to an abstract method of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using a processor and user interface to perform the claimed steps. The processor and user interface in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 elements of using a processor and user interface to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-12 and 15-20 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and only recite additional abstract details relating to the types of motion data (e.g. myoelectric data), the generating of the model (e.g. statuses, force ratios etc. for different body areas), and the display of the character (displaying the myoelectric data and other data according to the model) in a manner that, in the context of these claims encompasses a user performing these steps. Accordingly, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 02 December 2025 with respect to the section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that obtaining myoelectric data from sensors and generating virtual characters cannot be performed in the human mind. This is not persuasive. Applicant is directed to the court decision in Electric Power Group, where the court found that a complex series of steps for receiving streams of power grid data, detecting and analyzing events in real time based on the data, and displaying concurrent visualizations of categories of resulting data, was found to be an abstract idea. The court found that, while the steps as claimed may not potentially be literally performed in the human mind, they are purely a method of manipulating data analogous to that which could be performed by a person. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the section 112, 102 and 103 rejections, in view of the corresponding amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715