DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This final office action is in response to the Amendments filed on 22 May 2026, regarding application number 18/452,598.
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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-17 and 19-20 were amended in the Amendments to the Claims.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some of, but not all of, the objections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 24 March 2026. Therefore, the objections that have been overcome are withdrawn while the others remain outstanding. See full details below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 24 March 2026. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, new rejections remain outstanding as a result of the amended claims. See full details below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 24 March 2026. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, new rejections remain outstanding as a result of the amended claims. See full details below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 16-19, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble of claim 8 should state "managing activities of a user and a robotic counterpart of the user" rather than "managing activities of user and robotic counterpart of the user".
Similarly, the preamble of claim 15 should state "managing one or more activities of a user and a robotic counterpart of the user" rather than "managing one or more activities of user and robotic counterpart of the user".
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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claims 1-20
A person skilled in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure of the application as filed. Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claims 1, 8 and 15 are supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the amended claim limitations in the application as filed. Applicant has generally stated in the remarks “Support for the amendments to claims can be found at least in paragraphs of Applicant's [0013]-[0023], [0029], [0033], [0038], [0050]-[0051], [0055], [0066], [0078], [0087], [0094], [0099], and [0100] of the specification.”, but has not provide any specific support for the amended claims. Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 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. See MPEP 2163.04(I)(B). The remaining claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are additionally rejected by virtue of dependency on claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “decoding the physiological signal data using a BMI decoder to extract features corresponding to steps of the one or more activities,”. The specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not describe using a BMI decoder to extract features corresponding to steps of the one or more activities. Paragraph [0038], of Applicant’s original specification filed on 21 August 2023, generally recites “BMI decoder uses feature extraction and classification to employ a variety of statistical and machine learning.” and paragraph [0086] recites “GVR 301 denotes a system or module for converting electrical signals from the skin to be decoded by a decoder, similar to a BCI decoder.”. That is, the specification only generally recites decoding electrical signals, but does not disclose decoding the physiological signal data to extract features corresponding to steps of the one or more activities. The specification does not discuss extracted features corresponding to steps of the one or more activities at all, let alone in association with the BMI decoder. For at least the reasons discussed above, the amendment to claims 1, 8 and 15 is not supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “wherein the one or more activities and the steps are stored in an activity definition repository;”. The specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not describe the steps are stored in an activity definition repository. Paragraph [0073] recites “Database 116 may store information associated with, but is not limited to, knowledge corpus, historical data (e.g., brain waves, activities performed, result of activities performed, etc.) relating the human and robotic workers, digital twin simulation and scenarios, optimal brain wave pattern that meets or exceed certain quality criteria, brain wave pattern indicating that human workers may start to perform the task in an unsafe manner, best practices for managing robotic workers alongside human workers.”, but does not disclose the database storing the claimed “steps”. For at least the reasons discussed above, the amendment to claims 1, 8 and 15 is not supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “classifying the extracted activity-features associated with the one or more activities using at least one rule-based or machine-learning model trained with historical physiological data,”. The specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not describe classifying the extracted activity-features associated with the one or more activities. Paragraph [0038], generally recites “BMI decoder uses feature extraction and classification to employ a variety of statistical and machine learning.” and paragraph [0069] recites “One example is a classification rule. In an embodiment of the present invention, the embodiment can receive the acquired readings (e.g., BCI signals), etc.) and classify them accordingly. The purpose of the classification “rule” is to constrain the BCI system to preserve the privacy of the human worker when not performing the assigned activity. Thus, this classification rule is akin to an on/off switch.”. That is, the specification only generally recites classifying BCI signals, but does not disclose classifying the extracted activity-features associated with the one or more activities. Similar to the discussion above, the specification does not discuss extracted activity-features associated with one or more activities at all, let alone in association with being classified. For at least the reasons discussed above, the amendment to claims 1, 8 and 15 is not supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “to determine a current mental state and performance capability of the user with respect to the one or more activities;”. The specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not describe determining a current mental state and performance capability of the user with respect to the one or more activities. That is, the specification does not mention the claimed “performance capability” at all. Additionally, the specification only generally mentions the claimed “mental state” one time in paragraph [0087], “The only difference is that brain wave signals are not collected by GVR 301 but the body's electrical signal which can indicate the mental state and/or physiological state of the user.”. However, the mental state is not described as being determined with respect to the one or more activities. For at least the reasons discussed above, the amendment to claims 1, 8 and 15 is not supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “determining, based on sensor data associated with the robotic counterpart and the activity definition repository, current activities of the one or more activities being performed by the user and by the robotic counterpart;”. The specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not describe determining current activities based on the activity definition repository. Paragraph [0073] recites “Database 116 may store information associated with, but is not limited to, knowledge corpus, historical data (e.g., brain waves, activities performed, result of activities performed, etc.) relating the human and robotic workers, digital twin simulation and scenarios, optimal brain wave pattern that meets or exceed certain quality criteria, brain wave pattern indicating that human workers may start to perform the task in an unsafe manner, best practices for managing robotic workers alongside human workers.”, but does not disclose determining current activities based on the database. For at least the reasons discussed above, the amendment to claims 1, 8 and 15 is not supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “wherein the real-time digital twin simulation incorporates historical performance data, skillset and capability of the robotic counterpart, and real-time activity state information;”. The specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not describe real-time activity state information. Paragraph [0050] states “A digital twin continuously learns and updates itself to represent its near real-time status. A digital twin also integrates historical data from past usage to factor into its digital model … The main difference between a simulation (and/or modeling) versus a digital twin is that a digital twin can use real-time data based on the regular transfer of information between the digital twin and its corresponding physical environment.”, but gives no indication of “real-time activity state information”. For at least the reasons discussed above, the amendment to claims 1, 8 and 15 is not supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “analyzing the real-time digital twin simulation by simulating execution of the one or more activities using the capability and the classified current mental state,”. The specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not describe simulating by using the capability and the classified current mental state. Similar to the discussion above, the specification does not mention the claimed “performance capability” at all and only generally mentions the claimed “mental state” without associating it with the digital twin simulation. For at least the reasons discussed above, the amendment to claims 1, 8 and 15 is not supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “comparing the classified current mental state and performance capability of the user against simulated execution results generated by the real-time digital twin simulation,”. The specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not describe comparing the classified current mental state and performance capability. Similar to the discussion above, the specification does not mention the claimed “performance capability” at all and only generally mentions the claimed “mental state” without associating it with the comparison process. For at least the reasons discussed above, the amendment to claims 1, 8 and 15 is not supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “based on the comparison, whether a predicted quality metric for the one or more activities falls below a predetermined threshold, wherein the predetermined threshold is defined for the one or more activities; and responsive to determining that the predicted quality metric falls below the predetermined threshold,”. The specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not describe a predicted quality metric. The specification generally describes “quality”, but does not disclose a predicted quality metric. For at least the reasons discussed above, the amendment to claims 1, 8 and 15 is not supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 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. See MPEP 2163.03. The remaining claims are additionally 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 due to their dependency on claims 1, 8 and 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1-20
Claims 1, 8 and 15 state the following limitation, "analyzing the real-time digital twin simulation by simulating execution of the one or more activities using the capability and the classified current mental state,". It is unclear whether or not the "capability" is referring to the "performance capability of the user" or the "capability of the robotic counterpart" previously recited. As such, the claims are indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. The remaining claims are additionally rejected by virtue of dependency on claims 1, 8 and 15. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the "capability " is interpreted as the “performance capability of the user”.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANNER LUKE CULLEN whose telephone number is (303)297-4384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 MT.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/TANNER L CULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights