DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 9, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1, 10, 16, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-15 are drawn to a method, claims 16-19 are drawn to a system, and claim 20 is drawn to a non-transitory computer program product which are one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 16, and 20 recites a method, a system and/or a non-transitory computer program product comprising the following:
Receiving process planning data for an operator performing a task in an environment, the process planning data including computer-aided design (CAD) data;
based on the received process planning data, defining parameters for a time analysis, wherein defining the parameters includes: (i) analyzing the CAD data and (ii) based on a result of the analyzing, automatically defining a given parameter;
performing a time analysis of the operator performing the task using the defined parameters;
determining a static ergonomic risk based on the received process planning data;
determining an indication of dynamic ergonomic risk based on (i) results of performing the time analysis and (ii) the determined static ergonomic risk; and
based on the determined indication of dynamic ergonomic risk, relocating at least one object in the environment to reduce dynamic ergonomic risk.
These steps are directed to assessing an ergonomic risk of an operator performing a task, which amounts to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
These steps are also directed to receiving data and outputting an indication of a risk which amounts to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes with or without physical aid).
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Independent Claim 1 recites in memory of the processor and computer-based simulation. Independent Claim 16 recites a processor and a memory with computer code instructions, and computer-based simulation. Independent Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer program product, a server, a network, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a processor, a memory, and computer-based simulation.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“in memory of the processor”, “through computer-based simulation”, “a processor”, “a memory with computer code instructions”, “a non-transitory computer program product”, “a server”, “a network”, “a computer readable medium”, “a processor”, and “a memory”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving, defining, performing, determining, and relocating). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 17, 58, 155, 157, and 158 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 16 and 20 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims
Each of these steps of the dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 and 16 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
For example, regarding Claims 3 and 17
Claims 3 and 17 sets forth:
performing on the statement to extract an indicator of a movement type;
defining a category of movement based on the indicator of a movement type;
based on the defined category, identifying the parameters for the time analysis; and
setting a value of at least one parameter based on the received process planning data.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of assessing an ergonomic risk of an operator performing a task, including managing human behavior. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “natural language processing”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application, that the specification as filed sets forth an improvement in technology, and that claim 1 reflects the improvements to the existing methodologies for workplace design through automatically assessing and reducing dynamic ergonomic risk.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims nor specification shows an improvement to the function of “a memory with computer code instructions”, “a non-transitory computer program product”, “a server”, “a network”, “a computer readable medium”, “a processor”, “a memory”, and “computer-based simulation”. The concept of assessing dynamic ergonomic risk, does not relate to the improvement to the function of the computer itself or an improvement to technology. In particular, independent claim 1 only recites additional elements of using “a memory with computer code instructions”, “a non-transitory computer program product”, “a server”, “a network”, “a computer readable medium”, “a processor”, “a memory”, and “computer-based simulation”, (Specification ¶ 0017, 0058, 0155, 0157, and 0158). The elements in these claims are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., “a memory with computer code instructions”, “a non-transitory computer program product”, “a server”, “a network”, “a computer readable medium”, “a processor”, “a memory”, and “computer-based simulation”), such that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106), where nothing specific with regard to the elements are claimed at all. As such, the limitations amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated in the 2014 IEG as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and "those that integrate the building blocks into something more…the latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible". This framework found that the claims do tie up the exception. (See the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. The structural elements as claimed are for mere convenience and the recited claim elements constitute a Mental Process and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is silent on any computer operation and specific technological implementation that would move the claim beyond a general link to a technological environment.
Dependent Claims 2-15 and 17-19 add further limitations to independent claims 1 and 16 and 20, which are also directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ergonomic Safety Evaluation With Labor Time Standard (US 20140074546 A1) teaches An integrated safety-evaluation with labor-time-standard system is provided that includes a work-task manager, integrated module and ergonomic safety evaluator. The work-task manager may be configured to receive a work instruction and determine work elements applicable to the work instruction, with the work elements may have respective associated elemental unit times, elemental risk ratings and frequency values. The integrated module may be configured to receive the elemental unit times, elemental risk ratings and frequency values for the work elements, and calculate a labor time standard and ergonomic safety rating therefrom. And the ergonomic safety evaluator may be configured to receive the labor time standard and ergonomic safety rating and perform an ergonomic safety evaluation therefrom. In this regard, the ergonomic safety evaluator may be configured to perform the ergonomic safety evaluation to determine whether to release or reject the work instruction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30, First Friday Off.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights