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 .
Application Status
Present office action is in response to the supplemental amendment filed 01/20/2026. Claim 8 is cancelled. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, lines 5-6 should recite “… based on the analysis;” to resolve a punctuation issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 6-7 and dependents thereof are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, representative claim 6 recites, in part, “generate operation information indicating an operator action performed by the operator during a specified process based on the analysis”, “output to the wearable display device the augmented reality marker information during performance of the specified process by the operator, the augmented reality marker information indicating the augmented reality marker determined by the augmented reality marker determining circuitry”, and “wherein the wearable display device displays augmented reality content to the operator during performance of the specified process, the augmented reality content corresponding to the augmented reality marker indicated by the augmented reality marker information”. Claims 1 and 7 recite similar limitations. However, the originally filed specification does not disclose such information. To remedy the issue, Examiner suggests pointing to the particular figure(s) and/or paragraph(s) in the originally filed specification that provides the requisite written description support for the above claim limitations in order for the claims to be compliant under §112(a) and commensurate with the subject matter supported in the specification.
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 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Independent claim 1 recites “an augmented reality content display device…” (i.e. a machine) and independent claim 6 recites “an augmented reality content display system…” (i.e. a machine) and independent claim 7 recites “an augmented reality content display method …” (i.e. a process). As such, independent claims 1, 6 and 7 are each directed to a statutory category of invention within § 101, i.e., machine, process and manufacture. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claim 7, analyzed as representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are shown in italics. The additional element(s) recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
An augmented reality content display method, comprising:
[L1a] acquiring image data from a wearable display device worn by an operator and
[ L1b] analyzing the acquired image data to determine a change in coordinates of at least one body part of the operator,
[ L1c] generating operation information indicating an operator action performed by the operator during a specified process based on the analysis,
[ L2a] calculating a skill level of the operator using a latest set of operation information and model operation information indicating one or more operator actions to be performed by a model operator about a process including the operator action indicated by the operation information, a difference in the operator action between the operator and the model operator in each operation task in the process, and
[ L2b] generating skill level information indicating the skill level of the operator; [ L3a] determining an augmented reality marker to be assigned to each operation task in the process preferentially for an operation task for which a skill level of the operator indicated by the skill level information is low; and
[ L3b] outputting to the wearable display device augmented reality marker information indicating the determined augmented reality marker,
[ L3c] wherein the wearable display device displays augmented reality content to the operator during performance of the specified process, the augmented reality content corresponding to the augmented reality marker indicated by the augmented reality marker information.
The published Specification discloses “improve the efficiency of performing operations and learning skills at sites at which operation instructions and skill training are provided by displaying AR content” (¶ 6). It is common practice for a student operator to perform training operations while being observed by a teacher/expert who can that a teacher/expert who subsequently provides feedback to the student operator through additional training and, as a result improve the student’s efficiency of performing operations and learning skills. Thus, other than reciting the “wearable display device” additional non-abstract limitation noted in independent claim 7 above, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human, in the mind, and/or using pen and paper. In particular, apart from the recitation of the “wearable display device” generic computer component(s) that perform generic functions, the “acquiring image data”, “generating operation information”, “calculating … a difference”, “display augmented reality content”, “generating skill level information”, “determining an augmented reality marker” and “outputting … augmented reality marker information” limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, and judgments, may also characterized as mathematical concept, and may further be characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity, i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A: Prong 1. (Step 2A – Prong 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The computer component(s), namely the “wearable display device” is recited at a high level of generality (see published Specification (at least ¶ 7:… an argument reality content display device according to an aspect of the present disclosure includes an operation information generator, a storage, a skill calculator, an augmented reality marker determiner, and an augmented reality marker outputter …;¶ 17: An augmented reality (AR) content display device …; ¶ 19: The wearable device 3 is, for example, a head-mounted display, a smartphone, a tablet, or a webcam with an image capturing function. The wearable device 3 transmits image data indicating the captured image to the AR content display device 1; ¶ 81: The wearable device 3 is, for example, a head-mounted display, a smartphone, a tablet, or a webcam with an image capturing function. The wearable device 3 transmits image data indicating the captured image to the AR content display device 1; ¶ 83: The display 106 is, for example, a liquid crystal display (LCD) or an organic electroluminescent (EL) display. In a structure to directly input data into the AR content display device 1, the display 106 displays an input scree; ¶ 86… The controller 21 has a CPU, a RAM, and the like, and controls each section of the terminal device 20 …; ¶ 91: The display section 24 includes a liquid crystal display (LCD), an electro luminescence (EL) display, and the like, and performs various displays according to display information specified by the controller 21.
The lack of details about the “wearable display device” indicates that the additional element(s) is/are generic, or part of generic computer elements performing or being used in performing the generic functions claimed. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The claimed invention merely implements the abstract idea using instructions executed on generic computer components, as shown in bold above, and as supported in the above noted pertinent portions of the Specification. The instant claim merely uses a programmed computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional limitations noted above, [L1a] “acquiring image data” (data gathering), [L3b] “outputting … augmented reality marker information” (data presentation), and [L3c] “displays augmented reality content to the operator” (data presentation) reflect the type of extra-solution activity (i.e., activities in addition to the judicial exception) the courts have determined insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); see, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.”’ (alterations in original) (quoting In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989))); see also Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[W]e have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”). The instant claim as a whole merely uses computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (a computer) in which to apply a judicial exception and, as such, cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Hence, as per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), the additional element(s) in claim 7, namely the “wearable display device” do not, either individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the “wearable display device” in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the published Specification, as noted above (for example, (¶¶ 7, 17, 19, 81. 83, 86, 91)) describes the “wearable display device” in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the published Specification sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element(s) to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. Furthermore, the Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) explains that a specification that describes additional element(s) “in a manner that indicates that the additional element(s) is/are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element(s) to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.” The generic description of the “wearable display device” indicates the steps are well-known enough that no further description is required for a skilled artisan to understand the process and that these computer components are all used in a manner that is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In particular, the recited data gathering ([L1a]) and data presentation ([L3b] and [L3c]) are nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because these limitations are not distinguished from generic, conventional data gathering and data presentation with a computer. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (claims to gathering, analyzing, and displaying data in real time using conventional, generic technology do not have an inventive concept); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Hence, the additional element(s) is/are generic, well-known, and conventional computing element(s). The use of the additional element(s) either alone or in combination amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are patent ineligible. (Step 2B: NO).
In regard to independent Claim 1:
Independent claim 1 recites an augmented reality content display device, comprising: operation information generating circuitry to perform steps comparable to those of representative claim 7. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is rejected similarly to representative claim 7.
In regard to independent Claim 6
Independent claim 6 recites an augmented reality content display system, comprising: a wearable display device wearable by an operator, the wearable display device being configured to perform steps comparable to those of representative independent Claim 1. As a result, independent claim 6 is rejected similarly to representative independent Claim 1.
In regard to the dependent claims:
Dependents claims 2-5 and 9-14 include all the limitations of independent claim 1 from which they depend and, as such, recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above for independent claim 1. The dependent claims do not appear to remedy the issues noted above. As per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), none of the limitations of claims 2-5 and 9-14 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, while dependent claims 2-5 and 9-14 may have a narrower scope than independent claim 1, no claim contains an “inventive concept” that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 and 9-14 are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsuchiya et al. (US 20210358327 A1) (Tsuchiya).
Re claims 1 and 6-7:
[Claim 6] Tsuchiya teaches or at least suggests an augmented reality content display system (at least ¶ 9: a content presentation system), comprising: a wearable display device wearable by an operator (at least ¶ 43: presents necessary information such as work procedures to a worker 2 who executes works such as maintenance and inspection of a device in a work site and a trainee 3 in a training site, and also presents a training content to the trainee 3; ¶ 44: the content presentation system 1 presents the work procedure using an augmented reality based on a three-dimensional shape information of the work target device 4 and a corresponding training object device 5 to the worker 2 in the work site and the trainee; ¶ 49: worker terminal 10 is, for example, a head mounted display (HMD)); and an augmented reality content display device comprising operation information generating circuitry to acquire image data from the wearable display device, analyze the acquired image data to determine a change in coordinates of at least one body part of the operator, and generate operation information indicating an operator action performed by the operator during a specified process based on the analysis (at least ¶ 9: a content presentation system (1) that presents a training content based on three-dimensional shape information of a work target device and a work procedure to a trainee (3), presents the work procedure using augmented reality based on the three-dimensional shape information of the work target device … an operation measurement device (117) that acquires a three-dimensional operation during a work of a worker (2) in a work site at least as measurement information of a body motion; a determination device (335) that determines success or failure of the work based on the evaluation reference information for evaluating the work operation based on the measurement information of the work operation; ¶ 10: the operation measurement device acquires the three-dimensional operation during the work of the worker in the work site at least as measurement information of the body motion and the determination device determines success or failure of the work based on the evaluation reference information for evaluating the work operation based on the measurement information of the work operation; ¶ 45: in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the content presentation system 1 includes a worker terminal 10, a trainee terminal 20, a system management server 30, and a training content management server 40; ¶ 46: system management server 30 and the training content management server 40 may be integrated to constitute one management server; ¶¶ 98, 99: … The target part is, for example, an arm, a wrist or the like of the worker 2, and is determined according to the work content. The procedure No. is a number for specifying which procedure among the work procedures for the work identified by the work No; ¶ 137: calculating a deviation from the reference of the three-dimensional positional transition of the corresponding feature point of the specific part of the worker 2 with reference to the three-dimensional positional transition of feature points (for example, joint parts) of specific parts (arm, wrist, feet, etc.) of a model worker … The conformity level may be calculated at a start or end of the operation, or may be calculated a plurality of points in time at a predetermined interval between the start and the end of the work, or the average thereof may be calculated …).
Tsuchiya further teaches or at least suggests a storage device to store the operation information, model operation information indicating one or more operator actions to be performed by a model operator, and augmented reality marker information indicating an augmented reality marker corresponding to each operation task in a process (at least Tsuchiya: ¶ 9: a first content output device (430) having a storage unit that stores the training content including the three-dimensional shape information of the work target device and evaluation reference information about work operation of the work procedure; ¶ 11: when a predetermined body motion of the worker is detected based on the measurement information from the operation measurement device, the determination device determines success or failure of the work based on the measurement information of the work operation of a specific stage during the work of a model worker up to the body motion; ¶ 19: a content presentation method to present a training content based on three-dimensional shape information of a work target device and a work procedure to a trainee (3), and present the work procedure using augmented reality based on the three-dimensional shape information of the work target device, the content presentation method including: a first content output step to store the training content including the three-dimensional shape information of the work target device …; ¶ 44; ¶ 75: As shown in FIG. 7, items recorded in each record (row) of the work operation information record database 123 includes a worker No., an observation part (specific part), a work No., a procedure No., a normal operation No., video record, voice record, operation conformity level, work position transition, and work time; ¶ 76: The worker No. is an identification number uniquely assigned to each worker. The observation part is, for example, an arm, a wrist, a leg and the like of the worker 2, and the part to be observed is determined according to the work content. The work number is a number uniquely assigned to identify the work. Procedure No. is a number for specifying which procedure among the work procedures for the work identified by the work No. Normal operation No. is a number uniquely assigned to specify normal operation (reference operation), skill calculating circuitry to calculate, as a skill level of the operator, based on a latest set of the operation information and the model operation information about a process including the operator action indicated by the operation information, a difference in the operator action between the operator and the model operator in each operation task in the process, and generate skill level information indicating the skill level of the operator (at least ¶ 9: a determination device (335) that determines success or failure of the work based on the evaluation reference information for evaluating the work operation based on the measurement information of the work operation … the determination device determines success or failure of the work based on the measurement information of the work operation of a specific stage during the work of a model worker up to the body motion; ¶ 13: the determination device compares the measurement information of the work by the worker according to the work procedure from the work operation measurement device with the measurement information of the work by the model worker, and determines a conformity level of the both work operations, and the content creation device or the first content output device updates the training content in accordance with the determination result of the determination device, so as to increase the conformity level), augmented reality marker determining circuitry to determine the augmented reality marker to be assigned to each operation task in the process preferentially for an operation task for which a skill level of the operator indicated by the skill level information is low, and augmented reality marker outputting circuitry to output to the wearable display device the augmented reality marker information during performance of the specified process by the operator, the augmented reality marker information indicating the augmented reality marker determined by the augmented reality marker determining circuitry; wherein the wearable display device displays augmented reality content to the operator during performance of the specified process, the augmented reality content corresponding to the augmented reality marker indicated by the augmented reality marker information (at least ¶ 9: when the determination result is determined to be the failure of the work by the determination device, the content creation device or the first content output device updates the training content so as to suppress a factor of the failure; ¶ 11: … when a predetermined body motion of the worker is detected based on the measurement information from the operation measurement device, the determination device determines success or failure of the work based on the measurement information of the work operation of a specific stage during the work of a model worker up to the body motion. And, when the determination result is determined to be the failure of the work by the determination device, the content creation device or the first content output device updates the training content so as to suppress a factor of the failure; ¶ 13: the content creation device or the first content output device updates the training content in accordance with the determination result of the determination device, so as to increase the conformity level; 19: … when a predetermined body motion of the worker is detected based on the measurement information acquired in the operation measurement step, success or failure of the work is determined based on the measurement information of the work operation of a specific stage during the work of a model worker up to the body motion, and in the content creation step or the first content output step, when the determination result is determined to be the failure of the work in the determination step, the training content is updated so as to suppress a factor of the failure; ¶ 21: provide a content presentation system capable of efficiently reflecting the failure occurred in the on-site work to the training content and easily maintaining the training content; ¶¶ 146-150: … When, as a result of the matching by the training content matching unit 341, there is no training content corresponding to the site work to which the work analysis has been performed, the training content creating/updating unit 342 newly creates the training content. On the other hand, when there already exists a training content corresponding to the site work to which the task analysis has been performed, the training content creating/updating unit 342 changes the training content so as to reflect the correction content based on the analysis/determination result … when it is determined that the result of the determination by the work analysis unit 335 is a failure of the work, the training content creation/update unit 342 updates the training content so as to suppress the factor of failure. The training content may be updated by, for example, the training content management unit 440 or the training terminal management unit 430 on the side of the training content management server 4 …; ¶ 175: the information superimposition processing unit 415 executes a process of superimposing and displaying work procedure information on the screen of virtual reality or augmented reality; ¶ 180: … it is possible to recognize the training target device 5, the arm or hand of the trainee 3, the work tool 6 … ; ¶ 184:The training content distribution unit 431 includes an output unit, and is configured to distribute the training content to the trainee terminal 20 so as to be able to present the training content to the trainee 3. The training content includes a video superimposed and displayed on the actual image of the training site using augmented reality and a voice output from the voice output unit 204 on the display unit 203 of the trainee terminal 20. Alternatively, the training content may include a video displayed on the display unit 203 of the trainee terminal 20 using virtual reality and a voice output from the voice output unit 204; ¶ 250: The content presentation system 1 according to the present embodiment is so configured that the work analysis unit 335 of the system management server 30 compares the measurement information of the work operation in accordance with the work procedure of the worker 2 from the three-dimensional operation detection processing unit 117 of the worker terminal 10 with the measurement information of the work operation of the model worker, thereby to determine the conformity level of the both work operations, and the training content management unit 340 of the system management server 30 updates the training content so as to increase the conformity level according to the determination result).
In the event the above interpretation of the “preferentially” limitation is viewed as not being reasonable, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, the “preferentially” feature would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Furthermore, in the event the claim elements are viewed as not disclosed as claimed, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Tsuchiya as claimed, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
[Claim 1] The claim is an augmented reality content display device counterpart to the system of claim 6. The augmented reality content display device is claimed as comprising comparable elements performing steps comparable to those performed by system claim 6. As a result, claim 1 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative independent claim 6.
[Claim 7] The claim is an augmented reality content display method counterpart to the system of claim 6. The augmented reality content display method is claimed as comprising steps comparable to those performed by system claim 6. As a result, claim 7 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative independent claim 6.
Re claims 2, 9, 10 and 12:
[Claim 2] Tsuchiya further teaches or at least suggests wherein the augmented reality marker determining circuitry determines the augmented reality marker to be assigned to each operation task in the process to satisfy a constraint (at least ¶ 15: the conformity level of the work operation in the specific stage is determined to be equal to or less than a predetermined value).
Tsuchiya appears to be silent on a number of items of augmented reality content displayed at a time. The Examiner previously took official notice that the concept and advantages of restricting a set of curriculum items displayed to reduce the time required to thoroughly consider all the displayed items were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. For example, lower performing students are generally expected to take more time to answer questions and, as a result, the lower performing students may be given less questions to ensure they answer all the questions within a certain time period. Since Applicant did not traverse this officially noticed facts by specifically pointing out supposed errors, the officially noticed facts taken in the Non-Final Rejection dated 12/29/2025 are now considered admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C) and particularly Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 ("[I]n the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention."). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Tsuchiya as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 9] Tsuchiya further teaches or at least suggests wherein the operation information generating circuitry detects position coordinates of objects including an article, and a hand of the operator in an image indicated by the image data, and generates the operation information including the position coordinates of the objects at predetermined time intervals (at least ¶ 55: The video record unit 105 includes a camera or a video camera, and records the work, for example, so that the work target device 4 and the arm of the worker 2 are captured; ¶ 68: The three-dimensional operation can be detected as information on the transition of a position in the three-dimensional space with respect to a feature point (a joint, a fingertip, and the like) of a specific part (arm, wrist, and the like) of the body of the worker 2; ¶ 76: The observation part is, for example, an arm, a wrist, a leg and the like of the worker 2; ¶ 78: The operation conformity level is an index showing how the three-dimensional operation of the worker is matched to the three-dimensional reference operation (normal operation), which is the three-dimensional operation of the model worker. The work position transition is a record of the positional transition of the feature points of the observation part with respect to the motion of an object with a low operation conformity level … in FIG. 7, … the third record (row) from the top and the seventh record (row) from the top have the operation conformity level of 20% and 60%, respectively, which are lower than others … Work time is the time required for the work; ¶ 123: recognize the work target device 4, the arm and hand of the worker 2, a work tool 6, and the like). In view of at least the fact that a camera is used to record the above noted elements, tracking the additionally claimed elements (for example, head and eye) would have been an obvious matter of choice.
[Claim 10] Tsuchiya further teaches or at least suggests wherein the skill calculating circuitry determines, based on the latest set of the operation information and the model operation information about the process including the operator action indicated by the operation information, an operation class of the operator action performed by the operator and an operation class of the operator action performed by the model operator (at least ¶ 68: detects the three-dimensional operation during the work of the worker 2 from the work video, the image recognition result, the space recognition result, the three-dimensional shape information of the work target device 4 and the like …The three-dimensional operation can be detected as information on the transition of a position in the three-dimensional space with respect to a feature point (a joint, a fingertip, and the like) of a specific part (arm, wrist, and the like) of the body of the worker 2 ; ¶ 78: The operation conformity level is an index showing how the three-dimensional operation of the worker is matched to the three-dimensional reference operation (normal operation), which is the three-dimensional operation of the model worker. The work position transition is a record of the positional transition of the feature points of the observation part with respect to the motion of an object with a low operation conformity level … in FIG. 7, … the third record (row) from the top and the seventh record (row) from the top have the operation conformity level of 20% and 60%, respectively, which are lower than others … Work time is the time required for the work).
Tsuchiya appears to be silent on the operator actions in the operation class are a main operation, an auxiliary operation, a transporting operation, and pausing. The Examiner previously took official notice that the concept and advantages of multi-step operations were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Since Applicant did not traverse this officially noticed facts by specifically pointing out supposed errors, the officially noticed facts taken in the Non-Final Rejection dated 12/29/2025 are now considered admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C) and particularly Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 ("[I]n the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention."). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Tsuchiya as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 12] Tsuchiya further teaches or at least suggests wherein the skill calculating circuitry determines, based on the latest set of the operation information and the model operation information about the process including the operator action indicated by the operation information, an irrelevant action in the operator action performed by the operator and in the operator action performed by the model operator (at least ¶ 11: the determination device determines success or failure of the work based on the measurement information of the work operation of a specific stage during the work of a model worker up to the body motion. And, when the determination result is determined to be the failure of the work by the determination device, the content creation device or the first content output device updates the training content so as to suppress a factor of the failure; ¶ 12: since the training content is updated so as to suppress the factor of failure when it is determined that the result of the determination is a failure of the work, the failure of the work such as an accident, a procedure mistake, a mistake of used tool and the like occurred in the site work (hereinafter collectively referred to as failure) can be efficiently reflected to the training content used in the training, thereby making it easy to maintain the training contents; ¶ 20: since the training content is updated so as to suppress the factor of failure when it is determined that the result of the determination is a failure of the work, the failure of the work such as an accident, a procedure mistake, a mistake of used tool and the like occurred in the site work (hereinafter collectively referred to as failure) can be efficiently reflected to the training content used in the training, thereby making it easy to maintain the training contents).
Tsuchiya appears to be silent on wherein the skill calculating circuitry calculates, as the skill level of the operator, a difference between a rate of irrelevant actions performed by the operator in each operation task in the process and a rate of irrelevant actions performed by the model operator in each operation task in the process. The operation conformity level reports on relevant actions. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to report on irrelevant actions and to have modified Tsuchiya as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claims 3, 11 and 13:
[Claim 3] Tsuchiya further teaches or at least suggests wherein the operation information generating circuitry detects position coordinates of objects including an article, and a hand of the operator in an image indicated by the image data, and generates the operation information including the position coordinates of the objects at predetermined time intervals (at least ¶ 55: The video record unit 105 includes a camera or a video camera, and records the work, for example, so that the work target device 4 and the arm of the worker 2 are captured; ¶ 68: The three-dimensional operation can be detected as information on the transition of a position in the three-dimensional space with respect to a feature point (a joint, a fingertip, and the like) of a specific part (arm, wrist, and the like) of the body of the worker 2; ¶ 76: The observation part is, for example, an arm, a wrist, a leg and the like of the worker 2; ¶ 78: The operation conformity level is an index showing how the three-dimensional operation of the worker is matched to the three-dimensional reference operation (normal operation), which is the three-dimensional operation of the model worker. The work position transition is a record of the positional transition of the feature points of the observation part with respect to the motion of an object with a low operation conformity level … in FIG. 7, … the third record (row) from the top and the seventh record (row) from the top have the operation conformity level of 20% and 60%, respectively, which are lower than others … Work time is the time required for the work; ¶ 123: recognize the work target device 4, the arm and hand of the worker 2, a work tool 6, and the like). In view of at least the fact that a camera is used to record the above noted elements, tracking the additionally claimed elements (for example, head and eye) would have been an obvious matter of choice.
[Claim 11] Tsuchiya further teaches or at least suggests wherein the skill calculating circuitry determines, based on the latest set of the operation information and the model operation information about the process including the operator action indicated by the operation information, an operation class of the operator action performed by the operator and an operation class of the operator action performed by the model operator (at least ¶ 68: detects the three-dimensional operation during the work of the worker 2 from the work video, the image recognition result, the space recognition result, the three-dimensional shape information of the work target device 4 and the like …The three-dimensional operation can be detected as information on the transition of a position in the three-dimensional space with respect to a feature point (a joint, a fingertip, and the like) of a specific part (arm, wrist, and the like) of the body of the worker 2 ; ¶ 78: The operation conformity level is an index showing how the three-dimensional operation of the worker is matched to the three-dimensional reference operation (normal operation), which is the three-dimensional operation of the model worker. The work position transition is a record of the positional transition of the feature points of the observation part with respect to the motion of an object with a low operation conformity level … in FIG. 7, … the third record (row) from the top and the seventh record (row) from the top have the operation conformity level of 20% and 60%, respectively, which are lower than others … Work time is the time required for the work).
Tsuchiya appears to be silent on the operator actions in the operation class are a main operation, an auxiliary operation, a transporting operation, and pausing. The Examiner previously took official notice that the concept and advantages of multi-step operations were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Since Applicant did not traverse this officially noticed facts by specifically pointing out supposed errors, the officially noticed facts taken in the Non-Final Rejection dated 12/29/2025 are now considered admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C) and particularly Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 ("[I]n the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention."). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Tsuchiya as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 13] Tsuchiya further teaches or at least suggests wherein the skill calculating circuitry determines, based on the latest set of the operation information and the model operation information about the process including the operator action indicated by the operation information, an irrelevant action in the operator action performed by the operator and in the operator action performed by the model operator (at least ¶ 11: the determination device determines success or failure of the work based on the measurement information of the work operation of a specific stage during the work of a model worker up to the body motion. And, when the determination result is determined to be the failure of the work by the determination device, the content creation device or the first content output device updates the training content so as to suppress a factor of the failure; ¶ 12: since the training content is updated so as to suppress the factor of failure when it is determined that the result of the determination is a failure of the work, the failure of the work such as an accident, a procedure mistake, a mistake of used tool and the like occurred in the site work (hereinafter collectively referred to as failure) can be efficiently reflected to the training content used in the training, thereby making it easy to maintain the training contents; ¶ 20: since the training content is updated so as to suppress the factor of failure when it is determined that the result of the determination is a failure of the work, the failure of the work such as an accident, a procedure mistake, a mistake of used tool and the like occurred in the site work (hereinafter collectively referred to as failure) can be efficiently reflected to the training content used in the training, thereby making it easy to maintain the training contents).
Tsuchiya appears to be silent on wherein the skill calculating circuitry calculates, as the skill level of the operator, a difference between a rate of irrelevant actions performed by the operator in each operation task in the process and a rate of irrelevant actions performed by the model operator in each operation task in the process. The operation conformity level reports on relevant actions. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to report on irrelevant actions and to have modified Tsuchiya as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claims 4 and 14:
[Claim 4] Tsuchiya further teaches or at least suggests wherein the skill calculating circuitry determines, based on the latest set of the operation information and the model operation information about the process including the operator action indicated by the operation information, an operation class of the operator action performed by the operator and an operation class of the operator action performed by the model operator (at least ¶ 68: detects the three-dimensional operation during the work of the worker 2 from the work video, the image recognition result, the space recognition result, the three-dimensional shape information of the work target device 4 and the like …The three-dimensional operation can be detected as information on the transition of a position in the three-dimensional space with respect to a feature point (a joint, a fingertip, and the like) of a specific part (arm, wrist, and the like) of the body of the worker 2 ; ¶ 78: The operation conformity level is an index showing how the three-dimensional operation of the worker is matched to the three-dimensional reference operation (normal operation), which is the three-dimensional operation of the model worker. The work position transition is a record of the positional transition of the feature points of the observation part with respect to the motion of an object with a low operation conformity level … in FIG. 7, … the third record (row) from the top and the seventh record (row) from the top have the operation conformity level of 20% and 60%, respectively, which are lower than others … Work time is the time required for the work).
Tsuchiya appears to be silent on the operator actions in the operation class are a main operation, an auxiliary operation, a transporting operation, and pausing. The Examiner previously took official notice that the concept and advantages of multi-step operations were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Since Applicant did not traverse this officially noticed facts by specifically pointing out supposed errors, the officially noticed facts taken in the Non-Final Rejection dated 12/29/2025 are now considered admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C) and particularly Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 ("[I]n the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention."). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Tsuchiya as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 14] Tsuchiya further teaches or at least suggests wherein the skill calculating circuitry determines, based on the latest set of the operation information and the model operation information about the process including the operator action indicated by the operation information, an irrelevant action in the operator action performed by the operator and in the operator action performed by the model operator (at least ¶ 11: the determination device determines success or failure of the work based on the measurement information of the work operation of a specific stage during the work of a model worker up to the body motion. And, when the determination result is determined to be the failure of the work by the determination device, the content creation device or the first content output device updates the training content so as to suppress a factor of the failure; ¶ 12: since the training content is updated so as to suppress the factor of failure when it is determined that the result of the determination is a failure of the work, the failure of the work such as an accident, a procedure mistake, a mistake of used tool and the like occurred in the site work (hereinafter collectively referred to as failure) can be efficiently reflected to the training content used in the training, thereby making it easy to maintain the training contents; ¶ 20: since the training content is updated so as to suppress the factor of failure when it is determined that the result of the determination is a failure of the work, the failure of the work such as an accident, a procedure mistake, a mistake of used tool and the like occurred in the site work (hereinafter collectively referred to as failure) can be efficiently reflected to the training content used in the training, thereby making it easy to maintain the training contents).
Tsuchiya appears to be silent on wherein the skill calculating circuitry calculates, as the skill level of the operator, a difference between a rate of irrelevant actions performed by the operator in each operation task in the process and a rate of irrelevant actions performed by the model operator in each operation task in the process. The operation conformity level reports on relevant actions. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to report on irrelevant actions and to have modified Tsuchiya as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claim 5:
[Claim 5] Tsuchiya further teaches or at least suggests wherein the skill calculating circuitry determines, based on the latest set of the operation information and the model operation information about the process including the operator action indicated by the operation information, an irrelevant action in the operator action performed by the operator and in the operator action performed by the model operator (at least ¶ 11: the determination device determines success or failure of the work based on the measurement information of the work operation of a specific stage during the work of a model worker up to the body motion. And, when the determination result is determined to be the failure of the work by the determination device, the content creation device or the first content output device updates the training content so as to suppress a factor of the failure; ¶ 12: since the training content is updated so as to suppress the factor of failure when it is determined that the result of the determination is a failure of the work, the failure of the work such as an accident, a procedure mistake, a mistake of used tool and the like occurred in the site work (hereinafter collectively referred to as failure) can be efficiently reflected to the training content used in the training, thereby making it easy to maintain the training contents; ¶ 20: since the training content is updated so as to suppress the factor of failure when it is determined that the result of the determination is a failure of the work, the failure of the work such as an accident, a procedure mistake, a mistake of used tool and the like occurred in the site work (hereinafter collectively referred to as failure) can be efficiently reflected to the training content used in the training, thereby making it easy to maintain the training contents).
Tsuchiya appears to be silent on wherein the skill calculating circuitry calculates, as the skill level of the operator, a difference between a rate of irrelevant actions performed by the operator in each operation task in the process and a rate of irrelevant actions performed by the model operator in each operation task in the process. The operation conformity level reports on relevant actions. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to report on irrelevant actions and to have modified Tsuchiya as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s remarks. However, the claim amendment necessitated Claim Objections as shown above and not repeated herein.
Rejection under 35 USC § 112
The previous claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and remarks.
Rejections of Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Independent Claims Are Not Directed to An Abstract Idea
Applicant first argues that “the claims of the subject application do not recite method of organizing human activity as alleged”. Applicant then summarizes the claim limitations in support of this argument. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Humans have conducted “operation instructions and skill training” long before the advent of computers. As noted in the rejections above, using claim 7 as representative, apart from the recitation of the “wearable display device” generic computer component(s) that perform generic functions, … under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitations, as a whole may be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, and judgments, may also characterized as mathematical concept, and may further be characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity, i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”.
Applicant goes on to disagree with the finding that “the claim does not recite an improvement in the functionality of a computer”, “because the device provides real-time feedback and guidance to an operator while a task is being performed. The device analyzes image data received from the wearable display device from a user to determine the process and task within the process that is currently being performed by an operator. These are not operations that can be performed through human effort alone as alleged and produce a result that can alone be realized through devices which are paired for communication” and that “For at least these reasons, … the independent claims do not recite a judicial exception as alleged”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Assuming arguendo “real-time feedback and guidance to an operator while a task is being performed” is claimed, human trainers/coaches have long provided feedback in real-time while observing performance of tasks by trainees/coachees. Additionally, “real-time” techniques come from the capabilities of general-purpose computers (for example, the recited “wearable display device”), rather than the claimed steps or functions. Similar to the claims of FairWarning, the rejected claims “are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate” and “the focus of the claims is not on . . . an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095.
The Independent Claims Integrate Any Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application
Applicant argues “the claims recite more elements which transform the alleged
abstract idea into a practical application”. In support of the above, Applicant recites limitations of claim 1 essentially pointing to “operation information generating circuitry”, “wearable display device”, “storage device”, “skill calculating circuitry”, “augmented reality marker determining circuitry”, and “augmented reality marker outputting circuitry” along with associated claim language. As noted in the rejections above, the published Specification, describes the above noted additional elements (for example, (¶¶ 7, 17, 19, 81. 83, 86, 91)) in general terms, indicating that the additional elements are generic, or part of generic computer elements performing or being used in performing the generic functions claimed. The recited additional limitations “acquire image data” (data gathering), “store the operation information” (data gathering), “output … the augmented reality marker information” (data presentation), and “displays augmented reality content to the operator” (data presentation) reflect the type of extra-solution activity (i.e., activities in addition to the judicial exception) the courts have determined insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); see, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.”’ (alterations in original) (quoting In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989))); see also Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[W]e have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”). The instant claim as a whole merely uses computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (a computer) in which to apply a judicial exception and, as such, cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Hence, as per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), the additional element(s) in claim 1, namely the “operation information generating circuitry”, “wearable display device”, “storage device”, “skill calculating circuitry”, “augmented reality marker determining circuitry”, and “augmented reality marker outputting circuitry” do not, either individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
The Independent Claims Recite Meaningful Limitations That Amount to Significantly More than the Abstract I
Applicant argues that “when the elements of the independent claims are read in combination, the claims are not directed to generic or high-level steps performed by humans but are directed towards a unique and novel system for displaying AR content to an operator based on the skill level of the operator, where the AR marker is assigned to each operation task in the process preferentially for an operation task for which a
skill level of the operator indicated by the skill level information is low. These actions result in an improvement in head-mounted display technology and remote skills training technology. The limitations covering these features and this activity are meaningful so as to amount to "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea itself; hence the claims are directed towards patent-eligible subject matter. Mayo”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive,
As noted in the rejections above, because the published Specification, for example, ¶¶ 7, 17, 19, 81. 83, 86, 91, describes the additional claim elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the published Specification sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element(s) to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. Furthermore, the Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) explains that a specification that describes additional element(s) “in a manner that indicates that the additional element(s) is/are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element(s) to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.” As additionally noted, the disclosed activities are analogous to conventional “operation instructions and skill training”. The remaining functions represent insignificant extra-solution activity and do not, taken alone or in combination, provide significantly more than the recited abstract ideas. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the claims do not recite elements that "transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea." None of claims 1, 6 and 7 recites an element or combination of elements beyond the above-noted judicial exceptions sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions themselves.
Additionally, Applicant does not explain how, and the Examiner fails to see how, any of clams 1, 6 and 7 parallels the claims in DDR Holdings. In DDR Holdings, the court found that the “claimed solution [was] necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” Id. at 1257. “In particular, the ‘399 patent’s claims address the problem of retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly transported away from a host’s website after ‘clicking’ on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink.” Id. As previously noted, the claim steps analogous to conventional on-site operator training. Applicant fails to indicate any technical problem, let alone a technical solution. In particular, Applicant does not direct our attention to any portion of the Specification indicating that any of the claimed “operation information generating circuitry”, “wearable display device”, “storage device”, “skill calculating circuitry”, “augmented reality marker determining circuitry”, and “augmented reality marker outputting circuitry”” performs anything other than well understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as acquiring data, storing data, outputting data and displaying data. The combination of the additional computer components merely applies the abstract idea on generic computing components without improving the underlying computer or technology or imposing any other meaningful limits on the abstract idea, adding only, at most, insignificant pre-solution data gathering and post-solution data presentation. See MPEP § 2106.05(a), (e)–(g). “Operation instructions and skill training” have long been performed by humans and as such, not necessarily rooted in technology. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257 (holding that the claims were directed to statutory subject matter because they claim a solution “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”). Even were one to consider “Operation instructions and skill training” problems to be Internet-centric, the claim recites an invention that is merely the routine use of the computer components with generally claimed programming. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258–59 (cautioning that “not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent” and contrasting the claims to those at issue in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) in that, in DDR Holdings, the computer network was not operating in its “normal, expected manner” and the claims did not “recite an invention that is . . . merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet”). The purported solution comprises a generic computer operating in its ordinary and conventional capacity to perform the functions of receiving and analyzing data and sending data based on the results of the analyses. See supra; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 224–26. Here, the limitations are recited functionally without implementation details on how they are technologically performed such that they would not be routine and conventional uses of the claimed component.
Applicant’s BASCOM argument is also misplaced. The published Specification clearly establishes the generic nature of the additional claim elements (for example, ¶¶ 7, 17, 19, 81. 83, 86, 91). Contrary to BASCOM, there no evidence of any non-conventional arrangement of the additional elements.
In light of the foregoing, the Examiner maintains that each of Applicant’s pending claims 1-7 and 9-14 considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include an inventive concept.
Rejection of Claims Under 35 U.S.C. §103
The listing of Baer in the heading of the 103 rejections of claims 2-5 and 9-14 was an inadvertent typographical error. The body of the rejections did not “map Baer to ant of the claim elements” because Baer was not used in the rejections of claims 2-5 and 9-14 and, as such Baer did not effect the rejections of the claims. Applicant's additional arguments in regard to the previously applied rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO
Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 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 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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights